05/15/2012 10:11 FAX 2024835142**UO/I'IUO'I:~** tl:tlE!AM FAX FAA

Michael Selig, 

### MD, FACC,**CFI~H** 2816 Orefield Road 

### Allentown, PA. 18104 May 11, 2012 -. OMS**-,r::t::1~.RTMENT** 

## OF

.').N§PORTATION

·.,,EI·**OP.-R~T·/n'"''** . ·.tiL -. t i/"'\: .)f\f,) ?1117 ii;'V I 

### 5 A 

### II• LJ ;. io<ll ,, /"·\ • 

### !8**U.S~** 

### DEPARTMENT OF 

### TRANSPORTATION OFFICE 

### OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON., D.C.



### FederalAviatioa 

### Adllilniatration Complainant v. 

### M & 

### R Helicopters. LLC. Respondent 

### f 2010·1211



### RESPONDENT'S REPLY 

### TO COMPLAINANTS POST TRIAL REBUTTAL BRIEF


### And now comes, Respondent, who addresses specific arguments contained 

### in Complaints PostTrial Rebuttal Brief

### as follows.
1. RESPONDENT HAD AN ACTIVE PART 119 CERTIFICATEWITH 

### OPERATIONAL SPECIFICATIONS AUTHORIZING 

### PART 135 OPERATIONS. @001/020 @000 1/0020



### This 

### hypothetical and far 

### reaching subjectcitation 

### was aggressively pursued despite the fact that MR Helicopter's operation was 

### non-
- 1 -05/15/2012 10:11 FAX 2024935142. FAA vOt , .. ,,;v**1~** :l. ::n:IIHl**~/Ill** + OMS @002/020 @10002/0020


### operational, did 

### no part 135 flights, incurred 

### a name change, closed its bank 

### accounts and was 

### unauthorized and 

### unable to perform part 135 

### flights without a certified part 

### 135pilot even 

### prior to 

### the cited violation period and subsequently 

### thereafter. In 

### addition, MRH's operational 

### specifications were not 

### current, contained 

### only signed offdrug abatement 

### regulations from January 2004, 

### before the drug/

### alcohol regulations had changed. The 

### operational specificationswere to be

### updated and 

### the FSDO instructed Respondent not to 

### performflights until 

### the op specs were updated to reflect the new name. The Complainant continuously acknowledged that MRH's op 

### specs were not updated to 

### reflect the new drug abatement**change~** by

### the FSDO, since the op specs 

### were signed off before the regulations had changed and 

### went into effect.

· The case law precedents 

### found for this case are the 

### Everson and 

### the Helicopter 

### Flite matters. In both 

### instances, there**w~re** 

### active part 119 certificates, that**wer~** 

### in less ofa state ofconfusion as was 

### MRH, yet no violation was 

### imposed to these operators, because no 

### part 135 flights were performed.
2. COMPLAINANTS 

### ONLY HAVE AS A HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCETHE DEJOSEPH LE'M'ER OF INTERPRETATION. The Complainants did 

### not present any 

### case law precedent at trial or to 

### date otherwise that.would contradict Respondents position. The05/15/2012 10:11 FAX 2024935142 FAA "' OMS**v"''"~t<:vl<:** ':l.::lviiM r11x

3. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID E. EVERSON D/B/ANORTH VALLEY HELICOPTERS, 

### INC., Ji'AA ORDER.NO. 2004-5. The bottom line conclusion ofthis case was the court ruled that the 

### vJolation is invalid "BECAUSE EVERSON 

## HAD NOT FLOWN ANY AIR CARRIER OPERATIONS DURING THE RELEVANT 

### PERIOD•" [SIC] and the Judge dismissed the FAA complaint (FAA Order No. 2004- 5, page 6, '1f 2)

Complainants presented 

### arguments tha.t simplydo not apply. Complainants cohtemplatedthat not performingoperations prior to commencinga drug/alcohol program is different than not conducting 

### operations during 

### a penod 

### ofshutdown when 

### the agency sought 

### a violation, when the operation did 

### have an active drugprogram. In the Everson case, a program was mandated to be started 60 days after approval ofthe program prior to commencing operations

