.. 

SERVED: MAY 29, 2012 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

) 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ) 

) 

Complainant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

AIR Z FLYING SERVICE, INC. ) 

) 

Respondent. ) ___________________________ ) 

FAA DOCKET No. CP10SW0010 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

OMS No. FAA-2010-0974 

INITIAL DECISION 

OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RICHARD C. GOODWIN 

.Em!ru!: Complainant did not prove the alleged violation. The Complaint is dismissed. 

I. Background 

The Federal Aviation Regulatio~s ("FARs") prohibit Part 135 operators from 

employing any individual performing a "safety-sensitive" function unless the 

operator has first received for that persori a verified negative drug test result. 

Respondent Air Z Flying Service, Inc. ("Respondent" or "Air Z"), of Willoughby, OH, 

as a certificated operator under Part 119 authorized to conduct operations under 

Part 135, is required to comply with this rule. Complainant Federal Aviation 

Administration ("Complainant," "FAA," or "the agency'') asserts that Air Z stands in 

violation: the carrier allowed an individual, the agency says, to perform maintenance 

duties - safety-sensitive functions -prior to receiving for that person a verified 

negative drug test result. 

Certain underlying facts are not disputed. The parties agree that Ritch 

Kovacic ("Mr. Kovacic" or "the employee") was given a pre-employment drug test on 

behalf of Air Z on May 28, 2008. It also is undisputed that Mr. Kovacic performed 

safety-sensitive duties on an Air Z air<iraft on June 6, 2008.1 Air Z, th~ parties also 

agree, did receive the employee's verified negative drug test result; they differ as to 

1 Exh. C-8; Exh. R-D; Tr. 32. Complainant's exhibits are referred to by "C" followed by the exhibit 

number; Respondent's exhibits are designated "R" followed by a letter. See Tr. 54. 
2 

when. Resolution of this question will determine the outcome of the case (see Tr. 18-

19). 

Complainant contends that Air Z did not receive a verified negative test 

result for Mr. Kovacic until July 17, 2008 (Tr. 37-38). As such, it concludes that 

Respondent violated the former 14 C.F.R. §135.251(a).2 Complainant asks for a civil 

penalty in the amount of $7,700. 

Air Z claims that it received the required notification on June 6, 2008. The 

employee first performed a safety-sensitive function, the carrier continues, later that 

day (seeTr. 22-24). Air Z denies the agency's allegation. 

The burden of proof rests with the agency. To prevail it must establish proof 

of the charge. by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. 

14 C.F.R. §§13.223 and 13.224; Toyota Motor Sales, FAA Order No. 94-28, pp. 6-7, 

1994 FAA Lexis 275, p. 10 (September 30, 1994). 

A hearing was held in Cleveland, OH on January 18, 2012. I determined that 

a written decision was appropriate (Tr. 235-38). Briefs have been filed and the 

matter is ready for decision. 

II. Discussion and Findings 

Amy Frankel was the FAA's first witness. Ms. Frankel had been a branch 

manager in the Drug Abatement Division of the agency's Office of Aviation Medicine 

at the time of the alleged infraction. She supervised an FAA team which inspected 

Air Z's drug program on July 23, 2008 (Tr. 27, 39). The inspection made findings 

which led to the charge before us today. 

Ms. Frankel explained the duties of Part 135 carriers. She testified that an 

employee (including a prospective employee) may not perform a safety-sensitive task 

unless and until 1) a pre-employment drug test is conducted prior to an offer of 

employment; 2) the test result is negative; 3) the result is verified by a Medical 

Review Officer ("MRO"); and 4) the result is transmitted to the prospective> 

employer's 'Designated Employee Representative ("DER"). Transmission may be 

effected by e-mail, fax, or a telephone call, as well as by regular mail (Exh. C-3; Tr. 

26-33, 86-87, 111). 

The Department's regulations governing drug and alcohol testing procedures, 

found at 49 C.F.R. §40, further describe the process. First the prospective employer, 

in this case Air Z, selects a "collection site." This is where the "employee" (including 

individuals subject to pre-employment testing) presents himself/herself for testing. 

