UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MA ITER OF 

M.T.I. TRAVEL, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. F AA-20 14-0110 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FAA CASE NO. 2013S0950011 

RECEIVED 

JUL 1 5 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S DEMAND 

FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its response to 

Respondent's Demand for Production of Documents, pursuant to 14 C.P.R. 13.220, and states as 

follows: 

1. List and submit to Respondent's counsel all exhibits you intend to use at the hearing in this case. 

ANSWER: Each and every document listed in Section C of the Enforcement Investigative Report 

may be used as an exhibit in this case. Copies are enclosed. 

2. State the names of any witnesses that you may call at the time of the hearing. as well as their 

addresses and occupations. 

ANSWER: Virginia Lozada. Manager, Eastern Compliance and Enforcement Center, FAA 

Miami Compliance & Enforcement Field Office, 2895 S.W. !45th Ave., Miramar, FL 33027. 

Santos Santoni-Rios, Inspector, Eastern Compliance and Enforcement Center, FAA 

Miami Compliance & Enforcement Field Office, 2895 S.W. !45th Ave., Miramar, FL 33027. 

Rick Ciuzio, Inspector, Eastern Compliance and Enforcement Center, FAA Miami 

Compliance & Enforcement Field Office, 2895 S.W. !45th Ave., Miramar, FL 33027. 

1 
Danny Yagubyan, Office Administrator, New Era Drug Testing, 432 West Broadway, 

Glendale, CA 91204. 

3. Attach all docwnents in the possession of the FAA that involve any of the allegations contained in 

the Complaint, whether or not the FAA intends to use the docwnents at the hearing. 

ANSWER: Attached. 

4. Attach copies of all written correspondence between the FAA and New Era pertaining to respondent, 

James Miller and MTI Travel, Inc. 

ANSWER: Attached 

5. State the names of all persons with knowledge of these allegations who are or were employed with 

New Era Drug Testing. To be clear, Respondent is seeking any and all documents including emails, 

computer data, and hard copy docwnents between New Era and the FAA having any relation to the 

subject of either James Miller and/or MTI Travel, Inc., as of January 1, 2010 until the present. 

ANSWER: Danny Yagubyan, Office Administrator, New Era Drug Testing, 432 West Broadway, 

Glendale, CA 91204. Any relevant docwnents are attached. 

6. State the names of all persons with knowledge ofthese allegations who are or were employed with 

Lab Corp. To be clear, Respondent is seeking any and all docwnents including emails, computer 

data, hard copy documents between Lab Corp and the FAA, having any relation to the subject of 

either James Miller and/or MTI Travel, Inc., as of2010 until the present. 

ANSWER: No such docwnents exist. Investigation continues. 

7. Please provide a swnmary of any proposed testimony of any of the FAA's witnesses who may or 

may not testify at the hearing. 

ANSWER: Ms. Lozada, and Inspector's Santoni-Rios and Ciuzio, are expected to testify 

concerning the inspection that was conducted on October 3, 2012, and the resulting enforcement 

action that was recommended. Mr. Y agubyan is expected to testify concerning the procedures for 

random drug testing that existed on the dates relevant to the FAA's Complaint. 

8. N arne any expert witnesses the FAA may call at the time of the hearing. 

ANSWER: None are anticipated at this time. 

9. State specifically, which Federal Aviation Regulations the FAA accuses MTI Travel Inc., of 

violating. 

ANSWER: Please see the FAA's Complaint. 

2 
10. With regard to any allegations that James Miller failed to attend random drug testing, state the dates 

and times the FAA maintains such failure occurred. 

ANSWER: Please see the FAA's Complaint. 

11. With respect to the previous question, attach copies, either by hard copy or data disc, any notes, 

emails or other correspondence generated by either New Era and/or Lab Corp., regarding 

compliance or failure to comply with random drug testing dates. 

ANSWER: Please see documents provided with this response. 

12. For all Regulations that the FAA deems that MTI Travel or James Miller violated, state the 

methodology that the FAA maintains James Miller, on behalf of MTI Travel, Inc., should have 

followed. In other words, what did he omit or offensively do in violation of the FAA regulations and 

state specifically what he should have done or not have done. 

ANSWER: Please see the FAA's Complaint. The FAA alleges that Mr. Miller was required to 

immediately report to the designated drug testing facility for a required random drug test which is 

failed to do. 

13. Provide the case citations of any cases, legal decisions, Decisional Law or published or unpublished 

opinions that support the FAA's position that either James Miller or MTI Travel, Inc. violated FAA 

regulations. 

ANSWER: Decisions: 

In the Matter of: OFFSHORE AIR, FAA Order No. 2001-4, Docket No. P98NM0025 

(May 16, 2001) 

In the Matter of: DAVID E. EVERSON, d/b/a NORTH VALLEY HELICOPTERS, 

INC. FAA Order No. 2004-5, Docket No. CPOOW AOOOl (EAJA), DMS No. 

F AA-2000-7729 (September 22, 2004) 

In the Matter of: PINNACLE AIRLINES, INC. FAA Order No. 2012-2, Docket No. 

CP09S00002, FDMS No. FAA-2009-0180 (May 22, 2012) 

In the Matter of: M & RHELICOPTERS, LLC, FAA Order No. 2013-4, Docket No. 

CPIOSOOOll, FDMS No. FAA-2010-1211 (September 5, 2013). 

Interpretations: 

Haglund (January 31, 2002) 

McElroy (May 31, 2005) 

3 
DeJoseph (Undated). 

Pratt & Whitney (August 7, 2006) 

Dworkin (February 22, 2008) 

Jackson (July 19, 2010) 

Fabian (July 23, 201 0) 

McPhaul (July 18, 20 12) 

Mason (October 23, 2012) 

Jobe (November 30, 2012) 

Mayo (April19, 2013) 

14. Produce any State chartered Documents oflncorporation or letters ofLLC, indicating that a 

company known as "Heli, Inc." existed in any of the 50 states of the United States during any time 

the FAA alleges Miller or MTI violated FAA regulations. 

ANSWER: Objection. This request calls for the production of documents that are not in 

possession of the FAA, if they, in fact, exist, and are not relevant to the FAA's complaint in this 

matter. The term "Heli, Inc." appears to be a part of the Respondent's defense and any such 

documents should be in the possession of the Respondent. 

Date: July 14, 2014 

Respectfully submitted, 

Ji&JnY#, 

Michael F. McKinley 

Senior Attorney 

Enforcement Division 

4