UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. ) 

### ZOiI APR 22 P 4:**~b**

In the matter of ) ) FAA Docket No. CPIOSWOOIO Case No. 2009SW910051 AIR Z FLYING SERVICE, INC. ) ChiefLaw Judge Ronnie A. Yoder ) 

### ------------------------) ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTION FOR DECISION Complainant, pursuant to Rule 13.218(f)(5) ofthe Rules ofPractice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.218(f)(5), files this Motion for Decision. 

### I. Introduction A motion for decision shall be granted ifthere is "no genuine issue ofmaterial fact and that the party making the motion is entitled tojudgment as a matter oflaw." 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.218(f)(5). Complainant, the party making the motion, "has the burden ofshowing that there is no genuine issue ofmaterial fact disputed by the parties." 

### § 13.218(f)(5). Additionally, Rule 13.209(e) ofthe Rules ofPractice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.209(e), states that "[alny statement or allegation contained in the complaint that is not specifically denied in the answer may be deemed an admission ofthe truth ofthat allegation." The Complainant will show, by admissions ofRespondent, Air Z Flying Service, Inc. ("Air Z"), and by evidence known to the parties and attached to this motion, that no genuine issues ofmaterial fact exist and that the Complainant is entitled tojudgment as a matter oflaw. 

### II. Summary ofthe Complaint The Complaint in this matter alleges that Air Z did not receive a verified negative result
on the pre-employment drug test ofits employee, Ritch Kovacic, before hiring him to perform a
1safety-sensitive function. (Comp!. § II,**~** 6d.) Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Air Z violated 14 C.F.R. § 135.251(a) (now codified at 14 C.F.R. § 120.35(a» by failing to test each employee who performed a function listed in 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix I (now codified at 14 C.F.R. § 120.105) in accordance with § V.A.1 ofthat appendix (now codified at 14 C.F.R. § 120.109(a».' (Comp!. § III,**~** 1.) The functions listed in 14 C.F.R. § 120.105 are called safety-sensitive functions and include aircraft maintenance or preventative maintenance. (Comp!. § II,**~** 3.) No employer subject to 14 C.F.R. part 120 may hire a person to perform a safety-sensitive function unless it first conducts a pre-employment drug test and receives a verified negative result for that person. (Comp!. § II,**~** 4.) Mr. Kovacic performed aircraft maintenance or preventative maintenance on an Air Z aircraft on June 6, 2008. (Comp!. § II,**~** 6b.) However, Air Z did not receive the verified negative result for Mr. Kovacic's preemployment drug test until July 17, 2008. (Comp!. § II,**~** 6c.) Air Z therefore violated the regulations listed in Section III ofthe Complaint. Air Z, in its Answer to the Complaint, admitted the entirety ofSection I and the entirety ofSection II, paragraph I. Air Z has therefore admitted it is the holder ofAir Carrier Certificate No. ZFDA222T, issued under 14 C.F.R. part 119 and authorizing Air Z to conduct operations under part 135. 

### III. Evidence Showing No Genuine 

### Issues ofMaterial Fact A. On or about May 28, 2008, Air Z administered a pre-employment drug test to Ritch Kovacic under its anti-drug program In its Complaint, the Complainant asserts that on or about May 28, 2008, Air Z administered a pre-employment drug test to Ritch Kovacic under its anti-drug program.

• Effective July 13,2009, the FAA's drug and alcohol regulations in 14 C.F.R. part 121, appendices I and J were recodified with no substantive changes at 14 C.F.R. part 120, subparts E and F. See Final Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 22,649 (May 14, 2009). Although the violations alleged in the Complaint occurred before the effective date ofthe recodification, for purposes ofclarity, subsequent references will be to 14 C.F.R. part 120,. 

# '. 2(Compl. § II,**~** 6a.) Air Z is permitted to use service agents in fulfilling the requirements ofthe drug testing regulations in 14 C.F.R. part 120 and 49 C.F.R. part 40. 49 C.F.R. § 40.15. Service agents include specimen collectors, laboratories, and Medical Review Officers. 49 C.F.R. § 40.3. Even though Air Z did not collect a specimen from Mr. Kovacic and test the specimen itself, it still administered the test because Air Z is responsible for all ofthe acts ofits service agents. 14 C.F.R. § 120.103(c); 49 C.F.R. § 40.11. Proofofthe allegations in paragraph 6a is in the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form ("CCF") attached as Exhibit 1. In the section marked "Completed by Donor," the handwritten signature, printed name, daytime phone number, and evening phone number of Mr. Kovacic are present. (Ex. 1.) The date May 28,2008 is also handwritten in this section. (ld.) Air Z's name and address are handwritten in the section ofthe CCFmarked "Employer Name, Address, LD. No." (Id.) The box labeled "pre-employment" under the heading "Reason for Test" is checked on the CCF. (Id.) The CCF therefore shows that Mr. Kovacic submitted a specimen for a pre-employment drug test for Air Z on May 28, 2008. Two Controlled Substance Test Reports, one from ChoicePoint Medical Review Services ("ChoicePoint") and the other from Alternative Safety and Testing Solutions ("ASTS"), attached
as Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively, also support the allegations ofparagraph 6a. Both reports state the result ofthe testing ofa specimen collected on May 28,2008. (Exs. 2 & 3.) Each report has the same specimen ID number. (Id.) Both reports also state the test reason as "preemployment." (Id.) Air Z references the CCF and both Controlled Substance Test Reports in support ofits denials ofthe Complainant's Request for Admission No.4. (Ex.4.t) Air Z does not deny the

t The "documents attached" that are mentioned at #3 on page 2 ofExhibit 4 are included in this motion as Exhibits 1,2,3,8,and9.**~ ~.**  3authenticity or accuracy ofthe any ofthese forms or reports. As a result, Air Z has implicitly admitted that the information contained in those documents is true. Because the information in those forms and reports is true and because it shows that on or about May 28, 2008, Air Z administered a pre-employment drug test to Mr. Kovacic under its anti-drug program, there is no genuine issue ofmaterial fact as to the Complainant's assertion in paragraph 6a ofthe Complaint. Respondent argues that it did not send Mr. Kovacic for a pre-employment drug test because: (1) Mr. Kovacic was an employee ofT & G Flying Club, not Air Z; and (2) Mr. Kovacic was already an employee ofT & G Flying Club, therefore the test was not a preemployment drug test. Regarding the first argument, it is irrelevant who Mr. Kovacic works for. Under 14 C.F.R. 