### which was not 141004/020 @0004/0020

done. On 

### inspection ofhis 

### operations specificationsno drug program

### was in place. The case was still dismissed. The commonalitybetween the Everson case and MRH's case is that no flights or operations were conducted duringtherelevantperiod. Therefore, no risk orharmwas presented to the public. The primarypremise that initjated the violation was that Mr. Baker was not on anyprogram. MRH did have its own drugprogram and

- 4-05/15/2012 10:11 FAX 2024935142 FAA V'.J/ I'+( .::;u IL :l: :li:II'.M t-1\1\ -+ OMS 141005/020**~000:5/00ZO**
implemented 

### that

### programfor those not on an): approved 

### program and in 

### accordance to the operation specifications sign off

### date ofJanuary 2004 prior 

### to theregulation 

### change and the maintenanceinspector's knowledge, advice and in good faith. Flight Standards 

### never updated the operation specifications to reflect subsequent

### changes. It isfurther asserted that Everson did have a.n active part 119 certificate, yet the complaint was still dismissed. It appears also that if Respondent decided to stop alloperationsunderpart 

### 119.69 due to 

### concem1 :..about 

### the safely ofthe 

### operationbecauseofhumanfactors beyond his control (protracted divorce and custodymatters), Respondent should notbe punished for making soundjudgmentfor a 

### company he bears all risks and liabilities. In accordance with the E-verson case which remains the Litmus test for thesematters - this case suggeststhat MRH shouldnotbe cited for violations 

### occurring during a period in time when 

### no operations actually occurred. Since MRH was not in operation, did nothave a pilot and did notfly anypart 135 flights during the relevantperiod oftheviolation, the citation should be dismissed.



### 4. IN THE MATTER OF: HELICOP'fER FLITE, 

### INC. FAA ORDER NO. 2011-6:



### - 5 -05/15/2012 10:11 FAX 2024835142 FAA ,. OMS v_,,, ..**,~u1<:** ;:J.:Ji:l/'.M r1111

In this case, section, 135.2S(b) 

### requires that a certificate holder fiiJ 006/020 fiij0008/0020

have exclusive use ofat least one aircraft that meets the requirements for at 

### least one kind ofoperation 

### authorized in its operations specifications. 

### This company also 

### had an active Part 119 certificate. The 

### FAA did prove that Helicopter Flite did 

### not have exclusive use of the only aircraft listed on its operations specifications between February 12, 2008,**~nd** September 15, 2008, however

### it did no flights and conducted no operations. Helicopter Flite had the same case law outcome as the Everson case. The Honorable Judge's final conclusion as stated: nHOWEVER, IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ENFORCE TIUS REQUIREMENT BY lMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY UNLESS**TH~RE** IS EVIDENCE THAT THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER CONTINUED TO OPERATE DURING THE TIME PERIOD THAT IT DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE USE OF AT LEAST ONE AIRCRAFT" {SIC}. For the foregoing reasons, the Administrative LawJudge's decision was reversed, and no civil penalty was assessed. Itis the Complainants who 

### conveniently missed the 

### mark on these issues; the Respondent has not stretched the holding ofthese cases, as these are logical and common sense conclusions oflaw on these matters, based on the fact fmdings and
caselaw precedent.

- 6-05/15/2012 10:11 FAX 2024835142 FAA -+ OMS v..,,, ..,'"v'" :;.::lor"" rill\

5. THE REGULATIONS WERE NOT PROPERLY PROMULGATED AND NO'riCE OFREGULATORY CHANGES NEVER PROVIDED. Complainant allege that the Regulations reJied upon by Complainant were 

### "properly promulgated by 

### notice" (Complainants Rebt.tttal Briefpage 11,

### ~line 1 ), nonetheless that was not established and not the case. 

### No notice was even given to Respondent either through the FSDO, drug abatement officers, FAA inspectors, written or othenvise. @007/020 @0007/0020



### In Respondents case the updated regulations were 

### not referenced or disclosed in the signed operation specifications or compliance statements therein making Respondents compliance impossible since they were omitted and concealed. There was 

