U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

) 

RECEIVED 

FEB - 7 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

In the Matter of Jett Pro Line Maintenance ) FAACaseNo.2011WP910076 

) 2...0\~- \0\\ ______________ _) 

COMPLAINT 

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

Complaint, pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. 13.208), and states 

as follows: 

I. 

On September 7, 2011, Respondent was advised by mail through a Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of$107,600. 

On January 27,2014, Respondent requested a hearing. 

I.I. 

1. Jett Pro Line Maintenance ("Jett Pro") is, and at all times mentioned herein was, the 

holder of Air Agency Certificate No.YUJR093Y, with Repair Station privilege issued 

under 14 C.F.R. Part 145. 

2. On or about April 2, 2004, Jett Pro opted to include paragraph A449 in its part 145 

operations specifications, which required J ett Pro to comply with the requirements of 14 

C.F.R. part 120, and 49 C.F.R. § 40, for its antidrug and alcohol misuse prevention 

program. 

1 
3. With regard to employee Randol Velasquez: 

a. On or about March 31, 2009, Jett Pro hired Mr. Velasquez to perform 

maintenance and preventive maintenance duties. 

b. Mr. Velasquez, a Senior Line Technician, performed aircraft maintenance and 

preventive maintenance duties on parts and/or components installed on aircraft used in 

operations conducted under 14 C.F.R. part 121. 

c. A records check conducted by Jett Pro directed to Certified Aviation Services 

revealed that on or about September 19, 2008, Mr. Velasquez's random drug test results 

were verified positive for the presence of drugs. 

d. On or about May 23, 2009, June 11,2009, and June 18,2009, while still 

employed by Certified Aviation Services, Mr. Velasquez had appointments with a 

Substance Abuse Professional (SAP). The SAP recommended that Mr. Velasquez 

receive six follow-up drug tests within twelve months following return to duty in 

accordance with the following schedule: 

July, 2009 

August, 2009 

September, 2009 

November, 2009 

December, 2009 

January, 2010 

e. On or about June 29,2009, Mr. Velasquez was administered a return-to-duty 

test that was verified negative on July 1, 2009. 

2 
f. On or about July 25, 2009, Mr. Velasquez was administered a drug test, marked 

as random on the MRO report, designated "1st test", and verified negative on July 28, 

2009. 

g. On or about December 3, 2009, Mr. Velasquez was administered a drug test, 

marked as random on the MRO report, designated "Employee test #2", and verified 

negative on December 7, 2009. 

h. Jett Pro failed to direct a collection under direct observation of Mr. Velasquez 

for the above referenced second follow-up test. 

i. On or about December 28,2009, Mr. Velasquez was administered a drug test 

marked as random on the MRO report, designated "RTS Random #3", and verified 

negative on December 30, 2009. 

j. Jett Pro failed to direct a collection under direct observation of Mr. Velasquez 

during the above-referenced third follow-up test. 

k. On or about November 29,2010, Mr. Velasquez was administered a follow-up 

drug test, designated "Test #4", and verified negative on December 1, 2010. 

l. On or about December 7, 2010, Mr. Velasquez was administered a follow-up 

drug test, designated "#5", and verified negative on December 10,2010. 

m. On or about December 20,2010, Mr. Velasquez was administered a follow-up 

drug test, designated "#6", and verified negative on December 22,2010. 

n. Contrary to the SAP's testing plan, on or about August, 25, 2009, Mr. 

Velasquez was administered an alcohol follow-up test, designated "1st test Alcohol Test". 

