^.RTMENT^' -



### r \ 

## U.S . DE|'M^|^^M6 FTRANSPORTATIO N i"^ * t f > t i y f* * n FEDERA L AMM NADMINISTRATIO N ' ^ *««'^ ^ " ^ « « » ^ B« r MA Y ^ 0 2Q V 

# BEARIN G DOCKE T In th e matte r

of : FA A Docke t No . CP 1 O

S WO O 1 0 FDM S NO . FAA-2010-097 4 AI RZFLYIN GSERVIC EINC . Cas e No . 200 9 SW91005 1 JUDGE : YODE R RESPONDEN T MOTIO N FO R LEAV ET O FIL EDELAYE D RESPONS ET O ADMINISTRATOR' S MOTIO N FO RDECISION , INSTANTE R No w come s Responden t

Ai r ZFlyin g Servic e In c and , i n th e even t it s respons e t o th e Administrator' s motio n for decisio n i s no t

timely , request s that

i t b e allowe dt o file th e attache d motio n i n oppositio n o n th e basi s that th e Responden t

di dnot receiv e acomplet e cop y o f th e Administrator' s motio n whe n i t was firs t mailed . Onl y after

contactin g opposin g counse l di dAi r Zreceiv e th e complet e motion . I n support o f thi s motion , acop y o f

arecen t communicatio n from Administrator' s counse l i s attached .

Respectfiill y Submitted , Laurenc e E . Rohl , Presiden t Ai r ZFlyin g Servic e Inc . 35 5 Richmon dRd . Hangar 5 Richmon dHeights , Ohi o 4414 3 216-261-299 2

### Missing pag e fromMotion fo r Decisio n Page 1 of 1

Pre vI Nex t | Repl y| Repl yAl l | Forwar d | Delet e | Prin t | Mov e t o folder. , From : Cole.MillJarcl@faa.go vSav e Addres s | Header s T o : lrohl@lostnation.co m C C : Dat e : Tue , 3 May201 1 10:27:5 8 -040 0 Subject : Missin g pag e fro m Motio n fo rDecisio n Dea rMr . Rohl : I receive d you rphon e messag e regardin g th e motio n fo rdecisio n missin g pag e two . I hav e attache d a cop yo f th e motio n s o tha t yo u wil l hav e th e entir e document . I f yo u hav e troubl e wit h th e file , please le t m e know . Unde r1 4 C.F.R . s . 13.218(d) , answer s t o motion s ar e du e n o late rtha n te n (10 ) day s afte rservic e o f th e motion . Th e motio n wa s serve d o n Apri l 21 , 201 1 b ycertifie d mai l an d signe d fo ra t you rRichmon d Height s addres s byJan e Frisin a o n Apri l 23 , 2011 . Te n day s afte rservic e wa s yesterday . Ma y2 , 2011 . However , 1 4 C.F.R . s . 13.211(e ) add s fiv e day s t o th e tim e yo u hav e t o respon d becaus e th e motio n wa s sen t b ymail . Yo u mus t therefor e respon d byMa y9 , 201 1 (whe n a du e dat e fall s o n a weekend , i t i s pushe d u p t o th e nex t busines s day) . Le t m e kno wi f yo u hav e an yfurtherquestions . Sincerely , Col e Milliar d 'Col e R . Milliard , Esq . Enforcemen t Division , AGC-30 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 (202 ) 267-345 2 (phone ) (202 ) 267-510 6 (facsimile ) 

### Ai rZ Motio n fo rSJ.pd f (Binar yattachment )

Pre vI Nex t | Repl y| Repl yAl l | Forwar d j Delet e | Prin t | Mov e t o folder .



