### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ) 

### In the Matter ofJett Pro Line Maintenance ) 

# RECEIVED MAR 12 2014 

# HEARING DOCKET ) )

________________________

## ) FAA. Case No. 2011WP91000076 Judge Richard C. Goodman 

# FAfl-2o!3-lo77 AGENCY'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to the discovery guidelines set forth in Section 13 .220 ofthe Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions (14 C.F.R. 13.220), the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") hereby requests that Respondent withinthirty (30) days of service, provide to counsel for the Administrator 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 ofthe hearing.

DEFINITIONS 1. Unless otherwise indicated, these Interrogatories and Requests for Documents refer to the time, place and circumstances ofthe occurrence mentioned or complained of inthe 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 whichthese Interrogatories and Requests for Productions are addressed, and the persons mentioned in paragraph B. 

### supra. 4. When used with respect to a documents, "identify" Means to furnish the document itself, or in lieu thereof, the name and date ofthe document, the name and

### address, addresses ofall persons to whom copies ofthe docwnent were or have been sent, and the organization, firm or agency with which all such persons were connected as of the date ofthe document, and state whether you are in possession ofthe original or copy, and/or furnish the name and address ofa person whom you believe is in possession ofthe original or a copy ofsuch docwnent. 5. The term "identify" when referring to a person, means to identify the person by name, occupation(s), and business address. 6. The terms "docwnent" 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, swnmaries or recordings of telephone conversations, swnmaries or records ofpersonal conversations or interview, summaries or reports ofinvestigations, opinions or reports ofconsultants, 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 ofbeing read or viewed. 7. For all interrogatories to which the responding individual has an objection, state the factual and legal basis for the claimed privilege, or any other authority that provides the claimed basis for the objection. 8. All docwnents 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 b. title c. type ofdocument (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


### INTERROGATORY NO.1: Identify, byproviding the name, occupation, and business address, ofeach person you intend to call as a witness in this proceeding.



### INTERROGATORY No.2 Provide the substance ofthe testimony to be offered by each ofthe witness identified in Interrogatory No. l.

### INTERRROGATORY NO.3 With respect to each expert witness you intend to call as
a witness inthis proceeding, set forth the subject matter upon which each expert witness is expected to testify, the facts and opinions composing the testimony ofeach expert witness, and a summary ofthe 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 inyour possession that support your contentionthat any follow-up tests referenced in the Complaint were, in fact, random tests and therefore not required to be directly observed.



### INTERROGATORY NO.6 State the basis ofyour contention that any follow-up tests referenced inthe Complaint were, in fact random tests and therefore not requiredto be directly observed.

### REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1: Copies ofcurrent curricula vitae for each expert witness you identified in Interrogatory No.3.



### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.2: Copies ofany statements made by witnesses identified in Interrogatories No. 1 and 3, concerning, referring to, or involving the circumstances set forth inthe Complaint.



### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.3: Copies ofall documents that you intend to introduce into evidence.



### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.4: Copies ofall documents that you identified in Interrogatory No.4.



### DOCUMENT REQUESY NO 5. Copies ofall documents that you identified in Interrogatory No. 5.



### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.6 Copies ofall documents that support your contention that Jett Pro initiated the follow-up tests for Mr. Downey referenced in paragraph 4k, 4n, and 4p ofthe Complaint

### REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS The FAA hereby requests that Respondent admit or deny that each ofthe following statements is true and accurate. IfRespondent denies any part ofthe statement, specify that part ofthe statement that is denied and that part ofthe statement, ifany, that Respondent admits is true and accurate. Ifobjection is made to any request, the reason for the objection shall be specifically stated. IfRespondent is unable to admit or deny a matter, the answer shall state in detail the reasons why Respondent cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. Lack ofinformation or knowledge may not be given as a
reason for failure to admit or deny unless the party states that the party has made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by the party is insufficient to enable the party to admit or deny.


### REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 

### 1. The letter dated March 3, 2011, and attached
as Exhibit A, was written by Designated Employer Representative (DER) Roger McKee.


### REQUEST FORADMISSIONS NO.2
. At the time Mr. McKee wrote the abovereferenced March 3, 2011 letter, he was an employee and duly authorized agent for Jett Pro.


### REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 3. Atthe time Mr. McKee wrote the abovereferenced March 3, 2011 letter, he was acting within the scope ofhis employment with Jett Pro.

### REQUEST FORADMISSIONS NO. 4
. The letter dated September 28, 2011, and attached as Exhibit B, was written by DERRoger McKee.


### REQUEST FORADMISSIONS NO. 5 At the time Mr. McKee wrote the abovereferenced September 28, 20 !!letter, he was an employee and duly authorized agent for Jett Pro.


### REQUEST FORADMISSIONS NO. 6 At the time Mr. McKee wrote the abovereferenced September 28, 20111etter, he was acting within the scope ofhis employment with Jett Pro.


### REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS N0.7 The letter dated January 29,2012, and attached
as Exhibit C, was written by DERRoger McKee.


### REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 8 At the time Mr. McKee wrote the abovereferenced January 29, 2012 letter, he was an employee and duly authorized agent for Jet! Pro.


### REQUEST FORADMISSION NO.9 At the time Mr. McKee wrote the abovereferenced January 29, 2012letter, he was acting within the scope ofhis employment with Jett Pro.

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I hereby certify that the foregoing First Set ofInterrogatories and Request for Production ofDocuments, and Request for Admissions in the matter ofJett Pro Line Maintenance, FAA Case No. 2011 WP91 0076 has been mailed this date by overnight mail to:

Jolm Craig Weller Aerlex Law Group 2800 28 1 h 

### Street Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90405
I hereby certify that an original and one copy ofthe foregoing documents were personally delivered this day to: Hearing Docket Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Room 2Wl000-AGC-430 Washington, D.C. 20591
I further certify that a copy ofthe foregoing documents was faxed to: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearing, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey, SE-20590

March 12,2014 '

# •

Jett P-ro Line Maintenanc•" 2920 E. Inland Empire Blvd., Sult0 # ·103 Ontario, California 9'17$4 -r: 909.980.0552**:~. 909.980~0699**  S: info@jettpro.aero ·.··: www.JettProLineMaintenance.com ·

March 3, 2011 Cawley Vaccarella- Inspector FAA Office ofAerospace Medicine Drug Abatement Division 15000 Aviation Blvd., Room 5012 Lawndale, CA 90261
Dear Mr. Vaccarella, The following letter is submitted in answer to the audit findings as stated in your Feb. 25, 2011 letter and pertaining to your audit of Jett Pro conducted January 10, 2011.
1. Finding: Jett Pro Line Maintenance did not conduct pre-employment tests and receive verified negative drug test results prior to hiring the following employee to perform safety-sensitive functions. (Sean Ponce) Response: Sean Ponce did was sent for his pre employment test 4/2/10, however, by error he was provided a NON DOT CCF instead ofthe DOT CCF. As soon as this error was found he was returned for another drug test on 4/12 using the correct form. Both results were negative. After returning from the corrected test the one job he did participated in (4/12/11) under the safety sensitive criteria was providing assistance to the Station Manager. Mr. Ponce did not perform any maintenance but provided assistance as a "listener" as the task involved testing the aircraft interphone (done by the Station Manager) and required a listener seated in the cabin. The actual maintenance of testing and signing the aircraft log book was done by the Station Manager. Mr. Ponce was mentioned on the paperwork as assistant, only. This was all done without knowledge ofthe error mentioned. Upon realization ofthis oversight Jett Pro immediately initiated procedures where all employee drug test results are scrutinized by two people to ensure the correct test is performed prior to new employees starting work. 

