U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ') •...J 

Addison Jet Management, Inc. 

) 

) 

) Docket No. [To Be Assigned] ____________________________ ) 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

MOTION FOR DECISION 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. 13.21(e)(5)Section 13.218(e)(5) ofthe Rules ofPractice in FAA 

28 

Civil Penalty Actions, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) files this Motion for Decision, 

and in support thereof states as follows: 

1. Section 13 .218( e )(5) of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, provides in 

pertinent part that "[t]he administrative law judge shall grant a party's motion for decision if the 

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, matters that the administrative law 

judge has officially noted, or evidence introduced during the hearing show that there is no 

genuine issue of material fact and that the party making the motion is entitled to a decision as a 

matter of law." 

2. In this case, there are no genuine issues of material fact and the FAA is entitled to a decision 

as a matter oflaw. 14 C.P.R.§ 13.218(e)(5.) 

Factual Allegations 

3. On April 6, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration filed its complaint in this matter. 

Paragraph 1 alleged that at all times mentioned in this document, Addison Jet Management, Inc. 
("Addison") was the holder of Air Carrier Operating Certificate No. 15JA697J issued under 14 

C.F .R. Part 119 and appropriate operations specifications issued under 14 C.F .R. § 13 5. 

Paragraph 2 alleged that on or about January 18,2010, Addison hired Victoria McKown as a 

pilot, a safety-sensitive position. Paragraph 3 alleged that on or about August 2, 2010, Ms. 

McKown operated civil aircraft N213HP (listed on Addison's operations specifications as 

Airplane MIM/S CE-650-650 SIN 6500133) as pilot-in-command on a round-trip flight from 

Dallas, Texas to San Diego, California under Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

Paragraph 4 alleged that pursuant to 49 C.F.R. §40.25(a) and (b), Addison did not obtain drug 

and alcohol record checks from DOT -regulated employers who had employed Ms. McKown 

during any period during the two years before the date of Ms. McKown's application to Addison. 

Paragraph 5 alleged that pursuant to 49 C.F.R. §40.25G), Addison did not ask Ms. McKown 

whether she refused pre-employment drug or alcohol testing, or whether she tested positive on 

any pre-employment drug or alcohol test for application to safety-sensitive transportation work 

covered by DOT testing rules. 

4. In its answer, Respondent admitted paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the complaint. Respondent 

denied paragraph 4, contending that Respondent obtained drug and alcohol record checks from 

DOT -regulated employers who had employed Ms. McKown during any period during the two 

years before the date of Ms. McKown's application to Respondent. 

5. Although Respondent denied paragraph 4 of the complaint, two letters provided by 

Respondent to the FAA establish that Respondent did not obtain the requisite drug and alcohol 

record checks from DOT-regulated employers. First, a letter dated December 15,2010, from 

Gerald P. Shaw, the person responsible for compliance with the FAA-mandated drug and alcohol 
program, 

1 acknowledged that had he failed to ask Ms. McKown if she had been employed by any 

other employer that was subject to DOT drug/alcohol testing. He acknowledged that had he 

asked her question "J" on the new hire checklist, he would not have failed to send the 8060 

questionnaire to Ms. McKown's other/previous employers. (Exhibit C). Second, a letter dated 

January 13, 2011, by Mr. Shaw repeats the admission that Mr. Shaw failed to send the 8060 

questionnaire to Addison Express as required by the regulations. (Exhibit D). The referenced 

8060 questionnaire is the document wherein the current or prospective employer requests drug 

and alcohol information from DOT-regulated employers who have employed the employee 

during any period during the two years before the date of the employee's application or transfer 

in accordance with the 49 C.P.R. 40.25(a) and (b). (Exhibit E). 

6. In addition to the letters provided to the FAA, Respondent's response to the FAA's discovery 

request establish that Respondent failed to obtain the records checks required by 49 C.F.R 

40.25(a) and (b). Document Request No.4 of the FAA's Request for Production of Documents 

required Respondent to produce the records identified in 49 C.P.R. 40.25(b) for Ms. McKown 

referenced in the complaint. (Exhibit A). In response to the above document request, 

Respondent enclosed 13 documents. (Exhibit B). None ofthe documents provided in response 

to the FAA's discovery request establish compliance with 49 C.P.R. 40.25(a) and (b). 

7. The regulations provide a time frame for compliance. 49 C.P.R. 40.25(d) provides that if 

feasible, an Employer must obtain and review the information listed in 49 C.P.R. 40.25(b) before 

the employee first performs safety-sensitive functions. If not feasible, however, the Employer 

must obtain and review the information as soon as possible, but may not permit the employee to 

perform safety-sensitive functions after 30 days from the date on which the employee first 

1 Exhibit A, Interrogatory No. 7, Exhibit B, Response to Interrogatory No. 7. 
performed safety-sensitive functions, unless the Employer has obtained or made and documented 

a good faith effort to obtain the information. Since Ms. McKown performed her first safetysensitive function on August 2, 201 0, Respondent was required to obtain and review the 

information listed in 49 C.P.R. 40.25(b) before August 2, 2010, if feasible, or if not feasible, no 

later than September 1, 201 0, unless Respondent obtained or made and documented a good faith 

effort to obtain the information. The FAA's Interrogatory No.4 requested that Respondent 

identify any and all documents in Respondent's possession that concern, refer to, or involve the 

circumstances set forth in the Complaint. (Exhibit A). Respondent's response, "Copies of Ms. 

McKown's Drug Test results and records," establish that Respondent did not have records 

documenting a good faith effort to obtain the information required in 49 C.P.R. 40.25(b ). 

(Exhibit B). Respondent, therefore failed to perform the requisite records check or document a 

good faith effort to obtain that information in violation of 49 C.P.R. 40.25(a) and (b) in the time 

frame specified in 49 C.P.R. 40.25(df 

The Sanction 

8. The civil penalty sought by the FAA should be affirmed. The FAA is seeking a civil penalty 

in the amount of$8,149 in accordance with FAA Order 2150.3B. Pursuant to that Order, for· 

purposes of sanction, air carriers and operators are classified into groups. Group III is comprised 

of air carrier or commercial operators operating under part 13 5 with 6 to 49 pilots or 6 to 24 

aircraft. (Exhibit Fat B-3). At the time of the alleged violation, Addison had 15 safety-sensitive 

employees and 4 aircraft. (Exhibit E ). Therefore, it was a Group III operator as defined in FAA 

Order 2150.3B. (Exhibit Fat B-3). For violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A), 

the maximum range is between $7,150-$11,000; the moderate range is between $3,300 -$7,149; 

2 As ofDecember 15,2010, Ms. McKown was still employed at Addison. (Exhibit F). 
and the minimum range is between $825-3,299. (Exhibit Gat B-4). Failure to conduct drug and 

alcohol records check required under 49 C.F.R. § 40.25 warrants a moderate civil penalty. 

(Exhibit Gat B-34). In accordance with FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B, 3 (c), the middle of 

each recommended sanction range is appropriate for a single violation absent aggravating or 

mitigating factors. (Exhibit Gat B-2) The middle of the moderate range for this violation is 

$5225, before consideration of aggravating or mitigating factors. 

9. After determining the starting point of$5225 in determining the sanction in the instant case, 

the FAA then considered the factors outlined in FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 7.4. (Exhibit G at 

B-7-1). One ofthose factors was Respondent's violation history. (Exhibit Gat 7-4). A review of 

the Compliance Enforcement Tracking System (CETS) revealed that on December 8, 2006, 

Addison was assessed a civil penalty in the amount of$12,000 for failure to ensure that 

contractors were covered under an FAA-mandated drug and alcohol testing program. (Exhibits 

E and H) ). After consideration of the Group III status, the nature of the violation, and mitigating 

and aggravating factors, the FAA reasonably determined that $8149 was an appropriate civil 

penalty. The $8149 sanction falls within the parameters set by the sanction guidance. Hence, 

the sanction should, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, be affirmed. In the Matter of 

Texas Army National Guard, FAA Order No. 2012-3 at 6 (May 22, 2012). 

10. In view of the admissions, established in the correspondence to the FAA and responses to the 

FAA's discovery, there are no genuine issues of material fact and the FAA is entitled to a 

decision as a matter of law. 

WHEREFORE, the FAA respectfully requests that the ALJ grant the FAA's motion for 

decision. 
Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

/fll. ............. Killingham 

Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 
--------------

.......... 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion for Decision, in the matter of Addison Jet 

Management, Inc., has been mailed this date by via overnight mail to: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

Gerald P. Shaw 

Director of Operations 

Addison Jet Management, Inc. 

7515 Lemmon Avenue 

Dallas, TX 75209 

The original and one copy hand-delivered to: 

Hearing Docket, Room 924A, AGC-10 (Original and one copy) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence A venue, S. W., Suite 2WI 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Atten: Hearing Docket Clerk 

. " £3 ~,{\! 6=1t xtA-, 

July 13, 2012 
\ 

------------------

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Addison Jet Management, Inc. 

) 

) 

) Docket No. [To Be Assigned) 

--------------) Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

AGENCY'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES 

AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

Pursuant io the discovery guidelines set forth in Section 13.220 of the Rules of Practice in 

FAA Civil Penalty Actions (14 C.F.R. 13.220), the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") 

hereby requests that Respondent within thirty (30) days of service, provide to counsel for the 

FAA the information described and requested below. Moreover, this is a continuing request for 

Respondent to provide all updated or new records or information, as itemized in this document, 

through the date of the hearing. 

DEFINITIONS 

1. Unless otherwise indicated, these Interrogatories and Requests for Documents refer to 

the time, place and circumstances of the occurrence mentioned or complained of in the 

Compliant. 

2. Where knowledge or information or a document possessed by a party is requested, that 

request includes knowledge ofthe party's representatives, agent and, unless privileged, 

attorneys. 
·- 

3. The pronouns "you" and "yours" refer to the party to whom or which these 

Interrogatories and Requests for Productions are addressed, and the persons mentioned in 

paragraph 2. supra. ·· 

4. When used with respect to a documents, "identify" Means to furnish the document 

itself, or in lieu thereof, the name and date of the document, the name and addiess, addresses of · 

all persons to whom copies of the document were or have been sent, and the organization, firm 

or agency with which all such persons were connected as of the date of the document, and state 

whether you are in possession of the original or copy, and/or furnish the name and address of a 

person whom you believe is in possession of the original or a copy of such document. 

5. The term "identify" when referring to a person, means to identify the person by name, 

occupation( s ), and business address. 

6. The terms "document" and "statement" mean without limitation, the following items, 

whether printed or recorded or reproduced by any other mechanical process or written or 

produced by hand: agreements, communications, correspondence, telegraphs, memoranda, 

electronic messages, court or legal documents, summaries or recordings of telephone 

conversations, summaries or records of personal conversations or interview, summaries or 

reports of investigations, opinions or reports of consultants, diaries, graphs, reports, notebooks, 

note charts, plans drawings, sketches, maps, photographs, motion picture films, brochures, 

pamphlets, advertisements, circulars, press releases, drafts, letters, and marginal comments 

appearing on any documents, and all other tangible information capable of being read or viewed. 

7. For all interrogatories to which the responding individual has an objection, state the 

factual and l~gal basis for the claimed privilege, or any other authority that provides the claimed 

basis for the objection. 

8. All documents requested as to which the responding individual claims privilege or any 

other objection as a ground for non-production shall be identified chronologically as follows: 

a. date 

'-J•1!llt 
---------------------

b. title 

c. type of document (e.g., memorandum, report, chart, etc.) 

d. Subject matter (without revealing the information as to which privilege or statutory 

authority is claimed), and 

e. factual and legal basis for the claimed privilege, or any other authority that provides 

the claimed ground for non-productivity 

INTERROGATORIES 

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify, by providing the name, occupation, and business 

address, of each person you intend to call as a witness in this proceeding. 

INTERROGATORY No.2 Provide the substance of the testimony to be offered by each of the 

witness identified in Interrogatory No. 1. 

INTERRROGATORY NO. 3 With respect to each expert witness you intend to call as a 

witness in this proceeding, set forth the subject matter upon which each expert witness is 

expected to testify, the facts and opinions composing the testimony of each expert witness, and a 

summary of the grounds for each opinion. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 4 Identify any and all documents in your possession that concern, 

refer to, or involve the circumstances set forth in the Complaint. 

INTERROGATORY NO.5 

Identify any and all documents. which reflect, detail, or demonstrate your. compliance with 49 

C.F.R. 40.25 (a) and (b) referenced in the Complaint. 
INTERROGATORY NO. 6 

State whether or not the not the attached letters dated December 15, 2010, and January 13, 20:1 I, 

labeled Exhibit A and Exhibit B, were signed by a duly authorized representative of Addison Jet 

Management, Inc. 

INTERROGATORY NO.7 

Identify the person responsible for compliance with the FAA-mandated drug and alcohol 

program. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 8 

State whether the person identified in Interrogatory 7 above understood at the time ofthe FAA 

inspection on December 15, 2012, that the records identified in 49 C.P.R. 40.25(b) were required 

to be retained for three (3) years in accordance with 49 C.P.R. 40.25(e)(i). 

INTERROGATORY NO. 9 

If the records identified in 49 C.F.R.40.25(b) are no longer available, please state the following: 

a. Identify the name and address of the company(s) where the record request was made. 

b. State the date(s) the record request was made. 

c. State the date(s) when you received a response from the company(s). 

- . - . ' . 

d. State the substance of the response(s) received from the company(s). 
INTERROGATORY NO. 10 

If you no longer have the records identified in 49 C.P.R. 40.25(b) for Victoria McKown, piease 

state why you no longer have the records. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 11 

State why you did not produce the records identified in 49 C.P.R. 40.25(b) for Ms. McKown to 

the FAA inspectors during the inspection of your company on December 15,2012. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 12 

State why you did not produce the records identified in 49 C.P.R. 40.25(b) for Ms. McKown to 

the FAA after the inspection of your company on December 15, 2010. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 13 

If you contend that you found the records identified in 49 C.P.R. 40.25(b) after the FAA 

inspection conducted at your company on December 15, 2010, state when you found the records. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 14 

If you contend you found the records identified in 49 C.F.R.40.25(b) after the FAA inspection 

conducted at your company on December 15, 2010, state where you found the records. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 15 

State the name and position of the p~rson who bore the r~spo~sibility to mai~tain and ret~in ili~ 

records identified in 49 C.P.R. 40.25(b ). 
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1: Copies of current curricula vitae for each expert witness · 

you identified in Interrogatory No. 3. 

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2: Copies of any statements made by witnesses identified in 

Interrogatories No. 1 and 3, concerning, referring to, or involving the circumstances set forth in 

the Complaint. 

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 3: Copies of all documents that you intend to introduce into 

evidence. 

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.4: Produce the records identified in 49 C.P.R. 40.25(b) for 

Ms. McKown referenced in the Complaint. 

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5 If you claim that you are financially unable to pay the 

penalty referenced in the Complaint, produce financial records that establish financial hardship, 

· including but not limited to the last three (3) years income tax statements for the company. 

" .. ·- .. .. . ·~ ....... ·-- .. ~ .... 
Respectfuiiy submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

By:~·· I 

Autumn Killingham 

Attorney, AGC-300 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

800 Independence A venue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Telephone: (202) 267-7728 

. -· ... •.. . "' . ~ . . . .. -~ . --- ··- .. . . ..... ·-· . ·- ·-·- .... . -- '. ----· ··--- ·-·· ........ ·-··-··· -~- -·· ... -· -. -·· -· ··-· ·-····· ··- . - -. -·· ·-- -- .. .. --~··· -· 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of 

Documents, in the matter of Addison Jet Management, Inc., has been mailed this date by via 

overnight mail to: 

Gerald P. Shaw 

Director of Operations 

Addison Jet Management, Inc. 

7 515 Lemmon A venue 

Dallas, TX 75209 

The original and one copy was also mailed this date by Certified Mail to: 

Hearing Docket, Room 924A, AGC-10 (Original and one copy) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Atten: Hearing Docket Clerk 

f3~13aih 

May 14,2012 

·-··---- ........ ---~---- . -- ·-·. -·-- ··-- .. --·---- ··- ·--~-- ---· .. _, ____ --·-·- ---------· ~- ------------ ~---- -·-- ----~-------·--·--· --~- ------ --------- ______________ ., __ - -

'-- ----- ---------- ······~ ~- ~---· 
• < 

TRJNITY JET /v'ANAGEMENT .. llC 

d/bLa TriT)ity_ Privat~ .Jet Charter 

Wednesday, December 15,2010 

Mr. JonM. Hopkins 

Aerospace Medicine 

Drug Abatement Division 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 121 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

Dear Mr. Hopkins, 

• 

I appreciate your team conducting the audit of our Drug Abatement Program. It is from these inspections 

that we find our weaknesses and are able to improve our performance and compliance. 

On the matter of recurrent training for the Supervisors and Program Manager. Through the task of 

merging our two companies and moving our Operations Base, I inadvertently let my obligation to the 

required training lapse. I am scheduling training for the Supervisors and for myself as the Program 

Manager for tomorrow, December 16, 2010. Once that is complete, we will then schedule recurrent 

traimng for all of our covered employees on the Drug and Alcohol Abatement Program to review the 

program and to learn of changes that have been put in place since our last training was conduct~d. We 

will go over all of the latest materials. I will have our scheduler program our computer based scheduling 

program to include the recurrent requirements of the Drug and Alcohol Abatement Program, which will 

then automatically alert us that the required training is coming due. It is the same program that tracks all 

of the currency requirements for our pilots. This will ensure it will not be missed in the future. 

On the matter of Victoria Reich McKown, I remember reinstating her on our certificate at the beginning 

of the year. I handled the Drug Program paperwork myself Knowing Tori very well and knowing where 

she works I made an assumption that I was not allowed to make. I assumed her situation had not changed 

and that she was only flying her Part 91 planes and owners. I refreshed her other documents including 

her resume and her insurance form which shows her employers. I know her employers and the history 

had not changed. However, this does not relieve me of the obligation to question her about any other 

drug program and testing as per the 'T' question. Had I simply followed the checklist that we use for new 

hires, I would have not missed this. The 'T' question would have been asked in writing and the past 

employer, Addison Express, would have been sent the 8060 questionnaire to be in compliance with the 

....... ····--------_ .. regulations .. --llet~complacency- slip-in--foF-e-xpedience:-· In the--training tomorrow-! ·will··emphasize the 

importance of using that checklist and check off each item, just as we do in the cockpit. 

I am contacting Ms. Reich/McKown today and will have the paperwork completed properly and ~ent to 

the former employer for completion as soon as possible, probably today or tomorrow. We will not 

7515 Lemmon Ave. 

Dallas, Texas 75209 , E){HIBiT·' . 

~A>·~,;:Ii_ ··"· '• --:.;;[~ .. ··';. '···'></·,<:,;·,· .• · .. · 

gshaw@trinityjet.com 

Phone: 214-366-4800 

Cell: 214-957-0166 

Fax214-366-4801 
y 

. ' 

• 

release Ms. Reich!McKown for any flights until the Drug and Alcohol Abatement Program paperwork is 

correct and filed. 

I will forward you the documents from the above corrections as soon as they are completed, but no later 

than Monday, December 20, 2010. 

As you had noted, we have made much improvement since our last inspection and we will continue to 

strive for complete compliance and safety in our operations. 

I thank you and your team again for your oversight and service to our industry and wish all of you a 

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Please pass that on to Mark as well when you see him. 

Sincerely, 

Gerald P. Shaw, Director of Operations 

7515 Lemmon Ave. 

Dallas, Texas 75209 gshaw@triniiyjet.com 

Phone: 214-366-4800 

Cell: 214-957-0166 

Fax 214-366-4801 
t\ddison Jet ~Aanagernent, inc. 

-~ 9 !b aiiillityJ:rLv Qi~ J~~t~JJ Q!.LeJ==-=-=,~--·~~=-= .. w·-......... .__ •• __ ... -~- __ ,_, __ ._ 

Thursday, January 13, 2011 

Mr. JonM. Hopkins, AAM 840 

Federal Aviation Administration 

·office of Aerospace Medicine 

Drug Abatement Division 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 121 

Fort Worth, TX 76137-4298 

RE: File Number: 2011 SW91 0053 

In response to your letter I received on January 5, 2011 I submit the following; 

I appreciate your team conducting the audit of our Drug Abatement Program. It is from these inspections 

that we find our weaknesses and are able to improve our performance and compliance. 

On the matter of recurrent training fqr the Supervisors and Program Manager. Through the task of 

merging our two comp!llies and moving our Operations Base, I inadvertently let my obligation to the 

required training lapse. I completed training for myself as the Program Manager a:p.d for William Selah as 

a supervisor on December 16, 2010. I completed supervisor training for our new Director ofMaintenance 

on January 12, 2011. He also completed all ofthe initi£Jl training and testing as well. We are conducting 

recurrent training for all of our covered employees on the Drug and Alcohol Abatement Program to 

review the program and to learn of changes that have been put in place since our last training was 

conducted. We will go over all of the latest materials. I had our scheduler program our computer based 

scheduling program to include the recurrent requirements of the Drug and Alcohol Abatement Program, 

which will then automatically alert us that the required training is coming due. It is the same program 

that tracks all of the currency requirements for our pilots. This will ensure it will not be missed in the 

future. · 

On the matter of Victoria Reich McKown, I remember reinstating her on our certificate at the beginning 

of the year. I handled the Drug Program paperwork myself Knowing Tori very well and knowing where 

she works I made an assumption that I was not allowed to make. I assumed her situation had not changed 

and that she was only flying her Part 91 planes and owners. I refreshed her other documents including 

her resume and her insurance form which shows her employers. I know her employers and the history 

· -- ··-·· -· -- haa tic>rd.mnged: · However; thii:rdoes n.or·-relieve·me-oftlie-ooligatimr·to-quest1onlrer-aoounmy -other 

drug program and testing as per the "J" question. Had I simply followed the checklist that we use for new 

hires, I would ;have ne>t missed this. The "J'' question would have been asked in writing and the past 

·- · employer, Addison EXpress, would have been sent the 8060 questionnaire to be in compliance with the 

75l5 Lemmon Ave. 

Dallas; Texas 75209 . . . ~. 

.,, 

gshaw@trinityjet.com 

Phone: 214-366-4800 

Cell: 214-649-5474 

Fax 214-366-4801 
• ! • 

regulations. I let complacency slip in for expedience. In the training we have conducted recently I have 

emphasized the importance of using that checklist and check off each item, just as we do in the ·cockpit. 

I contacted Ms. Reich!.McKown on December 16, 2010 and the paperwork was completed properly and 

sent to the former employer for completion. The paperwork was completed and returned the same day. A 

new J questionnaire was completed as well. Ms. Reich!McKown was not released for any flights until the 

Drug and Alcohol Abatement Program paperwork was correct and filed. 

I have already forwarded the documents you have requested from us including the completed forms for 

Ms. Reich!McKown and the Supervisor Training forms. 

As you had noted, we have made much improvement since our last inspection and we will continue to 

strive for complete compliance and safety in our operations. 

I ask you consider our efforts as you investigate our case. 

I thank you and your team again for your oversight and service to our industry. 

Please let me know if there is anything else you should need. 

Sincerely, 

~!?~~ GeraldP. Shaw 

Director of Operations 

'ct, ••• :. ( 

.... ·-' '"- ~-''"'•-• -~---~·-·--•-' ,_ ~,,,,....__,,_,. ' ~···-·- No> ~- ~---- .. ·~--'•'"''' -·A ____ , oo '''' 0 ·---~-- ,_,_ - ------····--••••·---••oo -··• --···-~--- .. ---- -~---

·-· ... · ·. :.·'·' 

7515 Lemmon Ave. 

Dallas, Texas 7 5209 

........ ' 

• • ,:-=.•.,. 

gshaw@trinityjet.com 

Phone: 214-366-4800 

Cell: 214-957-0166 

Fax 214-366-4801 
Addison Jet Management, Inc. 

d/b/a Trinity Private Jet Charter 

VVednesday,June13,2012 

Autumn Killingham 

Attorney, AGC-300 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

RE: In the Addison Jet Management, Inc. 

FAA Case No. 2011SW910053 

Dear Madam: 

In response to the first interrogatories and request for documents I submit the following reply. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: The sole witness will be Gerald P. Shaw, Director of Operations, 7515 

Lemmon Ave., Dallas, Texas 75209. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Knowledge of Ms. McKown's past drug testing history. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:. N/A 

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Copies of Ms. McKown's Drug Test results and records. 

INTERROGATORYNO. 5: N/A 

INTERROGATORY NO.6: The letters referred to were written and signed by me, Gerald P. Shaw as 

Director of Operations for Addison Jet Management, Inc. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: .Gerald P. Shaw, Director of Operations for Addison Jet Management, Inc. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Gerald P. Shaw Understood atthe time the requirement for the retention of 

records. 

7515 Lemmon Ave. 

Dallas, Texas 7 5209 

gshaw@trinityjet.com 

Phone: 214-366-4800 

· Cell: -2-14-649-5474 

Fax-2-14-3u64801 
INTERROGATORY NO. 9: The records are available. 

INTERROGATORYNO. 10: N/A 

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: The records were generated on December 15, 2012 

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: ·N/A 

INTERROGATORY NO. 13: N/A 

INTERROGATORY NO~ 1.4.:. NJA 

INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Gerald P. Shaw, Director of Operations, Addison Jet Management, Inc. 

DOUCUMENTREQUESTNO. 1: N/A 

DOUCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2: N/A 

DOUCUMENT REQUEST NO. 3: Documents enclosed 

DOUCUMENT REQUEST NO. 4: Documents enclosed 

DOUCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5: Request more time for our account to produce the last three years 

income tax statements for the company. 

Gerald P. Shaw 

Director 

~~~ of Operations, 

Addison Jet Management, Inc. 

214-649-5474 

7515 Lemmon Ave. 

Dallas, Texas 75209 

gshaw@trinityjet .com 

Phone: 214-366-4800 

Cell: 214-957-0166 

Fax214-366-4801 
-

Dec 16 10 1 2:26p Signature PWK 1 18475372738 

UK Uate/Ti•e 9723664801 .OEC-l5-2010(ijE0) 15:40 

12/15/2818 . 13:48 . 9723664801 ' 

' TRINITY JET 

.... • .· 

.••• !"."' •• . . .... 

-. t • t ... 

! 

· ADDISON JET MANAGEMENT, INC. 

d/b/a 

T11itticy- Prjvate Jet Charter 

PURSUANJ' TO SECTION 40.25 § 5(J) OF 49 CFRPAR'l' 40; ANEMP.LO~ MUST ASK A POTENTIAl). EMPLOYEE Wf.IE.'THE&HE OR SHE HAS lESt EO 

POSITIVE OR RBFUSBD TP TEST ON ANY.PRE-BMPLOYMENT DRU$ OR. 

ALCOHOL TEST ADMINISTBRBD BY ANBMPLOYEElTOWHICH 'l'HB 

EMPLOYEE APPLTPD Fot·:strrDJD NOT OBTAIN, SAFETY -SENSirilvEI · ~~T~TION·WOR:J( COVBREDBYDOT AGENCYDRU~AND 

"ALCOHOL TESTING RULES DURlNG:rHR PAST TWO YEARS. IF T.BE 

EMPLOYEE ADMITS mA-r:BE OitSHE HAD A POSITIVE TEST OR A !REFUSAL i I 

TO TEST., YOU MUST-NOT USE '1HE:BMPLOYEE TO ~ORM SAFETY-

; t .• ·• . •. 

SBNSlTIVB FUNCTIONSF.OR: YOU~ UNtiL AND UNLESS TBBEMPLd.Y:EE 

. DOCUM:ENTS SUCCBSSJl$L COMPLETION Of' mE RBTURNTO·D1 Pll9C£SS. : . .. ' . ~ . .. ' . .. . . · IN 'l'HEl'.AST TWO ~'R$: . . j 

. . . . \ . ' . i · · · · ·t.· HaveyO\l·bail.any~ ~ed alcoholtest with a result of0.04 o~~~ 

alcohol concenttation? · · ·· · ~ 

2. 

3. 

4. 

· • 1 • . • • I · 

Have You hiid any ~ed I . posffive OOT i-cqU;red titus; test? ~ 

I 

Have you retbsed to If tested? (including having a verified adulterat~ 

substituted drug test r~) . . . . · · 

Have you had any ~violali~ of'a.Dof agency~ «:alcohol ~ng regulation? ; · · . ~ 

5. Were there llhY·situ:atiPns in which you teSted ~eon a p~~~est· . for a OOT employ«tlJat did ootm you? ~ 

6. Were there any situati~ in which you refused. to submit to a pre-emp~ymtmt test f~ a DOT emplo~tbatdid not hire yon? fmdudin.e~ anyadulte~ substituted finding) ' . · · · 

~f-TF!.: 1"•1(• #liD ~VJBW'iJ.R: .ffiv!.!..t 

t..kb:a. s cr"-*"-' .if\ ta-u, -co I · 

Signature : Date 

i 

i 

i .. ; 

p.2 

fl. 002 

PAGE B2 
12/21/21310 10~·£19 9723564891 TRINITY. JET PAGE Ell . 

ue~o 10 1u 14:.up ~!QMtura PWK . i i847537273g p.4 

91C36&46/H lbt OetG-IThe . O£C-1S-2011J(IIEIH: 15-:40 P.GOG 

PAGE .66 

...... -:,.• 

.... 

. 'l,, ···: .. - ': 

' .. : -· \. 

·' 

t2115/21Ue· 1.3: 4t~ . 9723&64881 lRINrTV JET 

=~lf!ly.ttwafMM'U5dl,rc,.r(D~~cf.,._..._._:IUII·cr~to..,•~~rj. . . · 

lft ... ft!.,..~•·tlwi·"' .. ~ .. ~fnf'lllftt. ttwoOr....W~ L· . 1. mdlhumpi~~#!!WC:IC\itliiiid:J~tlml!!l ..... IH:Cf'ICitl!ll-"of0.04"rl'lf;hlr? 'lrE8 . NOV 

2. Oki--~!'ft'MWtli\Y'IIIIftl'llcd~drug--T fto.L_ IVO ;.'::_ . 

· t ......-· . 1 f.»t'tl18err-HI'IIfi.tlltftl>l»~ i • • . · Y&Si_ NO_ 

4. Ottthefll'lll!ll!t~~~~~ofbor~-8ftd(cr~~teQU!t'l!om:? Y'I!L NOv 

. s. Dflla~~~·dru&~~IUI!t~t.t~ · . · ~.;,..__.NO;/~ 

e.tF·,CU~'YR'bl3ft'Jr:tltte.eiMMI"((ftts. ~~P. . ! ci!IN....,,_~._ til~,, ·:t NO_ 

lfyou_,$W81\116..,...fl)ftlm6,,__~,..-.-.. l'fo'tKtuiJ' ...... I'It:llllm($,1\P11fP01tlJ folcwMllltDdrfJ), 

.dU..&.C.§+flO!{kSfi)(B)·NqU!re$'lM!I!'eW;,li;e'-tllflhlut."'N!;rrr.;tudHftla!Jftla"'~as~.!"'~leds. 

,_.:4fitte~WSn!Pfo~Rapua•L~tDGR)~ft6...,. \,_:::::t--h·\--:'· -..\_.zr r · c·· ._,.,.... ""').. · 1 "; ~ .. " ~~~ ! t'... ......,. ""···- .,.. ~A ~, """' ) "" · "'-, - ·-- P'tii:III!!N4lrrkr:'if-:''/ (',:iiC.r: ... >v-'--\ ems,ferFAX~f.)( c·· . .:itO~..::;>v..o""'. 'f-""~.,.·-~~{0 

~ ~ 

~ • i • 

lltha,.....QI ~ S.l'lll't a-.-.......... • f.!!~~Yfi(Mo ~ . a • ?KIA 

....... ~(l!:!.l"MhratiiMifi.J1A..A'IRM,AffrtcmcsA!QJ&IGR1'"l'O~COPY-I\1R . '-I:'ANDOI'BSil 

lliCl1mS ~· f!olll]lleJt ~file Draa:ati.Aic!iiW ..-. .-t.t.e .,_..._ _.,_ WhrliraJ·(nllelf!l c. t ~­ .. ~~etdlo~.wtAiei!IHheewlf•~a,•......,_,....._.,.,.,.* ... ....,....,FMP'flriiii'~J • : - . ·. 
l/14/10 13:21 To: 9729316062 Pq 001 

•!J!!!IP l.obor,ro.y Corporation Of Mlt~C. H~Jdl"9' 

89 First Av• •• Raritan. NJ 081Gt FEDERAL D,RUG TESTING CUSTODY AND CONTROL FORM 

1111 ~ WJWJJIIII 1104 Alexandor Dr., kea•arch Trlena.te Park; ·NQ 277ot 

1120 Main &trallt, southav•n. Ml$ ~0011 

7'1.07 Norm Genn•r, Houston, TX 77040 

UICPJENHlNO.·; 0873998871 

STEP t• COMPlETED BY COLLECTOR OR EMPLOYI!R REPRElENTATIVE 

1.A'\/¢C!&SION NO . 

.. 

A. Employer Narne, ;.dd,.,aa and I.D. No. • B. MRO Name, Address. Phone and Fax No; ----i 

I ' , 01 

J 

I 

IWOIIDN .tET MGT. d~tiMAGINAIAE PeMaRooi<e OCCUPA1'10NP4.. HeAI.l'H 

AltiJ: Gltllf $hW .. ; AnN! DR. JOHN C.NeTAS 

c.at~~!}!I~~2~~!·-e•. ~~~~~~ 0. Reason for Test: C!r'Pre·empiOyment o Random I · I:l Reasonable Suspicion/Cause tJ Pasr~nt 0 Return to Duty 0 Follow-up • 0 Other (Bpl{:lly) ________ ~ ... 

E. Orug Tests .J.2.9~ Pe .. rtormed: 'bt'!H, c=c .. o,c,.. rg~.i OPI. AMP 0 THC & coo oniv 0 Olher,.<!P..!'P!.fy). =,., .• ' : N 

'1:': S ~Ad ' ~ ~ ··--- ... ·: :'! ~ t ;ii.i atr,iJ9. "* ( ~ .. "":..Collection.. tte.lt\ dre~Ss:-- . . ·: · ' ·. • ·. · · ·; • ' • ·· . • • - · , 

CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS ' ! 

15810MIDWAYRO. i 

CQII~c:toi Phon~ No. 

cOIIOCIOI fJX NO. , ADDISON. TEXAS 75001 ; 

~~~T~E!fP~2[: :§cgo~~ji;~m~~'l"rT~rr:B~III~!H'i!~:J~ItDO~·-~t~rt~f-~q:~~::;~~~~.~~;:-=-=====~==:=== ···-----'" 

Read specimen temperaturs within 4 minutes. Js tem'perature I.S~cimeri Collection: · j · 

between 90" and 100°F? ·w~a ONo, Enter Rema~k ~pill c:JSingle ONone Provided (Enter Remerll} OO~served (Enter Remark) 

l 

~R~E~M~A~R~K~S~:~--~---~--·~----------~i-----------------------------------------------·-----~ STEP 3: CO!'!'~~!'~'!!fl~~· _~:'_!~_!!~•- sut(a) to bottlt{l), Collutor d•lt• eolll(e!:_E!'!'!f .!,n~~ !!~~~·~:..~:!'!.r.,!l!~~•toe &nP 5 on Copll2 (MRO Copyl · STEF» 4: CH"In ur ...... -r,nv • INinATED BY COLLECTOR AND l#vmP~oo~;.tJ;ILDI' • • 

at I provided my unne spsalmt!lflto the cotlecJor; fhst I have nor ttdultsraled /tin any manner, each speCimen bOitte vaed Wllll sr,ai~Kl.with lltempet· 

I ftJ !Y PMSIJ/'ICS; and that tht lnlormtJtlon provided on lhl• form 1111d on the labtJiafflxed to ttJCh spf1C/men botrte I# COI'I"GCt 

.6...J.t:....\ood~~~~~~VY"\.~~~~:, \J \c...~~-- N'\c Ju::t L¥1) I ./ 14 JllJ • tPRINT) conor·1 Narnt !Firat. ML Lllll Dtlt IMOID~r.l 

OaY!knePhoneNo.t:W• !f:a=:~6li:e::: ~ventng~l10neNo.et!a~~')9 -~La DateofBir1h ~ ?~ittq,? Shoula thg JVauiiG ollhlllalxl!li\Qiy \lelltll lor lhv &pel;imun tuenll!IW by this form be ClOillirmlltl poal11Ye, lhv Metlk;&l Review otncer will conlll\<1 you to 80k 

about pi04ICifpllona Md ovor-tho.eountor mi!Clcallone you may have taken. 1horefotll, you mAy W$1'11 to ma~e a list ol those mecic:alion~~; lor yo~o~r owr1 reoorde . 

• THIS LIST IS NOT NECESSARY. If you dliiOH to mab a .It do !JO ellhar on a aeparat& pleat of ·p;IPOI' or on lhe back of YOur copy (COPY :>). -00 NOT 

PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION ON THE BACK OF ANY OjTHER COPY OF THE FORM. TAKE COPY 5 WITH YOU. · • 

STEP 8: COMPLETED BY MEDICAL ~te\it!W OF~ICER • P.RIMARV SPECIMISN 

tn ~nett w1t11 applloabht F«J!ral teql.llrtlmt~n~. my ~~rmlnarforWerllfcatlon Itt: 

0 NEQ.-,TIVE 0 POSITIVE Cl TEST CANCELLED Cl REFUSAL TO TEST 8EC-'OSE: 

Cl DILUTE ( Cl AOULTiRATiD 0 SUBSTITUTED 

REMARKS------------------------~----------------------~----~------------------

X I I Dar• (lololll*y/Yr.) 

. STEP 7: COMPLSTI!D BY MEDICAL REVIEW OFFICER ·$PUT SPECIMEN 

In lf()C(}fC}wJce With sppl/cabls Ftldtlflll frKIU["msnts, my «iftem~irtationWdHO!tion far thtt llp/11 specimttn (If tested) is: . i 

Cl RECONFIRMED 0 FAILED TO Rt:CONFtRM -;REASON - - --·- -------~~---------::-----4 i j 

X ( 

:. . ' ·.· ., . ·. . D111 (IOlDibi, r,) · 
·---.. .......................... J .......... ~ ................... , .................................. t:l ... 

9-First Ave., Raritan, NJ 08869 Fr-"---·AAL DRUG TESTING CUSTODY AND CON-r-)L FORM 

904 Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 2"t t09 

120 Main Street. Southaven. MS 38671 

207 North Gessner, Houston, TX 77040 

SPECIMEN ID NO. 

STEP 1: COMPLETED BY COLLECTOR OR EMPLOYER REPRESENTATIVE 

A. Employer Name, Address. and J.D. No. 

., •••• 1 .~ " • 

'. ..... ·. ~~ ·.. . : :; 

C. Donor SSN or Employee J.D. No. "-:" ~,:, . 

• .. .· 

i i 

D. Reason for Test: o·Pre-employment 0 Random 

0 Return to Duty . 0 Follow-up 

l.AB ACCESSION NO. 

B. MRO Name, Address, Phone and Fax No. 

/%'. -~-.;: .. ~ ~ ,::·.·;-.:-:-; l.::-:· ~·-·: l~~: 

:.;:--~··· H t ·· :- : -.. ~ :· )_,: .. f . ~u~T.' ~:· ~."-

~~!t.>~tw·-··· ~·· ~ ~ .. ': .n._,_ .. 

P: ~ ... :'~;~.f. ~'i .-"· -,~ ...... --l ::::-··: 

. ' .-. 

............. ... 

,l_:_:: ... :' :·;!! 

•· ' 

0 Reasonable Suspicion/Cause 0 Post Accid~nt 

0 Other {specify)-----------

' 

l 0 ~ ~ _;;~ ·? ~i .. 0 

N 

• ; ':· ; < ~-. ; 

. ~:_f2r1JQ .!.~!5ts OO~~~ICAltt8m899J !"f.P~:.9~1 .. ~M~. F. ColleCtion Site Ad~f5g~0 MIDWAY RD. . .. q THC &_ ~.<?<:; Q_~ly __ . q _Other _(~pe<;if.¥).~ .. =. -·"""'"""""--.,.,,., .. ,..,....,_,-_ ..,-,. -:-.,., __ ._,.,., ___ ,., .. _, ....,.,- ... ""·· = .................. .. 

ADDISON, TEXAS 75001 

Phone(972)458a8i 11 Fax(972)458-7776 · 

STEP 2: COMPLETED BY COLLECTOR 

Collector f>hone No. 

Collector Fax No. 

Read specimen temperature within 4 minutes. Is temperature 'Specimen Collection: · I 

between 90° and 100°F? t1lfes ONo, Enter ReJ!Iark QSplit . OSingle ONone Provided (Enter Remark) OObserved (Enter Remark) 

REMARKS: 

STEP 3: Collector affixes bottle seal(s) to bottle(s). Collector,· dates seal(s). Donor initials seal(s). Donor completes STEP 5 on Copy 2 (MRO Copy) 

STEP 4· CHAIN OF CUSTODY- INITIATED BY COLLECTOR AND COMPLETED BY LABORATORY 

I certify that the specimen given to me by the donqr idenlified in the'cerlification section on Copy 2 of this foiTTI was collected, labeled, sealed, and released to the Delivery Service noted in 

accordance with applicable Federal requirements. · ··-· SPECIMEN BOTTLE(S) RELEASED TO: 

X , .. . .. , 1 ,,, " AM . t ~~ Slgnatul>! of Collector Time of Collection 

I I .. /I/. 

RECEIVED AT LAB: Primary Specimen 

Bottle Seal Intact 

SPECIMEN BOTTLE(S) RELEASED TO: 

X 

Signature of Accessioner 

I I 0 Yes 

~ 0 No, Enter Remark Below PRIN i) Accessioners Name First, Ml Last bate (Mo/Day/Yr.) 

STEP 5: COMPLETED BY DONOR 

I certify that I provided my urine specimen to the collector; that I have not adulterated it in any manner; each specimen bottle used was sealed with a tampereviqent ~eal in 'fTIY presence; and that the information provided on this form and on the label affixed to each specimen bottle is correct. 

'. / .. \ l \ \ .. . ' .. • ; / x \j ' ... ·.·--..I.·:···._.,_., :..:. : ·c·. ~---~r:·. ···.1 i \;. \-· ... :· ., . ;-,-\. I(.>_ .• ,.··~ I,; I' 

Signature of Donor · 1 (PRINT) Donor's Name (First, Ml, Last) Date (Mo/Day/Yr.) 

Date of Birth ·- I ;;q' I.' 'I Mo. Day Yr. 

Should the results of the laboratory tests for the specimen identified by this form be confirmed positive, the Medical Review Officer will contact you to ask 

about prescriptions and over-the-counter medications you may have taken. Therefore, you may want to make a list of those medications for your own records. 

THIS UST IS NOT NECESSARY. If you choose to makei a list, do so either on a separate piece of paper or on the back of your copy (COPY 5). -DO NOT 

PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION ON THE BACK OF ANY OTHER COPY OF THE FORM. TAKE COPY 5 WITH YOU. 

STEP 6: COMPLETED BY MEDICAL REVIEW OFFICER - PRIMARY SPECIMEN 

In accordance with applicable Federal requirements, my determination/verification is: 

0 NEGATIVE 0 POSITIVE 0 TEST CANCELLED 0 REFUSAL TO TEST BECAUSE: 

0 DILUTE 0 ADULTERATED 0 SUBSTITUTED 

REMARKS------------------------~-----------------------------------------------------

Signature of Medical Review Officer (PRINT) Medical Review Officers Name (First. MI. Last) 

I I 

Date (Mo/Day/Yr.) 

S'T'EP 7: COMPLETED BY MEDICAL REVIEW OFFICER - SPLIT SPECIMEN 

In accordance with applicable Federal requirements, my determination/verification for the split specimen (if tested) is: 

0 RECONFIRMED 0 FAILED TO RECONFIRM-REASON----------------------------1 

X I I 

Signature of Medical Review Officer (PRINT) Medical Review Officers Name (First, MI. Last) Date (Mo/Day/Yr.) 

. -::· 

0 

:;:: 

01 

z 

? 

C> 

"' "' 

~ "' "' 
Employee: 

Employee Number: 

Employer: 

Employer Number: 

Location: 

Location Code: 

Ordering Account Number: 

COCNumber: 

Specimen ID: 

Reason: 

Modality: 

Date Collected: 

Collection Site: 

Collection Site Address: 

Collection Site Phone: . 

Lab Received: 

Lab Reported: 

Date COC Ret: 

MRO Verified: 

Date Reported: 

MRO Operator: 

Result: 

Specimen Type: 

Product Class: 

Drug Class: 

AMPHETAMINES 

COCAINE 

MARDUANA 

OPIATES 

PHENCYCliDINE 

Drug Testing System 

Lab Results Report: DRUGTEST 

MCKOWN, VICfORIA 

X>Pooc7022 

lRINITY JET MANAGEMENT, llC 

7515 LEMMON AVF;, · 

DALLAS, TX 75209 

24851 

lRINITY JET MANAGEMENT, llC - FAA 

ADD001 

2~5870215870 

0873998871 

0873998871-0110 

PRE EMPLOYMENT 

FAA 

1/14/2010 

TX271 - CONCENTRA MEDICAl CENTER-ADDISON 

1$810 MIDWAY RD, ADDISON, lX 75001-4259 

(~72) 458-8111 

1/15/2010 

1/15/2010 

1/18/2010 

1/18/2010 

1/18/2010 

POHBWISNIEWSKI 

NEGATIVE DILUTE 

5jPANEl 

URINE TEST 

Result: 

NEGATIVE 

NEGATIVE 

NEGATIVE 

NEGATIVE 

NEGATIVE 

Page 57 of65 

12/1~ 

NOTE: All positive drug test rE!5ults have been verified through GC/MS confirmation tests. 

Alcohol test results are *»nfirmed by GC only. 

C u v r e..J'l-r· 

f,· (P '\ 

~VJb"" 

Laboratory: lABCORP 

Result Explanation: : 

Creatinine < 20 but > 5. sknd for 2nd coll'n, if co. policy requires. 

John G. Cametas, M.D., Medical Review Officer 

Pembrooke Occ Health i 

2301 N. Parham Rd. 
19/23/10 14:56 Pg 001 

,Ernployer Name, Address and I. D. B, MRO Narno, Addren. Phone end Fex No. 