### http://mail.timesync.com/Xa254cccfcc9d9b9a9aeb814f52/rmail.814.cgi?&mbx=Main&ms.. . 5/10/201 1Certificat e o f Servic e A cop y o f thi s answe r

t o th e Motio n for

leav e t o file amotio n i n oppositio n wa s serve d thi s I c da

y o f May 201 1 b y regular

mai l on : 1 . Nicola s R . Millard , Attorney , Enforcemen t Divisio n AGC-30 0 Offic e o f Chie f Counsel , Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washingto n D . C . 2059 1 2 . Hearin g Docket , Federal Aviatio n Administration , Orvill e Wrigh t Building , 80 0 Independenc e Avenu e S . W. , Washingto n D . C . 2059 1

Xaurenc e E . Roh lU.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N 

# LiECEIVE D HEARIN G DOCKE T

I n th e matte r

of : FA A Docke t No . CPIOSWOOI

O FDM S NO . FAA-2010-097 4 AI RZFLYIN GSERVIC EINC . Cas e No . 200 9 SW91005 1 JUDGE : YODE R RESPONDEN T MOTIO N I N OPPOSITIO N T O ADMINISTRATOR' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO N No w come s Responden t

Ai r ZFlyin g Servic e Inc , an dsubmit s it s motio n i n oppositio n t o th e Administrator' s motio n for decision . Th e basi s for

thi s motio n i s tha t

ther e i s agenuin e issu e o f material fac t

t o b e resolve dat

trial , t o wi t

whethe r Responden t

ha dreceive daverifie d negativ e tes t

resul t befor e asubjec t

"hire " o r "employee " performe dasafety sensitiv e functio n o n a n aircraf t operate dunde r

it s par t 13 5 charte r

certificate . I . Th e Responden t

wil l not g o int o th e detail s o f

th e complain t

o r th e intricacie s o f

th e law. . Whil e Responden t

doe s no t tak e issu e withth e basi c la w expounde db y th e Administrato r concernin g th e standar dfor a"motio n for

decision " th e pathb y whic hth e Administrato r arrive s a t it s conclusion s i s i n at

leas t on e cas e controlle dsubstanc e tes t reports , afe w detail s o f

th e law an dfact s mad e b y th e Administrato r ar e to o blatantl y incorrec t o r misleadin g that

the y mus t

b e initiall y brough t

t o ligh t here .2 . Administrato r claim s that

document s submitte din adiscover y respons e ar e "implie d admission " o f

th e veracit y o f

all th e informatio n containe di n thos e documents . Thi s i s don e b y referencin g th e genera l lega l effec t o f failin g t o den y an y particular allegatio n o f

th e complain t

i n a n answer , (se e pp . 1,3, 4 o f motion ) No t

onl y i s thi s legall y incorrect , i t i s mos t misleadin g t o thi s court regardin g th e factual issu e o f wha t Ai r Zmigh t hav e submitte d(whic hi s not attache d a s th e reference dexhibi t

4) . Exhibi t

4 ( fromAdministrator' s motion ) i n n o way makes an y admissio n b y Ai r

Za s t o th e factua l allegation s suggeste db y Administrator . Additionall y Ai r Z' s answe r

fileda t th e outse t

o f thi s actio n denie danythin g not specificall y admitted . Th e whol e reasonin g proces s use db y th e Administrato r her e is , i n actuality , completel y confiising . 3 . Fro mth e tim e Ai r

Zreceive dnotic e o f

th e propose dactio n b y th e FA A i n thi s case , i t ha s bee n repeatedl y state db y Ai r Zt o official s o f

th e FA A tha t

i t wa s th e belie f

o f Ai r Z personne l that

th e negativ e tes t

ha dbee n verifie dan dsuc hinformatio n receive db y Ai r Zprio r t o th e tim e th e safet

y sensitiv e maintenanc e functio n b y subjec t Kovaci c wa s performe do n Jun e 6 , 2008 . (se e Statemen t

o f Bradle y Roh l attache da s Exhibi t A ) Howeve r

th e FA A insiste dthat coul dno t b e th e cas e becaus e all o f it s record s sho w that