### § 120.1(a) and (b), the drug testing regulations of 14 C.F.R. part 120 and 49 C.F.R. part 40 apply to a part 135 certificate holder and to anyone who performs a safetysensitive function, whether directly or by contract. No part 135 certificate holder may hire
someone to perform a safety-sensitive function unless it first conducts a pre-employment drug test and receives a verified negative result. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 120.109(a). "Hire" means to retain
someone to perform a safety-sensitive function, whether as a paid employee, a volunteer, or through barter or other form ofcompensation. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 120.7(j). Safety-sensitive functions include the maintenance and preventative maintenance ofaircraft that operate under 14 C.F.R. parts 121 and 135. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 120.105. Air Z is a part 135 certificate holder and retained Mr. Kovacic to perform a safety-sensitive function, namely aircraft maintenance or preventative maintenance, on the aircraft it operated under its part 135 certificate. Even ifMr. Kovacic was employed by T & G, Air Z still had the responsibility to administer a pre-employment drug test

4before retaining Mr. Kovacic to perform maintenance on any ofAir Z's aircraft. 14 C.F.R. § 120.109(a). Regarding Respondent's second argument that the drug test was not a pre-employement drug test because Mr. Kovacic was already an employee ofT & G, the CCF clearly indicates that the specimen was collected for a pre-employment drug test. (Ex. I.) It is irrelevant that 

### Mr. Kovacic was already employed by T & G. As shown above, Air Z is responsible for administering a pre-employment drug test and receiving a verified negative result before hiring Mr. Kovacic to perform maintenance on its aircraft. There is no evidence indicating that 

### Mr. Kovacic had ever performed maintenance or any other safety-sensitive function for Air Z before the instance cited in paragraph 6b ofthe Complaint. Because this was to be the first time Mr. Kovacic ever performed maintenance for Air Z, Air Z had to administer a pre-employment drug test to Mr. Kovacic and receive a verified negative result before hiring him. Even ifT & G had a drug testing program, which it does not, nothing in 14 C.F.R. part 120 or49 C.F.R. part 40 allows Air Z to rely on T & G's drug testing program to fulfill its own drug testing responsibilities. (Ex. 5.) Thus there is no genuine issue ofmaterial fact as to the Complainant's assertion that on or about May 28, 2008, Air Z administered a pre-employment drug test to Mr. Kovacic under its anti-drug program. B. On or about June 6, 2008, Mr. Kovacic performed aircraft maintenance or preventative maintenance duties for Air Z on civil aircraft N94EW listed on Air Z's part 135 operations specifications The Complainant asserts inparagraph 6b ofits Complaint that on or about June 6, 2008, Mr. Kovacic performed aircraft maintenance or preventative maintenance duties for Air Z on civil aircraft N94EW, which was listed on Air Z's part 135 operations specifications. Air Z claims that Mr. Kovacic did notperform any safety-sensitive functions (such as maintenance) for



### 5Air Z because Mr. Kovacic was in fact employed by T & G. Again, it is irrelevant who Mr. Kovacic works for. Civil aircraft N94EW was on the operations specifications ofAir Z in June 2008, as admitted by Air Z in its response to Complainant's Request for Discovery and Production ofDocuments. (Ex. 6.) According to the aircraft maintenance log book, Mr. Kovacic performed maintenance on N94EW on June 6, 2008. (Ex. 7.) Mr. Kovacic therefore performed aircraft maintenance for Air Z. As previously noted, the drug testing regulations in 14 C.F.R. part 120 apply to "all individuals who perform, either directly or by contract, a safety-sensitive function." 14 C.F.R. § 120.l(b). What matters is not who the "actual" employer is, but that the safety-sensitive function was performed and who it was performed for. The evidence shows that this aircraft maintenance or preventative maintenance, a safety-sensitive function, was performed for Air Z because the work was done on an Air Z aircraft. 14 C.F.R. § 120.105. There is thus no genuine issue ofmaterial fact as to whether on or about June 6, 2008, Mr. Kovacic performed aircraft maintenance or preventative maintenance duties for Air Z on civil aircraft N94EW listed on Air Z's part 135 operations specifications. C. On or about July 17, 2008, Air Z's Medical Resource Officer ("MRO") verified Mr. Kovacic's pre-employment drug test as negative for a prohibited substance and reported the verified negative result to Air Z In paragraph 6c ofthe Complaint, Complainant asserts that on or about July 17,2008, Air Z's Medical Resource Officer ("MRO") verified Mr. Kovacic's pre-employment drug test as negative for a prohibited substance and reported the verified negative result to Air Z. The ChoicePoint report, dated July 17, 2008, was the only report ofa verified negative result in Air Z's possession at the time ofinspection. (Ex. 2.) Air Z denies that July 17, 2008 was the first time it received the verified negative result on Mr. Kovacic's pre-employment drug test.

