;/4^pTM Ji^^^ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA K9tZf^tZi\iCir\ 

--7 ry-^yi^g^ OF TRANSPORTATIOWAC WC I V Cft J 

' ^ FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. ^AN 1 h 201J 

HEARING DOCKET 

:m JAIi 2M P |: 51 

In the matter of 

AIR Z FLYING SERVICE, INC. 

FAA Docket No. CPIOSWOOIO 

Cas CaseNo e No. 2009SW910051 

. 2UUyswyiU051 rPil'~( 

ChiefLaw Judge Ronnie A. Yoder Ifft^ ^.^O" 0^ ' ^ 

ADMINISTRATOR'S RESPONSE TO 

RESPONDENT'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND 

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 

In accordance with section 13.220 of the Rules of Practice in Federal Aviation 

Administration Civil Penalty Actions, 14 C.F.R. § 13.220, the Administrator of the Federal 

Aviation Administration files this response to Respondent Air Z Flying Service, Inc.'s request 

for production of docimients and interrogatories. 

ANSWERS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

7. Any document that Complainant intends to use in evidence in this case. 

Answer: The Administrator likely will rely on and likely will introduce into evidence 

the items of proof contained in the releasable portions of the Enforcement Investigation Report 

("EIR") in this case. The releasable portions of the EIR, i.e. with information privileged as the 

deliberative process of FAA employees and officials redacted, are included in this response. 

2. Any document that relates in any way to the drug testing of the subject Ritch Kovacic. 

This includes but is not limited to any document that the FAA has in its possession or has access 

to from: 

-Concentra 3900 Ben Hur Avenue, Willoughby Ohio 44094 

—Advance Technology Network 3560 Air Center cove, Memphis Tennessee 38118 

-ASTS 3030 IvanrestAve. Ste. 2 Grandville, Michigan 49418 

—Choice Point 480 Quadrangle Dr. Suite D Bolingbrook Illinois 60440 
—Lexis Nexus (sic) -successor company to Choice Point 

Answer: The releasable portions of the EIR and the attached documents regarding 

LexisNexis and ASTS are all such documents within the custody and control of the FAA. 

3. Any letter document, communication in possession of the FAA or that it has access to that 

any way relates to the substantive or procedural progress of this case within the agency, both as 

to the merits and the amounts of money requested in the complaint. This specifically includes 

but is not limited to, the enforcement investigative report (EIR), and any document that relates to 

the decision process to proceed with this case, the reasons for seeking the relief requested and 

any time or timing concerns. 

Answer: The Administrator objects to this request, as it is irrelevant, overly broad, and 

seeks documents that are privileged as the deliberative process of employees and officials of the 

FAA and as attorney work product. Insofar as this request is proper and permissible, the 

releasable portions of the EIR and relevant portions of the FAA's sanction guidance from Order 

2150.3B are included in this response. 

4. Any communications or document that references any communications between any FAA 

government employee amongst themselves, or with any person, firm or entity, including but not 

limited to those set forth in #2 above, concerning any procedural or substantive aspect of this 

case. 

Answer: The Administrator objects to this request, as it is vague, irrelevant, and overly 

broad, and seeks documents that are privileged as the deliberative process of employees and 

officials of the FAA, attorney work product, and/or attorney-client communications. 

5. Any document that the Complainant uses to respond to the respondent's interrogatories. 

Answer: Any documents relied on in responding to the interrogatories are attached. 
ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES 

1. State the name and title, and job description of the person answering these 

interrogatories. 

Answer: Nicholas R. Milliard, Attorney, Enforcement Division, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration. He performs legal work related to the enforcement of 

the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

2. State how the Complaint [sic] agency became aware of the alleged violations stated in 

the complaint, when those facts were discovered, enforcement actions taken, and what was done 

if anything to notify the respondent of any violations. Include the dates andpersqn(s) taking 

action for all such events. 

Answer: The Administrator objects to this interrogatory, as it is irrelevant, overly broad, 

and seeks information that is privileged as the deliberative process of employees and officials of 

the FAA. Insofar as this request is proper and permissible, the releasable portions of the EIR 

contain the requested information. 

3. State why there was no action taken on this case from the time the alleged "violation " 

was discovered by the complainant until February 2010. 

Answer: Under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(d)(7)(C) and 14 C.F.R. § 13.208(d), a Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty must be issued within two years of the date of the violation. The 

violation occurred on May 28,2008, and the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty was issued on 

February 26,2010, three months and two days before May 28,2010, when two years would have 

elapsed from the date of violation. 

4. During that period of time from the "discovery of the alleged violation(s) " until 

February 2010, state what, if any procedural or substantive actions were taken by the FAA or its 

employees concerning this case. In your answer please reference (andprovide per the 

accompanying request for production of documents), any specific actions whatsoever that were 

taken by the FAA or its agents that were taken in the processing of this case, or any specific 

actions or problems that caused any delay. Include the date of any action. 
Answer: The Administrator objects to this interrogatory, as it is irrelevant and seeks 

information and documents that are privileged as the deliberative process of employees and 

officials of the FAA, attorney work product, and/or attorney-client communications. 

5. State what qualifications or requirements are mandated by the FAA, or under any legal 

auspices, for the following entities to be permitted to provide services to the FAA for drug 

testing: 

—Concentra 3900 Ben Hur Avenue, Willoughby Ohio 44094 

—Advance Technology Network 3560 Air Center cove, Memphis Tennessee 38118 

-ASTS 3030 Ivanrest Ave. Ste. 2 Grandville, Michigan 49418 

—Choice Point 480 Quadrangle Dr. Suite D Bolingbrook Illinois 60440 

—Lexis Nexus (sic) -successor company to Choice Point 

Answer: Such qualifications and requirements may be foimd at Part 40 of Title 49 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (49 C.F.R. part 40) and startmg at page 19,644 of Volume 69 of the 

Federal Register (69 Fed. Reg. 19,644 (Apr. 13, 2004)). The Code of Federal Regulations is 

accessible at http ://www. gpo. gov/fdsvs/ and the Federal Register is accessible at 

http ://www.federalregister. gov. 