th e tes t o n th e subject' s specime n wa s not foun dt o b e negativ e unti l o n o r abou t Jul y 17 , 2008 . I n fac t

tha t i s th e very allegatio n in th e complain t i n thi s cas e , (se e sectio n I I (4 ) (6 ) (c ) o f th e Complaint . Furthermore , th e FA A i n on e o f it s discovery response s ) no w admit s tha t i t wa s unawar e o f

document s fromth e MR O confirmin g tha t

th e specime n wa s teste dan dfoun dnegativ e in May 2008 , an dth e MR O in fac t verifie dth e negativ e tes t

resul t n o late r tha n Jun e 6 , 2008 . ( Se e Exhibi t B attached : an d Exhibit s 3 an d8 , attachmen t A o f Administrator' s ow n motion . Thes e wer e subpoenae dfro mth e MR O b y Ai r

Z,an dsen t

t o Administrator' s counse l i n discovery) . Thi s i s certainl y proo f thatth e specime n i n questio n ha dbee n tested , foun dt o b e negative , (apparentl y o n o r abou t May 2 8 o r 29 , 2008 ) an dthe n verifie db y th e MR O n o late r than Jun e 6 , 2008—^asndprobabl y soone r (no t Jul y 17 , 200 8 whic hi s allege di n th e complain t whic hi s th e dat e o f

th e allege dviolation) . Th e onl y issu e remainin g i s whethe r Ai r Zha dknowledg e o f

tha t negative , verifie dresul t

prio r t o Mr . Kovacic workin g o n tha t aircraf t o n Jun e 6 , 2008 . Th e attache dstatemen t o f Bradle y Roh l clearl y present s informatio n that i s consisten t

withth e positio n o f

Ai r Zfi-omth e onse t

that i t receive daconfirmatio n o f tha t negativ e tes t

resul t prio r t o th e tim e whe n Kovaci c worke do n th e aircraf t i n question . Th e Administrato r ha s th e burde n o f

proof , at trial , o f provin g th e contrary . Th e la w impose s n o requiremen t upo n th e Responden t

a s t o th e metho dthat

Responden t may us e t o '"''receive averifie dnegativ e tes t result " for

th e subjec t

dru g specimen . No r

doe s Administrato r

attemp t t o cit e an y la w o r

regulatio n regardin g such . Th e proble mher e was that becaus e o f

abreakdow n i n th e actio n expecte do f on e o r mor e entitie s wit hwhic hAi r Z contracte dt o performth e dru g testin g functio n o n th e subject , th e expecte dimmediat e dispatc h o f averifie dnegativ e tes t

resul t wa s no t immediatel y forthcoming . Eve n i f Ai r Zcoul db e hel dstrictl y for any acts o f

servic e agents , a s th e Administrato r claims , i t exercise ddu e diligenc e i n obtainin g th e necessary informatio n s o that it s busines s coul dcontinue dwhil e th e contractor s sorte dou t thei r "re dtape" . Ai r

Zha s attempte dt o gai n an y possibl e informatio n i n thi s regar dbut ha s bee n stifle db y th e unexplaine dgros s delay b y th e FA A i n bringin g thi s cas e fort h(1 9 month s fro mth e tim e th e tim e Enforcemen t Investigativ e report wa s receive d-se e FA

A orde r 2150.3 B Chapte r

6 , sectio n 25. ) Th e Administrator' s respons e t o tha t

ha s essentiall y bee n o f

th e natur e that

a s lon g a s th e actio n wa s brough t withi n th e statut e o f

limitatio n the y ca n dela y al l the y want . (Se e exhibit C - Answe r

t o Interrogatory # 9whic hwa s th e Administrator' s respons e t o explai n th e prejudicia l dela y i n th e case—als o se e

exhibi t B , Administrator' s supplementa l answe r t o Interrogatory #9 ) I n som e case s record s n o longer exis t whic hha s prevente dAi r Zfromcollatin g informatio n tha t woul dsupport