A "collector" at the collection site receives the specimen and initiates and completes 

2 See Tr. 18-19,21. At the time of the alleged infraction, the FAA's drug and alcohol regulations were 

found in 14 C.P.R. Part 121, Appendices I and J. They have since been recodified. Effective July 13, 

2009, they are found in Part 120, subparts E and F. See Final Rule, 74 Fed.Reg. 22649 (May 14, 2009). 

The Initial Decision ("I.D.") will refer to the then-current sections. The regulation assertedly violated, 

§135.251(a), also was found in Part 121, Appendix I, §V.A.l. It is now §120.109(a)(1). 
3 

the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form ("CCF"). See 49 C.F.R. §40.3. 

(defining, among other things, "collection site," "collector," and "employee"). The 

collector then ships or hand-delivers the specimen to a Department of Health and 

Human Services ("HHS")-certified laboratory ("the lab"). §§40. 73, 40.81. The 

collector also transmits from the collection site (preferably by fax) four copies of the 

CCF: one, along with the specimen, goes to the lab; the others are sent to the 

Medical Review Officer ("MRO"), the DER, and the employee. §§40. 73(a)(4), (5), and 

(9); §40.97(b); see also www.dot.gov/odapc/documents/part40guestions.pdf (answers 

to frequently asked questions). The MRO, a physician, obtains the specimen from 

the lab -the lab and the MRO are always different -- and reviews the lab results. 

§§40.3 (defined) and 40.121;see alsoTr. 183. (The entity on whose behalf the MRO 

reviews the results also is referred to as the MRO.) When the lab result is negative, 

as in this case, it is the MRO's responsibility to verify the result and then release his 

or her findings to the DER. §§40.127, 40.165(a). The DER is an individual at the 

prospective employer designated as the person responsible for receiving specimens 

from MROs. No one other than the DER may receive the test result on behalf of the 

prospective employer. This protocol is designed to respect the confidential nature of 

the testing process and the DER's expertise (Tr. 30, 33-34, 52, 104-07, 125). 

The prospective employer may use an intermediary in this process. The 

intermediary is sometimes referred to as a service agent. A service agent provides 

services such as collection, laboratory analysis, and third-party administration. 

Third-party administrators typically perform administrative tasks. They are 

neither employers nor employees. 49 C.F.R. §40.3. 

The agency's investigation of Air Z turned up a document issued by 

ChoicePoint Medical Review Services ("ChoicePoint") entitled Controlled Substance 

Test Report (''Test Report"). ChoicePoint. was identified as the MRO entity. The 

Test Report showed that Mr. Kovacic had presen:ted himself for a pre-employment 

drug test at a collection site identified as Concentra Medical Center ("Concentra") 

(Exh. C-1). Concentra, Ms. Frankel testified, is a service agent as well as a 

collection site, providing specimen collection throughout the country (Tr. 41). This 

collection site was in Willoughby, OH, and is sometimes identified as "Concentra 

Willoughby." Kovacic's sp-ecimen was transmitted from Concentra Willoughby to the 

lab, Advanced Toxicology Network ("ATN"), on May 28, 2008 (Exh. C-7). 

Mary Ann Newton (formerly Mary Ann Peltier, see Exh. C-7, p. 2) is an MRO 

manager at ChoicePoint (itself a unit of Lexis-Nexis). She testified that the 

specimen of the donor, identified in its records as Rich Favacic [sic], had been 

collected on May 28, 2008. 3 While ChoicePoint documents also indicate that the 

· specimen was tested at ATN on July 16, 2008--:- six weeks after the lab received it --

3 Exh. C-1; Tr. 183. There is no doubt that the donor was in fact Mr. Kovacic. "Rich Favacic" 's social 

security number, used as a personal identifier in this process, is the same as Mr. Kovacic's. Additionally, a 

second identifier, known as the specimen ID, is the same nine-digit mimber (105602188) as in 

ChoicePoint's Test Report. I find that the name simply is a misspelling. 