3 
o. Contrary to the SAP's follow-up testing plan on or about November 29,2010, 

December 7, 2010, and December 20, 2010, Mr. Velasquez was administered follow-up 

drug tests-all beyond the first twelve months after being returned to duty. 

p. Consequently, contrary to 49 C.P.R. § 40.307(d), the number and frequency of 

Mr.Velasquez' s follow-up testing did not comply with the drug-testing schedule 

determined by Jett Pro's "SAP" or Certified Aviation Services' SAP, and did not consist 

of at least six tests in the first twelve months following Mr. Velasquez's return to duty. 

q. On or about May 8, 2009, Mr. Velasquez performed a safety-sensitive function 

in that he performed maintenance on civil aircraft N 625CA, an aircraft operated by 

ComAir, an air carrier with an air carrier operating certificate issued under Part 119 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) and appropriate operations specifications, issued 

under Part 135 of the FAR (14 C.P.R. parts 119 and 135). 

r. On or about November 9, 2010, Mr. Velasquez performed a safety-sensitive 

function in that he performed maintenance on the AFT Portable 02 Bottle for civil 

aircraft N642RW, an aircraft operated by Shuttle America, an air carrier with an air 

carrier operating certificate issued under Part 119 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 

(FAR) and appropriate operations specifications, issued under Part 121 of the FAR (14 

C.P.R. parts 119 and 121). 

s. On or about January 18, 2011, Mr. Velasquez performed a safety-sensitive 

function in that he performed maintenance on the internal cabin WIFI system removed 

and replaced on civil aircraft N34 7NW, an aircraft operated by Delta Air Lines, an air 

carrier with an air carrier operating certificate issued under Part 119 of the Federal 

4 
Aviation Regulations (FAR) and appropriate operations specifications, issued under Part 

121 ofthe FAR (14 C.F.R. parts 119 and 121). 

t. On or about January 19, 2011, Mr. Velasquez performed a safety-sensitive 

function in that he performed maintenance on the internal cabin WIFI system on civil 

aircraft Nl26AT, an aircraft operated by AirTran Airways, Inc., an air carrier with an air 

carrier operating certificate issued under Part 119 of the FAR and appropriate operations 

specifications, issued under Part 121 of the FAR (14 C.F.R. parts 119 and 121). 

4. With regard to employee Paul Downey: 

a. On or about February 24,2010, Jett Pro hired Mr. Downey to perform 

maintenance and preventive maintenance duties. 

b. Mr. Downey, a Senior Line Technician, performed maintenance and preventive 

maintenance duties on parts and/or components installed on aircraft used in operations 

conducted under 14 C.F.R. part 121. 

c. Prior to employment by Jett Pro, Mr. Downey was employed by USA Jet 

Airlines, Inc, holder of Air Agency Certiftcate No. Y2PR154Y, dba Active Aero 

Services. ("Active Aero"). 

d. USA Jet Airlines is an air carrier with an air carrier operating certificate issued 

under part 119 of the FAR and appropriate operations specifications, issued under parts 

121 and 135 of the FAR (14 C.F.R. parts 119, 121, and 135). 

5 
e. A records check conducted by Jett Pro directed to USA Jet Airlines revealed 

that on or about May 8, 2008, Mr. Downey's random drug test results were verified 

positive for the presence of drugs. 

f. On or about May 12, 2008, while still employed by USA Jet Airlines, Mr. 

Downey completed his initial SAP substance abuse assessment. The SAP's 

recommendation required follow-up drug and alcohol tests twice each month for six 

months, followed by a drug and an alcohol test each month for 18 months, followed by a 

drug and an alcohol test each quarter for the following 24 months. 

g. Mr. Downey completed five of the six months of twice-monthly testing for 

drugs and alcohol recommended by the SAP before USA Jet Airlines terminated his 

employment on August 11, 2009. 

h. Prior to his termination at Active Aero, Mr. Downey completed five of the 

eighteen once-monthly drug and alcohol tests recommended by the SAP. 

i. At the time Jett Pro hired Mr. Downey, Mr. Downey was still required to 

compete thirteen drug and alcohol tests administered each month and eight drug and 

alcohol tests administered each quarter in accordance with the SAP's testing plan. 

j. Jett Pro failed to complete the follow-up testing plan recommended by the SAP 

after Jett Pro hired Mr. Downey. 

k. Jett Pro did not begin administering to Mr. Downey follow-up drug and alcohol 

testing until August 5, 2010, five months after Jett pro hired Mr. Downey. 

