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 

. · ·.tiL .,,EI· OP.-R~T·/n'"'' -. 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. 

Federal Aviatioa 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 Post Trial Rebuttal Brief as follows. 

1. RESPONDENT HAD AN ACTIVE PART 119 CERTIFICATE WITH 

OPERATIONAL SPECIFICATIONS AUTHORIZING PART 135 

OPERATIONS. 

@001/020 

@000 1/0020 

This hypothetical and far reaching subject citation 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 135 pilot even prior to the cited violation 

period and subsequently thereafter. In addition, MRH's operational 

specifications were not current, contained only signed off drug abatement 

regulations from January 2004, before the drug/ alcohol regulations had 

changed. 

The operational specifications were to be updated and the FSDO 

instructed Respondent not to perform flights 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 of a state of confusion 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. The 
05/15/2012 10:11 FAX 2024935142 FAA "' OMS 

v"''"~t<:vl<: ':l.::lviiM r11x 

3. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID E. EVERSON D/B/A NORTH VALLEY 

HELICOPTERS, INC., Ji'AA ORDER. NO. 2004-5. 

The bottom line conclusion of this 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 simply do not apply. 

Complainants cohtemplated that not performing operations prior to 

commencing a drug/ alcohol program is different than not conducting 

operations during a penod of shutdown when the agency sought a 

violation, when the operation did have an active drug program. In the 

Everson case, a program was mandated to be started 60 days after 

approval of the program prior to commencing operations which was not 

141004/020 

@0004/0020 

done. On inspection of his operations specifications no drug program was 

in place. The case was still dismissed. 

The commonality between the Everson case and MRH's case is that 

no flights or operations were conducted during the relevant period. 

Therefore, no risk or harm was presented to the public. 

The primary premise that initjated the violation was that Mr. Baker 

was not on any program. MRH did have its own drug program 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 program for those not on an): approved program and in 

accordance to the operation specifications sign off date of January 2004 

prior to the regulation change and the maintenance inspector's knowledge, 

advice and in good faith. Flight Standards never updated the operation 

specifications to reflect subsequent changes. 

It is further 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 all operations under part 119.69 due to 

concem1 : .. about the safely of the operation because of human factors 

beyond his control (protracted divorce and custody matters), Respondent 

should not be punished for making sound judgment for a company he 

bears all risks and liabilities. 

In accordance with the E-verson case which remains the Litmus 

test for these matters - this case suggests that MRH should not be cited for 

violations occurring during a period in time when no operations actually 

occurred. Since MRH was not in operation, did not have a pilot and did 

not fly any part 135 flights during the relevant period of the violation, 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 of at least one aircraft that meets the requirements for 

at least one kind of operation 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 Law Judge's decision 

was reversed, and no civil penalty was assessed. It is the Complainants 

who conveniently missed the mark on these issues; the Respondent has 

not stretched the holding of these cases, as these are logical and common 

sense conclusions of law on these matters, based on the fact fmdings and 

case law 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 OF REGULATORY CHANGES NEVER PROVIDED. 

Complainant allege that the Regulations reJied upon by 

Complainant were "properly promulgated by notice" (Complainants 

Rebt.tttal Brief page 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 of compliance of any kind. 

Respondent contends tha.t it is unreasonable to hold an operator 

responsible for regulations) when those regulations were not clearly 

written, when the statutory l"egulation amendment language required 

r:nandated retooling due to lack of clarity 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 binding authority for all operators. 

It was established during examination of Ms. Lozada, the central 

manager of the Drug Abatement program, that the part of the Op Specs 

section addressing Drug Abatement parameters A449 (Exhibit A-2) was 

signed off in 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 Drug Abatement program 

ha.d their own website (Tr. 122-20) which was unclear in her testimony 

and would be confusing to any operator. 

Ms1 Lozada stated it was the Respondents responsibility to check 

(blindly and without reason), if there were questions. It was pursued at 

trial that if your FAA inspectors stated and confirmed an operator was in 

compliance consecutively for 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 ever listed 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 of audit 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 of Mr. Baker 

performing a simple check of the rotor track and balance on July 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. 