# ' Corrective Action: Prior to a new hire starting work the drug test result paperwork is checked and verified by two different people. Upon agreement the Human Resources Dept. is notified anp the employee is then notified they can report to work. Also, the payroll biometric time <;!opk is not turned on which prohibits an emplqyee from clocking in 01nd receiving remuneration. · · ·


### EXHIBIT

# • •

'f: 909.980.0552 <; 909.980-0699 'C:; info@jettpro.aei"O l-:''J:: www.JettProlineMaintenance.com

2. Finding: Jet! Pro Line Maintenance did not ask the following employee whether they had tested positive or refused to test on any pre-employment drug or alcohol tests administered by an employer to which they had applied for, but did not obtain, safety-sensitive work covered by Department of Transportation drug and alcohol testing rules during the past two years. (Wilson Guerrero). Response: This isolated omission unfortunately occurred by ourpersonnel zeroing in on the response from the previous employer rather than what the prospective employee stated. Both responses were, at the time of the audit, on the same page (since separated at the suggestion ofthe auditor). Hiring personnel have taken steps to ensure all blocks are filled in prior to final hiring of an employee. Corrective Action: The Jet! Pro Release of Information, form HR1009, used for background hiring information has been modified and blocks which the employee checks off are clearer. In addition personnel have been instructed to ensure all blocks are marked before proceeding with the hiring process.
3. Finding: Jet! Pro Line Maintenance included non-covered employees in the same random pool as its DOT covered employees. (John Freuler, Charles Haas, Jessie Roberts). Response: Until the time ofthe audit it was not realized these employees were in a wrong random pooL Two employees had not been picked for a random test since being hired and the third quit thejob the day after he was hired. Jell Pro requires all its employees to be drug tested and are subsequently placed in the random pool by Western Aeromedical Consortium. As in the case of the first finding Jell Pro now double checks test result paperwork to ensure the initial drug test is performed using the correct paperwork. Corrective Action: same as finding 1 corrective action.

# • 

# •

·;;·, 909.980.0552**~"O~** 909.980-0699**~'** info@jettpro.aero hJ; www.JettProLineMaintenance.com

4. Finding: Jett Pro Line Maintenance did not ensure that the Substance Abuse Professional's follow-up testing requirements were carried out on the following employees. (Paul Downey, Randol Velasquez) Employee Name Violation Dates Randol Velasquez 08/25/2009 Paul Downey 04/01/2009 02/24/2010 03/01/2010 04/01/2010 05/01/2010 06/01/2010 07/01/2010 08/01/2010 09/28/2010 12/01/2010 Response: All tests were accomplished for Mr. Velasquez and testing is on-going for Mr. Downey, however, tests were not done on the dates as suggested by the SAP. Both employees were tested positive while with a previous employer. It was not realized that it was the pejorative of next employer (Jett Pro) to ensure the SAP suggested program be carried through to completion, as suggested by the SAP as no rules or guidelines are provided. Jett Pro has scheduled the remaining tests for Mr. Downey per the SAP dates. Further, during a discussion with the Drug Abatement office in Washington DC it was mentioned the schedule should be followed "as close as possible" but no written policy was offered as a guide by which a subsequent employer must follow. Corrective Action: Jett Pro has scheduled the remaining tests for Mr. Downey per the SAP dates. Any future hiring of employees who have bee_n previously tested positive will result in the company following the SAP guidelines.

5. Finding: Jett Pro Line Maintenance released test result information about the following employees to third parties without the employees' specific written consent. (Wilson Guerrero) Response: This subject was offered as a suggestion during the audit. Jett Pro has adopted the suggestion and has adjusted the hiring paperwork to separate the applicant's drug question results from what is sent the previous employer. Corrective Action: The HR background hiring paperwork has been modified to exclude sensitive information.