### also no :reference to any methods ofcompliance ofany kind. Respondentcontends tha.t it is unreasonable to hold an operator responsible for regulations) when thoseregulations were not clearly written, when the statutoryl"egulation amendmentlanguage required r:nandated retooling due to lack ofclarity and governmental ordered modifications for compliance and that the updated regulation was not incorporated into the dated compliance statement and operation specifications which is the legal bindingauthority for all operators. Itwas established duringexamination ofMs. Lozada, the central manager ofthe DrugAbatementprogram, that the part ofthe Op Specs section addressing DrugAbatement parameters A449 (ExhibitA-2) was signed offin January 2004 (Transcript Page 115, line 10). prior to the - 7**~**05/15/2012 10:12 FAX 2024935142**U~/14/~0·1~ ~:~:::lAM**  FAX FAA .- OMS

changes to Appendix I and J that partially initiated the proposed violation. There was ongoing reference by Ms. Lozada to a remote 141008/020 @OOOB/0020

website, the Federal 

### Registry and also 

### that the 

### DrugAbatementprogram ha.d their own website (Tr. 122-20) which was unclear in her testimony and would be confusing to any operator. Ms 1Lozada stated 

### it was the Respondents responsibility to check (blindly and without reason), 

### ifthere were questions. It was pursued at trial that ifyour 

### FAA inspectors 

### stated and confirmed 

### an operator 

### was in compliance consecutivelyfor

### years and

### you were not notified otherwise, why

### would there 

### be a question or need to 

### seek additional information (Tl". 124-20)? Ms. Lozada stated that the website contained these revised regulations, but no such reference was everlisted in the Op Specs (Tr. 116-6) as a method to be compliant with the regulation. Ms. Lozada was questioned as to when this website started and when this dissemination of the regulations in this 

### matter first began, she was not sure. Ms, 

### Frankel an aviation safety specialist in the office ofaudit and evaluation also did not know when the Drug Abatement website was established (Tr. 194-21). Respondent was able to establish that the Federal Website was first started in 2007, in reference to Order 8900.1 (Exhibit R-1) (Tr. 122- 11) and required about a year to populate that website with data, which brought the time-frame right up to the proposed violation ofMr. Baker performing a simple check ofthe rotor track and balance onJuly 24,

- 8-05/15/2012 10:12 FAX 2024835142 FAA -. OMS

, ,_ 1 , • , ._ - t ._ 'WI , ...-VI 11 11 I r"l 1\**2008~** triggering this action. Itwa.s established that itwas the responsibility ofFlight Standards Districts Office to update those Op Specs, not that ofthe 141008/020 14!0009/0020**gperator~** This was not done, therefore the 

### Op Specs failed to address the new regulatory amendment, therein 

### only contained the olderparameters which Respondent was always compliant with (Tr. 139-8). There was never any notification ofthe regulation change. Itwas established during examination ofMs. Frankel that she

. did notknow what the term 

### methods ofcompliaDce even meant and

she could not define the term which is one ofthe main matters before the court (Tr. 273·2}. Complainantmisses the mark on how 

### this is the core concept, 

### tha.t withouta solidified process and clearly written regulations 

### and clear complianceprocedures an operator cannotbe 

### compliant with these regulations. Respondent asked Ms. Lozada and Ms. Frankel where it was stated orwritten what was needed to become complaintto the new regulation, they couldnot. Neither could state where 

### it was written, at what interval to blindly seekthe regulations to figure out if a regulation had 

### changed without any notification 

### process in place to determine this (Tr. 145-14). It was left as a random unknown method and interval, therein rendering 

### itimpossible for an operator to ever be fully 

### compliant1 and the**rea~on** for the subsequentlitany of

### changes by the agency to rectify those problems.



### - 9
-05/15/2012 10:12 FAX 2024935142 FAA -+ OMS

-v1 If/'-"' 1(, U.YYnP1 rf'IA

Ms. Frankel was asked what the grace period was to become compliant with the 2004 regulation change, was 

### it five years? Her @010/020 liJ0010I002o

answerwas that she was not aware ofa grace period or a time interval to become complaint 