6. State which, if any, of those entities have failed to meet or provide documentation for the 

FAA with respect to those qualifications or requirements in any way. Please reference the 

details of any such problems and provide any documents relating thereto. 

Answer: The FAA does not develop or enforce the qualifications and requirements 

stated in the answer to Interrogatory No. 5, supra. The U.S. Department of Transportation is 

responsible for 49 C.F.R. part 40, see, e.g., 49 C.F.R. §§ 40.1,40.5,40.7. The U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services is responsible for 69 Fed. Reg. 19,644, see, e.g. 49 C.F.R. § 

40.81; 69 Fed. Reg. 19,644. 

7. State what, if any, investigation was done by the FAA with respect to the reporting of the 

drug testing done on subject Ritch A. Kovacic on any of the entities listed in #5, including but not 

limited to the transfer of information by and between any entities listed in #4 above, and in 

particular any delays involved. 
Answer: The Administrator objects to this interrogatory, as it is irrelevant and seeks 

information that is privileged as the deliberative process of employees and officials of the FAA, 

attorney work product, and/or attorney-client communications. In addition, see the answer to 

Interrogatory No. 6, supra. 

8. State the nature of any type of remedial, disciplinary, or corrective communication or 

action taken by the FAA with respect to any person or entity in this case, including but not 

limited to, those entities listed in # 5 above. 

Answer: See the answer to Interrogatory No. 6, supra. 

9. State the date the FAA received the Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR) and the 

specific, articulable reasons why the FAA did not meet its own targeted time of initiating 

enforcement action within 60 days of the receipt of such EIR report. See FAA order 2150.3B 

Chapter 6, section 25. 

Answer: The FAA is imable to state the date the FAA received the EIR because the 

question is vague and because the FAA generated the EIR based on its investigation of Air Z 

Flying Service Inc. See also the answer to Interrogatory No. 3, supra. 

10. State the reasons and the calculations of the requested penalty amount, including any 

laws or administrative regulations that form the basis thereof. Include what aggravating and 

mitigation factors were considered. 

Answer: The Administrator objects to this interrogatory, as it is irrelevant and seeks 

information that is privileged as the deliberative process of employees and officials of the FAA. 

Insofar as this request is proper and permissible, relevant portions of the FAA's sanction 

guidance from Order 2150.3B are included in this response 

11. State the date upon which the drug test for the specimen provided by subject Ritch 

Kovacic, on or about May 23, 2008, was confirmed negative. 

Answer: See Item of Proof #3 in the releasable portions of the EIR. 

12. State all methods (i.e. telephone, fax, "downloadfeed", e-mail, [sic] letter etc.) the FAA 

or any of its employees receives information re,garding any drug testing procedures or results 

from (1) specimen colleting agencies, (2) Medical Review Officers, and (3) laboratories. 
Answer: The FAA generally uses telephone, fax, email, mail, witness statements, and 

personal interviews to collect information from specimen collecting agencies. Medical Review 

Officers, and laboratories. 

13. State the full name address, and telephone numbers of anyone that the complainant is 

aware of who has information relative to this case. 

Answer: The Administrator objects to this interrogatory, as it is vague and overly broad. 

Insofar as this interrogatory is proper and permissible, the releasable portions of the EER are 

included with this response. 

14. State the name address, and telephone number of any witness that the Complainant 

intends to call in this case, and a summary of his or her expected testimony. 

Answer: Amy Frankel, Office of Aerospace Medicine, AAM-800, 800 Independence 

Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591, (202) 267-8015, is expected to testify about preemployment drug testing in the context of this case. 

Jim Ronan, MEACH, FAA Soutiiwest Region Office, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, 

TX 76137, (817) 222-5340, is expected to testify about the inspection of Air Z Flying Service 

Inc. 

Karen Leamon, Office of Aerospace Medicine, AAM-830, 800 Independence Ave., S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20591, (202) 267-8916, is expected to testify if needed in rebuttal. 

Mary Ann Peltier, LexisNexis Risk Solutions, 480 Quadrangle Drive, Suite A, 

Bolingbrook, IL 60440, (630) 679-5900, is expected to testify if needed in rebuttal. 

Vem Jones, ASTS Inc., 1853 R.W. Berends Drive, Wyoming, MI, 49519, (616) 531-

6661, is expected to testify if needed in rebuttal. 
The foregoing responses are based upon information officially furnished by other 

employees and agents of the United States. Upon information and belief, the responses are true 

and correct based on the information received at my request. 

The Administrator reserves the right to supplement, amend, and/or correct each of the 

foregoing responses based on the development of additional facts or information obtained 

through discovery or by other means. In producing the above-referenced documents, the 

Administrator reserves all objections, including but not limited to relevancy, admissibility, and 

privilege. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Nicholas R. Milliard 

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) 267-5106 

cole.milliard@faa.gov 

Dated: January 14, 2011 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, certified return-receipt 

requested, the original of the Administrator's Response to Respondent's First Request for 

Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories in In the Matter of Air Z Flying 

Service. Inc, FAA Docket No. CPIOSWOOIO, Case No. 2009SW910051, addressed to: 

Mr. 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 by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, certified returnreceipt requested a confirmation copy of the foregoing document (excluding any referenced 

attachments), addressed to: 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El 2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

And to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000 

Name: 

Date: