Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H ,^,- , rvOCKE' ^ 

2816 Orefield Road ; f |!^R\N ^ ^^ '^ 

Allentown. PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

'T:-0-'. 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS _, c:> ^ 

WASHINGTON, D.C. o^^Bj 

i t :T:^'^ ^ 

L J 

..o 

Federal Aviation Administration 

'"''Com'^dnints"''^' ' ^'''"'''^ ' Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

V. Docket: 2010-1211 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

HOLDING RESPONDENT TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN THE FAA OFFICIALS 

AND NOW, comes respondent, MICHAEL B. SELIG, MD, FACC, principle 

for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-operational since 2007) whom avers and 

files the following Motion for more definite statement in regard to no FAA 

Officers knew about the newer definition of employer, thereby trying to hold 

respondent to a higher standard than the FAA Officers. 

1. Respondent has made every effort to organize and clearly present 

arguments in clearly enumerated paragraphs in accordance with standard 

mandated rules of procedure used at the state and federal levels. 

1 
2. Complainants have chosen to not address specific pertinent items 

presented in enumerated paragraphs and as such have evaded and 

circumvented these items, resulting indubitably and injuriously in redundancy in 

the proceedings. 

3. This is another example of how complainants have refused to address this 

matter requiring a more directed method to comply. 

4. Ms Williams revealed that there was a policy change of 14 C.F.R. part 

121 Appendences I and J that occurred in February 2004, requiring all A & P 

mechanics to be on a company specific company drug program. 

5. Ms Williams did not provide the specific training with regard to how to 

find the regulations, directly cite the specific regulation changes, cite the 

compliance procedures, methods of compliance or of a notification system 

similar to the standard FAA operations, maintenance and avionic protocols. 

6. MRH was not notified of this policy change and even more unsettling, 

the FAA maintenance inspector Gerry Henninger for MRH, also was not aware 

and was therefore unable to inform MRH of this change during the 5 year plus 

period that he frequently inspected the MRH aircraft, located at Lehigh Valley 

International Airport (ABE) and across the street from the Allentown FSDO. 

7. FAA Officer, Frank Allota, the operations inspector of MRH for 7 years 

was not aware of this policy change. 

8. In fact none of the management personnel at the Allentown FSDO 

were informed of the regulation change during that 5 year period as well. 

2-
9. The manager of the Allentown FSDO, Mr Wadsworth did not know of 

the requirement to have a mechanic on the companies specifc monitoring 

program. 

10. With all the inspectors frequently going over the records of MRH for 

years, why was it no one knew about this change in regulation? 

11. Would one be led to honestly believe that compliance procedures 

were met? Answer Yes. 

12. In April of 2004, MRH underwent a Drug and Alcohol program 

inspection by Vincent Roots after the new regulation had changed and no 

significant discrepancies were cited (Exhibit 1). 

13. Mr Roots did not inform MRH that the regulation concerning all 

mechanics being on the specific companies drug program had changed. It 

was apparent that all the FAA's own drug abatement personnel as well, were 

not informed of ttieir own in tiouse regulation change. 

14. Mr Roots did not mention or provide instruction or training regarding 

referencing regulations that were not readily apparent or clearly written in the 

compliance statement or operational specifications, did not recommend 

compliance procedures or of a notification system that was in place, that would 

allow or enhance compliance, similar to FAA operations, maintenance and 

avionics protocols. 

15. Complainants agreed that the specific regulations were not 

contained within the operation specifications, but located somewhere in a 

3-
s 

-! I ! 

i 

3 

i 

E 

I' 

Federal Register'. 

16. Were the part 121 appendences I and J listed in the most common 

FAA reference, namely the Federal Aviation Regulations/Aeronautical 

Information Manual? Answer NO. 

16. If it was located on a Federal Register why was it the FAAs own 

inspectors were not aware of it? 

17. Were the regulations referenced with location specificity in the op 

specs? No. 

18. Therefore, there were several factors clouding the clarity and full 

disclosure of these regulations, since regulations were not cleariy contained, 

listed, spelled out or in a forthright manner evident within the signed off 

compliance statement and operational specifications, thereby hidden, 

concealed and encouraging violation, rather than effective compliance in the 

spirit of safety. 

18. If no notification process was in place did the op specs reference 

how frequently to check for changes? Answer No. 

19. Did the drug/alcohol monitoring process follow the same 

procedures as the maintenance and operations procedures for compliance? 

Answer No. 

20. Do the operational specifications spell out all the terms for 

compliance without reference to outside sources? Answer Yes. 

' Complainants Response to Motion to Quasti, page 4 
i 

n 

21. If a operational specification is changed by the FAA, are the op 

specs rewritten by the inspector, given to the operator and the operator is 

required to authorize that he agrees to these changes by signature 

authorization? Answer Yes. 

22. Is it unreasonable to believe that it follows suite that the 

drug/alcohol monitoring process would operate in the same forthright manner? 

Answer Yes. 

23. Do the abatement officers expect the operators to random and 

periodically search the Federal Registry for unknown changes? Apparently Yes. 

24. If no notification process or direction to specific changes that took 

place, would the operator be required to compare side by side hundreds of online regulations with old regulations to discover a change? Answer apparently 

Yes. 

25. Would this be a tedious exercise, prone to error ? Answer Yes. 

26. Does section A449-1 that was signed, clearly indicate many of the 

above? Answer No. 

27. Was this document created and subsequently signed before the 

change in regulation took place? Answer Yes. 

28. The complainants are therefore trying to hold an unreasonable level 

of compliance under the stated conditions. 

29. The complainants are therefore trying to hold the respondent to a 

higher standard than their own FAA officers. 
30. This basis alone warrants voiding the legitimacy of the complaint 

and demonstrates malicious prosecution. 

31. In the steadfast, unyielding position, complainants have refused to 

I address this flawed premise for compliance. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will: 

1. To dismiss this case in the effort of judicial economy. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

Date %^. 
U.S. Oepartment 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Operations Specifications 

A449. Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program HQ Control: 

HQ Revision: 

01/22/04 

000 

The certificate holder who operates under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135 

certifies that it will comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 121 Appendices I and J and 

49 CFR fait 40 for its Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program. 

Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program records are maintained and available for inspection 

by the FAA's Drug Abatement Compliance and Enforcement Inspectors at the location listed in Table 1 

below: 

Address: 

Address: 

City: 

State: 

Zip code: 

Table 1 

Location of Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse 

Prevention Program Records: 

2045 Westgate Drive 

Bethlehem 

PA 

18017 

Telephone Number: 

(610) 769-7000 

c. Limitations and Provisions. 

(1) Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program inspections and enforcement activity will be 

conducted exclxisively by the Drug Abatement Division. All questions regarding this program 

should be directed to the Drug Abatement Division. 

(2) The certificate holder must implement its Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs fiilly 

in accordance with 14 CFR Part 121, Appendices I and J, and 49 CFR Part 40. 

(3) The certificate holder is responsible for ensuring that its contractors who perform safety-sensitive 

work for the certificate holder are subject to Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs. 

(4) The certificate holder is responsible for updating this operations specification when any changes 

occur in the following: ' 

(a) Location or phone number where the Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Records are 

kept (as listed in Table 1 above). -

(b) If the certificate holder's numb»of safety^sensitive employees goes to 50 and above, or falls 

below 50 safety-sensitive employees. '-'-'' ^ V .' 

(5) The certificate holder with 50 or more employees performing a safety-sensitive function on 

January 1 of the calendar year must submit an annual report to the Drug Abatement Division of the 

FAA. The certificate holder with fewer than 50 employees performing a safety-sensitive function 

on January 1 of any calendar year must submit an annual report upon request of the Administrator, 

as specified in the regulations. 

The certificate holder has fewer than 50 safety-sensitive employees. 

Print Date: 8/15/2005 A449-1 

M AND R HELICOPTERS LLC 

Certificate No.: MR3A020K 

FOR OFF m USE ONLY 

Pubic availability to be determined under 5 USC 552 
I 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Operations Specifications 

Administration 

1. Issued by the Federal Aviation Administration. 

2. These Operations Specifications are approved by direction of the Administrator. 

ALOTTA, FRANK Principal Operations Inspector EA05 

3. Date Approval is effective: 2/4/04 Amendment Nimiber: 0 

4. I hereby accept and receive the Operations Specifications in this paragraph. 

Selig, Michael B. Agent for Service Date: 2/4/04 

Print Date: 8/15/2005 A449-2 Certificate No.: MR3A020K 

M AND R HELICOPTERS LLC 

FOI?OFFiClAl USE ONLY 

i^ibllc availability to be determined under 5 USC 552 
-'1 

5 

n 

\ 

-r Q 

11 o n,..,^.* k Office of Aviation Medicine 800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

U.S. Department Washington. D.C. 20591 

of Transportatbn 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

APR 2 2004 

Certified-Return Receipt 

File Number: 2004EA910073 

Dr. Michael Selig, CEO 

M and R Helicopters LLC 

2045 Westgate Drive, Suite 101 

Bethleliem, PA18017 

Dear Dr. Selig 

On March 3,2004, you were informed that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was 

investigating alleged violations of 49 CFR Part 40 and 14 CFR Part 121, Appendices I and J. 

After reviewing the evidence compiled during the inspection of M and R Helicopters LLC on 

February 26,2004 and the documentation submitted in your response dated 

March 18, 2004, it appears that M and R Helicopters LLC did not comply with all provisions of 

the Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs as detailed below: 

1. M and R Helicopters LLC's specimen collection procedures do not meetttie 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 40. Specifically: 

M and R Helicopters LLC's collector (Denese Miller/CHS 02) failed to complete Step 1 

item E, Test to Be Performed, on the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form. 

Corrective Action: At the inspection outbriefing, M and R Helicopters LLC agreed to ensure the 

collector would complete Step 1 on the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form. In the 

response dated Marejh 18, 2004, M and R Helicopters LLC submitted a copy of an Error 

Correction Training Checklist from Clinical Laboratories, Inc. documenting training for Denese 

Miller. 

2. M and R Helicopters LLC's breatli alcohol testing procedures do not meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 40. Specifically: 

M and R Helicopters LLC's Breath Alcohol Technician (Denese Miller/CHS 02) failed to 

complete Step 1 item C, the Designated Employer Representative, on the Department of 

Transportation Alcohol Testing Form. 

Corrective Action: At the inspection outbriefing, M and R Helicopters LLC agreed to 

immediately ensure that the Breath Alcohol Technician would complete Step 1 of the Alcohol 

Testing Form. In the response dated March 18, 2004, M and R Helicopters LLC submitted a 

copy of an Error Correction Training Checklist from Clinical Laboratories, Inc. documenting 

training for Denese Miller. 

<5AM ^ 
^1 ^ ^ 3. lUI and R Helicopters LLC failed to maintain records as required by 49 CFR Part 40. 

Specifically: !J / 

M and R Helicopters LLC's laboratory failed transmit the employer specific aggregate 

statistical summary for 2003 to the employer on a semi-annual basis. 

Corrective Action: At the inspection outbriefing, M and R Helicopters LLC agreed to 

immediately ensure the lab will send statistical summaries for 2003. In the response dated 

March 18, 2004, M and R Helicopters LLC submitted a copies of aggregate statistical 

summaries for 2003 from LabCorp. 

This is to confirm that you have satisfactorily corrected the above issues. We have given 

consideration to all available facts and concluded that these issues do not warrant legal 

enforcement action. In lieu of such action, we are issuing this letter, which will be made a 

matter of record. We expect that in the future M and R Helicopters LLC's Antidrug and Alcohol 

Misuse Prevention Programs will be in compliance with applicable regulations. 

Sincerely, 

Vincent O. Roots 

Inspector, Compliance and Enforcement 

^s- ^ 
Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

;-*RTMENTOF 

w'n;/-U ll,.|\ 

rrLPATiONS 

D 0- -^C 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: 2010-1211 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS ANSWERS TO THE MOTION TO COMPEL 

DISCOVERY AND NEW MAHER 

AND NOW, comes respondent, MICHAEL B. SELIG, MD, FACC, 

principle for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-existent since 2009) whom avers 

and files the following reply to MOTION to COMPEL DISCOVERY of information 

requested of Latonya Williams and Laura Ponta, Esq. past the 30 day period 

according to Rule 13.220 (d). 

1. Complainants have not provided any of the discoveries requested in 

prior documents. 

2. Respondent has requested formal evidence for dates of service, 

since it has already been shown that draft dates on documents as usually 

1 
;| several days earlier from actual sen/ice dates, cannot be trusted and therefore 

ll objective signed dates of service are required. 

3. A review of the EIR also shows inconsistencies of the date on the 

; documents and the date of document was actually received. Exhibit one 

shows Ms William's letter draft date of August 14, 2009 and a Certified Mail return 

I ; receipt requested confirmation days 5 days later. This was the only mail 

authorization provided. This therefore warrants release of the repeatedly 

requested objective certified mail receipts of signed validation of actual served 

dates, instead of using other subjective information. 

4. Complainants referenced §13.21 l(d)-Date of Service. There are several 

methods listed. By definition, since complainant selected signatory delivery 

confirmation, by means of signed return receipt, this represents the most 

accepted, reliable and most objective date of service. Complainants went to 

extra taxpayers' expense at triple the cost to clearly validate and ensure the true 

delivery date; this supersedes other subjective method that relies on hearsay. 