ADDI50N.JET MGT. GDIIW\GINJ\IRI: i ' : PftMDROM·OCCUPAnOH~ HfALT'H ~tt~nre~Shwt :... . ·:: · .• :·1· A"ftN~.OR.JOHNCAHETAS " 

=~~~~ruSA p; 172-5-10011 f: 9J2.Y:I1..a2 . 

i 

ij 

q. • 

~~~"¢r=·surres PHDNt;.aM-341-1010 IIIJ,J~-~~~~,1, ~~~2~ployee '-~~~Y~£.:£Jt 7 ~ .-?t~~ .. ~-~ Rea8on for Test: LJ Pra-amploymant ndom D Reasonable Suspicion/Cause . n Post ACCident 

·.CJ to Duty 6 Follow-up o Other (apaclfy) __ ... 

AMP 

Cl No. Enter Remark Below 

I cstfify that I P.rov/dtld my urlno spiXIIm•n to thtt I have not advlterated it in !"'Y mQnner, Cllf~ spt!ICimen bo(fte:1.111f1d was BtNJifld with 11 tam(J(lr11 sn . . /In :y prsunct~: and thSI th• informllflon an thi4 farm and on lllslslie/ rtnlled to each SD6Citnsrr trle II corJGCt 

..)O.~~~~:;:::J~L...l..::~5:!.:::~::: tc.-+cr,. s;--. c.. , . . C7 Jt3 '/ lJ Sionalv•t dl Oontr . , (PRINT! Donolt Hornt ( ~ ML LMQ DJ\a (IOOIOII)¥Yr.) 

. ~me F,!hone No~ mn '1 t t -350 f, .. ~Vfllll~g :ho~ No. fjP, 9 1'~ 5::5i5/ Date of Blt11lr) ~ ·,.;~.(- t6 9 

t. ' • Mo. Oay Yt. 

Should ttie re4Uit8 or (ne·labOI'IItory teat4 ror ltl&·&pee~men ~nllfted by this tonn be conttrmad posldve, ttta·MIK!Icat RavJew Offiollr wm oontact you to ask 

about ptli$Criplioo5 and oi.ool"''h~f medlcat!ol'la you may have tllkel\ Therefore, you may want to mttke a lfal of those medc:aUorus for your OYtTl recartls. 

TAl~ LIST IS NOT NECESSARY. II you cnooee 10 make a l{llt, cfo 10 ellh~ on a aeparat. pita ol papar or on the back ol your copy (COPY 5). -00 NOT 

PROYIOE THIS INFOFIMATION ON THE BACK OF ANY 0;'11-fER COPY OF THE FORM. TAKE COPY S WITti YOU. . 

tn 8CG'Ofl18f'IC9 wltfl eppt/C8018 Ff!C(em/mffiJif'RinP.nm. 

(j NeGATIVE t:J POSITIVE 

(J DILUTE 

d~lrmlnallimsrm.~arlcln 16: . ~'Kit:ru~AL TO TEST BECAUSE; <~ 

t:J AOUL TERATED D SUBSTiTUTED 

,I .:.. ,;, ·,. •' 

REMARKS----------~~~--------~------~~~·~"~:·--------~--~----------------

I 
. 

~ L.aooratory t...orp.orduOJt u• 1"\ll,lt::ll!wel nululli!-Jl:ll 

1 First Ave., Raritan, NJ 08869 

,104 Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC ~-• • .,g 

20 Main Street, Southaven, MS 38671 

~07 North Gessner, Houston, TX 7'!040 

SPECIMEN ID NO! 

STEP 1: COMPLETED BY COLLECTOR OR EMPLOYER REPRESENTATIVE 

A. Employer Name, Address and I.D. No. 

i::t :;.~:_. !.·.: :::;:f:r:-:r.;~-1 

(2~ _:. :·-,_~- : {:LH.;:f·~~~;~~ 

. ::: _·:_. __ ,;~ .,n,c~l ;r:'~~:_·,:-:;._,. 1 .;::;:,~:~:.-: 

C. Donor SSN or Employee I.D. No<. 

•;.:. ,r. )', 

;·:·· ;: <./ 

.. · i.lr 

~:. ·~- . },; • .• ~~ ·. ' i. LAB ACCESSION ·NO •. 

B. MRO Name, Address. Phone and Fax No. 

F·-~:: -/t·:•.:.r:··._. ···: i):t;;t~.':J r;·.y._j'~.; ... !. ::-.~.- -i·1·.'-~-i_~j-I 

!\r-'~-:~-~-: e:~;_ ._:r? .. ':'·-~ .c .. :.,:.' , t-';. 

:l:t}~i -g_F .. ~_.(•,{J~~.:·---~·' r:·:_.t. ';.:. :=> ~lf~ (-: 

.:' ·.· 

fri .... \ .:~ :: : 

D. Reason for Test: 

_: ;":., A .:'i~~:· .. : > 0 _. :_, !. 0 j_ 0 ;, 0 ,., 

0 Pre-employment DJ.!~andom 0 Reasonable Suspicion/Cause o PosLl\:ceident 

0 Return to Duty i 0 Follow-up 0 Other (specify) ________ ___,,---

{ ·..,, 

E. Drug Tests to be Performed: Cr1HC, COC, PGP, OPI, AMP 0 THC & COC Only 0 Other (specify)=====,.,.....,,_,..,.=== , .. F>c&flfictiorFslte:'Ai:ldress:·----":~-:~~·-:-··:: .. : .; .. -:-.: . .--:-:-.-~- .. ,-:··: ·-:-·,~ ---~-"-.. ~~- ---"'"·<· .. :··-':"':'--.. -.--:::;-:··: ,_.~=-,- --~- .·. ''·· -·"--:,·:c:::c:;:,~)','t>:'·~-:;; -. : :.::~;-~ '" .. 

. --~ ... :_ .. -: 

Collector Phone No: 

~ .. · Collector Fax No. ./ } ·~-

STEP 2: COMPLETED BY COll-ECTOR 

Read specimen temperaturl:) ~ithin 4 minutes. Is t~mperature Specimen Collection: . 

between 90° and 100°F? lt!Yes ONo, Enter Re[nark ~Split OSingle ONone Provided (Enter Remark) OObserved {Enter Remark) 

STEP 3: c6ilector. affixes bottle seal{s) to bottle(s). Collector dates seal{s): .Donor initials seal(s). Donor -completes STEP 5 on Copy 2 (MRO Copy) 

STEP 4: CHAIN OF CUSTODY· INITIATED/BY COLLECTOR AND COMPLETED BY LABORATORY 

1 certify that _the specimen given to "!e by the donor identified in thJ certification section on Copy 2 of this· form was colfected, labeled, sealed, and i-eteased to the .De/ivel}' Service-~ in 

accordance wilh,applicable Federal 'Tquirements. · ! , 

1 

i ,.,,.-) AM SPECIMEN BOTILE(S) RELEASE;D TO: . 

;- ! ! ::,. · f. .... /.,; ,. PM . -

•,·· ,_. • Sig"l!ture of C;ll~;or . . : .·. Tli7 oi Coll~/n· . ":: ,... 

f 

i 1,. 

_,"'-···· / 

(PRINT) Collecto(s Name (Arst, Ml, Last) , Date (Mo/DayNr.) ~ ;?.~•?..1!:\~~~~--~·--!:!.f'ltl-:::-:r--: W.·)::",'J':'i(:,.::;.::;)'~~ ..... l ,,, .. , .. -l~"'':"'ll'l':i~'l"":"1l""·':"::'::~~.-)~~~-·~-,. ..... -.': ...... ..,..,...""""l""' ... •· -·--;<:"".,.~-=·=,.,...,. . . .. ,,.,\\ ~\<; ;, .•. ,., 

I 

. ' Primary Specimen SP~CIMEN BOTTLE(S) REL~SED TO: 

,... Bottle S1:1al Intact 

Signature of Accessioner DYes 

· · PRIN Accesslane(s Name ·A MI. last II- 0. NQ, Enter Remark Below 

STEP 5: COMPLETED BY DONOR 

I certify that i p{ovided my urine specimen .to the collebtor; that I have.-not adulterated it.in any manner; each specimen bottie used was seaiei:/ ;,.,;th a tamperevi~entrea/ in_~~ ~resence; and that .the info'Fation {rrovided o7,fii1~ f~nn and on the label.affixerjj,,teacp s~i':!~ bi;Jtt~ is cp":.o/- . . X · __ i . . .. A..:<. ·-... ' . ·;--.. i .. . i { ·J i.} l [. \ '-:;•7 f1 '5~ /'•' \ ""L {J£_1f}! v (Jt . 1)2'} ffl) 

Signature of Donor , ; ' (PRINT) Dano(s Name (First Ml, Last) · Date (Mo/DayNr.) 

Daytl~e Phone No. /1'i'~:~/) (7 '?'~·-. 3.::~){!.) l Evening Phone No.'Zt ],,1-)~ J 7· =···:j./-f:; Date of Birltl;ar ,[::./ { f 

' vw. ·~ ~ 

' Should ·me results of the laboratory tests for the ~pecim~n ideritified by this form be confirmed positive, the Medical Review Officer will contact you to ask 

about prescriptiOns and over-the-counter medications you may have taken. Therefore, you may want to make a list of those medications for your own records. 

THIS UST IS NOT NECESSARY. If you Choose to ma~e a list, do so eill:ier on a separate piece of paper or on the back of your copy {COPY 5). -DO NOT 

PROVIDE THIS 11\JF:ORMATION ON THE BACK OF A~Y OTHER COPY OF THE FORM. TAKE COPY 5 WITH YOU. 

STEP 6: COMPLETED BY MEDICAL REVIEW OFFICE~ - PRIMARY SPECIMEN 

In accordance with applicable Federal requirements, +y determination/verification is: 

0 NEGATIVE 0 POSITIVE 0 TEST CANCELLED 0 REFUSAL TO TEST BECAUSE: 

0 DILUTE ! 0 ADULTERATED D SUBSTITUTED 

REMARKS ____ ~----------------~~--~--------~--~--~--------~----------------------

X 

Signature of Medical RevieW OffiCer i. (PRINl) Medical Review Office(s Name (A!St, Ml, Last) Date (Mon:i8yNr.) 

I I 

STEP 7: COMPLETED BY MEDICAL REVIEW OFFICEjR - SPLIT SPECIMEN 

In accordance with applicable Federal requirements, J,ny deterrninationlverification_ far the split specimen {if tested) is: 

i 

I I 

0 RECONFIRMED 0 FAILED TO RECONTRM - REASON 

(PRINT) Medical Review Office(s Name (Arst Ml, Last) Date (Mo/DayNr.) 

CCPY 5 - DC~J()R COF't - GREEi"o.J 
Lab Results Report: DRUGTEST 

Employee: xxxxx~022 - MCKOWN, VICTORIA S 

Employer: 248511- ADDISON JET MANAGEMENT DBN TRINITY PRIV 

7515 IlEMMON AVE. 

DALLAp, TX 75209 

Location: ADD001- ADDISON JET MGT DBA TRINITY PRIVATE JET 

Ordering Account Number: 215879 

COC Number: 07505~8212 

Specimen ID: 07505~8212-0910 

Reason: RAND0M 

Modality: FAA 

Date Collected: 9/23/2,010 

Collection Site: lX271!- CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTER- ADDISON 

15810jMIDWAY RD, ADDISON, TX 75001-4259 

Phone~ (972) 458-8111 

Lab Received: 

Lab Reported: 

Date COC Rec: 

MRO Verified: 

Date Reported: 

Result: 

Product: 

Drug Class: Result: 

AMPHEfAMINES NEGATIVE 

COCAINE NEGATIVE 

MARDUANA NEGATIVE 

OPIATES NEGATIVE 

PHENCYCliDINE NEGATIVE 

9/24/2,010 

9/24/2;010 

9/27/2,010 

9/27/'1;010 by IMAGENOWFILEMOVER 

9/27/2010 

5 PANEL - URINE TESf 

NOTE: All positive drug test results h~ve been verified through GC/MS confirmation tests. 

Alcohol test results are confirmed by GC only. 

Laboratory: U\BCORP 

John 

~d~ G. cametas, M.D., Medical Revi¢w Officer 

https://www.edrugtest.com/Reports-SpecDbt-Deliver.asp?Show _ Coc=O 

Medical Review Office 

2301 N. Parham Rd. Suite 5 

Richmond, VA 23229 

Phone: (804) 346-1010 Fax: (804) 346-5050 

6/13/2012 

6/13/201 
U~S~ Departmen~>or;~rransportatiofi'i(DtJl'Y 

. . Alcohol _.._isting Fo;rm ~ (The instnlcriomforcolizpleting this form are· on tlze back of CopY)) 

:~:::I~y:~N::~C:--9:::,~-'. -'-/7-;L_;_E:::~~:-· .. ~-'--.~~-':'\·B::-:'::-.~"':,,'-~-"-.~-/C-'-····~~'- .. 0-L~.;·_=T"":~E'- .. -'C'-HNI~·.:.../..;:~'~f€,--,I'-i~-::N-'-':-:'-'-·"_\."'-:$-";_.::l:·~~'-;-'-~:-'~'-~~"'::·~-".··~'-·t.,..i_~.:..,"'¥"';~=--f;-'-·;_;:.i_,t"'· .. ,""···:..·)~·- ·. !Print) (First, 1\I.J,, i.astL • -· 

:B: :SSN or Employee ID No. _(.o:::.;·'ii'·:_._i~·=·~'-:·: -'-·, ·""--~'-.:·~·. --~· :."'-. ·_·· -'!·-,.,· -o-:,.,-'-c-"--:-"'-~~--:-:--:~---,-'-':-~c-'--c-:--'-':--:-

C:. Employer: Name . . . . . ' 

. City, 'ST ZIP . 

DER Name and· 

Telephone f'lo .. 

·;<'·:.. .... \ ·."f. ! 

... t: ~ .. )( __ ) I 

:-·,' v- ; . • .~· •. ; f.. '·': ,• ,!\ ~.:;, r •• ~! . / ... \ •. ;:.·,·,· '·~ ' '> .~ •. i .. /._ . , -~ · ... . : ... .,,_;.rf·.-.;~·~..,·.-:: ·.. ·;····' "/~,,-~· ·~;.·, ,·: . .:.: --~; .. ··. €!_~·.<.~/ ,.:· . •·- ·o=--~i"'R't<,-N..,ii'-m"''e--·~---"'--'-.,--""---'"'-'--'-'-'---c .. -D-E-"R~f'"'A-rr"-a=C~o.-de-'-&-· .:..P~h-nn"'e"'.,-:-;-"'u:.::n'-,h'-e~r."") 

· D: ·Reason 'for Test: -~~ando~ 0 Reasonable Sus!J, 

STEP 2:. TO)~EC0i\1PLETED BYEl\lPLOYl~E 

STEP 3: TOBECOMPLETEDlWAIJCOHOL.TEC:(INICIAN. 

tlf ttie techriidan curidticti'ig tlic scrc~niug test is not the' sim'ie techniCian \iho will bt condu~ti~g the 

conflnnation test, each.· technici•llt :must complete their. OWn fm'm.) f certif)' that { ha \'e conducted al~oho( testing 

ori the above mi"'cdindivid~al iii accnrdance with tlte pr()ccdures established in the U$. Dep~rtmciit of 

t ransportatiori regulation~ 49 · C.FR · Pah 40/Jiiat I· alii tjlla!ilicd to· ope1'ate the Jesting device(s) identified, and· 

that the result~ ar:e as re<lllrded' .· .· . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. '\ ·i· 

.TECrrNICIAN, ~;~1\:r, . D ST~f ; DEVICE: DSALIV?·~B~~ATW tS:lVIiuute:wait: DY~s . · .... 

SCREE]'iiNG1EST:''tforBRF.ATH DEVJCt:"' 11Tirti11tlie sp;tc(bc;/(nr onlr ifihe testin.~-del'icr is imt dl'signediOJlli!l(l 

--·~-.: __ ,.__.:.. __ .-...=--;-·.t.r~~:rn 

··t'' ,. 

' ;: .. r~ 

' :) 

' 

~- ' ! 

r 

I ti·~-

>. ;.,..,...., 

l "F··~ 

~: tO 

(/; ' £; l ' "* ' t~ 

j .......... ; 

~.;1..-; 

~'rl 

l 8 l 

' ' ! 

1 

1. .~~ ' ~. 

:··· ... ,.., ' ' ?:: !" ~:.li ~~"'l( 

,. 

' ' 'j·· l-~i ~ ~ ':'" ...... ··~ .. ., __ .. ---:-... ·· ..................... ,.. ___ .. "" .... ~-.-- ..... ~ ..... _ .. -·· ·T ...... _ .... - ~.- :--¥"''""" .... ~ ....... ~ . ..;. -: ... --~ ............ ,;._,, ___ ,.,.;.. .. .:. ....... -...;-.-: ........ ··1 

l ~ 

> 

~~::: :"-:t~ 

() 

.... ; 

'""..:;:1 :·L 

-~~ 

-~-

; .. · ! 

_ .. f." .;:f·\·\ >.-.;. :. ,:.;;- ~.-.::;::: 

,.·. } ~ :;;~ ··t ~.-- ,_.:. ;,.-.1 )"•. ~ . ::r- tf' (j·~· .. ';j ::L ·i ;·.{"j !2:-

l 

~~ [:'}. .!_ 

. I. ~-:b, 

~~ 
~/23/10 14:56 ro: stephen wilson 9729316062 l?q 001 

STEP J: T 

C: Employer Name 

Street 

Clly, Si lilt" 

D:£R Name and 

Telephone No. 

r············································, 

l .. 

I ~~ I ~)4 

t

LCOI10HlTOR CC: 001i37 ~~-; 9,'23110 w $· 

EST NO. 629 ! - : ; GT 

~.··eJ: "r:;-.:OO!Oo.,O"'"" i ;::: i. ,~~71 ~t....... ,~ 

l

lscREENlHG TEST , GI210L TlNE ! 

~poo AUTo 14:44 I• 1--------------- ! i; I : s:c• 

! ,.~ i s: : I 1 ti>-1 : l 

•ndnm 0 R•••4nal>l•l:u•p- OPMI·Artld+l 0Return In J)utr 0Folluw-up 0Prc-tmpl0)'mfnl j j 

~s=T=E~P~2-=.T~O~B~co~=PI~.E~T=E~I)~B~Y.~E~M~PL~O~Y~E~E~,~==========~==========~j ~~ 

. that I om about to Mubmll (o al"oltnlle$ling requlr<!d ~Y U.s. D~partna~nt .. r Tran,portallnn r('gutaUnn!l 

t tbf l(l('nlll'ytn~ tnrn.-mallnn p.-ovlded nn the rorm Ia tr~e lind correct. 

i Ia 

L ................... ·-·-··-----··-·-·······.1 .w 

~n~E~P~J~:~T~O~B~E~C;O;M~~;L;~;E;~;P;Y~AL;C;O;H;O;L~TR;C~~~N;J;C;IA;N;'i~~~!~~-~~~~=~=/~u~t~-~~~~~~~r------------------1~> I, 1 s. 21 

I 

·(If tht u:ehnloel11n conducting th~ A¢reenlnJ1 tl·~l Is n11l th~ samt ltchnleiPn wbn will he ctntductln~ the '"'' ~ 

confirmPtlnn ••••, each trehnll."llln mu&t compl~te their own I"Drjn.) I rerllf)' that I hll''" tondut'led llkill!Ctl teatln!' ·,. I §. ~ "" tht abnve num~od lndlvlduRI in ll.ccotduncc- with th~ prn'ctdure• eltobiiBhc:d In the U.S. Oepertn1enc ol' 1 Jg :::5' 

Transi>l?rbll(on r~ulllllon, .,. CPR l)art 4(1. thlll I am qllalifiyd to UJII!tAit the 141-~tlnll devlte(s) idtntlned, and I I I ra· 

that the r~'ult& e as recorded. i · 1 I , . I 

OsTr DEVICE: OsAJ.IV~ lS-MlnuteWalt: ov~- 0No II! ,~ ;;p 

BRf:ATH /)f:.'V/Cfi~ writt> ;, tilt ·''"'r. •rt u· allb:.if/1" tmlnll dt'•'il'l' t• lllll dt•signrtl '"tl!i!Jf.-1 (i 

-;:;;;i"l Tllltln~DcY[~~N~Mt o~vkeSeriMI#QKl.cn#&~:-p.l~tc Acllv~llnn11m* Rtadlnll,'fime ~ I I .. 

CONFIRMATION TEST1 R~$11/ts M.!J.JI. b~ affix,/ to"""' t:(J~,••aftlol:r/nmc "' printtd dlrtctlynllto thll/or/11. 

REMAR~~------------------------~--------~~--------------

• 

STEP 4: TO BE COMPLETED BY EMPI.OYEK IF l'~ST RES_VLT IS O,Ol OR HIGtlER 

1 certify tbot 1. have &ubmllted to tbc alcohflltt11t, the .-.a I~: or "'"'"h are ar.~urately rec!nrded an this rnrm. I 

undentand thel 1 muBt not drive, pcrl'orm liii~I)'·IIC:n~Uive ;dutleR, 11r oper~te he•vy l!qlllpmeJ\t becauRe tb~ 

resull.1 81'1! 0.02 or greater. : · 

llnlc 

•tl·· 

COPY 1 -ORIGINAL - FORWARD TO-THE EMPLOYER 

Mooth~ J .. t?a,r 1 .. )'~11r , 

OMS No. 2105·0521 

$70·FS•C3 (RaY'. 7/01) ISIIA'll 

j I> . i~ I .s:- i~ l li l ;.Q ! ,, tr1 

I < ps: 

I~ •-I 

: It l ............. ""' ........... ---········-............ *··········-..... .. , ...... ··-·········-··· ..................... __ .... _ ........... , . . ... ! I>> i !&~ I • -· ;oc I I[~ 

I ~~~ 

I , li I L .................. _ ........................ ! ~ 

j ltfnA Wilh Tnmptf E¥i0&nl TJ[JG 
0788 Roselle St, Sa11:.Diego, CA 92121 FED,..-.·./\!- DRUG TESTING CUSTODY AND CONTROl~_ FORM 

9 First Ave., Raritan, NJ 08869 . , . . . · .. . .•. 

<904 Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 , · ·. 

229 Madison, Ste. 500; Seattle, WA 98104 (DrugProof) -:- :· :; ,_ ... ;. ·· 

120 Main Stree.t, Southaven, MS 38671 !"""' ,~. t'rl .,., -~~ •'·> ~ ,,... Jl 

'202 North Gessner, Houston, TX 77040 sPECIMEN ID No. -1 / .) ·, ) '·• .. ·• ,::_ -.: :_/ ·~·~ .; i LAB ACCESSION NO. 

STEP 1: COMPLETED COLLECTOR OR EMPLOYER REFlRESENTATIVE 

A. Employer Name, Address and I.D. No. 

:·~.-:~ f;~: ;/ ... ~~ .n<.! s :.~ .. ~ ~:~ -~, .. ~-·~(~· ···1. ·!· '::'.' 

B. MRO ~arne, ~ddress, Phone and Fax No. 

r ::~. :-J ~:·{ :'·: ~ ·: ~ .• · .. 

I~ ,: ::~: '?. :.:; ·~ .. • :~~: ~--j ~·~:. . • ~· .i· ~-'· i ;.'~ ~~ 

~. ,. 

':"; •• 'I •• : ~;_ • ,. •• 

: ~~-. ~~. :-:.. . 

. .· .. .. . 

.. ·. .• ... :. 

C. DonorSSN or Employe~ I.D. No;,·.':~. : · .l i·· l ·····l i 1 · ; ···--~: j ·. 1 ::~ l ,· ; ---·•••·•t·m····"'•·•··•·.wo.·.,,, ... , .... j'······"'~·~:~;:·--·'·"'"'f,"·'····••m.wmo•••-"o"'•'·'Y!'"''·••·m~':;;""~'l;>;;:;:;;---.w·· 

D. Reason for Test: til Pre-employment O;Random 0 Reasonable Suspicion/Cause 0 Post Accident ; .. ~ I 

· 0 Return to Duty 0 Other (specify) __________ _ 

Tests to be Performed: THC & COC 

Collector Phone No. { 

~~~-~-=-~--------~--~ 

Signature of Accessionert 

STEP 5: COMPLETED BY DONOR 

Primary Specimen 

Bottle Seal Intact 

Collector Fax No. f 

0 No, Enter Remark Below 

I certify (hat I provided my urine specimen to Ule colledtor; that I have not adulterated it in any manner; each specimen bottle used was sealed with a tamperevi(/ent ~ealln my presence; and.that the information provided on this}orm and on the label affixed to each specimen bottle is correct. . . ·, I 

' l· i ·-· i ·z ··. · 1 ·· .. ' ' -::1 ·~. •. ·. 

Signature of Donor (PRINT) Donor's Name (Firs~ MI. Las!) Date (Mo/Day/Yr.) 

Daytime Phone No. ( . ··, ··,:) · · i · ·. ·: · Evening Phone No. J...( __ .Ll -=-· -.:....· --''l...L' ·.:..t"..:..• "-' ___ _ Date of Birth 

Mo. Day Yr. 

Should the results of the laboratory tests for the specimef! identified by this form be confirmed positive, the Medical Review Officer will contact you to ask 

about prescriptions and over-the-counter medications yo~ may have taken. Therefore, you may want to make a list of those medications for your own records. 

THIS UST IS NOT NECESSARY. If you choose to mal<lfl a list, do so either on a separate piece of paper or on the back of your copy (COPY 5). -DO NOT 

PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION ON THE BACK OF OTHER COPY OF THE FORM. TAKE COPY 5 WITH YOU. 

STEP 6: COMPLETED BY MEDICAL REVIEW OFFICEQ - PRIMARY SPECIMEN 

In accordance with applicable Federal requirements, n}y determination/verification is: 

0 NEGATIVE 0 POSITIVE 0 TEST CANGELLED 0 REFUSAL TO TEST BECAUSE: 

0 DILUTE ! 0 ADULTERATED [J SUBSTITUTED 

REMARKS ______________ ~--------~------------------------------------------------~----

X I I 

Signature of Medical Review Officer (PRINT) Medical Review Officer's Name (Rrs!, Ml, Las!} Date (Mo/Day/Yr.) 

STEP 7: COMPLETED BY MEDICAL REVIEW OFFICEQ • SPLIT SPECIMEN 

/[1 .ar;cqrdance with applicable Federal requirements, Jy determination/verification for the split specimen (if tested) is: 

··' .;.i .,,. ·:;. j ' 

0 RECONFIRMED 0 FAILED TO RECONFIRM-REASON-------------------------------------1 ! 

l I I 

! (PRINT) Medical Review Officer's Nama (Rrst, Ml, Last) Data (Mo/Day/Yr.) 
._......__ } 

' I 

UNIVERSITY SERVICES! MRO 

Toxicology Services Grou"ft 

* Medical Review Officer Final Report * 

TO: ADDISON JET MANAGEMENT I IN;C. 

LISA COLLINS I 

4553 GLENN CURTISS 

ADDISON, TX 75001 

Date Reported: 07/26/2005 

Name of Individual Tested: ~ICH, VICTORIA 

Identification Number: 455-5~-7022 

Collection Date: 07/25/2005 

Reason for Test: PRE-EMPLOYMENT 

Specimen Type: URINE 

Collection Location: ADD001 

ADDOOl 

:-...... 

FOR: ADDISON JET MANAGEMENT, INC. 

LISA COLLINS 

4553 GLENN CURTISS 

ADDISON, TX 75001 

Date MRO Verified: 07/26/2005 

Specimen Number: 0588230646 

Date Ply2 Received: 07/26/2005 

Laboratory Performing Analysi~: LABCORP LABORATORY 

Status of Drug Test: 

Benjamin Gerson, MD 

Medical Review Officer 

NEGA'IjiVE 

Drugs Tested: AMPHETAMINES, CdCAINE METABOLITES, MARIJUANA (THC), PHENCYCLIDINE (PCP), 

OP.~ATES ,. ! 

10551 Decatur Road, Suite 200 *Philadelphia, PA 191'54 *Tel: (215)637-6800 "'Fax: (2151637-6998 
--------------

......... 

4500 Claire Chennault 

Addison, Texas 75001 

Tel: {972) 713-7707 

Fax: {972) 713-7082 

QUALITY AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE AND JET CHARTER 

08/18/2004 

FROM: Drug Program ~anager 

Addison Expres's 

4500 Claire-Ch~nnault 

Addison, TX 75001 

l To Whom It May Conce,rn: 

This letter is to confirm that Victoria Reich, is on the Addison Express 

Federally Approved Drug and Alcohol Testing Program according to DOT 

Regulations CFR, Part 6J, et al. 

Sincerely, 

~7 Trey Young 

Addison Express 

FM CERTIFIED REPAIR STATION X5ER171Y • FM CERTIFIED AIR CARRIER X5EA 177Y 
------------------

TRINITY JET MANAGEMENT, llC 

ct/b/.a .IrinJtj! .Private Jet Charter 

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 

Mr. Jon M. Hopkins 

Aerospace Medicine 

Drug Abatement Division 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 121 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

Dear Mr. Hopkins, 

I appreciate your team conducting the audit of our Drug Abatement Program. It is from these inspections 

that we find our weaknesses and are able to improve our performance and compliance. 

On the matter of recurrent training for the Supervisors and Program Manager. Through the task of 

merging our two companies and moving our Operations Base, I inadvertently let my obligation to the 

required training lapse. I am scheduling training for the Supervisors and for myself as the Program 

Manager for tomorrow, December 16, 2010. Once that is complete, we will then schedule recurrent 

training for all of our covered employees on the Drug and Alcohol Abatement Program to review the 

program and to learn of changes that have been put in place since our last training was conducted. We 

will go over all of the latest materials. I will have our scheduler program our computer based scheduling 

program to include the recurrent requirements of the Drug and Alcohol Abatement Program, which will 

then automatically alert us that the required training is coming due. It is the same program that tracks all 

of the currency requirements for our pilots. This will ensure it will not be missed in the future. 

On the matter of Victoria Reich McKown, I remember reinstating her on our certificate at the beginning 

of the year. I handled the Drug Program paperwork myself. Knowing Tori very well and knowing where 

she works I made an assumption that I was not allowed to make. I assumed her situation had not changed 

and that she was only flying her Part 91 planes and owners. I refreshed her other documents including 

her resume and her insurance form which shows her employers. I know her employers and the history 

had not changed. However, this does not relieve me of the obligation to question her about any other 

drug program and testing as per the "J" question. Had I simply followed the checklist that we use for new 

hires, I would have not missed this. The 'T' question would have been asked in writing and the past 

employer, Addison Express, would have been sent the 8060 questionnaire to be in compliance with the 

regulations. I let complacency slip in for expedience. In the training tomorrow I will emphasize the 

importance of using that checklist and check off each item, just as we do in the cockpit. 

I am contacting Ms. Reich/McKown today and will have the paperwork completed properly and ~ent to 

the former employer for completion as soon as possible, probably today or tomorrow. We wtll not 

7515 Lemmon Ave. 

Dallas. Texas 75209 

gshaw@trinityjet.com 

Phone: 214-366-4800 

Cell: 214-957-0166 

Fax 214-366-4801 
~----------------... 

• 

release Ms. Reich!McKown for any flights until the Drug and Alcohol Abate~ent Program paperwork is 

correct and filed. 