6However, there is no evidence that Air Z received the verified negative result ofMr. Kovacic's pre-employment drug test any earlier than July 17,2008. Air Z has produced the ASTS report, which shows a verified negative result and is dated June 6, 2008, but there is no evidence that Air Z received this report before it hired Mr. Kovacic. Indeed, the ASTS report states that it was released on February 9, 2011. (Ex. 3.) Furthermore, Air Z has produced two documents demonstrating that the ASTS report was never given to Air Z. First, there is a computer screen print showing what appears to be information kept by ASTS
on the testing ofthe specimen submitted by Mr. Kovacic on June 28, 2008. (Ex. 8.) It states "Setup never received

- result not reported 6/6/08." (Jd.) This indicates that the ASTS report of June 6, 2008 was never reported to Air Z. Second, a computer screen print that also appears to be from ASTS suggests that ASTS entered Air Z as a customer on July 15,2008. (Ex. 9.) This is consistent with a letter regarding the testing ofMr. Kovacic from ASTS president Vern Jones. (Ex. 10.) Inthe letter, Mr. Jones states that the set-up sheet containing information including the customer's company name, location, and contact person was not received until July 15,2008. (Jd.) That Air Z did not receive the verified negative result ofMr. Kovacic's drug test until July 17,2008 is further supported by the fact that Air Z did not produce the ASTS report until after it subpoenaed the report from ASTS. Complainant received a copy ofthe subpoena dated January 10,2011 and issued to ASTS on January 26,2011. (Ex. 11.) It did not receive a copy ofthe ASTS report until March 26, 2011, when it received Air Z's response to Complainant's Second Request for Discovery. (Ex. 4.) Even though Air Z used service agents to administer the pre-employment drug test, 14 C.F.R. 

### § 120.103(c) and 49 C.F.R. 

### § 40.11 place the ultimate responsibility for every act ofthose service agents on Air Z. 49 C.F.R. § 40.15; see also 49 C.F.R. § 40.3 (defining "service agent"

7to include specimen collectors, laboratories, and Medical Review Officers). No error or mistake by a service agent will excuse Air Z for its failure to ensure that it had a verified negative result
on Mr. Kovacic's pre-employment drug test before hiring him to perform a safety-sensitive function. Section 40.17 ofTitle 49 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations explicitly makes the employer responsible for obtaining required information, like a verified negative result on a drug test, from service agents. The precise scenario involved in this case, viz. "an applicant for a safety-sensitivejob takes a pre-employment drug test, but there is a significant delay in your receipt ofthe test result from an MRO or 

### C/TPA [consortium/third party administrator, see 49 C.F.R. 

### § 40.3]," and the applicant is allowed to begin performing a safety-sensitive function anyway, is given as an example ofa violation ofthe drug testing regulations. 49 C.F.R. 

### § 40.17. Furthermore, the FAA Decisionmaker has held that where regulations clearly place responsibility
on an air carrier or other entity, such responsibility cannot be delegated away to third parties. In re AlaskaAirlines, FAA Order No. 2004-8, 2004 WL 3198210, at *5-7 (Sept. 30, 2004). The fact that ChoicePoint, ASTS, or any other service agent made a mistake does not excuse Air Z from failing to ensure ithad a verified negative result for Mr. Kovacic's pre-employment drug test before hiring him to perform aircraft maintenance orpreventative maintenance, a safetysensitive function. Therefore, there is no genuine issue ofmaterial fact as to the Complainant's assertion that on or about July 17,2008, Air Z's MRO verified Mr. Kovacic's pre-employment drug test as negative for a prop.ibited substance and reported the verified negative result to Air Z. 

### IV. Complainant is Entitled to Judgment as a Matter ofLaw Complainant alleges in the Complaint that Air Z violated 14 C.F.R. 

### § 135.251(a) (now codified at 14 C.F.R. 

### § 120.35(a)) by failing to test each employee who performed a function listed in 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix I (now codified at 14 C.F.R. 

### § 120.105) in accordance



### 8with § V.A.l ofthat appendix (now codified at 14 C.F.R. § 120.109(a)). (Compl. § III,**~** 1.) There is no genuine issue ofmaterial fact that Mr. Kovacic performed a function listed in 

### § 120.105 for Air Z. He signed offthat on June 6, 2008 he performed maintenance work listed in the maintenance log book for civil aircraft N94EW. (Ex. 7.) Aircraft maintenance or preventative maintenance is a function listed in § 120.105. Air Z has admitted thatN94EW was
on Air Z's operations specifications in June 2008. Mr. Kovacic thus performed a function listed in § 120.105 for Air Z. Section § V.A.l of 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix I (now codified at 14 C.F.R. § 120.109(a)) stated that no employer subject to that part could hire any individual to perform a function listed in section III ofAppendix I (now codified at 14 C.F.R. 

### § 120.105) without first conducting a pre-employment drug test and receiving a verified negative result. There is no genuine issue ofmaterial fact that Air Z hired Mr. Kovacic to perform a function listed in section III ofAppendix I without first receiving a verified negative result on his drug test. "Hire" means to retain someone to perform a safety-sensitive function, whether as a paid employee, a volunteer, or through barter or other form ofcompensation. 14 C.F.R. part 121, App. I, § II (now codified at 14 C.F.R. § 120.70)). "Perform" means any period in which one is actually performing, ready to perform, or immediately available to perform. 

### Id. (now codified at 14 C.F.R. § 120.7(k)). Mr. Kovacic, as shown above, performed a function listed in section III of Appendix I on June 6, 2008 when he repaired N94EW, an aircraft then on Air Z's operations specifications. No evidence indicates that Air Z received a verified negative result on Mr. Kovacic's drug test at any time before July 17,2008. (Exs. 2-3, 8-11.) Because every element ofthe charged violation has been proven, and because there is no genuine issue of

9material fact as to the elements ofthat violation, the Complainant is entitled tojudgment as a matter oflaw. WHEREFORE, the Complainant respectfully requests that this motion be granted and that the Complaint be affirmed.