Mr. Kovacic's social security number, as well as other personal identifying information, has been redacted 

from all documents because of privacy and identity-theft concerns. See, e.g., Tr. 56-57. 
4 

Ms. Newton explained that July 16 actually is the date that ATN sent the specimen, 

or its results, to ChoicePoint. At that point ChoicePoint became the MRO entity. 

ChoicePoint was familiar with Air Z. The carrier had an existing account 

with it. But the six-week gap between Mr. Kovacic's drug test and the lab's 

submission to ChoicePoint for verification was not normal, Ms. Newton said. 

Further, she did not know how ChoicePoint had obtained the test result. Such a 

scenario occurs less than one percent of the time, she said. But because the 

specimen had come from an existing client, ChoicePoint proceeded with its normal 

protocol (Tr. 184-86, 190-96, 199; Exh. C-7). 

Concentra official Deborah Joy testified that Concentra next sent Mr. 

Kovacic's CCF to ChoicePoint in response to a request from Air Z's DER. 

ChoicePoint had received the CCF on July 17, 2008. That same day Mr. Kovacic's 

test was verified as negative by ChoicePoint's individual physician-MRO. On that 

day ChoicePoint also faxed the results to Air Z through the carrier's DER. Air Z's 

DER was identified as Mr. Bradley ("Brad") Rohl. Ms. Frankel added that her 

investigators failed to find any evidence that Air Z had received Mr. Kovacic's test 

results prior to July 17, 2008 (Exh. C-"1; Exh. C-3; Tr. 31-33, 37, 40-42, 65-75, 78-79, 

90, 96, 104, 109). 

· Ritch Kovacic, as we have seen, performed a safety-sensitive function for Air 

Z on June 6, 2008. That was prior to the date that Complainant contends that 

Respondent received the employee's verified negative drug test result -- July 17, 

2008. The agency concluded that Air Z had hired Mr. Kovacic and had permitted 

him to perform a safety-sensitive task prior to receiving a verified negative preemployment drug test result for him. Those circumstances make out a violation of 

§135.251(a) (now §120.109(a)) and are the basis of the FAA's Complaint. SeeCompl. 

Br., pp. 4-11. 

But evidence in the case also suggested that a different MRO entity, 

Alternative Safety and Testing Solutions ("ASTS"), of Wyoming, MI, was involved in 

Mr. Kovacic's testing, and that ASTS may have transmitted a negative drug test 

result to Air Z on June 6,··2008, coincident with the day Kovacic first performed a 

safety-sensitive task. 

A document issued by ASTS entitled "DOT Result" records a pre-employment 

drug test for "Ritch Kova~k" [sic] on May 28, 2008 at the Concentra Willoughby 

collection site. (As with ChoicePoint's Test Report, the identifiers used for the donor 

show beyond doubt that the donor was Mr. Kovacic. Seen. 3 on p. 3 ). The DOT 

Result shows that the specimen was transmitted to the ATN laboratory. To this 

point the process appears identical to the process described by which ChoicePoint 

had become the MRO entity. The CCF, which is attached to the document, confirms 

this. But the CCF also shows that on May 28, 2008, a copy was faxed to ASTS. The 

specimen was sent to ASTS as well. Finally, the DOT Result records that ASTS' 

individual MRO, Dr. Norman Weber, "verified" the negative test result under date of 

June 6, 2008 (Exh. R-A; Exh. R-B, p. 3; Tr. 56-58, 60, 75, 80, 89, 108). 
• 

5 

The agency's investigators, who uncovered the drug-testing trail suggesting 

that ChoicePoint was the MRO and had transmitted Mr. Kovacic's results on July 

17, 2008, stated that they had been unaware of the ASTS-generated DOT Result (Tr. 

56, 81). Investigators had known of ASTS. FAA supervisory investigator Frankel 

had contacted ASTS' MRO officials, Dr. Weber and his assistant, Jan Garza. But 

she had never spoken toASTS' President, Mr. Lavern ("Vern") Jones. Nor had she 

visited ASTS (Tr. 48, 54, 66; Exh. C-3). She believed that Dr. Weber, ASTS' MRO, 

had not been involved in Mr. Kovacic's test (Tr. 48). 