I will forward you the documents from the above corrections as soon as they are completed, but no later 

than Monday, December 20,2010. 

As you had noted, we have made much improvement since our last inspection and we will continue to 

strive for complete compliance and safety in our operations. 

I thank you and your team again for your oversight and service to our industry and wish all of you a 

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Please pass that on to Mark as well when you see him. 

Sincerely, 

Gerald P. Shaw, Director of Operations 

7515 Lemmon Ave. 

Dallas, Texas 75209 

gshaw@trinityjet.com 

Phone: 214-366-4800 

Cell: 214-957-0166 

Fax 214-366-4801 
Addison Jet Management,. Inc .. 

. _sU.tu£LlJ:ltli!Y __ f.rlyw9.te, .. ~LehP~---~--&--~--------·"· .... ,. 

Thursday, January 13, 20Il 

Mr. Jon M. Hopkins, AAM 840 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

Drug Abatement Division 

260I Meacham Blvd., Room I2I 

Fort Worth, TX 76137-4298 

RE: File Number: 20 II SW9I 0053 

In response to your letter I received on January 5, 20 II I submit the following; 

., .-~. 

). : 

I appreciate your team conducting the audit of our Drug Abatement Program. It is from these inspections 

that we find our weaknesses and are able to improve our performance and compliance. 

On the matter of recurrent training for the Supervisors and Program Manager. Through the task of 

merging our two companies and moving our Operations Base, I inadvertently let my obligation to the 

required training lapse. I completed training for myself as the Program Manager and for William Selah as 

a supervisor on December I6, 20IO. I completed supervisor training for our new Director ofMaintenance 

on January 12, 20Il. He also completed all of the initial training and testing as well. We are conducting 

recurrent training for all of our covered employees on the Drug and Alcohol Abatement Program to 

review the program and to learn of changes that have been put in place since our last training was 

conducted. We will go over all of the latest materials. I had our scheduler program our computer based 

scheduling program to include the recurrent requirements of the Drug and Alcohol Abatement Program, 

which will then automatically alert us that the required training is coming due. It is the same program 

that tracks all of the currency requirements for our pilots. This will ensure it will not be missed in the 

future. 

On the matter of Victoria Reich McKown, I remember reinstating her on our certificate at the beginning 

of the year. I handled the Drug Program paperwork myself. Knowing Tori very well and knowing where 

she works I made an assumption that I was not allowed to make. I assumed her situation had not changed 

and that she was only flying her Part 9I planes and owners. I refreshed her other documents including 

her resume and her insurance form which shows her employers. I know her employers and the history 

· had not changed. However, this does not relieve me of the obligation to question her about any other 

drug program and testing as per the 'T' question. Had I simply followed the checklist that we use for new 

hires, I wo~ld have not missed this. The "J'' question would have been asked in writing and the past 

· · employer, Addison Express, would have been sent the 8060 questionnaire to be in compliance with the 

7515 Lemmon Ave. 

Dallas, ·rexas 75209 

.; 

gshaw@trinityjet.com 

Phone: 214-366-4800 

Cell: 214-649-5474 

Fax 214-366-4801 
i' 

. \ 

• 

regulations. I let complacency slip in for expedience. In the training we have conducted recently I have 

emphasized the importance of using that checklist and check off each item, just as we do in the ·cockpit. 

I contacted Ms. Reich/McKown on December 16, 2010 and the paperwork was completed properly and 

sent to the former employer for completion. The paperwork was completed and returned the same day. A 

new J questionnaire was completed as well. Ms. Reich!McKown was not released for any flights until the 

Drug and Alcohol Abatement Program paperwork was correct and filed. 

I have already forwarded the documents you have requested from us including the completed forms for 

Ms. Reich/McKown and the Supervisor Training forms. 

As you had noted, we have made much improvement since our last inspection and we will continue to 

strive for complete compliance and safety in our operations. 

I ask you consider our efforts as you investigate our case. 

I thank you and your team again for your oversight and service to our industry. 

· Please let me know ifthere is anything else you should need. 