# • •

,.lett Pru Line**!';lain't~noance-** 25_20 E. !n!and Empire 8iv(L, Suite# '103 Onial'iO, California 91764 ','; 909.980.0552**F~;** 909.980-0699**~'** info@jettpro.aero ''::"': www.JettProLineMaintenance.com

6. Finding: Jett Pro Line Maintenance's collector did not conduct a collection under direct observation of an employee when the drug test was a follow-up test. Employee Name Violation Dates Randol Velasquez 12/03/2009 12/28/2009 Paul Downey 10/26/2010 Response: It was unknown by Jett Pro at the time of the tests that a certain criteria must be followed. It came to the attention of Jett Pro afterthe consortium called Jett Pro advising us ofthis issue. Jett Pro questioned how it would know how tests were to be conducted and what to tell the clinic prior to testing SAP or MRO paperwork does not indicate how a test is to be conducted. The only information from the MRO states tests were done in accordance with SAMHSA guidelines. It is unknown what that means but Jet! Pro is seeking further advise on this issue and would follow whatever help can be provided.
Jell Pro thanks the auditors for their help suggestions offered during the audit as this program is complicated and correct procedures or in depth knowledge is obtained, unfortunately, only through trial and error sometimes. It is our intention to be compliant in this program and if further instruction can be provided from any source Jett Pro will be that much better prepared to remain compliant.
Yours Sincerely,

Roger Mckee Jett Pro DER

jOct 27 2011 11:21 Jett Pro Line MX 9099800699

...,: Jett Pre- Line Maintenance 2920 E. Inland Empire Btvd., Suite# 103 Ontario, California 91764 T:**90Qc.98Q~05$2** F: 909.980-069-9**e~ ln~att:pro.aaro**  W: www..JettiProLineMaintenance.com 

### Septe!IlberJ8, 2011 FAACaseNo. 20llWP910076 Autunm K.illingham Attorney, EnforcementDivision Office ofChiefCounsel Dear Sir/Madam,Pleasenote the following responseto the letter dated Sept. 7th regardingthe proposed civil penalty. In

### reading of1heviolations we noticed there are several incorrect statements. These and the other violations have supporting arguments orexplanations for your review. Notwithstanding 1he items stated, ourbiggest concern isJettPro 

### did everything knownto do withregards to the fulfillment of

### its obligations tothe drug and alcohol program yet evidently cameup shortto where civil penalties are nowpending. Our concern is 

### how does a company meet the drug and alcohol programrequirements wherethere are limited guidelines or directions as inthe case oftwo ofthe violationswithregardto 

### following SAP reco=endations. Any guidelines to these items wouldbe received thankfully. Item 3hj. Violation: JettPro failed to direct a collection under direct observation ofMr. Velesquezfor the second follow uptest 12/7/09. (See attached Random TestNotification page attached.) Answer3hj. Nowhere does it state a Randomtest isto be under a direct observation. The notice received for the 4th Randomtest for 2009listed 9 

### employees, none ofwhichreceived any suchnotice. JettPro was not aware suchtest existedthenand was notnotifiedby any office orcollection agency that this type oftest wasrequired.

Item 3n. Violation: Contraryto the SAP's testing plan, on orabout August 25, 2009 Mr. Valesquez was administered an alcohol follow up test, designated "1" Alcohol Test. Answer 3n. Thedesignation "1" Alcohol test was a company note only. This has nothing to do withthe testheundertook. It

### was (and still is) totally unknown if

### JettPro wasto continue to followtherecommended SAP'splan onthe suggestedtest dates. Nowhere is there guidancestating a (second, or subsequent) hiring companymustfollow a SAP's plan or reco=ended tests. JettPro did electedto undertake at

### itown cost a session of6 testsjustto be sure as six seems to be the usual number ofSAP's recommended tests after a person is 

### testedpositive for drug abuse. Wehiredthe individual and after learninghe previouslytested positive werequested a copy ofhis returnto dutytest from the previous company. It

### showed 

### negative so he was putto**work.lfiSIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!i!!l!'!!!l!!!!~llllill"** EXHIBIT p.2Oct 27 2011 11:21 Jett Pro Line MX 9099800699