Complainant nonetheless was able to cast doubt on whether Air Z actually 

had obtained the results of Mr. Kovacic's drug test from ASTS on June 6. According 

to Ms. Frankel, neither Dr. Weber nor Dr. Weber's assistant, Ms. Garza- the person 

who typically contacted the DER with negative test results- notified Air Z of the 

test's outcome. Garza told Frankel that ASTS' computer program failed to document 

the release of any drug-test result to Air Z. Garza pointed out that Air Z had not 

been an existing client of ASTS (Exh. C-3; Tr. 48-53, 60, 65-68, 75). 

Vern Jones, the President of ASTS, also testified. Initially he provided 

additional background about the drug-testing process. Mr. Jones stated. that ASTS 

was the "preferred" MRO for Concentra, the collection site - meaning that on 

Concentra's generic CCFs, ASTS was listed as MR0. 4 But the aviation entity, Air Z, 

had not been an ASTS client. 

Concentra completes a "set-up sheet" when collecting for a new client, Mr. 

Jones explained. Customarily the set-up sheet lists the name and address of the 

client (Air Z in this case), the identity of its DER, and the preferred method of 

communicating test results to the DER. Concentra forwards this information to the 

lab (ATN in this case) and to the MRO entity, ASTS. The lab processes the 

specimen and reports the result toASTS (Exh. R-C; Tr. 124). 

The evidence showed that Concentra had faxed Mr. Kovacic's CCF toASTS 

under date of May 28, 2008. The CCF was directed toASTS' individual MRO, Dr. 

Weber, and named the client as Air Z (Exh. R-A; Exh. R-B, p. 3; Tr. 58, 60). But 

Concentra had not sent Air Z's set-up sheet. ASTS contacted Concentra-11nd asked 

for the sheet, but did not receive it until July 15, 2008. It was only then, Mr. Jones 

testified, that Jan Garza, the assistant to Dr. Weber, called Air Z's DER, Brad Rohl, 

with the negative result. ASTS also mailed the result (Tr. 122-37, 145, 150-51, 154, 

163-65, 168; Exh. R-C; Exh. C-6). 

Yet the ASTS-generated document "DOT Result" stated that Mr. Kovacic's 

drug-test result had been "verified" on June 6, 2008 (Exh. R-A; see I.D., p. 4). Didn't 

that mean that Kovacic's negative result had been reported to Air Z on that date? 

No, Mr. Jones stated. It meant only that ASTS had performed the process of 

verification on a negative test result - that is, that it had reviewed the CCF and lab 

test result - no later than that date. ASTS does not notify the aviation client, he 

4 The Concentra official, Ms. Joy, agreed, testifYing thatASTS was Concentra's house, or default, MRO. 

Tr. 108. 
6 

explained, until it has "information that allows us to report the result." (Exh. R-C, p. 

2). The critical information lacking was the identity of Air Z's DER. 

ASTS did not transmit Mr. Kovacic's results to Air Z on June 6, Mr. Jones 

stressed. Instead it moved the results from its active file to its "limbo" file. The 

results were to remain in limbo until ASTS received from Concentra the set-up sheet 

-- and specifically the identity of the aviation entity's DER. Mr. Jones explained 

that ASTS would not attempt to learn directly from the aviation entity who the DER 

was- even though Air Z's telephone number was listed on Concentra's CCF faxed to 

Dr. Weber on May 28. Instead, ASTS contacts the collection site on a daily basis 

until it obtains the set-up sheet. Concentra finally faxed ASTS the set-up sheet on 

July 15, 2008. Later that day, Mr. Jones testified, ASTS telephoned the Air Z DER 

and informed him of,Mr. Kovacic's negative test results. ASTS did not produce a 

record of the telephone call (Tr. 133-36, 145-49, 154, 158-65; Exh. R-A; Exh. R-C, p. 

2). 