th e material issu e o f

fac t here , (se e exhibi t

D , th e la b respons e t o Ai r

Zsubpoena ) Ai r

Zha s bee n prejudice dprocedurall y an dno w th e Administrato r ask s thi s Court

t o compoun dth e proble m There i s aclear

issu e o f fac t t o b e resolve dTh e Administrator , no w tha t th e allegation s i n it s very complain t

hav e bee n clearl y refute db y informatio n o f whic hi t wa s no t awar e at th e tim e i t mad e th e decisio n t o file th e action , ask s thi s court t o gran t adecisio n i n it s favo r

withou t th e benefi t o f havin g an y factual issu e decide db y a n impartia l magistrate . Suc hwoul db e patentl y unfair . Th e botto mlin e i s ther e i s aclear materia l factual issu e regardin g th e knowledg e b y Ai r Z o f th e tes t that wa s verifie dnegativ e o n o r befor e Jun e 6 , 2008 , ( no t Jul y 17 , 200 8 a s Administrato r

ha s se t fort hi n it s very complaint. ) Althoug hth e Administrato r woul dobviousl y like t o avoi dth e issu e b y it s legall y unsupporte dmotion , t o d o s o woul dden y Ai r Zth e procedura l an dsubstantiv e du e proces s i t i s clearl y entitle dt o unde r th e law . Administrator' s motio n shoul db e denied .

Respectfull y Submitted , 0 Laurenc e E . Rohl , Presiden t Ai r ZFlyin g Servic e Inc . 35 5 Richmon dRd . Hangar 5

# Cf/os' ^ ool' *

Ma y10 , 201 1

EXPLANATIO N O F LETTE R 1 wrot e a lette rt o th e inspectio n tea m o n Jul y23 , 200 8 i n a hurrie d manne rbecaus e the y wante d a brie f lette ro f correctio n o n th e Ritc h Kovaci cmatter . The ywante d th e lette rfaxe d t o ther e roo m sinc e the ywer e leavin g soon . The ydi d no t see m ver yconcerned , sinc e al l o f m y othe rrecord s wer e i n order . I di d no t hea rbac k fro m the m s o I though t th e matte rwa s rectified . Th e date s ar e of f b ym ymistake , probabl ybecaus e I wa s rushe d du e t o m yothe rman ydutie s wit h th e FBO . I actuall ysen t Ritc h Kovaci co n 5-28-0 8 an d receive d a verba l negativ e withi n th e next coupl e days . Th e MR O als o woul d le t m e kno wa t tha t tim e tha t I woul d b e gettin g a fax . Since i t wa s a n unsecur e fa xI le t th e secretarykno wa fa xwoul d b e comin g i n an d t o pu t i t i n m ymai l box . I wen t bac k t o m yFB

O duties . Upo n receivin g a verba l "negative " fro m th e MRO , I le t Ritc h Kovaci ckno wtha t h e wa s i n th e rando m dru g progra m an d tha t h e wa s abl e t o wor k o n Ai rZ Flyin g Servic e aircraft . I onl y"OK " a perso n fo rAi rZ wor k i f 1 hav e a confirme d negativ e result , verba l o rwritten . Th e reaso n fo rwriting , "Don' t remembe rwha t happene d afte rthat. " Wa s tha t I di d no t remembe rwha t happene d t o th e origina l faxe d resul t sheet . Whe n I di d a n audi t o n m yow n records , I notice d tha t I wa s missin g Ritc h Kovacic' s dru g resul t sheet . I calle d Concentr a t o ge t a n additiona l cop yo f th e dru g result . The ytol d m e t o contac t th e MR O fo rth e results . I calle d th e MRO , Choic e Point , fo ra n additiona l cop yo f th e tes t results . I receive d tha t cop yo n 7-17-08 . I the n pu t i t i n hi s records .

Bradle yS.Roh l ( /