It wa.s established that it was the responsibility of Flight 

Standards Districts Office to update those Op Specs, not that of the 

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 older parameters 

which Respondent was always compliant with (Tr. 139-8). There was 

never any notification of the regulation change. 

It was established during examination of Ms. Frankel that she 

. did not know what the term methods of compliaDce even meant and 

she could not define the term which is one of the main matters before the 

court (Tr. 273·2}. Complainant misses the mark on how this is the core 

concept, tha.t without a solidified process and clearly written regulations 

and clear compliance procedures an operator cannot be compliant with 

these regulations. 

Respondent asked Ms. Lozada and Ms. Frankel where it was 

stated or written what was needed to become complaint to the new 

regulation, they could not. Neither could state where it was written, at 

what interval to blindly seek the 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 it impossible for an operator to ever be fully compliant1 

and the rea~on for the subsequent litany 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 

answer was that she was not aware of a grace period or a time interval to 

become complaint with those changes (Tr. 279-8). Complainant missed 

the mark on this statement, which illustrates the further lack of candor 

in terms of disclosure 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 of pages 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 just was the operator's 

responsibility (Tr. 308-13). Therefore, it is impossible to ever be 

completely compliant at any point in time~ if a regulation changed or 

update occurred, without notification, training or public education, as is 

clearly evidenced by the history of the FAA's own officers including Mr. 

Roots, the drug/ alcohol abatement officer during his audit of MRH in 

2004 in regard to these regulations. 

If a regulation is material and substantiates a penalty, then it 

would also follow that any "material" changes to an FAA regulation would 

warrant reasonable methods of communication and notice for a material 

change. Due to the voluminous depth of the 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 of Final Rule. 

If this is sol then why were FM. officers and all others also unaware Qi 

the changes? (Emphasis supplied). 

Assuming arguendo, even if all the other fatal defects were not in 

place, this scenario of no FAA official knowing of the 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 

of the regulation change or send some form of notification. 

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 in place 

to inform any operator of this 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-signofl and eonfirmation of the 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 oft on, 

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 

testing regulations under their full 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" by the FAA Rule makers 

perhaps unbeknownst by the complainants (Exhibit A-12): 

'FAA Ia working on a m~or revision of its 

drug and alcohol testbag regulatioD&. Given the 

compl~ty of that 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 Moving Target and Shifting nature of these 

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 operating correctly (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 they were 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 of MRH (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 

Ill 0014/0020 

(Exhibit A-ll, Tr. 290-8) to clarifY regulatory language. To initiate fair 

prosecution, the regulations must first be clear, un-obscut'ed, easily 

acces~ible, directly visible and contained within the compliance 

statement and operation specifications_ have clear wording not referring 

to remote websites and confirmatory sign. off by the operators, all 

elements not present in this case. 

In 2011, identifying and confirming the problematic 

communication and notification system, the drug abatement program 

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 and Enforcement Tracking system (C.ETS) clearly 

states that "Legal enforcement action includes circumstances where 

serious safety issues are U..volved or there is a pattern of noncompliance 

that indicates an inability or unwillingness to comply with 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? 

A rotor track and balance check was performed on July 241 2008 by 

Mr. Baker afrer the certified service station mechanic at the aimort could 

not complete the task as disclosed at testimony (Tl" 226, line 4). 

The logbook en tty clearly discloses that these rotor track and 

balance parameters were checked and "all measurement found to be 

witb1n limits, no adjustments required" (SIC) (Exhibit A-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 system found to be well within specification. Mr. Baker 

was on an unintern.tpted primary drug program for Air Methods 

Corporation and a second drug program through the National Guard. 

The Compliance and Enforcement Tracking system (CETS) also cites 

that a letter of correction (LOC) or warning notice (WN) is appropriate when 

there are no serious safety issues or unwillingness to comply with 

regulations. 

In addition to the inquiry as to the serious safety concerns that Ms. 