Brad Rohl, Air Z's Drug Program Manager and its DER for the previous ten 

years, was a witness for Respondent. He stated that he sent Mr. Kovacic to 

Concentra, the collection site, for his pre~employment test. Mr. Rohl testified that 

he received a verbal negative on June 6, 2008. He then told Air Z's director of 

maintenance that Mr. Kovacic was ready for work (Tr. 204-07, 213-14). 

Mr. Rohl had written two statements after he had purportedly received Mr. 

Kovacic's verbal negative. These statements came under examination. In the first 

of them, dated July 23, 2008, Rohl had written a short account of his role in Mr. 

Kovacic's tests in connection with the agency's investigation of that date. Rohl wrote 

that he had not had any test results for Mr. Kovacic in June of 2008 and that he had 

requested an "additional copy" be faxed from the MRO entity to him. Rohl testified, 

however, that his statement did not imply that he had failed to receive a verbal 

negative test result. Investigators had asked him only about any written approvals 

he may have been given; his statement addressed only the circumstances 

surrounding any written notification, he insisted (Exh. C-2; Tr. 42, 68, 215-16, 228). 

Mr. Rohl's statement also says that Mr. Kovacic had been available·forwork 

-safety-sensitive work-- on May 28, 2008 (Exh. C-2; see Tr. 217). In testimony, 

however, Rohl asserted that the statement should have read "not available" (Tr. 217· 

18). Yet a photocopy of Kovacic's personnel folder says that he was available for 

work on May 29, 2008 <Exh. C-9; Tr. 220, 227). 

In a second statement, written in the form of a letter dated May 10, 2011, Mr. 

Rohl set out to clarify his earlier statement. This letter was created after the 

enforcement action had begun and nearly two years after his initial statement. Rohl 

had written the earlier statement, he wrote, "in a hurried manner;" the dates noted 

there "are off by mistake." He had sent Mr. Kovacic for his pre-employment drug 

test on May 28, 2008, the later statement says, and had received a verbal negative 

"within the next couple [o£1 days." The MRO, ChoicePoint, had told him he would be 

getting a confirmatory fax. But in auditing his records, he realized that he could not 

locate it. He had called ChoicePoint for an "additional copy." Rohl received the fax 

on July 17, 2008, the statement concludes (Exh. C-10). 
7 

Why, then, is there no mention of the fax in Mr. Rohl's initial statement? 

That statement was written just six days after he said he had received it. The 

answer to that question is unclear. But other evidence shows that Rohl was truthful 

about the timeline. ChoicePoint records indicate that it had received a CCF request 

from Rohl on July 16, 2008 (Exh. C-7, p. 3; Tr. 109-110). ChoicePoint's Test Report 

shows that Air Z's DER received a faxed result on July 17, 2008 (Tr. 230-33; Exh. C1; see l.D., p. 4) -the date Rohl cited in his later statement. 

III. Decision 

I find and conclude that Complainant failed to prove the violation. The 

Complaint will be dismissed. 

Respondent submitted credible evidence tending to.show that Air Z had been 

informed by June 6, 2008, and prior to Mr. Kovacic's employment, of Mr. Kovacic's 

verified negative drug test results. Mr. Rohl testified that he had received a verbal 

negative on that date; his statement of May 10, 2011 asserts that. he had received a 

verbal negative within a couple of days of Kovacic's May 28, 2008 test; and an ASTS 

document showed that ASTS had "verified" Kovacic's sample on June 6, 2008. 

Complainant, as the party with the burden of proof, was duty-bound to overcome 

this evidence sufficiently to show the violation. It did not. 

The agency also failed to adequately investigate the involvement of ASTS. 

The FAA's investigation had determined that ChoicePoint was the MRO (Tr. 69, 72). 

And Complainant demonstrated that ChoicePoint did not transmit a verified 

negative for Mr. Kovacic before July 17, 2008. But only after she was shown 

evidence of ASTS' connection with Mr. Kovacic's testing did the agency's supervisory 

investigator, Ms. Frankel, acknowledge ASTS' possible role (Tr. 80; Exh. R-A). 