Jett Pr-o Line Maintena11ce 2920 E. Inland Empir-e Blvd., Suite# 103 Ontarin, California 917&4- "f• 909.980.0552**F~** 909.980-0699 E: info@iattpro.aero V'i1 www...JettPr'OUneMalntenance..co.n



### We wetelaterprovided a copy ofthe SAP'smultiple tests recommendations. We weren't provided with all his records so we hadno knowledge ofwhetherhe had donethemall 

### OR if 

### he wasrequired nowhe was working for a different companyThere are no guidelines or regulationsprovided sojustto 

### make sure he was still negative Jett Pro decidedto sendhim on extratests. Theresults showed he was negative. One ofthosetests v.-as also analcohol test. This was notrequiredbut we chose to do so anyway. Is this in

### violation ofanyregulations? If so we wouldlike 

### to beinformed so we knowwhat ourrequirements are for any future cases that maycome ourway. In

### addition, the SAP's recommendationsthat were providedus after he commenced employment with JettPro didnot state test alcohol testing was notrequired. What aretheregulations concerning following a SAP'splan.

Item 3o. Violation: Contrary to 

### the SAP'sfollow uptesting plan on or aboutNovember 29, 20I0, December 7, 2010 andDecember20, 2010, Mr. Valesquez was administered follow-up drug tests- all beyondthe first 12 months afterbeing returned to duty. Answer3o. It wasnotknown

### to JettPro thatthe dates onthe SAP'srecommendedtests were to be followed strictly as stated, This is Jett Pro's first dealing withhiring an employeefrom another employerthat had testedprevious withthat othercompany. Jett Pro did notknowthey were to continuethe SAP's.recommendedtesting, as stated above. A phone conversation with WesternAeromedical Consortiwn onanother subjectrevealed we oughtto follow the SAP's planfor 2010 so we sentthe employee on several tests in

### December. Again, JettPro did not knowifitwas 

### to follow an SAP'srecomendations as we weren'timmediatelyprovided withhispastrecords nor once received we did notknow if 

### they were complete or accurate as therecordsprovidedwere not offici!ll in

### that no signatures or companylogo was indicated. They were made on a Word document like someone had made themup. They were not an official documentone might expect. The employee did nothaverecords to provideus either. He also didnotinformJett Pro that he was to follow the SAP's entire recommended test when being employed by anotheremployer at a laterdate. Again, no regulations norguideliiJ.eS that we knowofare available to inform us on suchmatters. Ifwe

### had knownwe wouldhave followed them implicitly. p.3Oct 27 2011 11:21 Jett Pro Line MX 9099800699

Jett Pro Line. Maintenance 29:20 E. lnfand Empil"lll Blvd., Suit& #-103 Ontario, Califomia 91784**·r~** 909.980.0552**F~** 909..980-0699 E: lnfo@:lettJ'ro.aero**Vll~ www...JeHProLineMalntanance~om** 



### Item 3p. Violation: Consequently, contraryto 49CFR & 

### 40.30.307(d) the numberand frequency of

### Mr. Valesquez follow-up testing did not complywiththe drug testing schedule determined by Jett Pro's SAP orCertified Aviation Services' SAP and did not consist ofat least 6 test inthefirst 12 months following Mr. Valesquez's return

### to du1y. Answer 3p. Sixtestswereprovided 

### Mr. ValesquezbyJett Pro. Records are available 

### to show proof. fu 

### addition, JettPro didnothave any dealings witha SAP as thedrug offenseby Mr. Va1esquez was done whilehe was employed byanothercompany. ItisJett Pro understanding thatonce a person isreleased from a SAP he (nor another employer)does not need to have dealings withthe SAP oncetesting negative onhis return to du1y test. Are we inerrorthere?