### with those changes (Tr. 279-8). Complainantmissed the mark on this statement, which illustrates the further lack ofcandor in terms 

### ofdisclosure and 

### procedure with regard to this matter. Without a Notification process in**place~** the agency expected the operator to review a massive database containing thousands ofpages of text on the remote Federal Registry websites that was Dot referenced in the Op 

### Specs, to focus, 

### fmd, comprehend, compare and then determine 

### if
a random change in a single isolated regulation had occurred, is an tmreasonable burden. When Ms. Frankel was asked how to implement 

### this random exercise, her only

### response was, it

### justwas the operator's responsibility (Tr. 308-13). 

### Therefore, it is impossible to ever be completelycompliant 

### at any point in**time~** ifa regulation changed or update occurred, without notification, training orpublic education, as is 

### clearly evidenced 

### by the history ofthe 

### FAA's own 

### officers including Mr. Roots, the drug/alcohol abatement officer during his audit ofMRH in 2004 in regard to these regulations. 

### Ifa regulation is material and substantiates a penalty, then it would also follow that any "material" changes to an FAA regulation would warrantreasonable methods ofcommunication and notice for a material change. Due to the voluminous depth ofthe Federal Register it would

- 10-05/15/2012 10:12 FAX 2024835142 FAA ,. OMS V:..I/1'+/"-VIO:: t>.VVIIM**~~~"**

be impossible for the general public to monitor immaterial changes. Therefore, penalizing the Respondent for an immaterial change that modified operation requirements is procedurally inconsistent with the 141011/020 @0011/002C

forthright notification procedure that is in place for all other chapters in the operation specifications, which uses an effective, personalized, one 

### on one approach by known 

### and established 

### FAA inspectors 

### in the sprit of compliance and safety.**Con~plainants** attest 

### that changes to the regulations were promulgated 

### and amended by notice in accordance 

### the Administrative Procedures Act or through the Federal Registry Publication ofFinal Rule. Ifthis is sol then 

### why were FM. officers and all others also unaware 

## Qi the changes? (Emphasis supplied). Assuming arguendo, even if

### all the otherfatal defects were not in place, this scenario ofno FAA official knowing ofthe regulation changes, only encouraged the potential violation and unreasonable to hold the Respondent to a 

### higher atanclard and a double standard than their own FAA officials or drug inspection officers who frequently inspected and communicated with MRH, and themselves did not know or inform MRH ofthe regulation change or send some form ofnotification. 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix I and J and 49 C.F.R. part 40 were not disclosed and no reasonable notification procedure was inplace to inform any operatorofthis change, 90ntrary to the routine protocol followed by all other operation specification chapters, which included a



### - 11

-05/15/2012 10:12 FAX 2024835142**0~/14/2012** 8:00AM FAX FAA + OMS

regular notification procedure, 

### u.pdated and ro-wrltten operation specification revisions, 

### physieally replaced. pages and subsequent 141012/020 @]0012/0020



### formal re-signofland eonfirmation ofthe new pages that the operator is aware and agrees. It is therefore does not appear proper or reasonable to hold MRH responsible for changes that no one was
·, . ·.aware of, not formally or othetwise notified of, 

### or signed ofton, Regulations§ 

### 135.251 and 135.255 as written in the compliance statement do not inherently state that MRH must directly test each employee who performs a safety sensitive function rather states empirically that 

### any peraoa 

### eondu.C!ting safety 

### sensitive f\l:aetlons must be covered by

### an FAA approved drug and alcohol 

### testing program. These**individ~als** referred to, complied with drug and alcohol testingregulations under theirfull time employers. The 

### 2 regulations that the agency was violating the Respondent for: §135.251 and. §135.255t were so contradictory and problematic that the FAA rule makers decided to 

### rem.o'Ve, reserve. revise, relocate the defective language effective July 13, 2009" bythe FAA Rule makers perhaps unbeknownst by the complainants (ExhibitA-12): 

