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. ) Chief Law Judge Ronnie A. Yoder 

) 

------------------------) 

ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTION FOR DECISION 

Complainant, pursuant to Rule 13.218(f)(5) of the Rules of Practice 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 of material fact and 

that the party making the motion is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw." 14 C.F.R. 

§ 13.218(f)(5). Complainant, the party making the motion, "has the burden of showing that there 

is no genuine issue of material fact disputed by the parties." § 13.218(f)(5). Additionally, Rule 

13.209(e) of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(e), states 

that "[ a lny statement or allegation contained in the complaint that is not specifically denied in 

the answer may be deemed an admission of the truth of that allegation." The Complainant will 

show, by admissions of Respondent, Air Z Flying Service, Inc. ("Air Z"), and by evidence 

known to the parties and attached to this motion, that no genuine issues of material fact exist and 

that the Complainant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

II. Summary of the Complaint 

The Complaint in this matter alleges that Air Z did not receive a verified negative result 

on the pre-employment drug test of its employee, Ritch Kovacic, before hiring him to perform a 

1 
safety-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 of that 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 of the Complaint. 

Air Z, in its Answer to the Complaint, admitted the entirety of Section I and the entirety 

of Section II, paragraph I. Air Z has therefore admitted it is the holder of Air Carrier Certificate 

No. ZFDA222T, issued under 14 C.F.R. part 119 and authorizing Air Z to conduct operations 

under part 13 5. 

III. Evidence Showing No Genuine Issues of Material 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 of clarity, 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 of the acts of its service 

agents. 14 C.F.R. § 120.103(c); 49 C.F.R. § 40.11. 

Proof of the 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 of the 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 of paragraph 6a. Both reports state 

the result of the testing of a 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 of its 

denials of the 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 of Exhibit 4 are included in this motion as Exhibits 

1,2,3,8,and9. ~ 

~. 

3 
authenticity or accuracy of the any of these 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 of material fact as to the Complainant's assertion in paragraph 6a of the 

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 of compensation. 14 C.F.R. § 120.7(j). Safety-sensitive functions 

include the maintenance and preventative maintenance of aircraft 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 if Mr. Kovacic was 

employed by T & G, Air Z still had the responsibility to administer a pre-employment drug test 

4 
before retaining Mr. Kovacic to perform maintenance on any of Air 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 of T & 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 of the 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 if T & G 

had a drug testing program, which it does not, nothing in 14 C.F .R. part 120 or 49 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 of material 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 in paragraph 6b of its 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 not perform any safety-sensitive functions (such as maintenance) for 

5 
Air 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 of Air Z in 

June 2008, as admitted by Air Z in its response to Complainant's Request for Discovery and 

Production of Documents. (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 of material 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 of the 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 of a verified negative result in 

Air Z's possession at the time of inspection. (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. 

6 
However, there is no evidence that Air Z received the verified negative result of Mr. 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 of the 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 of Mr. Kovacic from ASTS president Vern Jones. 

(Ex. 10.) In the 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 of the subpoena dated January 

10,2011 and issued to ASTS on January 26,2011. (Ex. 11.) It did not receive a copy of the 

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 of those 

service agents on Air Z. 49 C.F.R. § 40.15; see also 49 C.F.R. § 40.3 (defining "service agent" 

7 
to 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 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal 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-sensitive job takes a pre-employment drug test, but there is a significant delay in your 

receipt ofthe test result from an MRO or C/TP A [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 of a violation of the 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 Alaska Airlines, 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 it had a verified negative result for Mr. Kovacic's pre-employment drug 

test before hiring him to perform aircraft maintenance or preventative maintenance, a safetysensitive function. Therefore, there is no genuine issue of material 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 of Law 

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 

8 
with § V.A.l of that appendix (now codified at 14 C.F.R. § 120.109(a)). (Compl. § III, ~ 1.) 

There is no genuine issue of material fact that Mr. Kovacic performed a function listed in 

§ 120.105 for Air Z. He signed off that 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 that N94EW 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 of Appendix 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 of material fact that Air Z hired Mr. Kovacic to perform a function listed in section 

III of Appendix 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 of compensation. 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 of the charged violation has been proven, and because there is no genuine issue of 

9 
material fact as to the elements of that violation, the Complainant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law. 