Items 3q,r,s,t. Violations: Onthe dates as stated (5/8/09, 11/9/10, 1/18/11 and 1/19/11) Mr. Valesquez performed maintenance for 4 different airlines. Answer3q,r,s,t. Itis unknownwhatthe violationis here as

### Mr. Valesquezhad previously testednegativeforhis tests, is a certific.ated and lic()nsed mechanic and was 

### in,the understanding ofJettPro, legal to perform maintenance as employed. Is there something we are in violation of?

Item4j,k,l,m,n,o. Violation: Jett Pro failedto completethe follow-up drug and alcohol testing planrecommendedbythe SAP afterJettProhired 

### Mr.Downey. Answer4j,k.,l,m,n,o. As 

### inthe case ofMr. Valesquez, the same answers apply forMr. Downey. JettPro 

### was stepping inunchartedwaters when dealing v;ith new employeesfrom a previous employer'spositive drugtest. It 

### was not (and is nottoday) Jett Pro's intentionto bypass anyrequirement ofthe DOT drugprogram. Dates and schedules ofpreviously recommended tests not done, where unknownto ·be a requirement to be completedby a new employer. In

### the case ofbothemployees a time lapse oftest dates occurred as bothemployees were not employedby JettPro during thattime. This is whythe Jett Pro sentthe employee on extra 6 tests, atJettPro's expense after being employed,justto make sure. JettPro was acting out ofignorance inthese matters as no written guidelines norregulations are provided. In 

### fact, whenbeingmadeknown ofthis during the audit we requested directionto 

### where we can find these regulations or guidelines as we wishedtobe compliant. We have. not received anything as ofthis date. JettPro did take the step ofattending a drug seminar put onby Ms. ColleenWienhoff, CEO ofDNA & 

### Drug Screening Serviced, Inc. She also wasunsure where 

## or ifthere are regulations inthese matters. We only wish to be compliant. p.4Oct 27 2011 11:21 Jett Pro Line MX 9099800699

,.•··: .Jett !?1'0 Une Maintenance 29"20 E. lntand Empire Blvd., Suite# 103 Ontario,**Catiforni~** 91764 T: 909.980.G552 f"**~** 909.980-0699 E": info@jettpro..aero W**~** www..JettProt..ineMaintan::mce.eom



### Item4q. Violation: All ofthe follow-up tests identified inparagraphs4k,n,p above were initiated byMr. Downeyand notby Jett Pro. Answer4q.ALL tests were initiatedbyJettPro andNOTbythe employee. Thecompanyhas as its written drug statementsthatfollow-up testcosts areborneby the employee. 

### Mr. Downey went onJett Pro'srequest as bythen

### we had learned somethings from 

### Mr. Valesquez'sexperience.

Items 4r,s,t. Violation; Onthe dates as stated (1 0/20/l0, 12/15110 and 

### 1118/11) Mr. Downey performed maintenance for 3 differentairlines. Answer4r,s,t. It is unknown what the violation ishere as Mr. Downeyhadpreviouslytested negative for histests, isa certificated and licensedmechanic and was, 

### inthe understanding of Jett 

### Pro, legal to performmaintenance as employed. Is there somethingwe are in violationof?

5a. Violation: On or about April 5, 2010 SeanPonce was administered a Non DOTPre

. Employmenttest and JettProreceived a verified positive result. Answer: 

### Mr. Poncetestresult was negative not positive as stated. Records from the MRO on file attest to 

### this.

Violation Sc. At thetime

### JettPro hired 

### Mr. Ponce, Jett Pro 

### had not conducted a DOT pre employment teston

### Mr. Ponce. Answer Sc. Mr. Ponce was sentfor hispre employment test withthe wrong Custody and Control form i.e. Forensic DrugTestingRecord. As soon aswe learnedbewas tested using · the nonDOTtest formwe contactedWesternAeromedical Consortium for advice and upon their suggestion we 

### innnediatelyre sent Mr. Ponce for a DOTtest. Both test proved negative. p.5Oct 27 2011 11: 21 Jett Pro Line MX 9099800899

J&U l"ro Liln& Maintenance 2920 E. fnland Empire Blvd", Suite# 103 Ontario, California 91764



### Violation 6a,b. On or about Oct 

### 7th, 2009 Mr. Wilson Guerrero, an aircrafttechnician was addedto Jett Pro's random pool and available to perform safety sensitive functions. Pursuant to 49 CFR & 

### 40.250) Jett Pro did not ask Mr. Guerrero whetherherefused pre 

### employment drug or alcohol or whetherhe testedpositive on anypre employment drug or alcohol applicationto safety sensitive transportation work coveredbyDOTtestingrules.