I. On or about March 12, 2010, Mr. Downey performed a safety-sensitive function 

in that he performed maintenance on civil aircraft N625CA, an aircraft operated by 

Comair, an air carrier with an air carrier operating certificate issued under part 119 of the 

6 
FAR and appropriate operations specifications, issued under part 121 of the FAR (14 

C.F.F. parts 119 and 121). 

m. Contrary to the SAP's testing plan, Mr. Downey was not administered drug 

and alcohol follow-up testing in March, 2010, April, 2010, May, 2010, June, 2010, or 

July, 2010. 

n. Contrary to the SAP's testing plan, during the time Mr. Downing was required 

to be administered monthly follow-up drug and alcohol tests, twice during the same 

month (September 14,2010, and September 28, 2010), Mr. Downing was administered 

follow-up drug and alcohol tests. 

o. Contrary to the SAP's testing plan, Jett Pro failed to administer to Mr. 

Downing follow-up drug and alcohol tests in November, 2010. 

p. Mr. Downing was administered a follow-up drug and alcohol test on December 

13,2010. 

q. All of the follow-up tests identified in paragraphs 4k, 4n, and 4p above were 

initiated by Mr. Downey and not by Jett Pro. 

r. On or about October 20, 2010, Mr. Downey performed safety-sensitive 

functions when he performed maintenance on civil aircraft N601A W, an aircraft operated 

by US Airways, an air carrier with an air carrier operating certificate issued under part 

119 of the FAR and appropriate operations specifications, issued under part 121 of the 

FAR (14 C.F.R. parts 119 and 121). 

s. On or about December 15, 1010, Mr. Downey performed safety-sensitive 

functions when he performed maintenance on civil aircraft N 562RP, an aircraft operated 

by Chautauqua Airlines, an air carrier with an air carrier operating certificate issued 

7 
under part 119 of the FAR and appropriate operations specifications, issued under part 

121 of the FAR (14 C.F.R. parts 119 and 121). 

t. On or about January 18, 2011, Mr. Downey performed safety-sensitive 

functions when he performed maintenance on civil aircraft N592AA, an aircraft operated 

by American Airlines, an air carrier with an air carrier operating certificate issued under 

part 119 of the FAR and appropriate operations specifications, issued under part 121 of 

the FAR (14 C.F.R. Parts 119 and 121). 

5. With regard to employee Sean Ponce: 

a. On or about AprilS, 2010, Sean Ponce was administered a Non-DOT preemployment test and J ett Pro received a verified negative result. 

b. On or about April6, 2010, Jett Pro hired Mr. Ponce to perform the safetysensitive duties of a Senior Line Maintenance Technician. 

c. At the time Jett Pro hired Mr. Ponce, Jett Pro had not conducted a DOT preemployment test on Mr. Ponce. 

d. At the time Jett Pro hired Mr. Ponce, Jett Pro had not received a DOT preemployment verified negative drug test result for Mr. Ponce. 

e. On or about April12, 2010, Mr. Ponce performed a safety-sensitive function in 

that he performed maintenance on a civil aircraft identified as Aircraft No. 4631, an 

aircraft operated by United Airlines, an air carrier with an air carrier operating certificate 

issued under Part 119 of the FAR and appropriate operations specifications, issued under 

Part 121 of the FAR (14 C.F.R. Parts 119 and 135.) 

8 
f. On or about April12, 2010, Mr. Ponce was administered a DOT preemployment test that was verified negative on Aprill3, 2010. 

6. With regard to employee Wilson Guerrero: 

a. On or about October 7, 2009, Mr. Guerrero, an aircraft maintenance technician, 

was added to Jett Pro's random pool and available to perform safety-sensitive functions. 

b. Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 40.25(j), Jett Pro did not ask Mr. Guerrero whether he 

refused pre-employment drug or alcohol testing, or whether he tested positive on any preemployment drug or alcohol test for application to safety-sensitive transportation work 

covered by DOT testing rules. 

c. On or about September 8, 2009, Mr. Guerrero completed a consent form 

permitting U.S. Airways Express, his former employer, to release to Jett Pro confidential 

drug/alcohol testing information as part of a record check. 

d. The above-referenced form included Mr. Guerrero's response to the question 

required by 49 C.F.R. § 40.25(j), asking if he received a verified positive, adulterated or 

substituted DOT drug/alcohol test result. 

e. Jett Pro released the above-referenced form with the referenced medical 

information identified in paragraph 6d above to U.S. Airways Express without Mr. 