### 'FAA Ia 

### working on a**m~or** 

### revision of its drug 

### and alcohol testbag regulatioD&. Given the**compl~ty** 

### ofthat rovlalon and 

### the time It wW. 

### take to complete the rulemakiug process, the FAA has 

### eoncluded that: 

### in tbo la.terim it 

### makes 

### sense to 

### pull the 

### existlag regulatlona together 

### in one placet(SIC].



### - 12-05/15/2012 10:12 FAX 2024935142 FAA -. OMS**-":'~ ,~** **1** '-""' 1.(. U VVI\M rr.A

Access to that FAA website months ago stated 

### Removed and I4J013/020 llJOO 13/0020

Reserved, nothing more (Exhibit R-8). The now working link shows the**~-codification** 

### of§135.251 to §120.35 

### and§ 135.255 to§ 

### 120.39, adding new meaninc to the MovingTarget and Shiftingnature ofthese regulations. 

### Now the compliance 

### with this regulation 

### e'lf'en appears dependent on whether or not 

### a computer shifting and variably software hypertext 

### website .link is operatingcorrectly (emphasis supplied).


### The Complainants took an aggressive course of action to pursue at best a theoretical violation 

### for a regulation that was removed 

### and rescinded in its 

### entirety one year before the Complainants submitted their complaint (emphasis supplied). These regulations remain a moving 

### target. since theywere not adequately disclosed, 

### scattered amongst different locations, uninterpretable, by reasonable persons and in this case unknown by MRH's FAA inspectors, the local FSDO or by FAA officialVincent Roots during the prior drug/alcohol audit ofMRH (Exhibit R-2), and more recently identified problematic by the FAA. Rule makers (emphasis added). who rewrote the regulation due to interpretation**discrepancies~** thereby holding MRH to a double standard and a higher standard than its own FAA 

### officials. The:: reasons why the agency had to rewrite the defective language and relocate the subject regulations were discussed on page 1840 of

- 13-05/15/2012 10:12 FAX 2024935142 FAA

.. ...,., , ...,, .(......., 1 L. \,1, VVr""ll'l r I\ A -+ OMS 141014/020 Ill0014/0020

(ExhibitA-ll, 

### Tr. 290-8) 

### to clarifY regulatory language. 

### To initiate fair 

### prosecution, the regulations 

### mustfirst be clear, un-obscut'ed, easily**acces~ible,** 

### directly 

### visible and contained within 

### the compliance statement 

### and operation specifications_ 

### have clearwording 

### not referring to 

### remote websites and 

### confirmatory sign. offby 

### the operators, 

### all elements not 

### present in 

### this 

### case. In2011, identifying 

### and confirming the problematic communication and 

### notification system, 

### the drug 

### abatementprogram 

### made 

### further changes. 

### The drug program 

### now smacted a new compliance 

### procedure by 

### mailing to participants requests for listed**websit~** 

### interaction and dates for which 

### compliance must 

### be completed.


### 6. WERE SAFETY ISSUES 

### REASONABl..Y IMPLICATED?
The Compliance andEnforcementTracking system (C.ETS) clearly states that "Legal 

### enforcement action includes circumstances

### where serious safety 

### issues are 

### U..volved or there is a 

### pattern ofnoncompliance that indicates 

### an

### inabilityorunwillingness to 

### complywith regulatory 

### requirements"? (http://www.faa.gov/documentLlbrarv/media/Ord.er/FULL%209120.1 AI.pdf).



### - 14-05/15/2012 10:13 FAX 2024935142**U~/lqf~U1~ ~:OOAM**  FAX FAA -. OMS @015/020**~0015/0020**

DID THE ROTOR TRACK AND BALANCE CHECK FALL UNDER THE GUIDELINE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE OR UNWILLINGNESS TO COMPLY WARRANTING THE PROPOSED VIOLATION FROM THE·ONSET? Arotor track and balance checkwas performed onJuly 241 2008 by 

### Mr. Bakerafrer the certified service 

### station mechanic 

### at the aimort could 

### not complete the taskas disclosed at testimony (Tl" 226, line 4). The logbook en tty 

### clearlydiscloses that these rotortrack 

### and balance parameters

### were checked and 

### "all measurement found to be witb1n limits, no 

### adjustmentsrequired" (SIC) (ExhibitA-4). No changes or corrections were made to the rotor track and balance and no weights were added, no actual senrice was performed, it was purely a check or tt reading and the systemfound to