Agency investigators, including Frankel, were unaware that pre-employment drug 

specimens could be verified by two MROs (Tr. 95-96, 110). Neither had ASTS told 

Ms. Frankel that it had released any information to Air Z (Tr. 65-66)- which, as has 

been seen, it had. Because the agency's investigation failed to sufficiently explore 

ASTS' role in Mr. Kovacic's drug test, Complainant did not refute the evidence 

tending to show that ASTS verified, and perhaps transmitted, Kovacic's negative 

results before the employee began safety-sensitive work. This gap in its probe 

created significant doubt in the proof. 

It is true that ASTS' Mr. Jones testified that verification, shown to be on 

June 6, did not necessarily mean that Air Z's DER had been notified of the 

employee's drug·t~st result. Yet Mr. Kovacic first undertook safety-sensitive work 

for Air Z on that very day. Was that just a coincidence? (see Tr. 22, 85; Resp. Br., p. 

8). Concentra's Ms. Joy testified that, assuming that the MRO has the DER 

information, reporting drug test results to the employer normally takes place right 

after verification-- generally the same day.5 Concentra had transmitted the CCF, 

which named Air Z as the client, toASTS on May 28, 2008, nine days prior to June 

5 Tr. 116-17. DOT regulations state that transmission of verified results to the DER must take place so that 

the DER receives it within two business days ofMRO verification. 49 C.F.R. §40.167(c). Direct telephone 

contact with the DER "is the preferred method of immediate reporting." §40.167(b)(1). 
8 

6. Moreover, Jones' testimony asserting that ASTS customarily did not contact 

clients to obtain DER contact information was thrown into doubt by Concentra 

official Deborah Joy, who asserted that industry practice in fact is to initiate contact 

with a company to obtain such information (Tr. 115). 

Under the circumstances described above, to make its case Complainant 

needed to show that the date that Air Z had been initially notified by ASTS of 

Kovacic's negative drug test result was later than June 6. But Mr. Jones did not 

produce telephone logs or any other evidence tending to show when this notification 

occurred. See Resp. Br., pp. 7, 8. 

It also is true that Mr. Rohl's testimony contained inconsistencies. He was 

not able to indicate with certainty when he had determined that Mr. Kovacic was 

ready for work. Mr. Rohl was, however, firm in asserting that he had received an 

oral verified negative on June 6. He did not waver from that. His assertion, further, 

was supported by trustworthy evidence. I find that he was a credible and sincere 

witness. Rohl's credibility, moreover, was borne out in the controversy over his 

failure to mention his "additional copy'' from ChoicePoint in his statement written 

just six days after he had purportedly received the copy - after evidence showed that 

he had in fact received the copy when he said he had (see I.D., p. 6). I believe Rohl 

when he averred that he had never authorized an employee to work in a safetyrelated function prior to receiving a negative report (Tr. 210). Mr. Rohl's chief 

offense was in making and keeping slapdash records. 

Based on the foregoing, I find and conclude that Complainant failed to prove 

a violation. The Complaint is hereby dismissed.6 

Attachment - Service List 

6 Any appeal from the Initial Decision to the Administrator must be in accordance with section 13.233 of 

the Rules of Practice, which requires 1) that a notice of appeal be filed no later than 10 days (plus an 

additional5 for mailing) from the date of this order and 2) that the appea1 be perfected with a written brief 

or memorandum not later than 50 days (plus 5 for mailing) from the date of this order. Each is to be sent to 

the Appellate Docket Clerk, Room 924-A, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence A venue, 

S.W., Washington, DC 20591, and to agency counsel. Service upon the presiding judge is optional. 
j 

FAA Docket No. CPIOSWOOIO 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

CORRECTED SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 

ONE COPY 

Laurence E. Rohl, Respondent's Representative 

President/Director of Operations, 

Air Z Flying Service, Inc., Respondent 

355 Richmond Rd., Hangar 5 · 

Richmond Heights, OH 44143 

TEL: 216-261-2992 

FAX: 216-261-2993 

Nicholas R. Milliard, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office ofthe Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-3452 

FAJ(: 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Richard C. Gg,odwin, 

Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.(E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Staff Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 

Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, · DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.