Sincerely, 

~~~- Gerald P. Shaw 

Director of Operations 

7515 Lemmon Ave. 

Dallas, Texas 75209 

gshaw@trinityjet.com 

Phone: 214-366-4800 

Cell: 214-957-0166 

Fax 214-366-4801 
Affidavit 

District of Columbia 

I, Margaret Rustin, being first duly sworn under oath, state: 

1. My name is Margaret Rustin. I am the Program Administrative Branch Manager in the Drug 

Abatement Division of the Federal Aviation Administration. 

2. My job responsibilities include analysis of the drug abatement division programs. 

3. In my capacity as Program Administrative Branch Manager, I am familiar with FAA Form 

8060. 

4. FAA Form 8060 is the document wherein Employers request information listed in 49 C.F.R 

40.25(b) from DOT-regulated employers who have employed an employee during any period 

during the two years before the date of the employee's application or transfer. 

5. At the time of the alleged violation, Addison Jet Management, Inc. had 15 safety-sensitive 

employees and 4 aircraft. Therefore, it was a Group III operator as defined in FAA Order 

2150.3B. 

6. A review of the Compliance Enforcement Tracking System (CETS) revealed that on 

December 8, 2006, Addison was assessed a civil penalty in the amount of$12,000 for failure to 

ensure that contractors were covered under an FAA-mandated drug and alcohol testing program. 

(Exhibit G). 

7. I declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ---~--:=---..,....-""" 

Ol.stnot Cl1 ~it>: 00 

~ Brdcr~l!) i;)abfe Vll$, m:ey ~ 

~~m~~ 

~~-~· '·'-· :, · · IC.:::l!Jd(Jt£_ 

JUDY S. MCGHEE 

~PUBuc DtSTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

..., Cc:umd&slon Expires October w, 2015 My Commission Expires ~· d...J..-.1----J'-+-<~"--' 
e List 

EMENT, LLC 

 of active employees in the database. 

Emp No Name Eligible Random 

-----------

------------------------------

460-55-2622 Bach, Christopher Yes 

452-45-9209 BONESTEEL, STEPHEN Yes 

644-03-2379 CHAMS-EDDIN LAITH Yes 

642-03-2593 CUMMINS, CHRISTOPHER Yes 

140-80-6281 FIGUEROA, RICARDO Yes 

266-02-7856 Fletcher, Felix Yes 

451-83-8912 Flobeck, Thomas Yes 

250-69-5681 Fonseca, Bryan Yes 

464-68-8666 KELLY, JR .KEITH Yes 

466-74-6917 Lander, David Yes 

455-59-7022 McKown, VICTORIA Yes 

454-13-4897 Meek, Scott Yes 

465-95-3866 SELAH, WILLIAM Yes 

437-90-5867 SHAW, GERALD Yes 

461-29-9440 Smith, Kevin Yes 

12115/2010 

Mode Job Code Date Added 

-------- ---------- ----------

FAA 1 11/10/05 

FAA 7 12/19/01 

FAA 1 11/01/05 

FAA 1 01/12/07 FAA 7 08/04/03 

FAA 1 05/18/07 

FAA 1 03/20/08 FAA 1 04/30/07 

FAA 1 10/18/05 

FAA 1 08/01/07 

FAA 1 01/18/10 

FAA 1 10/26/05 

FAA 1 08/21/06 

FAA 1 02/17/05 FAA 1 06/22/06 
e List 

EMENT, LLC 06/01/2009 thru 12/15/2010 

g of active and terminated employees in the database. 

Emp No Name Mode Job Code Date Hired Date Term 

-----------

------------------------------ --------

---------- ---------- ---------

460-55-2622 · Bach, Christopher FAA 1 11/10/05 452-45-9209 BONESTEEL, STEPHEN FAA 7 12/19/01 

129-44-4736 Burch, Alton FAA 7 10/28/09 06/30/10 

644-03-2379 CHAMS-EDDIN LAITH FAA 1 11/01/05 

58529-7296 Corson, William FAA 1 01/11/07 09/30/09 

642-03-2593 CUMMINS, CHRISTOPHER FAA 1 01/12/07 

140-80-6281 FIGUEROA, RICARDO FAA 7 08/04/03 

461-94-8660 .Fincher, Ewin FAA 7 09/10/08 10/30/09 

266-02-7856 Fletcher, Felix FAA 1 05/18/07 

451-83-8912 Flobeck, Thomas FAA 1 03/20/08 

250-69-5681 •Fonseca, Bryan FAA 1 04/30/07 

464-68-8666 KELLY, JR KEITH FAA 1 10/18/05 

296-50-3674 Kleinhans, Marc FAA 7 05/20/10 12/01/10 

466-74-6917 Lander, David FAA 1 08/01/07 

183-64-2516 Marszalek, Timothy FAA 7 08/15/07 10/30/09 

455-39-0222 •Massara, Johnny FAA 7 09/05/09 06/28/10 

288-56-7461 McDaniel, Brett FAA 1 01/11/07 08/27/09 

455-59-7022 •McKown, VICTORIA FAA 1 01/18/10 

454-13-4897 Meek, Scott FAA 1 10/26/05 

244-66-3056 Ramsey, Joseph FAA 1 06/01/07 . 02/15/10 

465-95-3866 .SELAH, WILLIAM FAA 1 08/21/06 437-90-5867 SHAW I GERALD FAA· 1 02/17/05 451-937-533 Shrout, Austin FAA 1 08/27/07 07/27/10 

461-29-9440 .smith, Kevin FAA 1 06/22/06 466-918-912 ·Stewart, Joshua FAA 1 04/23/06 11/10/09 

635-01-1430 .Vasquez, Aaron FAA 1 11/25/06 08/27/10 

345-48-2329 Zelinsky, Roger FAA 1 10/19/07 05/24/10 
.~"· -

~· 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

National Policy 

SUBJ: FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program 

ORDER 

2150.38 

Effective Date: 

10/01/07 

This order contains policies, procedures, and guidelines for the Federal Aviation Administration's 

compliance and enforcement program. The order also articulates the FAA's philosophy for using 

various remedies, including education, corrective action, informal action, remedial training, 

administrative action, and ·legal enforcement action, to address noncompliance with statutory and 

regulatory requirements enforced by the FAA. It provides for the public a written statement of the 

Administrator's policy guidance for imposing sanctions for violations of such requirements. 

The order is used at all levels by agency personnel who are engaged in the investigation, reporting, 

and processing of enforcement actions. It applies to all offices with regulatory responsibilities. 

This revision of the order comprehensively updates policies, procedures, guidance, and assignments of 

responsibility. It. reorganizes the order in a m~er more D;seful for agency personnel and is available 

electronically to agency personnel, and the public. The revision amends agency sanction guidance to 

conform to statutory changes resulting from Vision 1 OOCentury of Aviation Reauthorization Act and 

incorporates guidance into the agency's compliance and enforcement program order on policies and 

programs that have developed since the last comprehensive order revision in 1988. Those include 

policies relating to the FAA's exercise of its authority to administratively assess civil penalties and 

guidance on the agency's voluntary safety program~. 

A workgroup of agency personnel from the field and headquarters with extensive experience in 

statutory and regulatory enforcement reviewed the agency's policies and programs in this area to 

produce this comprehensive revision of the agency order on its compliance and enforcement program. 

Robert A. Sturg 

Acting Admin· ator 

Distribution: A-W-l;A-W (AT/PS/SM)-2;A-W (PP/AM/SF/ 

GCIFSIIANS)-3;A-XYZ (A T/AF/CS)-2;Z-X (AS/AM/GC/FS)-3; 

A-Y (AM/AR1GC)-3;A-Z (AM/AN/GC)-3;A-FAC/FACIFCS-O; 

A-F AFIFA T/FIA-O(L TD);ZFS-325 

Initiated By: AGC-300 
10/01/07 2150.38 

Chapter 7. Sanction Guidance Policies 

1. Purpose. This chapter provides the FAA's policies for detennining an appropriate sanction 

once FAA enforcement personnel decide that legal enforcement action is appropriate. This chapter 

contains the general policy the FAA intends to apply in selecting the types of sanctions, ranges of 

sanctions within those types, and specific sanction amounts to impose in legal enforcement actions 

for typical violations of the FAA's statute and regulations. This guidance covers the parameters 

both for selecting sanctions and for modifying sanctions during the infonnal procedures. The 

guidance in this chapter is applied in adjudications under 49 U.S.C. §§ 44106, 44709, 44710, 

44726, 44924, 46111, 46301, and 70115. Hazardous materials sanction guidance and policies are 

addressed in Appendix C. 

2. General Guidelines. 

a. Certificate Suspension ACtion and Civil Penalty Action: Sanctions for Punitive and 

Deterrent Purposes. 

(1) General. If a certificate holder improperly exercises the privileges of a certificate, a 

natural consequence of that act is to lose the privileges for a period of time commensurate with 

the violation. Balanced against this principle, however, the F A.A. considers the adverse impact 

that a certificate suspension could have on the public. Thus, the agency generally suspends the 

certificates of individual certificate holders for violations. However, the FAA usually takes civil 

penalty action against air carriers and airports because such actions do not disrupt service, which 

may adversely affect the public. Nevertheless, when the FAA determines that safety 

considerations warrant it, the agency will suspend the certificate of any type of certificate holder. 

In no case will the FAA take civil penalty action alone when remedial legal action is necessary 

or appropriate. 

(2) Use of both punitive certificate action and civil penalty action for the same 

violations. The FAA generally does not take civil penalty action and punitive certificate action 

(that is, certificate suspension for a fixed period of time) against a certificate holder for the same 

conduct. If unusual circumstances warrant deviation from this practice, legal counsel consult 

with the Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement (AGC-300) before initiating the actions. 

(3) Change in type of proposed sanction. The initial enforcement action reflects the 

agency's best assessment of the appropriate sanction for the violations alleged. After initiating 

the action, legal counsel ordinarily do.es not change the type of sanction unless additional facts or 

circumstances are presented to the FAA that warrant a change. If the action was coordinated 

under chapter 6, paragraph 3, with AGC-300 before initiation, then legal counsel coordinates any 

change in the type of sanction with AGC-300 before making the change. 

b. Legal Sanctions for Remedial Purposes. 

(1) Indefinite certificate suspension pending compliance or demonstration of 

qualification. Suspension action is appropriate where there is a need temporarily to 

7-1 
10/01/07 2150.38 

suspend the privileges of the certificate or rating pending demonstration of qualification or 

compliance with statutory or regulatory requirements. FAA generally uses remedial suspension 

when an individual does not voluntarily surrender his or her certificate pending reexamination. 

See chapter 5. 

(2) Certificate revocation - general. The FAA revokes a certificate when a certificate 

holder lacks the qualifications to hold the certificate. The certificate holder's continued exercise 

of the privileges of the certificate in such circumstances would be contrary to safety in air 

commerce or air transportation and the public interest. Revocation is appropriate whenever a 

certificate holder's conduct demonstrates a lack of the technical proficiency or a lack of the 

degree of care, judgment, or responsibility, required of the holder of such a certificate. Orders of 

revocation are issued on an emergency basis when the certificate holder lacks qualification and is 

reasonably able as a practical matter to exercise the privileges of the certificate. Legal counsel 

does not allege a lack of qualifications to avoid dismissal of charges under 49 C.F.R. § 821.33, 

the NTSB's stale complaint rule. 

(3) Certificate revocation- individuals. The FAA generally revokes an individual's 

certificate or rating whenever he or she demonstrates a lack of willingness or ability to comply 

consistently with statutory or regulatory requirements. A lack of willingness or ability to comply 

may be demonstrated by such things as repeated or deliberate violations or by violations that 

involve grossly careless or reckless conduct. Even a single violation may be sufficient to warrant 

a conclusion an individual lacks qualifications. The FAA ordinarily revokes all certificates of a 

person who commits a violation involving intentional falsification. 

(4) Certificate revocation- entities. Revocation is normally appropriate when a 

certificate-holding entity deliberately or flagrantly violates the statute or regulations or falsifies 

records. Revocation also is generally appropriate when the certificate holder has committed the 

same or similar violations in the recent past demonstrating a lack of qualification, or when the 

certificate holder no longer has, and does not obtain in a reasonable time, the personnel or 

equipment to conduct its operation in full compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. 

(5) Mandatory certificate revocation. Under 49 U.S.C. § 44710, the FAA is required to 

revoke the certificates of any airman who has been convicted of violating certain federal or state 

statutes relating to a controlled substance when an airplane was used in the commission of the 

offense and the airman served as an airman, or was aboard the aircraft, in connection with 

commission of the offense or the facilitation of the commission of the offense. Even when there 

has been no conviction, revocation is required when an airman has knowingly carried out an 

activity punishable under these criminal statutes. The Administrator may waive the revocation if 

a law enforcement officer requests the waiver and the Administrator decides the waiver will 

facilitate law enforcement purposes. See 49 U.S.C. § 44710(f). Under 49 U.S.C. § 44106, the 

FAA also must revoke the registration certificate of any airplane used in the commission of such 

an offense when the use was permitted by the owner of the aircraft with knowledge that it would 

be used for such purpose. Under 49 U.S.C. § 44726, the FAA must revoke the certificates of any 

certificate holder or an individual who has a controlling or ownership interest in the holder who 

was convicted of a violation of federal law relating to the installation, production, repair, or sale 

of a counterfeit or fraudulently-represented aviation part or material or knowingly, and with the 

7-2 
10/01/07 2150.38 

intent to defraud, carried out or facilitated an activity punishable under such a law. The 

Administrator may waive that sanction to facilitate law enforcement purposes or amend, rather 

than revoke, a certificate under certain circumstances. See 49 U.S.C. §§ 44726(f) and (g). 

(6) Mandatory certificate action for security concerns. Under 49 U.S.C. § 46111, the 

Administrator is required to issue an order amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking any 

FAA-issued certificate if the Administrator is notified by the Under Secretary of Border and 

Transportation Security (BTS) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that the 

certificate holder poses, or is suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to 

airline or passenger safety. Under 49 U.S.C. § 44924, the Administrator is required, at the 

request of the Under Secretary ofBTS, to suspend or revoke foreign repair station certificates in 

connection with security audits. 

3. Applicability and Exclusions. The sanction guidance table (table) in Appendix B provides 

types of sanctions and general ranges of sanction amounts for violations of 49 U.S.C. subtitle VII 

and 14 C.F.R. parts 1-199 and 49 U.S.C. subtitle IX, chapter 701 and 14 C.F.R. chapter III. 

Once the agency has determined that legal enforcement action is warranted for a violation, FAA 

enforcement personnel use the table and paragraph 4 of this chapter, as well as any other 

sanction guidance in this order, to determine a proposed sanction. The matters described in 

chapter 7, subparagraphs 3a.-d. are some types of agency action that fall outside the scope of 

paragraph 3 and the table. 

a. Decisions to Take Administrative Action (Warning Notices or Letters of 

Correction). An administrative action does not constitute either a formal adjudication of the 

incident or a finding of violation. For that reason, FAA investigative personnel do not propose a 

sanction using the table. 

b. The FAA's Exercise ofProsecutorial Discretion. The decision whether to prosecute a 

particular case is based on a review of the evidence and relevant policy and litigation 

considerations. The agency exercises broad discretion in both the initial decision to bring a legal 

enforcement action, and in any later determination to compromise or settle a case based on 

various considerations. The FAA's discretion in these areas is absolute and presumed to be 

immune from review. Heckler v. Cheney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 

c. Hazardous Materials Violations. Actions involving violations of the federal hazardous 

materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. chapter 51, or the Department of Transportation's 

Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 C.F.R. parts 106 through 185. Enforcement sanction 

guidance for these violations is found in Appendix C. 

d. Violations by Members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The FAA is required to forward 

reports of these violations to the Secretary of the department concerned under 49 U.S.C. 

§ 46101 (b), whenever the violator is aCting in the performance of official duties. The FAA, 

however, takes remedial action in addition to referring a report when the violator, whether or not 

7-3 
10/01/07 . 2150.38 

acting in the performance of official military duties, holds an FAA certificate, and the violator's 

qualifications are at issue. The FAA may take punitive action against a member of the U.S. 

Armed Forces for a violation committed when the member is not performing official duties. 

4. Mitigating or Aggravating Factors and Elements. The factors in chapter 7, subparagraphs 

4.a. through m. have been developed over years of policy making and case adjudication. They 

have proven useful and appropriate for determining the seriousness of a violation and for 

selecting an appropriate sanction. Elements for evaluating and weighing each factor are also 

described. These factors and elements provide a framework for determining sanctions for 

violations specifically listed in the table as well as those not specifically listed. All the factors 

and elements, however, may not apply to each violation. Only those factors and elements that 

are relevant to a violation are considered in determining a sanction for the violation. This list of 

factors and elements is not intended to be exhaustive; other factors may be relevant as well. 

· a. Nature of the Violation. Three elements define the nature of a violation: first, whether 

the violation was operational or non-operational; second, whether the violation involved careless 

or reckless conduct; and third, whether the violation involved any special aggravating or 

mitigating factors. 

(1) Individuals. When an individual who holds a certificate improperly exercises the 

privileges of that certificate, the natural consequence of that act should be loss of privileges for a 

period of time commensurate with the violation. The FAA, therefore, primarily uses certificate 

actions to enforce operational regulations against individuals who hold certificates. The 

potential adverse impact that certificate action may have on an individual's livelihood does not 

alter this principle. Non-operational violations may warrant a different type of sanction. 

(2) Entities. The P AA ordinarily takes civil penalty action against a certificate-holding 

entity (for example, an air carrier) when it determines there would be a substantial adverse 

impact on the public interest from disrupted service by that certificate holder and the impact is 

not outweighed by safety considerations. Even when a substantial adverse impact would occur, 

when there is a need to prevent continuing violations or other egregious conduct by any 

certificate holder, when any certificate holder lacks qualification, or there is a reasonable basis to 

question the qualifications of any certificate holder, the P AA takes remedial action, for example, 

revocation or indefinite suspension, as necessary. 

(3) Careless or reckless conduct. Violations that involve careless or reckless conduct in 

violation of 14 C.P.R.§ 91.13 may warrant more severe sanctions. Carelessness connotes 

conduct that falls below the standard of care or prudence expected of a reasonable person, or 

holder of the relevant certificate, acting under the same or similar circumstances. Recklessness 

connotes conduct that demonstrates a gross, or even callous or flagrant, disregard for safety. 

Aircraft operations that do not otherwise result in a violation of a specific regulation should be 

evaluated in light of these standards to determine whether they constitute careless or reckless 

operations in violation of 14 C.F .R. § 91.13. When a person operates an aircraft in violation of a 

specific regulation other than 14 C.P.R. § 91.13, however, that violatiOn constitutes a careless or 

reckless operation in and of itself. In these cases, the misconduct may also result in a violation 

of 14 C.P.R. § 91.13 if it actually or potentially endangers the lives or property of others. 

7-4 
10/01/07 2150.38 

When calculating the amount of sanction based on this factor, a distinction generally is drawn 

between instances where 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 is an independent violation and those where it is 

residual to another violation. When a 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 violation is residual only, a higher 

sanction generally is not warranted unless the conduct is also reckless. 

b. Whether the Violation was Inadvertent and Not Deliberate. If a violation is 

deliberate or not inadvertent, a sanction at the upper end of the range or exceeding the range for 

that type of violation generally is appropriate. A deliberate violation generally warrants a 

sanction that is more severe than one that is just not inadvertent. 

(1) Not deliberate. This element means a lack of the degree of deliberation found in 

intentional misconduct. Deliberate or intentional misconduct is an aggravating circumstance and 

includes deliberate conduct that leads to a violation as well as circumstances indicating intent to 

commit a violation. 

(2) Inadvertence. An act is inadvertent when it is the result of both inattention and lack 

of purposeful choice. For example, an inadvertent act occurs when a pilot flies at an incorrect 

altitude because he or she misread the aircraft's instruments; however, it is not an inadvertent act 

when a pilot flies at an incorrect altitude as a result of choosing not to consult the aircraft's 

instruments or choosing not to use other available means to verify altitude. The test to be applied 

is whether the conduct, not the factual or legal consequences, is inadvertent and unintended. 

Ferguson v. National Transportation Safety Board, 678 F.2d 821, 828-829 (9th Cir. 1982). 

c. Certificate Holder's Level of Experience. 

(1) Level of experience refers primarily to the type of certificate and ratings held (for 

example, student, private, commercial, airline transport pilot, or certified flight instructor), and 

the number of hours flown, by the certificate holder. Certificate holders with greater levels of 

experience may be held to a higher standard. Thus, for example, commercial pilots may be held 

to a higher standard than private pilots and airline transport pilots may be held to an even higher 

standard than commercial pilots. 

(2) In determining an appropriate sanction, the FAA may consider the extent to which 

the certificate holder's action deviated from the degree of care and diligence normally expected 

of a person with the certificate holder's level of experience. A significant deviation from the 

degree of care and diligence expected of the holder of that certificate may warrant a more 

aggravated sanction. 

d. Attitude of the Violator. 

(1) A good compliance-attitude is the norm and does not warrant a reduction in sanction. 

A prior violation history may suggest that a person has a poor compliance disposition, which is 

an aggravating factor. Furthermore, a person who commits an act or omission contrary to 

statUtory or regulatory reqmrements after recetvmg notice through a prior administrative action 

or counseling that such conduct is in violation of those requirements might well be regarded as 

having a poor compliance disposition. In evaluating compliance disposition, the FAA does not 

7-5 
10/01/07. 2150.38 

view an alleged violator as having a poor attitude because the alleged violator fails to respond to 

a letter of investigation, chooses to be represented by counsel, or contests the violation. 

(2) In assessing the attitude of an alleged violator, the FAA may consider the declara~ion 

of an emergency to air traffic control. When an emergency is genuine and not of the person's 

own making, the emergency is exculpatory under 14 C.F.R. § 91.3(b). However, this situation is 

distinqt from the situation where a declaration of emergency is not exculpatory but is a factor that 

might be appropriate to consider in determining sanction. In emergency situations, the FAA 

views declaring an emergency to air traffic control as a sign of good judgment and a constructive 

attitude. When an emergency is of a person's own making, that person's declaration of an 