Date: April 21, 2011

10 Respectfully submitted,

Attorney Enforcement Division, AGC-300 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Telephone: (202) 267-3452 Facsimile: (202) 267-5lO6 cole.milliard@faa.govCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I sent by U.S. Certified Mail, retnrn receipt requested, and by facsimile, the foregoing Administrator's Motion for Decision in In the Matter of Air Z Flying Service, Inc, FAA DocketNo. CPlOSWOOI0, Case No. 2009SW910051, addressed to: The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20, Room E12-320 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 Facsimile: (202) 366-7536 In addition, I hereby certify that I sent a copy ofthe same by U.S. Certified Mail, retnrn receipt requested, addressed to: Mr. Laurence E. Rohl President, Air Z Flying Service, Inc. 355 Richmond Road, Hangar 5 Richmond Heights, Ohio 44143

II

# EXHIBIT 1'5/28/08 15:35 To: Norman Weber 6165345545 Pg 001

# ~. SPEOIMEN ID NO.

### ~ 0 S{l,Q,

# e**~**

# aa ADVANCED TOXICO.LOGY NETWORK STEP 1: COMPLETED BY COLLECTOR OR EMPLOYER RePRESENTATIve 3560 Air Cantar 'Cova, M.mphIB, TN g8118' (888)222-456 A. glnployer Name, Address, 1.0. ND.**1i(l$Q11~~JfS.~~' Alar8~s$Ghone** **a~d** ,Fax No
.. 

### cif-!/CJ.?;2d.:Will.tlUlihbY
.**}\'S1'S~;tI;:!I:!hi!l1'1 w...~r;.bO**  

### . 

## Sl 

# 1+ //L... -,: 

# I
_**61!c.t;~1.** -3030 

### IYllnt:'ut IlW, 

### !i'te. 2
.

## ~

# N.{J;~~~{~~-~~~r~l;\~J~£'EJ~e~

# I

D. RI(\$Son lor**Tes~l2Il're-empIOymenl/~D** Random
. 

### O
..Raasonabla**S~s.piclon/Cause** 

### 0 Post' Aco,de(lt • , y;'



## . . .**D.H~,urO..to1)uty** 

## 0 Follow-up 

## 0 Olher**(opaolfy)~.**___ "-'-:-.**~____ ~**  E. Drug Test$ to be**pertorrw;¢~**THO, 000;1'01', 01'1, AMP: 

### .0 THC 8,·coe Only:' 

### 0**Oih~r(ep.olly),....·-,-.**-'-
___---- - F, Collection. Site Addr$$$:.·
. . . .

### ~ 

### r:oncentra Meliieal:CliInt'!lt'6 :t.7SS 

### (440).**~75-41I;lS ~**  

### :)**~OO** 

## ae:n Hut:'**~venue** 

### .CoII'ctor PhOn. No'.
_____**,-...._~**___**~~**__**~** 

### g Wi.lloughpy, Oli 4<lCtS4**(4~lhfn.&w41~~ ~**  

## I
. ColI.'tor F"" No.
. 

## §:**ST,~P** 2: COMPLETED BY**COL~fWTOR** ' ,/-
.**~** Read specimen tenipeta..\I.lrP within 4 minutes. Is temperature ])&(eclmen Col1eol19n: "" 

# I.' .'
..' g between 90· and 100'**F~~** Yes 0 N,O, Snter Remark' L1.Q}SPIll· -0 Single 0 None PrOVided (Enter.Remark) CJ Ob,erved (Enter**Rem~n** 

## g-**~** .• >d REMARKS'
. . . ." ..'
. '. '..**~** STl!P'a, Coll_eto.,affixes bottle seal(s) to bottle(s). Collector O<>.tes ••!'i(s)
..qonor Initial. seal(s). Donor completes STEP 5 on Copy 2 (MRO Copy)**~** 'STEP 4. CHAIN'OF CUSTODY -INITIATED BY COLLECTOR ANO COMPLeTEO BY LABOf!ATORY
. . '.'
. §

STE 

### "''' !'$t, , LerEO BY DO A1n1t 0 -!I VII II elt f8.n emn ell til} 0 Ii SPECIMEN eOTILE(S) REL.EASED TOt



## . ' 

### Il. 

# 8-**~ ~**  

# t j
.**~"** y;'

## ~ I oerllf)r/hallprovfdedmy urine 'speGlm'I! 'to Ihe ""II,eror, Ihal I hsve not "dulWated il in any**mann~r.** eaoh**Gpeoim~n b~ffI&**  UGo'd we. sealed wllh a lamp$'- ¥ evide e In mm' .senoe; and IhM Ihe lnformaUon provlcled on I (0V" end on/he**I.~al** afflxecl 10**~S¢h** speolmer b(;//I. Is .oorreol. '.
....**:~.**



### . .... J
...... vcr' ···5IPP/oy·**~.** Slgn.!lh.ttl!l or Donor , . {PR!NI,l Donor'a Namt!l**(F1n~t.** MI, lUI)**O~le (Mo.fO~ylYr.)**  ;::::

.

### Day\im~ Pholiil

### No,'!~ 

# .2U·jl!'fp.. Evening 1':10ri. No: 

### ('Vlf"o) 

# fJzt-f 2f

## '7 DatH! 

### Birth {/

# -:rl<;/1**~** Should lhe results of the .Iaboratoty lests for the specimen**Iqen~119d** by thl. form be confirmed' positive, the Modlcal Review Officer will cOnlee! you.to ••k
.**~** about prescriptions .and over-the-counter i1)Bdioations you may heve. takiln, Therefore, you ;nay'wantJo make e. list olthoa. medioations for your own records 

# g ··THIS.**~IST** IS NOT. NECESSARY, If you Ohoo•• to make a 11,1, do 90 ellher on.' separata pl,ee' 0/ papar or on the baok of your ooPY (Copy 5).-00 NOT §.. PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION ON THE BACK OF ANY OrHER'COPY OF THE fORM. TAKE COPY 5WITH YOU
..'**~** STEP 6: COMPLETED BY MEDICAL REVIEW OFFICER - PI'lIMAAY**S~ECIMeN** . =1 

# i J;J' ;.MARKS
______

### ~-- ____

### ~__

### --------~----~--~----------------------------------/--~.-/---**~ ar~I\.IUrll**  Of. MedIcal ReVIew Oftlcor . (PRINT) MlJd!cal Reylow OI1Icots Nsme (F-lfal, 1.11, laBt) Datu (MoJDayffr,)**~** SUP T: COMPLeTED BY MEDICAL REVIEW OFfiCER - SPLIT SPECIMEN



## In accordanc9 with Bpplioable FooerElI reqUirements, my determinanonlverification forthe split

## spe'ci~'t!n (if tested) is: 

### o RECONFIRMED 

## o FAILeD TO R5CONFIBM'- ReASON
__________________**~**__**~**__ 

## x (PAINT) M6dleeJ Atlvle.W OHletr'4 NWt\t**(A~** MI,.**~$.t)** 

### / I D.I. (MM"Y/Yr·)

# EXHIBIT 2711712008 

# I
."ttn: Brad RoI1l/lilny RoI1I 1885 Lost

# _en Rd. WIlloughby, OH 44094- ;-':Ione: 888-818-2992. 

### ChoicePoint 

### Medical Review

### S~fvices 480 Q.uadranlile Drive Suite 0 806ngbrook,. II. 60440 Tal: 800-939-4782 !'ax: 630-679-5635 Controlled 

### Substance Test Report
Client Name: fJJr Z Charter

# I

Aa:ount Number: 106162-00000

Done. :.;i.me:. Other 10:

TestResult: Negative Result OesaipOOn: Negative

I·IRO Verified Comment :

Specimen 10: 105602188 Spedmt., Collection 0aU:: 5/28/2000 4:21:00 PM Lab Name: AdvanCEd TOldcdogy Network Testing Panel: ATN Nlda Panel CCF ReceIved: 7/17/2008 ',t!rification Date: 7/17/2008

R<portedDa"': 7/17/2008 CollectionSlte: ContentraMedical Center

Certified**r~.,·** ,,!;cal ReVieW Office:r:: S. B. Hofflr ,'1.D. FACP 'Signature On File) Emp. catEgory: DRIVER

Test R"",son: TestType: Lab Acaount#: TestAa:ount#: TestClient Name: Loartion 10: COst Center:

MRO Phone: 888-79+6574 pre-Emplo)'ment DOT 4409532992-44095:n9!12 106162-00000 Air Z O1arter

# EXHIBIT 3I 

# -1--- RPORATIO 

# I Alternative Safety &Testing Solutions

IDonor Info:
ITest Info:
MRO Comments: 

### II

Air Z 1885 Lost Nation Rd Willoughby, OH 44094 Donor Name: Kovack, Ritch SSN/ID: 279-56-9352 Specimen ID: 105602188 Collected: 05/28/2008

Overall Result: 1
..... __ ..

### Niiiieiiigaiiiti~ve ___ .1111 Substance Tested Marijuana Cocaine Amphetamines Opiates PCP Result Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative

Norman Weber, DO Date Verified: MRO Certified AAMRO Through: 

## DOT Result II
Customer 10: 36746 Loc Code: 4409532992-0 Lab Account: CMC/OH-Cleveland-Willoughby

Reason: Pre-Employment Industry: FMCSA Lab: Advanced Toxicology Network Coli Site Name: Concentra Willoughby

Lab 

## I**comments:~**______________________________

### ~ Test Performed:

# I HHS/OOT DRUG SCREEN
Screen Level Confirm Level Quant Level

06/06/2008 50 15 300 150 1000 500 2000 2000 25 25

Date MRO CCF Received: 05/28/2008 Report Sent By: Report Released: 02/09/2011
Cert Num: 001008335 Date Certified:

\'. Corporate Office: 10108/2002

1853 R W Berends Dr SW * Wyoming, MI 49519 * Phone: 800-477-3177 * Fax: 616-534-5545

# EXHIBIT 4

# AIR ZFLYING SERVICE, INC. • • 

# '-
...
355 Richmond Road Richmond Hts., Oh. 44143 Phone: 216-261-2992 Fax: 216-261-2993



### Cole R. Milliard, Esq. Enforcement Division, AGC-300 Office ofthe Chief Counsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 SUBJECT: Response for 'Second Request for Discovery" Dear Mr. Milliard Please find enclosed documents along with my response to your second request for discovery which I talked to you about on March 8th

. 

### Sincerely,

# cf~t:f2~ Laurence E. Rohl Air Z Services Inc.

# I

(

# ~b§X~h9*

_0:= THE Cc
__**~OIJNSEL** 

### -ni' I"" r, LU 1"';-, .' 

### AN 10: 33

# EXHIBIT 5

### u.s. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration

September 7,2010 

### Diligent Search Statement 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591

On August 23, 2010, I received a request from Agnes Rodriguez, AGC-300 attorney, requesting a diligent search statement for the following company: T & G Flying Club, Inc. I reviewed iCETS which is the Drug Abatement database containing all non-certificated companies who have registered, and all certificate holders who hold an Operations Specifications Paragraph A449 issued by the Flight Standards District Office, to determine if there was a registration in the name of the aforementioned company. No records were found. This diligent search statement serves as evidence that the above company did not register or have, a program as of this date. Sincerely,

Amy Frankel, Manager Field Operations Branch Drug Abatement Division Office of Aerospace Medicine

# EXHIBIT 6In the matter of UNITED STATES OFAMERICA U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C
..

FAA Docket No. CPIOSWOOIO Case No. 2009SW910051 A1R Z FLYING SERVICE, INC. 

### ) ) ) ) 

### ) ) ChiefLaw Judge Ronnie A. Yoder

REOUEST FORDISCOVERYAND PRODUCTION OFDOCUMENTS Pursuant to the discovery guidelines set forth in section 13 .220 ofthe Rules ofPractice in Federal Aviation Administration Civil Penalty Actions, 13 C.F.R. 