### be well within specification. Mr. Baker was on an unintern.tpted

### primary drug program for 

### Air Methods Corporation and a second drugprogram through the National Guard. The Compliance and EnforcementTracking system (CETS) also cites that a letterofcorrection (LOC) orwarning notice (WN) 

### is appropriate when there are no serious safetyissues orunwillingness to complywith regulations. In addition to the inquiry as 

### to the serious safety concerns thatMs. Lozada (Tr. 157-12) had, 

### she believedthere were serious safety concerns justonthe basis thatpart 135 

### flights were flown. Butwhen asked ifshe believed that part 135flights were flown since thatrotor track and balance was checked, she then changed her answer to "I d.idnt saythat''. It was



### - 15-05115 /2012 10:13 FAX 2024935142 FAA**.,..._~** I"'T/**~vI"'** U. '.o'VI''d'1 rr'l/\ "' OMS @018/020 @00 1S/0020

clearly establishedfrom the flight logrecord that no part 135 operations were performed since a yearevenbefore that rotor track andbalance check was performed and while the companywas in moratorium. Furthermore, 

### that same rotor tracka.nd 

### balance checkwas repeated by Mr. Baker

### after hewasplaced on MRH's own drug

### program. No flights 

### were everflown in 

### the interim period, 

### therefore It waa impoasfh1e to have exposed the 

### public to any safety issues, lot alone those that 111ay 

### be eveo remotelyconsidered serious. The second condition to commence enforcement proceduresis ifan

.operatorwas unwilling to comply with the regulations. When Ms. Lozada. was asked 

### ifMRH wasunwilling to 

### comply, she stated ((I believe so" (Tr. 158-17). It

### was commented 

### to Ms. Lozada, 

### how could MRH have been 

### unwillingto complywhen they did not

### knowofthe regulation change and was not informed ofthe change. Itwas confirmed thatonce MRH was aware, Mr. Bakerwas placed ontheir existing Drugprogram (Tr. 224-14) and Ms. Frankel also confinned that statement (Tr. 313·4). The 

### agencylanguage 

### specifically stateswhere·serious safety issues 

### lb.volved. Since there was no incidentor accident there was no event and/or opportunityfor 

### any serious safety issues to be involved, therefore 

### the agency 

### pursued a violation based 

### on a purely speculative statement since there was no potential for

### a serous safety issue and no flights were .flown 

### after the rotor track and balance was 

### checked. evenwithout making any changes or cottections. The Enforcement Regulations do notleave

- 16-



## ------·---·

# ---05/15/2012 10:13 FAX 2024835142 FAA -+ OMS ""''1-+Jo::.vl.:: c,uu/IM rill\

r.oom or state that a 

### violation should be issued based purely

### on speculation. Ms. Frankel nonetheless claimed, there could have been a safetyissue despite 

### the aircraftwas notflown 

### 135 from before the cited violation to the current (Tr. 310-10). Mr. Kim Barnette was asked 

### ifduringramp ormaintenance inspections ifthe agencymaintenance inspector had a responsibility to 141 017/020 @oo17;oo2o

check out the personnel working on the ail"craft, his answer was that was notwithin this purview (Tr.340-10).

6. SANCTIONS OF ANY KIND ARE INAPPROPRIATE. Assuming Arguendo, that there was fair cause to pursue the level offrivolous prosecution that has occurred in this case, a financial reward is not proper or reasonable for an LLC. that has only generated losses. 

