--^ARTMENTOF 

®

:'-^!SPORW!ON 

. ':.K:T0PER/VTiC3NS 

U.S. Department OfficeoftheChiefCounsel-r, -,.^ , p [-> i. :j»po Independence Ave., SW. 

of Transportation , ,i •'. l O '• -^Washington, DC 20591 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

October 4,2010 ' ' ^ ' " ' J 

Hearing Docket '" ' ' ^ ^^-^ 

Federal Aviation Administration , - -. r-.,--. • .^ .• :•--;-

Orville Wright Building 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

RE: In the Matter of Air Z Flying Service. Inc.. ( ff\f^ 

FAA Docket No. CP- [To be Assigned], Case No. 2009SW910051 )C,f »^5lOCiO|0 \r^^^ . (^C^rj 

Enclosed please find the original and one copy of the complaint in the above-referenced case. 

The Complainant expects that the hearing in this case will last one day and requests that the 

hearing be held m Cleveland, OH. All correspondence to the Complainant in this matter should 

be directed to undersigned counsel at: 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Tel: (202)267-7268 

Fax: (202)267-5106 

Respectfully, 

Agnes M. Rodriguez, Senior Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Enclosure 

cc: Laurence E. Rohl, President 

Air Z Flying Service, Inc. 

355 Richmond Rd., Hangar 5 

Richmond Heights, OH 44143 
i 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

'• - 20- Q 

In the matter of: 

AIR Z FLYING SERVICE, INC. 

FAA Docket No. CP-[To be assigned] 

Case No. 2009SW910051 

JUDGE NOT ASSIGNED 

COMPLAINT 

The Federal Aviation Administration (Complainant), by counsel, hereby files its 

Complaint, pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions 

(14 C.F.R. § 13.208), and states as follows: 

I. 

Respondent Air Z Flying Service, Inc. (Respondent or Air Z) was advised through a 

Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty dated February 26, 2010, and by a Final Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty dated September 8, 2010, that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the 

amount of $7,700. By a letter dated September 20, 2010, Respondent requested a hearing. The 

Enforcement Division, FAA Office of the Chief Counsel received Respondent's written request 

for a hearing by Certified Mail - return receipt requested on September 28, 2010. 

II. 

1. Air Z is now, and at all times mentioned in this document was, the holder of Air 

Carrier Certificate No. ZFDA222T, issued under 14 C.F.R. part 119 and authorized to conduct 

operations vmder 14 C.F.R. part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

2. At all times mentioned in this docvraient, 14 C.F.R. § 135.251(a) required that 
each certificate holder or operator test each of its employees who performs a fimction listed in 

14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix I, in accordance with that appendix.* 

3. Under 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix I, § HI, an employee who performs aircraft 

maintenance or preventive maintenance duties, directly or by contract for an employer, performs 

a safety-sensitive fimction listed in Appendix I and must be subject to drug testing under an 

antidrug program implemented in accordance with that appendix. This includes ftill-time, parttime, temporary, and intermittent employees regardless of the degree of supervision. 

4. At all times mentioned in this document, 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix I, § V.A.1 

stated that no employer could hire any individual for a safety-sensitive fimction unless the 

employer first conducted a pre-employment test and received a verified negative drug test result 

for that individual. 

5. Under 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix 1, § II: 

a. "hire" means retaining an individual for a safety-sensitive fimction as a 

paid employee, as a volunteer, or through barter or other form of compensation. 

b. "verified negative drug test result" means a drug test result from an HHS 

[Health and Human Services]-certified laboratory that has undergone review by a 

Medical Review Officer ("MRO") and has been determined by the MRO to be a negative 

result. 

6. The Complainant's inspection of Air Z revealed the following: 

a. On or about May 28, 2008, Air Z administered a pre-employment drug test 

to Ritch Kovacic under its antidrug program. 

' Effective My 13, 2009, the FAA's drug and alcohol regulations in 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendices I and J were 

recodified and are now found in 14 C.F.R. part 120, subparts E and F. See Final Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 22649 (May 14, 

2009). The Final Rule is also available at the following internet address: 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office orp/beadquartersofilces/avs/ofnces/aam/drugalcohoVtesting/ 
b. On or about June 6, 2008, Mr. Kovacic performed aircraft maintenance or 

preventive 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 MRO verified Mr. Kovacic's preemployment drug test as negative for a prohibited substance and reported the verified 

negative result to Air Z. 

d. Air Z hired Mr. Kovacic for a safety-sensitive function without first 

conducting a pre-employment drug test and receiving a verified negative drug test result 

for him. 

m. 

1. By reason of the foregoing. Air Z violated 14 C.F.R. § 135.251(a), in that it failed 

to test each employee who performed a fimction listed in 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix I in 

accordance with § V.A.1 of that appendix. 

2. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46301 (a)(5)(A), Air Z is subject to a civil penalty not to 

exceed $11,000 for each violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

3. Under the facts and circumstances of this case and in accordance with the 

Administrator's Sanction Guidance in FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B, a civil penalty of 

$7,700 is appropriate for the violation in this case. 
WHEREFORE, the Complainant, by coimsel, respectfiilly requests that the 

Administrative Law Judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the 

amount of $7,700. 

Respectfiilly submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Date: October 4,2010 

Agnes M. Rodriguez 0 0 

Senior Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Telephone: (202) 267-7268 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 

NOTE: 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(a), a written answer to a complaint must be filed no later 

than thirty (30)days after service of the complaint. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this date, I have sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, certified mail 

- return-receipt requested, a copy of the foregoing complaint in the matter of Air Z Flying 

Service, Inc., FAA Docket No. CP-[To be assigned], Case No. 2009SW910051, to: 

Laurence E. Rohl, President 

Air Z Flying Service, Inc. 

355 Richmond Rd. 

Hangar 5 

Richmond Heights, OH 44143 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date, I have sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, 

certified mail - return-receipt requested, the original and one copy of the foregoing document to: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Orville Wright Building 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Date: October 4,2010 

fi.lTi^M^