emergency may be considered mitigating in determining the sanction to be imposed for any 

violations committed, in much the same way it is considered mitigating if a person voluntarily 

reports a violation. 

e. Degree ofHazard. 

(1) The degree of hazard may be increased as a result of the interplay of the operational 

environment (for example, weather conditions, congested vs. sparsely populated areas) and the 

nature of the threat to safety (to the life or property of another, including those in the aircraft 

being operated, to other aircraft, or to persons or property on the surface) that the misconduct 

presents. The safety threat is based on the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the 

misconduct. For example, operating 500 feet below the minimum altitude poses a greater hazard 

than operating 100 feet below. Similarly, if an aircraft operator fails to comply with an 

airworthiness directive by operating 10 hours past a required inspection, the degree of hazard is 

probably not as great as when the aircraft is operated 100 hours beyond the required. And it is 

not mitigating when a violation does not result in actual harm; that is simply fortuitous. 

(2) The sanction ranges reflect the degree of danger normally inherent in an average 

violation of a regulation, without aggravating circumstances. As discussed in chapter 7, 

subparagraph 5.b., an increase in the degree of hazard may form the basis for exceeding the 

sanction ranges. For example, the range for an unauthorized low flight does not assume extreme 

departures from required altitudes, for example, flying an airplane over a crowded assembly of 

persons at 50 feet 

f. Action Taken by Employer or Other Authority. This factor ordinarily involves the 

following elements: whether the alleged violator's employer has taken disciplinary action and 

whether criminal prosecution is involved. 

(1) Employment discipline. Where the violation would normally call for a certain type 

of enforcement action, the FAA takes that action regardless of any action taken by the violator's 

employer. Generally, the FAA does not credit an employer's disciplinary action toward a period 

of suspension the FAA imposes against the violator's certificate because of the different 

purposes of government-ordered, as contrasted with employer-ordered, actions. 

(2) Criminal prosecution. When arising out of the same conduct, local, state, or federal 

prosecution does not preclude the FAA from taking appropriate remedial enforcement action; nor 

7-6 
10/01/07 2150.38 

does it preclude the FAA from taking appropriate punitive enforcement action. For cases where 

federal, state, or local authorities prosecute criminally, the FAA generally does take remedial 

enforcement action if that is warranted despite the criminal prosecution. However, the FAA does 

not generally take punitive legal enforcement action for the same conduct, unless it believes the 

criminal sanctions are not sufficient to provide an adequate deterrent for future violations by the 

violator and others similarly situated, or when the FAA wants to establish a violation history 

record. If the FAA decides to proceed with a punitive civil enforcement action in addition to the 

criminal prosecution, it generally considers the criminal penalties incurred in those proceedings 

in determining the appropriate amount of sanction to be sought in the FAA's punitive 

enforcement action. 

g. Use of a Certificate. This factor relates to the nature or kind of activity or operation 

involved at the time the violation was committed. Whether the certificate holder was engaged in 

student, private, commercial, or airline activity bears on the severity of the sanction. Air carriers 

are held to the highest standard of care. Likewise, personnel engaged in air transportation are 

held to the highest safety standard. 

h. Violation History. 

(1) A violation-free history is the expected norm, not the exception and, therefore, is not 

a mitigating factor. Sanction ranges in the table generally represent the normal range of sanction 

for a single, first-time, inadvertent violation. Given the expected noim, a prior violation record 

can be evidence of a poor compliance disposition or of a pattern of disregard for the FAA's 

regulations, which are aggravating factors. As a result, a violation history can justify imposing a 

sanction at the higher end of the normal range or a sanction beyond the normal range. It might 

also justify revocation rather than suspension if the pattern of violation reflects a lack of 

qualification. In addition, a violation history might justify a certificate suspension if previously 

issued civil penalties have not produced the desired deterrent effect. In deciding whether a 

violation history justifies aggravating the sanction or changing the usual type of sanction, the 

FAA considers the length o(time that has elapsed between violations, whether the violations 

involved the same or similar regulations, and whether the violations are factually similar. 

(2) The following actions constitute violation history when they involve regulatory 

violations and become final: orders of amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of an 

FAA certificate; orders assessing a civil penalty; findings of violation contained in a consent 

order, order of compliance or denial; and findings of violation made by a federal court. In 

addition, a party may agree as part of a settlement that the FAA may consider alleged violations 

as findings of violation for future sanction determinations. , 

i. Decisional Law. Decisions of the FAA decisionmaker represent the FAA 

Administrator's position on issues arising in civil penalty assessment actions, including issues 

regarding sanctions. The policy in this order also represents the Administrator's position on 

sanctions in legal enforcement actions. To the extent that this document conflicts with FAA 

declSlonmaker decisions published before this, document's issuance, the sanction guidance policy 

in this order supersedes those decisions. However, FAA decisionmaker decisions published after 

7-7 
10/01/07 2150.38 

the issuance of this document that conflict with the policy in this order supersede this document 

and are controlling. 

j. Ability to Absorb Sanction. Sanctions should be deterrent. While punitive sanctions 

should not be unduly harsh, they should be substantial enough to prevent violators from profiting 

from their violations, that is, the sanction should be high enough to remove any profit incentive 

for violations. Penalties should never be permitted to be a cost of doing business. Air carriers, 

in particular, are required by law to have the financial wherewithal to operate according to 

established safety standards. While the FAA does not allow financial circumstances to excuse 

any violation, it does consider a carrier's size and financial strength in choosing the appropriate 

sanction amount. The difference in the penalties fixed in the law for large and small business 

concerns recognizes this fact. A civil penalty that may be a mere cost of doing business to a 

major air carrier might compel a small air carrier to go out of business. Therefore, the FAA uses 

air carrier size as one means of ensuring a relatively equivalent deterrent effect on each air 

carrier that violates the same FAA regulation. The resulting classification of air carriers by size 

and ranges of civil penalties are set forth in part one of the table. For all entities and individuals, 

the FAA considers ability to pay a civil penalty and the effect a civil penalty will have on a 

person's ability to continue in business to the extent it knows such information .. 

k. Consistency of Sanction. One ofthe agency's goals is to achieve relative consistency in 

imposing similar sanctions for similar violations. The FAA pursues this objective to assure 

fairness and so the sanction's impact has an equivalent degree of deterrent or disciplinary value 

to others similarly situated. This goal may not always be achieved, however, because of the 

inherently subjective nature of the exercise of judgment in setting sanctions. 

I. Whether the Violation was Reported Voluntarily. 

(1) The FAA has programs that allow persons to report voluntarily apparent violations 

and receive lesser enforcement action provided certain criteria are met. These programs include 

the aviation safety reporting program, the voluntary disclosure reporting program, and the 

aviation safety action program. Besides these programs, the FAA may grant special enforcement 

consideration under certain circumstances to a person who, incident to his or her report of 

another's violations, voluntarily discloses his or her own participation in the same or related 

violations. This special enforcement consideration may range from mitigating the sanction to 

determining that no enforcement action is required. 

(2) If a person is not covered under one of these programs but nonetheless voluntarily 

reports an apparent violation to the FAA before the FAA discovers it, takes immediate action to 

correct the noncompliance, and works with the FAA on steps to preclude recurrence of the 

apparent violation, the FAA may consider such actions in mitigating the sanction for the 

violation. 

m. Corrective Action. The FAA considers corrective action a mitigating factor in 

determmmg sanction provided the corrective actiOn exceeds the minimum regulatory or statutory 

requirements. The amount of credit given in setting a sanction depends on the extent and timing 

of the corrective action, that is, how extensive was the corrective action and how quickly was it 

taken. Implementing new procedures that are above those required under the FAA's regulations 

7-8 
10/01/07 2150.38 

to prevent future violations ordinarily is considered a mitigating factor in determining an 

appropriate sanction. Corrective action taken after the alleged violator first becomes aware of a 

deficiency but before FAA discovery of the violation ordinarily warrants greater mitigation than 

corrective action that is taken only after the alleged violator receives notice of the FAA's 

enforcement action. Corrective action taken by an alleged violator that simply brings that person 

into compliance with the statutory or regulatory requirements is not considered in mitigation of 

sanction. To mitigate a sanction based on such corrective action would put at an economic 

disadvantage competitors who have expended the resources necessary to maintain compliance. 

5. Use of the Table of Sanctions. 

a. General. Sanction determinations are not accomplished through a strict mathematical 

formula; rather, sanction determinations result from a judgment of where a case lies along a 

spectrum of gravity. Ultimately, the circumstances of each case are evaluated in terms of the 

needs of safety and the public interest. 

b. Single, First-time, Inadvertent Violations. 

(1) Part II of the table specifies both the normal types of sanction (certificate action, civil 

penalty action, or other type) and the normal ranges within those types the FAA ordinarily seeks 

to impose in a legal enforcement action for a single, first-time violation that is generally 

inadvertent (the table includes ranges of sanctions for several violations that usually are 

intentional, for example, interference with a crewmember, smoking on an aircraft). In addition, 

the table generally reflects a presumption that the alleged violator wants to comply with the law 

and to remedy any noncompliance and that the alleged violator, therefore, has a constructive 

attitude. 

(2) For factors b, d, or h of paragraph 4 (that is, inadvertent and not deliberate conduct, 

attitude, and violation history), the FAA does not normally deviate from the ranges listed in the 

table solely based on the inadvertence of the violation or on the alleged violator's good 

reputation, past public service, violation-free history, or constructive attitude. Any mitigating 

circumstances are to be found in the facts and circumstances of the violation itself. 

(3) Applying ranges within a sanction type. In determining where, within each range, a 

sanction should be imposed, the FAA generally considers factors a, c, e, f, g, i, j, k, and m of 

paragraph 4 (that is, nature of the violation, level of experience, degree of hazard, action by 

employer or other authority, use of certificate, decisional law, ability to absorb sanction, 

consistency of the sanction with similar cases, corrective action), to the extent they are applicable 

or relevant. When determining a specific sanction amount within a range, FAA enforcement 

personnel begin with an amount in the middle of the range and increase that amount toward the 

higher end of the range for aggravating factors or decrease that amount toward the lower end of 

the range for mitigating factors. 

(4) Deviatmg from ranges within a sanction type. The FAA might impose sanctions 

below the normal ranges based onjustillable mitigation under factors j, l, and m of paragraph 4 

(that is, the ability to absorb the sanction, voluntary reporting, corrective action). The FAA may 

7-9 
10/01/07 

AppendixB 

Table of Sanctions 

All Enforcement Programs 

Except Hazardous Materials 

Part One -Abbreviations and Definitions 

2150.38 

1. Applicability. This table of sanctions applies to violations that occurred on or after 

October 1, 2007. For violations occurring before October 1, 2007, FAA enforcement personnel 

apply the sanction guidance principles in FAA Order 2150 .3A using up to the statutory 

maximum sanction amount in effect at the time of the violation. 

2. Abbreviations. The following abbreviations are used in this Table: 

AP IS means approved production inspection system 

AIW means airworthiness 

A WC means airworthiness certificate 

BTS means Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security 

lA means inspection authorization 

LE means law enforcement 

PC means production certificate 

STC mearis supplemental type certificate 

TC means type certificate 

TFR means Temporary Flight Restriction 

TSA means Transportation Security Administration 

3. Definitions: 

a. A continuing violation arises when a specific violation occurs over more than one day 

or over more than one flight. It also may involve a violation that is ongoing, for example, an 

ongoing refusal to provide required records to the FAA for inspection. Punitive sanctions are 

appropriate for continuing violations that are not currently ongoing. Sanction guidance for 

these violations is set forth in paragraphs 6 and 7 (multiple acts or multiple violations) of 

chapter 7. A combination of punitive and remedial sanctions is appropriate when continuing 

violations are ongoing. 

b. Violation committed by a small business concern. Section 503 of Vision 100---Century 

of Aviation Reauthorization Act (CARA) amended49 U.S.C. § 46301 to change the civil 

penalty amounts the FAA may seek for violations that occur on or after December 12, 2003; 

the law sets different limits on the civil penalties the FAA may seek for violations by small 

business concerns, as opposed to violations by other entities. Vision 100 CARA gives small 

business concern the same meaning as in the Small Business Aet (15 U.S.C. § 632). Section 

632 defines small business concern as an enterprise "which is independently owned and 

operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation." The Small Business 

Administration regulations implement the Small Business Act and defme business concern as 

B-1 
10/01/07 2150.38 

"a business entity organized for profit, with a place of business located in the U.S., and which 

operates primarily within the U.S. or which makes a significant contribution to the U.S. 

economy through payment of taxes or use of American products, materials or labor." 13 

C.F.R. § 121.105. The SBA regulations further define small business concern in tables, 

describing each kind of entity by its economic activity or industry, and listing the limit for 

small by annual receipts or, more commonly, number of employees. (The size limits generally 

are established under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).) For the 

complete list, see 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 or the SBA's website at www.sba.gov. Thus, if a person 

meets the definition of business concern and has annual receipts or the number of employees 

within the applicable SBA limit, it is a small business concern, and the FAA will determine the 

civil penalty using the applicable range. Limits for common aviation entities follow (in 

numbers of employees, unless otherwise noted).' 

Manufacturing 

Aircraft- 1,500 employees 

Aircraft engine and part- 1,000 employees 

Other aircraft part and equipment -1,000 employees 

Air transportation 

Scheduled passenger -1,500 employees 

Scheduled freight- 1,500 employees 

Nonscheduled passenger- 1,500 employees 

Nonscheduled offshore marine passenger- $25.5 million annual receipts 

Nonscheduled freight- 1,500 employees 

Nonscheduled offshore marine freight- $25.5 million annual receipts 

Other nonscheduled - $6.5 million annual receipts 

Support activities- $6.5 million annual receipts 

Flight Training- $23.5 million annual receipts 

Airport operations 

Airport operator, organized for profit- $6.5 million annual receipts 

Other operations, excluding air traffic control - $6.5 million annual receipts 

Note that the following guidance uses large business concern for some civil penalty ranges. 

That is not a statutory or regulatory term for purposes ofF AA enforcement. It includes each 

business concern that exceeds the maximum limit for small business concern, as well as any 

other entity that does not meet the definition of"small business concern." 

c. Civil Penalty Ranges. For the purpose of this table, when civil penalty action is 

recommended and described as Minimum, Moderate, or Maximum, the penalty ranges are 

defined in subparagraphs (1) through (9) of this paragraph. Note that the middle of each 

commended sanction range v,rould be for a ~t aggravating or mitigating 

factors. 

B-2 
10/01/07 2150.38 

(1) VIOLATION COMMITTED BY U.S. AIR CARRIERS OR U.S. COMMERCIAL 

OPERATOR. 

CLASSIFICATION OF AIR CARRIER AND OPERA TOR 

GROUP I- Each air carrier operating under part 121 or part 135, with an annual operating 

revenue of $100,000,000 or more. Operating revenue is determined by reference to DOT's 

"Air Carrier Industry Scheduled Service Traffic Statistics Quarterly." See 

http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/index.html, and click on "Airline Financial Review." 

GROUP II- Each air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 with an annual 

operating revenue ofless than $100,000,000, or under part 135 with an annual operating 

revenue ofless than $100,000,000, if the 135 operator has 50 or more pilots and 25 or more 

aircraft on its operations specifications. Operating revenue is determined by reference to 

DOT's "Air Carrier Industry Scheduled Service Traffic Statistics Quarterly." 

GROUP III- Each air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 135 with 6 to 49 

pilots or 6 to 24 aircraft. 

GROUP IV- Each air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 135 with no more 

than 5 pilots and no more than 5 aircraft. 

GROUP I -.large business concern 

Maximum 

Moderate 

Minimum 

$18,750-$25,000 

$10,000-$18,749 

$2,000-$9,999 

GROUP I- small business concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. 

§ 46301(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum 

Moderate 

Minimum 

$8,250-$11,000 

$4,400-$8,249 

$1,100-$4,399 

GROUP I- small business concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S. C. § 46301(a)(l)(A) 

or (B) but not under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum 

Moderate 

Minimum 

$850-$1,100 

$650-$849 

$500$649 

GROUP II -large business concern: 

B-3 
10/01/07 2150.38 

Maximum $16,250-$25,000 

Moderate $8,750-$16,249 

Minimt1m $1,850-$8,749 

GROUP II- small business concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum $8,250-$11,000 

Moderate $3,850-$8,249 

Minimum $935-$3,849 

GROUP II- small business concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(l)(A) 

or (B) but not under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum $750-$1,100 

Moderate $450-$ 749 

Minimum $250 $ 449 

GROUP III -for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A): 

Maximum $7,150-$11,000 

Moderate $3,300-$7,149 

Minimum $825-$3,299 

GROUP III- for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(l)(A) or (B) but not under 49 

U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A): 

Maximum $650-$1,100 

Moderate $400-$ 649 

Minimum $150-$ 399 

GROUP IV -for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A): 

Maximum $4,400-$11,000 

Moderate $2,200-$4,399 

Minimum $550-$2,199 

GROUP IV- for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(l)(A) or (B) but not under 49 

U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A): 

Maximum 

. Moderate 

$500-$1,100 

$300-$499 

8-4 
--------------

......... 

10/01/07 

Minimum $100-$299 

(2) VIOLATION COMMITTED BY PART 129 OPERATOR 

Maximum $18,750-$25,000 

Moderate $10,000-$18,7 49 

Minimum $2,000-$9,999 

(3) VIOLATION COMMITTED BY PART 125 OPERATOR. 

Large Business Concern: 

Maximum $16,250-$25,000 

Moderate $8,750-$16,249 

Minimum $1,850-$8,749 

Small Business Concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum 

Moderate 

Minimum 

$8,250-$11,000 

$3,850-$8,249 

$935-$3,849 

2150.38 

Small Business Concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(1)(A) or (B) but 

not under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum $750-$1,100 

Moderate $450-$749 

Minimum $250$449 

(4) VIOLATION COMMITTED BY AIR AGENCY (INCLUDING REPAIR STATION}. 

Large Business Concern: 

Maximum $16,250-$25,000 

Moderate $8,750-$16,249 

Minimum $1,850-$8,749 

Small Business Concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum $7,150-$11,000 

Moderate $3,850-$7,149 

Minimum $935-$3,849 

B-5 
-------------------- 10/01/07 2150.38 

Fig. B-5-h. Follow-up drug and alcohol testing cont. Civil Penalty Certificate 

Action 

(5) Failure to ensure that follow-up alcohol testing of a· Minimum 

covered employee only occurs just before the employee is to 

perform safety-sensitive functions, during, or just after the 

employee has ceased covered functions 

Fig. B-5-i. Retesting covered employees Civil Penalty Certificate 

Action 

(1) Failure to retest a covered employee with an alcohol Maximum 

concentration of greater than .02 and less than .04 when the 

employer has chosen to permit the employee to perform a 

safety-sensitive function within 8 hours of alcohol use 

(2) Permitting an individual with an alcohol concentration of Maximum 

.02 or above to return to duty performing safety-sensitive 

functions unless 8 hours has elapsed or the individual is 

retested and tests below .02 

Fig. B-5-j. Inappropriate testing Civil Penalty Certificate 

/ Action 

(1) Inappropriate testing using DOT or FAA Authority Moderate 

Fig. B-5-k. Administrative and other matters Civil Penalty Certificate 

Action 

(1) Failure to permit the Administrator or the Administrator's Maximum Indefmite 

representative to examine records Suspension 

pending 

compliance 

to 

Revocation 

(2) Failure to conduct drug and alcohol records check required Moderate 

under 49 C.F .R. _§ 40.25 

(3) Failure to provide drug and alcohol testing records Moderate 

requested under 49 C.P.R. § 40.25 

(4) Using an employee to perform safety-sensitive functions Moderate 

after obtaining information that the employee violated DOT 

drug and alcohol regulations, without obtaining information 

that the employee complied with return-to-duty requirements 

(5) Failure to notify the FAA of a medical certificate holder Moderate 

(issued under part 67), who tested positive on a DOT drug test, 

within twelve working days of the date of the verified positive 

result 

(6) Failure to notify the FAA of a medical certificate holder Moderate 

(issued under part 67), who engaged in prohibited alcohol 

'conduct, within two working days of the violation date 

(7) Failure to notify the FAA ofthe refusal to submit to Moderate 

testing by a part 61, part 63, or part 65 certificate holder within 

five working days of the refusal to test 

B-34 
Victoria Reich 8.12112004 

Richard &hmid 3/S/2004 

Paul Ste>M3Jt 3116!2004 si3Qoo 

Minimum 05mount of maximum e:mpiO)I'!!:O:. Ea-t.h o:mploye<a: hood -.·iolaitons. AAM-830 rec<e.i\'-=-d en 12/21J200S. K.U... 0-iscossed Q·,-il penalty recommendation vith lim Ronan en l(17 j2Q05, <o amc

Gorrespendii!n:C4! SC!"Een HQ sign cF. of 12/20!2005 i£ inQ)'lTQ,.-t.