### MRH is a Limited Liability Corporation wherein the owner ofthis LLC has the**Hab~ty** protection ofa corporation. A principle cannot be held personally liable for a debt. OnApri130, 2011, Ms. Ponto confirmed receipt of MRH's schedule**c~s** 2007-09, Schedules L, M, and N as requested and as ordered byJudge Yoder. Mr. Raley (who took over the case from Ms. Ponto) confirmed the fmanciallosses» which demonstrated an inability to pay the proposed penalty. On May 10, 2011, Mr. Riley then proposed the one and only settlement offer by the agency based 

### on the validated

- 17-



# ------ -------0511512012 10:13 FAX 2024935142 FAA

_ O , , 0 o o •• 1 II II -t OMS 141018/020 @oo 18/oozo

financial losses but without agreement to all terms. The tWc: records also confirm the name and financial changes in early 2008.
The 

### Complainant's have persisted to persuade the court into issuing the violation against Respondent perhaps to deter any further action against the agency for what appears to be indiscriminate acts against MRH. Respondent is notinterested in pursuing damages but to find closure in this case. Therefore, 

### all infonnation 

### clearly documenting companylosses has been provided, This information serves to further confirm the lack of operation, lack ofpilot, lack ofauthorization to perform flights, having no .lncome before, during and afterthe alleged violation period. CONCLUSION The hypothetical and far reaching subject citation was aggressively pursued despite the fact MR Helicopter's operation was shut down, nonoperational, was operating at a loss, underwent na1ne changes, had outdated operation specifications and compliance statements, under revision, closed it's bank accounts and was unauthorized to perform part 135 flights also without a certified part 135 pilot, I year before, during the cited violation period and has not since then_ The proposed violation did not involve a serious safety issue (checking a rotor track and balance without a chango ofany kind), it did

- 18-



# -----05/15/2012 10:13 FAX 2024835142**UO/lQ/~01~** 6:01AM FAX FAA + OMS**~019/020** @] 0019/0020



### not involve an 

### incident or 

### accident, the aircraft was not even flown 135 and the check was redone after Mr. Baker was 

### on MRH's program. There
was no 

### unwillingness once 

### finally notified ofthe regulation change to place 

### Mr. Baker 

### on the company's 

### drugprogram. It was impossible 

### to be compliant with 

### the regulation amendment since the regulation was so defective that it 

### required several redactions to clarify the intent ofthe language. This process occurred 

### without notification of any 

### kind andvoid ofany 

### methodsofcompliance. 

### The op specs were rendered outdated in regard to the mandated regulatory amendments that were obfuscated, 

### reserved and 

### re-codified. Case law precedent 

### does not support this 

### violation that has propagated and generated over a hundred pleadings to the docket, over a 4 

### year period 

### consuming court and agency :recourses far exceeding the proposed unwarranted and indiscriminate fine amount. The proposed 

### hypothetical, speculative and 

### frivolous violation including anyjudgment is not warranted therefore all claims must be QUASHED, STRICKEN and DISMISSED.

Respectfully Submitted, Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. Electronically signed/mbs

a 19-05/15/2012 10:13 FAX 2024835142 05/14/2012 8:01AM FAX FAA -. OMS

U.S. DEPARTME.RT OF TkANSPORTATION
Feden.lAviation**Ad:~~~inJatntlon** Complainant v. M & R Heliaopters, LLC. Respondent Ho11onbleJudge Richard Goodwin. Docket: 2010-1211
CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFYthat Ihavethisday served the**fore~oing** entrie(s): RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS FOST

## TRIAL REBUTTAL BRIEF 141020/020 flj0020/0020

upon allparties ofrecord inthis proceeding, in accordance with the requirements ofRule 29 pursuant to 28 U.S. C.§ 1746. Service by Email. and Fax Fede-al Aviation Administration 800 Independence.Aven1.1e, SW WilburWrightAvenue-Suite 2WlOOO Wasrungton, D.C. 20591 Att: HearingDocket Clerk, I\GC·430 FAX 202 493 5142
Charles Raley EnforcementDivision/AGC-300 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel FAA 800 IndependenceAvenue, SW Washingron, DC 20591 FAX !a02 267 5106 Charles.Raley@faa.gov> Protected The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin US Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20, Room &12-320 1200 New JerseyAvenue. S.E. Washington, DC 20590 FAX 202 366 7536--notworking pat.ricia.rn6ltthews<l/!,dot.gov ira.leibowi1:2@dot.gov By:_ Electronically signed MBS MichaelB. Selig, MD, FACC. 2816 Orefield Road Allentown, Pa. 18104 610 360 3953 Date: 4-10-2012