Based on the above discrepancies, the stated dates on the documents by the 

complainants cannot be trusted and the requested strict proof be provided. 

5. Complainants argue that providing referenced documents is not 

standard practice, however standard practice includes some form of summary 

or quotations of pertinent sections to be provided. Sometimes large sections of 

discussions are provided. Complainants have made no or scant effort to 

provide any proof of evidence and appear only concerned with evasive and 

2-
conclusionary tactics. 

6. In regard to Ms Ponto's spoliation and redaction of altered 

documents, not even a reference to the kind of withholding was provided and 

thereby questioned. Being it is her department that acted in this manner, it is for 

her to provide the proof to substantiate that this spoliation is warranted when 

questioned. 

7, Therefore, in the letter of October 27, 2010, it was requested to 

provide the reference of Jordon v Department of Justice that Ms Ponto cited in 

her correspondence. 

8. In the letter of October 27, 2010, it was requested to provide the 

reference for policies on disclosure restrictions. 

9. In the letter of November 24, 2010, the above items were requested a 

second time. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will either dismiss 

the case on the basis of violating Rule 13.220 (d) or compel the parties Latonya 

Williams and Laura Ponto to produce the requested documents. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. \ - ^tDate 
^ 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested 

August 14, 2009 

File Number: 2009SO950434 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M and R Helicopters LLC 

2045 Westgate Drive 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

Dear Dr. Selig: 

On July 21 and 23, 2009, we inspected M and R Helicopters LLC's drug and alcohol 

testing programs to determine compliance with 49 CFR part 40 and 14 CFR part 

120 (formerly 14 CFR part 121, appendices I and J). As a result of this inspection, 

the following apparent violations were discovered: 

1. M and R Helicopters LLC did not determine that Eugene Mcintosh and Edward 

Baker (contractors) were covered under a FAA-mandated drug testing program 

and an alcohol misuse prevention program prior to using their services. 

:ONCURRENCES 

tOUTIMa SYMBOL 

AAM-862 

OATE 

08/14/2009 

ItOUTING SYMBOt. 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

INITIALS/SIS 

2. M and R Helicopters LLC did not conduct pre-employmentdrug tests and 

receive verified negative test results prior to hiring Eugene Mcintosh and Edward 

Baker to perform safety-sensitive functions. 

This letter is to inform you that these matters are under investigation by the FAA. 

You may discuss these matters with me or submit a written statement, or both, 

within 10 days of receiving this letter. Please contact me at (404) 305-6175 if you 

have questions about these matters. A written statement should include all 

pertinent facts and mitigating circumstances that you believe may have a bearing on 

these matters. Send your written statement to: 

Attention: Latonya Williams, AAM-862 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

Drug Abatement Division 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/heaclquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/drug_alcohol/ ittp://www.faa.gov/aDout/oTTic( 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Pubic availability to be determined under 5 USC 552 

INITIALS/Sia 

LWIIIiams 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

ROUTING SYMBOL 
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION 

• Complete'items 1,2, and 3. Also complete 

item 4 If Restricted Delivery Is desired. 

• Print your name and address on the reverse 

so that we can return the card to you. 

• Attach this card to the back of the mallplece, 

or on the frortt If space permits. 

COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY 

1. Artlcia Addrsssad to: 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

IVI and R Helicopters LLC 

2045 Westgate Drive 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

3. |Syvlc«1Vpe —^•^-='—^^y 

Ptffertlfled MaU O B(pross t ^ 

D Reglstared O Return Receipt for Meichandlse ] 

n Insured Mall • C.O.D. , 

4. Restricted Oelivary? (Bctm Fee) DYas 

2. Article Numtier 

(Thansfer imm service /absj) 

70D7 14^D 0002 375>4T55M 

PS Form 3811 , Febmaty 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 1025S5.O2-M-164O i 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 

First-Class Mail 

Postage & Fees Paid 

USPS 

Permit No. G-10 

UJ' 

CT) 

• Sender: Jease print your name, address, and ZiP+4 

P'ederal Aviation Administration-• • -

Industry Drug &AlcQhol Programs - •• 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

in this box 

ATTN: AAM-862/Latonva Williams 

'"^'''^"'"^f'"li'i>Hh,l,liM.i,„ri,iniiinuulliiinl 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Public availability to be determined under 5 USC 552