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 of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Telephone: (202) 267-3452 

Facsimile: (202) 267-5lO6 

cole.milliard@faa.gov 
CERTIFICATE 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 Docket No. CPlOSWOOI0, Case No. 2009SW910051, addressed to: 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, 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 of the 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 Can tar '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/hallprovfded my 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 5 WITH 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 for the 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 2 
711712008 

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 

806ng brook,. 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: 

Test Result: 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 #: 

Test Aa:ount #: 

Test Client Name: 

Loartion 10: 

COst Center: 

MRO Phone: 

888-79+6574 

pre-Emplo)'ment 

DOT 

4409532992-44095:n9!12 

106162-00000 

Air Z O1arter 
EXHIBIT 3 
I -1---

RPORATIO 

I 

Alternative Safety & Testing Solutions 

I Donor 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 Z FLYING 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 of the 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 

LU -ni' 1"';-, I"" r, .' AN 10: 33 
EXHIBIT 5 
u.s. Department 

of Transportation 

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 6 
In the matter of 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C .. 

FAA Docket No. CPIOSWOOIO 

Case No. 2009SW910051 

A1R Z FLYING SERVICE, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Chief Law Judge Ronnie A. Yoder 

REOUEST FOR DISCOVERY AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

Pursuant to the discovery guidelines set forth in section 13 .220 of the Rules of Practice 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 to counsel 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 of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591, facsimile (202) 267-5106, no later than 30 days after 

service of this 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 of document (e.g., memorandum, report, chart, etc.); 

I 

, 

\ 
(d) subject matter (without revealing the information as to which privilege or 

statutory authority is claimed); 

(e) factual or legal basis for the claimed privilege, or any other authority which 

provides the claimed ground for privilege. 

This discovery is a continuing request, through the date of the hearing in this matter, for 

Petitioner to supplement or amend his answers and produce documents if new or different 

information or new or different documents are obtained during the pendency of this matter. New 

evidence should be provided in accordance with section 13 .220(i) of the Rules of Practice, 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 to act" for or orfl5elialf OfAif Z-:-.. -

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 of telephone conversations, summaries or records of personal 

conversations or interviews, diaries, graphs, reports, notebooks, note charts, plans, drawings, 

sketches, maps, summaries or reports of investigations, opinions or reports of consultants, 

photographs, motion picture films, brochures, pamphlets, advertisements, circulars, press 

releases, drafts, letters, and marginal comments appearing on any document, and other data 

2 
compilations from which information can be obtained or translated, if necessary, into reasonably 

usable form. 

4. The words "describe" and "state" mean to 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 in the 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 on Air 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 Air Z 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 of the 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 of the grounds for each opinion to 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 of the foregoing Requests for A<;Imissions you deny in whole or part, 

describe with particularity the basis for each denial. IdentifY the Request for Admission by 

nlUllber, for each that you deny in whole or part, 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 of the foregoing Requests for Admissions you deny in whole or part, 

identify and provide any and all documents on which you rely in support of your denial(s). Your 

response to this Interrogatory should identifY which denial(s) is/are addressed by each doclUllent 

provided in response to this request. 

4 
3. Provide copies of any document to which you referred to or relied upon in 

answering the immediately preceding requests for admissions. For each document produced, 

identifY the request for admission that it pertains to for which you referenced the document. 

4. For each and every witness identified as an expert in the preceding interrogatories, 

provide a copy of his or her current curriculum vitae. 

5. Provide copies of all documents that Petitioner intends to introduce into evidence 

that have not already been submitted to the Administrator. 

6. Provide copies of any statements made by witnesses identified in the preceding 

interrogatories concerning, referring to, or involving the circumstances set forth in the complaint. 

7. Provide copies of each and every document to which you referred or relied upon 

in answering the preceding interrogatories. 

Date: December 16,2010. 

Respectfully submitted, 

U&rx titlIk1! 

Nicholas R. Milliard, Esq. 

Enforcement Division 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

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 of the Administrator's Request for Discovery and Production of 

Documents in In the Matter of Air Z 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 of the foregoing document: 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

. U.S. Department of Transportation 

--------'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. 

FAA Docket 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 

216-261-2992 
Certificate of Servke 

A copy of these response to request for admission was served this /;Z day ofJanuary 

2011 by regular mail on: 

Nicholas R. Millard, Esq, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Adminstration; 800 

Independence avenue, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20591 

Laurence E. Rohl 
EXHIBIT 7 

RECORDING 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 ~ Col Sic Nmlo: IT. WHEELER 

. '~CoI~N~_ICoocerh'a~ 

MHO' Ccrn~ !5I2SI2OO3 5:17:11 PM 

L.ab'£Cf-R~ 

0 .... 

r 
EXHIBIT 9 
1<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 U Jj . 

June 30, 2010 

Karen L. Leamon 

Manager, Special Investigations Branch 

DIUg Abatement Divlsion 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

Ms. Leamon, 

No. 0370 P. I 

This is a response to your request regardJng a test result for Air Z provided by Ritch 

Kovack (SSN 279-56-9352) on 5/28/08, reported by Advanced To:!ticology Network 

(ATN) for specimen # 105602188. 