Lozada (Tr. 157-12) had, she believed there were serious safety concerns 

just on the basis that part 135 flights were flown. But when asked if she 

believed that part 135 flights were flown since that rotor track and balance 

was checked, she then changed her answer to "I d.idnt say that''. It was 

- 15-
05115 /2012 10:13 FAX 2024935142 FAA 

.,..._~ I"'T/ ~vI"' U. '.o'VI''d'1 rr'l/\ 

"' OMS @018/020 

@00 1 S/0020 

clearly established from the flight log record that no part 135 operations 

were performed since a year even before that rotor track and balance check 

was performed and while the company was in moratorium. 

Furthermore, that same rotor track a.nd balance check was repeated 

by Mr. Baker after he was placed on MRH's own drug program. No flights 

were ever flown in the interim period, therefore It waa impoasfh1e to have 

exposed the public to any safety issues, lot alone those that 111ay be 

eveo remotely considered serious. 

The second condition to commence enforcement procedures is if an 

. operator was unwilling to comply with the regulations. When Ms. Lozada. 

was asked if MRH was unwilling to comply, she stated ((I believe so" (Tr. 

158-17). It was commented to Ms. Lozada, how could MRH have been 

unwilling to comply when they did not know of the regulation change and 

was not informed of the change. It was confirmed that once MRH was 

aware, Mr. Baker was placed on their existing Drug program (Tr. 224-14) 

and Ms. Frankel also confinned that statement (Tr. 313·4). 

The agency language specifically states where ·serious safety issues 

lb.volved. Since there was no incident or accident there was no event 

and/ or opportunity for 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. even without making 

any changes or cottections. The Enforcement Regulations do not leave 

- 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 

safety issue despite the aircraft was not flown 135 from before the cited 

violation to the current (Tr. 310-10). 

Mr. Kim Barnette was asked if during ramp or maintenance 

inspections if the agency maintenance inspector had a responsibility to 

141 017/020 

@oo 17 ;oo2o 

check out the personnel working on the ail"craft, his answer was that was 

not within this purview (Tr.340-10). 

6. SANCTIONS OF ANY KIND ARE INAPPROPRIATE. 

Assuming Arguendo, that there was fair cause to pursue the level 

of frivolous 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 of this LLC has 

the Hab~ty protection of a corporation. A principle cannot be held 

personally liable for a debt. 

On Apri130, 2011, Ms. Ponto confirmed receipt of MRH's 

schedule c~s 2007-09, Schedules L, M, and N as requested and as 

ordered by Judge 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-

------ -------
0511512 012 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 not interested in pursuing damages but to 

find closure in this case. 

Therefore, all infonnation clearly documenting company losses 

has been provided, This information serves to further confirm the lack of 

operation, lack of pilot, lack of authorization to perform flights, having no 

.lncome before, during and after the 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 of any 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 of the regulation change to 

place Mr. Baker on the company's drug program. 

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 of the language. This process occurred without 

notification of any kind and void of any methods of compliance. 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 any judgment 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.l Aviation Ad:~~~inJatntlon 

Complainant 

v. 

M & R Heliaopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Ho11onble Judge Richard 

Goodwin. 

Docket: 2010-1211 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this day served the fore~oing entrie(s): 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS FOST TRIAL 

REBUTTAL BRIEF 

141020/020 

flj0020/0020 

upon all parties of record in this proceeding, in accordance with the requirements of Rule 29 

pursuant to 28 U.S. C.§ 1746. 

Service by Email. and Fax 

Fede-al Aviation Administration 

800 Independence .Aven1.1e, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2WlOOO 

Wasrungton, D.C. 20591 

Att: Hearing Docket Clerk, I\GC·430 

FAX 202 493 5142 

Charles Raley 

Enforcement Division/ AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washingron, DC 20591 

FAX !a02 267 5106 

Charles.Raley@faa.gov> 

Protected 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

US Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room &12-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX 202 366 7536--not working 

pat.ricia.rn6ltthews<l/!,dot.gov 

ira.leibowi1:2@dot.gov 

By:_ Electronically signed MBS 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, Pa. 18104 

610 360 3953 

Date: 4-10-2012