Guerrero's specific written consent. 

9 
7. With regard to employee Jolm Freuler: 

a. Mr. Freuler handled support equipment and ground service equipment used to 

access aircraft and support aircraft repair and was not a covered employee subject to drug 

and alcohol testing in accordance with 14 C.F.R §§ 120.105 and 120.215. 

b. On or about January 6, 2011, Mr. Freuler was added to J ett Pro's random drug 

and alcohol pool. 

8. With regard to employee Charles Hass: 

a. Mr. Haas washed the exterior surfaces of commercial aircraft with water and 

was not a covered employee subject to drug and alcohol testing in accordance with 14 

C.F.R §§ 120.105 and 120.215. 

b. On or about January 6, 2011, Mr. Haas was added to Jett Pro's random drug 

and alcohol pool. 

III. 

1. By reason of the foregoing, Jett Pro violated the following Federal Aviation 

Regulations: 

a.l4 C.F.R. § 120.5 in that it failed to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 40.309(a), when 

Jett Pro failed to carry out the SAP's follow-up testing requirements. Moreover, Jett Pro 

allowed two employees to continue to perform safety-sensitive functions when follow-up 

testing had not been conducted as directed by the SAP. 

10 
b. 14 C.F.R. § 120.109(a)(1) in that Jett Pro hired an individual for a safetysensitive function listed in 14. C.F .R. § 120.105 when Jett Pro had not first conducted a 

pre-employment test and received a verified negative drug test result for that individual. 

c. 14 C.F.R. §120.5, in that it failed to comply with 49 C.F.R. §40.25(j), when Jett 

Pro failed to conduct DOT -regulated pre-employment drug and alcohol records checks on 

all employees by not asking an employee whether he had tested positive, or refused to 

test, on any pre-employment drug or alcohol test administered by an employer to which 

the employee applied for, but did not obtain, safety-sensitive transportation work covered 

by DOT agency drug and alcohol testing rules during the past two years. 

d. 14 C.F.R. § 120.5 in that it failed to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 40.347(b)(2), 

when J ett Pro allowed employees not covered by DOT agency regulations to be part of 

the same random pool with DOT covered employees. 

e. 14 C.F.R. § 120.5 in that it failed to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 40.321, when Jett 

Pro released individual test results or medical information about an employee to third 

parties without the employee's specific written consent. 

f. 14 C.F .R. § 120.5 in that it failed to comply with 49 C.F .R. § 40.67(b ), when 

Jett Pro failed to direct a collection under direct observation of an employee when the 

drug test was a return-to-duty test or a follow-up test. 

2. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty in the amount of 

$107,600 is appropriate. 

11 
WHEREFORE, the Agency, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Administrative 

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

$107,600. 

Dated this 4th day of February, 2014. 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

utumn Killingham 

Enforcement Division 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

(202) 267-7728 

PLEASE NOTE: 

Pursuant to Title 14 C.F .R. § 13.209( a), you are required to file a written answer to this 

Complaint, or a written Motion to Dismiss if appropriate, not later than thirty (30) days 

after the date shown on the Certificate of Service which follows. 

12 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing Complaint, in the Matter of Jett Pro Line Maintenance, 

FAA Case No. 2011WP910076, has been mailed this date by Certified Mail, Return 

Receipt Requested, to: 

SamNugud 

President 

Jett Pro Line Maintenance 

8517 Earhart Road, Suite 210 

Oakland, CA 94621 

The original and a copy was also personally delivered to: 

Hearing Docket (Original and 1 copy) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Room 2Wl000-AGC-430 

Washington, DC 20591 

Brit~ &tAh 

February 4, 2014 

13