I will respond to your questions in the sequence provided in yOU! a-mail dated 6/29/10, 

with a brief introduction to the relationship between Concentra Medical Center 

(Concentra) andASTS Inc. 

ASTS provides MRO and random selection services to approximately 15,000 client 

companies for Coneentra in apl'!oximately 30 Conecntra Medical Centers. Many of 

these are small cOmpanies that send an employee to Concentra on rare occasions. When 

the Concentra Center (In this case the Concentra in Willoughby, OH) obtains a new 

client, they complete a set~up foltn and forWard the infot.tnation (company name, 

location, contact person, method of result delivery, etc) to both ATN and ASTS. ASTS 

then creates a new client in our data base and awaits a test result. 

In many instances, particularly with smaller companies, the first indication that ilia 

company is a new client to the Concentra Center· is ilie arrival of a dono .. ;attempting to 

provide a spedmen fa, a drug screen collection, with no advance notice. 

If this company is subject to DOT test;ing regulations, the Conecntra Center will collect 

the specimen and list ASTS as the MRO for that collection. The staff at Concentra is then 

instIUcted to complete the new client information foltn and forward to ASTS and A TN. 

Am then processes the speelmen and reports the result to ASTS. 

In the specimen in question, the new client information foltn was not forwarded to ASTS. 

The specimen was collected. ASTS was named the MRO, and the specimen was 

forwarded to ATN and reported to ASTS. 

1n the event that ASTS receives a result from ATN without a matching client company in 

Oill' database, it is our procedure to e-rnall the Concentra Center that collected the 

ASTS Ino. 185,LR" W. ;Bere..d>1 Pro 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 allow us to report the test result. Typically, the 

request receives immediate response and ASTS is able to report the result in a timely 

manner. On very rare occasions, the request does not receive a response, which results in 

repeated requests to the Concentra Center. These requests are sent on a daily basis listing 

every company and specimen that requires information to report. ASTS understsnds the 

importance of timeUness in the reporting of specimens, which requires us to monitor test 

results not reported on a daily basis. 

QUestions: 

ASTS contacted ConcenJra Medical Center in Willoughby requesting information on the 

cli.ent company that would allow us to report the test result via e-mail or fax on numerous 

occasions. Our audit trail on our new system originated on the date our new system was 

installed in 2009, therefore we are unable to report the ll'Umber and time of each request. 

The conversations between ASTS and ConceniIa were via e-mail and fax and pertained 

only to the requested information that would allow us to report the result to Air Z. No 

infonnation Was exchanged regarding the actual result. 

ASTS conta.cted the Center Administrator at the Willoughby Concen.tra Medical Center. 

We are not certain of the name of the Center AdminisiIatuI back in May uf2008. 

ASTS was unable to contact Air Z as we did not have the address, phone nwnber, or the 

nllIlle of the DER for this company. The only information we had. at that time was derived 

from the test result reported by ATN and the CCF. 

Air Z did not contact ASTS during the time that the result was received from ATN and 

the time that ASTS reported the result. 

As ASTS did not have any company infol1IlatiO.ll, and since the regulatiOIlll prohibit the 

MRO fruw revortingto anyone except the DERfor Air Z, we were unable to report the 

test result. 

ASTS received all of the information (the test result and the CCF) to verify the test result; 

however, we did):)(>t have MY information regarding the company. The verification 

process is not initiated until we have infonnation that allows US to :report the result Until 

that time, the result remains in "limbo" while every reasonable effort is made to obtain 

the appropriate company infonnation. When ASTS received company cuntact 

information, we verified the result and immediately contacted the DER from Air Z of the 

test result. 

As ASTS MRO services are a client of Concentra Medical Centers, a charge is generated 

at the end of every month for each specimen received from ATN collected at each 

Concentra Medical Center. At the end of May, the Willoughby Concentra was invoiced 

for the specimen received listing the date of collection, donor's name, and SSN. 

ASTS Ino. 1853 R W.llerend!< Dr. Wyoming, MI 4&51g 

Phone: 616-531-6661 FAX: 616-534-5545 
Jun. 30. 2010 1:07PM A CORP No. 0370 P. 3 

At no point did ASTS report the reSIllt to Air Z, Concentra or any othel' party, verbally 0).' 

written, until the set-up sheet was received via:Fax transmission on July 15,2008. ASTS 

then verified the result and forwarded the result to the DER at Air Z. 

I hope this information is 1lSeful and please contact us if we may be of further 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 
CIVIL PENALTY SUBPOENA ]) t., _~e:s TUt) /77 

In the Matter 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 of the Department of Transportation 

at: 

in the city of __________ on the ______ day of _______ 20 __ ' 

at _____ am 

o To appear and testify at a deposition 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 OR IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH 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.