### § 13.220, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration hereby requests that Respondent, Air Z Flying Service, Inc. ("Air Z"),iJrovide tocounsel for the Adm.inistratoiall oftlle information requested in this discovery request as provided below. The requested information should be sent to: Cole R. Milliard, Enforcement Division, AGC-300, Office ofthe ChiefCounsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591, facsimile (202) 267-5106, no later than 30 days after service ofthis discovery request. All documents requested which the responding individual claims privilege or any other objection as a ground for non-production shall be identified chronologically as follows: (a) date; (b) title; (c) type ofdocument (e.g., memorandum, report, chart, etc.);

I 

### , \(d) subject matter (withoutrevealing the information as to which privilege or statutory authority is claimed); (e) factual or legal basis for the claimedprivilege, or any other authority which provides the claimed ground for privilege. This discovery is a continuing request, through the date ofthe hearing in this matter, for Petitionerto supplement or amend his answers and produce documents ifnew or different information or new or different documents are obtained during the pendency ofthis matter. New evidence should beprovided in accordance with section 13 .220(i) ofthe Rules ofPractice, 13 C.F.R. § 13.220(i). DEFINITIONS 1. Use of"you" and "your" refers to Air Z, Air Z's agents, Air Z's attorneys, and any other person(s) acting or

### purporting toact"for or

### orfl5elialfOfAifZ-:-
.. - 2. The words "and" and "or" shall be construed conjunctively and disjunctively as necessary to make the request inclusive rather than exclusive. The word "including" shall be construed without limitation. 3. The words "document" and "statement" mean, without limitation, the following items, whether printed or recorded or reproduced by any mechanical or electronic process or written or produced by hand: agreements, communications, correspondence, memoranda, summaries or records oftelephone conversations, summaries or records ofpersonal conversations or interviews, diaries, graphs, reports, notebooks, note charts, plans, drawings, sketches, maps, summaries or reports ofinvestigations, opinions or reports ofconsultants, photographs, motionpicture films, brochures, pamphlets, advertisements, circulars, press releases, drafts, letters, and marginal comments appearing on any document, and other data
2compilations from which information can be obtained or translated, ifnecessary, into reasonably usable form. 4. The words "describe" and "state" meanto set forth each fact, consideration, circumstance, act, omission, event, transaction, occurrence or statement which supports, refutes, concerns, relates or refers to the matter(s) referenced or described inthe interrogatory, and in addition, means to identify each oral communication and each document which concerns, refers
or relates to such fact, consideration, circumstance, act omission, event, transaction, occurrence
or statement.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 1. On or about May 28, 2008, Air Z sent Ritch Kovacic for a pre-employment drug**---~** _._---------- --------------------------------------------**~~ --~--------**  Admit
___Deny
__ _ 2. On or about JUlie 6, 2008, Ritch Kovacic performed aircraft maintenance or preventative maintenance duties for Air Z on civil aircraft N94EW. Admit
___Deny
__ _ 3. Civil aircraft N94EW is listed onAir Z's part 135 operations specifications. Admit Deny
__ _ 4. On or about July 17, 2008, Air Z's Medical Review Officer verified Ritch Kovacic's pre-employment drug test as negative for a prohibited substance and reported the verified negative result to AirZ in accord with 49 C.F.R. Part 40. Admit Deny
__ _

3

### INTERROGATORIES I. Identify each and every person Petitioner intends to call as a witness in this
. proceeding by providing the person's name, occupation, and business address. 2. For each and every witness identified in answer to Interrogatory No. I, state the nature ofthe witness's testimony (i.e. factual witness or expert witness); the subject matter upon which each intended witness is expected to testify; the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify; and a narrative slUllmary ofthe grounds for each opinionto which the witness will testify. 3. For each and every witness identified as an expert in answer to Interrogatory No. 2, state 

### in detail the expertise possessed by each expert witness in the subject matter area on which the witness will opine. 

### ---------4:---**·-Liscaln~Xlllbltsyou** iITtendfbuse-artneneanrfgintllls ca"'se'.--


### REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS I. For each ofthe foregoing Requests for A<;Imissions you deny inwhole or part, describe withparticularity the basis for each denial. IdentifY the Request for Admission by nlUllber, for each that you deny 

### in whole orpart, and state the specific basis for your denial of that Request for Admission. IdentifY each and every fact that supports your denial. 2. For each ofthe foregoing Requests for Admissions you deny in whole orpart, identify and provide any and all documents on which yourely 

### in support ofyour denial(s). Your response to this Interrogatory should identifY which denial(s) is/are addressed by each doclUllent provided inresponse to this request.



### 43. Provide copies ofany document to which you referred to orrelied upon in answering the immediatelypreceding requests for admissions. For each document produced, identifY the request for admission that itpertains to for which youreferenced the document. 4. For each and every witness identified as an expert in the preceding interrogatories, provide a copy ofhis or her current curriculum vitae. 5. Provide copies ofall documents that Petitioner intends to introduce into evidence thathave not already been submitted to the Administrator. 6. Provide copies ofany statements made by witnesses identified in the preceding interrogatories concerning, referring to, or involving the circumstances set forth in the complaint. 7. Provide copies ofeach and every document to which you referred orrelied upon in answering the preceding interrogatories.

Date: December 16,2010. Respectfully submitted, 

# U&rx

# titlIk1! Nicholas R. Milliard, Esq. Enforcement Division Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Telephone: (202) 267-3452 Facsimile: (202) 267-5106



### 5 

### ,

# ,CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifY that I sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, certified retmn-receipt requested, a confirmation copy ofthe Administrator's Request for Discovery and Production of Documents inIn the Matter of AirZ Flying Service, Inc, FAA Docket No. CPI0SWOOlO, Case No. 2009SW910051, addressed to: Laurence E. Rohl, President, Air Z Flying Service, 

### Inc. 355 Richmond Road, Hangar 5 Richmond Heights, Ohio 44143
In addition, I hereby certifY that I sent a confirmation copy by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, certified retmn-receipt requested ofthe foregoing document: The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder

. U.S. Department ofTransportation --------'effice**ofIIearings;-M~0;-R:oom-EtZ-:32f)r-------------------** 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 

## s.£. Washington, D.C. 20590

Date:

### _---'I-"-~_-_I_te--'--I 

### 0
_____ _In the matter of : AIR Z FLYING SERVICE INC. FAADocket

### No. CPlOSWOOlO FDMS NO. FAA-2010-0974 Case 

### No. 2009 SW910051 JUDGE: (to be assigned) RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

Respondent Air Z Flying Service Inc., by and through its president, Laurence E Rohl, states for its answer to the Complainant's Request for Admissions as follows. The numbering is the same as on the Requests submitted by Complainant:

1. Denied 2. Denied 3. Admit as to June 2008; Denied as to present time. 4. Denied Respectfully Submitted,

# ~z4-11 Laurence E. Rohl, President Air Z Flying Service Inc. 355 Richmohd Rd. Hangar 5 Richmond Heights, Ohio 44143 216-261-2992Certificate ofServke A copy ofthese response to request for admission was served this 

### /;Z day ofJanuary 2011 by regular mail on: Nicholas R. Millard, Esq, Office ofChiefCounsel, Federal Aviation Adminstration; 800 Independence avenue, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20591
Laurence E. Rohl

# EXHIBIT 7RECORDING TODAYS TACH FLIGHT TIME TOTAL 

### TIME," SERVICE Description of Inspections, Tests, Repairs and Alterations Entries must be endorsed with Name, Rating and Certificate Number of

. Technician or Repair Facility. (See back pages for other speCific entries.)



### , .-.- -..

# EXHIBIT 8**~-A~ :1~02:00AM.**  lob U
........ H_ /CoI<clod '" CMCIOH-a.EVElAHO"WlllOUGHBY**V~** 'IHM 

### '¥*pvl MRO Pl.dI&shed N",,"**MROA~** 

## "0""",
__"" 1"""""'ml_,"'lo",,,"E_1 '
....'riOl**l.abTcat~** IHHSIDOT DAU[3SCflEEN**Tcat~~~** loOT**JooN~** r------------ Ird.I;tly 10**MIS~** IfMCSA

H -t 137314 of 1136618 >-**~1,:8.· ~**  ,..."**~** 

### '1--- """""By 

### 'I**-~--:** 

### ::1**~** ColSicNmlo: IT. WHEELER

.**'~CoI~N~_ICoocerh'a~** MHO'**Ccrn~** !5I2SI2OO3 5:17:11 PM**L.ab'£Cf-R~** 0
.... r

# EXHIBIT 91<1 " 31+i7 0142135 I- i-i,
.... iJ**~** "J6..tdomcfIO:**1~4S ~'Narne.::**  !Ai:Z**~,!"ype: I.R~_~omef:=::1**  R'efmrodBy;**I~~~** <=J."

1rC-..,---c':=,:-.-::-..,--...,.,.,...,--,,-::-=,:-7-c-i**~** . . . ,**r::,E:~~:U;:,** 

### I**r:'AlE~ ~~\~~'~'-.I** **'~~~~'** 

## IJ**~s~'u~llll y17~**  ::;1-- 

### To 'j12q1/99963ll**~'. ~**  

### . . • .**~** 

### ..**,~** 

### ... ... r A_ToESa_ 

### r M"""';"" AU:u:tID:

-**B~H~1** R •••**w:b.;H~1 RandomNoS'~1**  AucitTt..olJ**~l** Ado:iOoneII.-.IQI**R~D~I** I '**~** l'contecnJ,silIing Il::ie.*ltnl PtX>k I**o~1 ActivOE~1** **Dn.vT~l** AIoohoITi"m-!**~Il.eb$** 

### M_I,_J 

### I'>,**-Addr~~:-'I~-~~~::;;~-----** 

## ----"- ".-_.--**-~ ~2:1**  "'"**~I~=="---** State:**~** Zip: "14409<=;--- PhooD:. 1440-953-299:2 Fox: 1«0-953-2993

. . I

# EXHIBIT 10

### .Jun.30.2010 1:07PM A; CORP 

## (\ ((I 

# ?f? ALTERNATIVE JAfElY 

# «TIDING JOlUTIONI 

# ij<>\)u 

# UJj
. June 30, 2010 

### Karen L. Leamon Manager, Special Investigations Branch DIUg AbatementDivlsion Office ofAerospace Medicine Ms. Leamon, 

### No. 0370 P. I

This is aresponseto yourrequestregardJng atestresult for 

### Air Zprovided by Ritch Kovack (SSN 279-56-9352) on 5/28/08, reportedby Advanced To:!ticology Network (ATN) for specimen

### # 105602188. I will 

### respondto your questions in

### the sequenceprovidedin yOU! a-mail dated 6/29/10, with a briefintroduction to 

### the relationship between ConcentraMedical Center (Concentra) andASTS Inc. ASTS provides MRO andrandom selection services to approximately 15,000 client companies for Coneentra in

### apl'!oximately 30 ConecntraMedical Centers. Many of these are small cOmpanies that send an employeeto Concentraonrare occasions. When the Concentra Center (In

### this casethe Concentra 

### inWilloughby, OH) obtains anew client, they complete a**set~up**

### foltn and forWard theinfot.tnation (company name, location, contactperson, method ofresult delivery, etc) 

### to bothATN and ASTS. ASTS then creates anew clientin

### ourdatabase and awaits atestresult. In many instances, particularly with smallercompanies, the first 

### indication that

### ilia company is 

### anew clientto the ConcentraCenter·is ilie arrival ofa dono
.. ;attemptingto provide a spedmen

### fa, adrug screen collection, with no advance notice. If



### this company is 

### subjectto DOT test;ingregulations, the Conecntra Center will collect the specimen and list

### ASTS as the MRO for that 

### collection. The staffat Concentrais 

### then instIUcted to 

### completethe new clientinformationfoltn andforward to

### ASTS 

### and A TN. Amthenprocesses the speelmen andreports the resultto ASTS. In

### the specimen in

### question, the new clientinformationfoltn was notforwarded to 

### ASTS. The specimenwas collected. ASTS was named the MRO, andthe specimen was forwarded to 

### ATN andreportedto 

### ASTS. 

### 1nthe eventthat

### ASTS receives aresult 

### from ATN without amatching client company in Oill' 

### database, itis ourprocedure to e-rnall the ConcentraCenterthat collected the ASTS Ino. 185,LR" W. ;Bere..d>1Pro Wyoming, Ml 49519 PhOliO: 616-531-6661 FAX; 616-534-5545

### JudO. 2010 J:OJIM 

### A CORP No. 0370 P. 2
specimen and request II set-up form to allowus to reportthe testresult. Typically, the requestreceives immediate response and ASTS is ableto reportthe resultina timely manner. On very rare occasions, the request does notreceive a response, which results in repeated requests to the ConcentraCenter. These requests are senton a daily basis listing every company and specimenthat requires information to report. ASTS understsnds the importance oftimeUness inthe reporting ofspecimens, which requires us tomonitor test results notreported on a daily basis. QUestions: ASTS contacted ConcenJraMedical CenterinWilloughby requesting information onthe cli.ent company thatwould allow us to reportthe testresult viae-mail orfax on numerous occasions. Our audittrail on ournew system originated on the date ournewsystemwas installed in2009, therefore we are unable to reportthe ll'Umber 

### and time ofeachrequest. The conversations betweenASTS and ConceniIawere via e-mail and fax andpertained only to the requested information that would allowus to reporttheresultto AirZ. No infonnation

### Was exchangedregarding the actual result. ASTS conta.cted the CenterAdministrator at 

### the Willoughby Concen.traMedical Center. We are not certain ofthe name ofthe CenterAdminisiIatuIback inMay uf2008. ASTS was unableto contactAirZ as we didnothavethe address, phone nwnber, orthe nllIlle oftheDERforthis company. 

### The only information we had. at thattime was derived from the testresultreported by ATN andthe CCF. Air Z did notcontactASTS during the time thatthe result was receivedfrom ATN and the time thatASTS reportedthe result. As ASTS did not have any company infol1IlatiO.ll, and sincetheregulatiOIlll prohibitthe MRO fruw revortingto anyone exceptthe DERfor AirZ, we were unable to reportthe testresult. ASTS received all ofthe information (the testresult and the CCF) to verify the testresult; however, we did):)(>thave MY informationregarding the company. The verification process is not initiateduntil we have infonnation that allows US to :reportthe result Until thattime, theresultremains in"limbo" while everyreasonable effortis made to obtain the appropriate company infonnation. WhenASTS received company cuntact information, we verified the result and immediately contactedthe DERfrom AirZ ofthe testresult. As ASTS MRO services are a clientofConcentraMedical Centers, a charge 

### is generated atthe end ofeverymonth for each specimenreceivedfrom ATN collected at each ConcentraMedical Center. Atthe end ofMay, the Willoughby Concentrawas invoiced for the specimen received listing the date ofcollection, donor's name, and SSN.

ASTS Ino. 1853 RW.llerend!< Dr. Wyoming, MI 4&51g Phone: 616-531-6661 FAX: 616-534-5545Jun. 

### 30. 2010 1:07PM A CORP 

### No. 0370 P. 3

At no 

### point didASTS 

### reportthe 

### reSIlltto Air

### Z, Concentra

### or any 

### othel' party, verbally 0).' 

### written, until the set-up sheetwas received

### via:Faxtransmission onJuly 

### 15,2008. ASTS then verifiedthe result and forwarded the resultto the DER atAirZ. I hope this information is 1lSeful 

### and please contactus ifwe may be offurther assistance.

# Sil)/l~ .

# ~-Presi:t

ASTS Inc. 1853 R..W. Berends Dr. Wyoming, Ml 49519 Phone: 616-531-6661 FAX: 616-534-5545

# EXHIBIT 11

### CIVILPENALTY SUBPOENA ])t.,

### _~e:s 

## TUt) /77
IntheMatter of: " Docket No.: CP10SWOOlO AIR Z FLYING SERVICE, INC. DMS No.: .-"2"'O.,lo-DQL<9"'74:!.....---:-::---:-
______ _ FAA Case Number 2009-SW-910051 Issnedon: //'\.74 II 

## It), clDIJ To: 

# &{5!6r1rai., oI!r.e.emrls. -1is'15- ",,032

# IVd/lCt:,dJfve.:/;!&~ 77 

## ,0 

# cqM-l1Cl01/e.- r

## /!lICfl(jtUL 

# J/t//fla Under 14 C.F.R. § 13228(a), YOU ARE REQUIRED: 

# o To appear and testify before an Administrative Law Judge ofthe Department ofTransportation at: in the city of
__________ on the
______ day of
_______ 20
__' at _____am 

# o To appear and testify at 

### adeposition to be conducted by: at: in the city of on the at _____am _____ day of
_______ 20
__,

Stephanie McClain Hearing Docket Clerk Authority: 14 C.F.R. § 13.228; 49 U.S.C. §§ 5121 and "1.47GX1), or 49 U.S.C §§ 46104 and 106(g)(1) ANY PERSON WHO DOES NOT OBEY THIS SUBPOENA IS SUBJECT TO FINE ORIMPRISONMENT ORBOTH UNDER 49 U.s.C § 46313.

## c**~,** .I": ,-

.... --" ,. w: L'l, ," 

### Et::.:::,' 

### ZOII J.lIN 

### 26 All 10: 29

### SUBJECT: RESPONSE**fO~** 

### "SECOND REQUEST fOR DISCOVERY" fROM: Laurence E. Rohl, Air Z Services, Inc.

#1 Kovacic was an employee of T & G , not Air Z. Also this was not a pre-employment test. He was already employed by T & G. See employment records previously sent. #2 Kovacic duties were for T & G, not Air Z. T.his work was done at the direction of T & G, not Air Z. See employment records previously sent. #3 (response to request for admission #4) The statements made in this request for an admission are not true. See documents attached.