· Answer 6a,b.Mr. Guerrero was askedthe question as itis standardpractice ofourHR

Department. Thepointbeingmissed was the checkbox onthe form was inadvertently not checked offby

### Mr. Guerrero and it was overlookedbyJett Pro HR. This was a mistake and checks have beenputinto the hiring systemto double check forms such as this.

Violation6c,d,e. Onor about Sept 

### 8th, 2009 

### Mr. Guerrero completed a consentform permittingUS AirwaysExpress, his former employer, to 

### release to Jett Pro 

### confidential drug/alcohol testing informationas part ofa record check. (d) The abovereferencedform included Mr. 

### Guerrero's responseto the question required by49 CFR & 

### 40.25 G) 

### asking ifhe received a verified positive, adulterated or substituted DOT drug/alcoholtestresult. (e) Jett Pro released the abovereferenced form with the referencedmedical informationidentifiedin 6d above to US AirwaysExpress withoutMr. Guerrero's specific writtenrequest. Answer 6e. Ithas 

### beenthepractice ofusingthe form in question

### froin the start ofthe company severalyears ago. Therehas neverbeen anyissue ornoted concernbyDrug Abatement auditors in the past. It

### was infact a recommendation onlybythe auditors onthis visitto separatethe medical information. Jett Pro did so immediately eventhough itwas a suggestion only. 

### If there was any errorJett Pro wasunaware ofit. It 

### maybe notedJett Pro receives sim.ilar forms into the office withthe same information

### we arein 'violation' of constantly. It appears other companies and airlines are unaware ofthis recommendation also.

Violation 7. M:r, 

### Freulerhandled support equipment and ground service equipmentusedto access aircraft and support aircraftrepair 

### and was not a coveredemployee subjectto 

### drug and alcoholtesting inaccordance to 14 CFR& 

### 120.105 and 120.215 Answer 7. 

### Mr. Freulerreceiveda DOT drugtest notrequired forthejob he was hired for. He was sentfor the pre employmenttest using theDOTform whereas he shouldhaveused the non DOT form i.e. Forensic form as this is consistentwith his duties. Heis a non licensed person andwasnot working in 

### a safety sensitive position. Hewas not involvedin aircraft 

## repairs 

## as stated. Jett

## Pro upon realizing the wrong fonn was used and requested Western Aeromedical Consortium to take him

### offthe random pool as he shouldnothave been placed there inthe

### first place. This was revealedwhen he 

## was calledup for a DOTrandom test. p.SOct 27 2011 11:22 Jett Pro Line MX 9099800699

..lett Pro Line- MaiJ'Itenance 2920 E. Jnfand Empim Blvd' .• Suite-# 103 Ontario, CaUfornia 917&4**"t'~** 909.980.0552 F: 909.98Q-.0699**E~** illfo@jettpro.aero**v~~;:** www..JettProLilleM.. tntenance.com



### Violation 8. Mr. Hass washedthe exterior surfaces ofcommercial aircraftwithwater andwas not a covered employee subject to drug and alcohol testing

### iaw 14 CPR & 

### 120.105 and 120.215. 

### Answer 7. Same as aoswer#7. His duties do notfall into the criteria for a safety sensitive function.
The above responseby Jett Pro is provided toillustrate no mal intent orpurposed contradictionto the DOT drug and alcohol program. Itis understood ignorance is 

### notblissbut thecompanyhas done duediligence to 

### the onlymaterials knownto itregardingthe drug program. The documents or manuals were providedbyWesternAeromedical Consortium and were followed and adhered to as bestunderstood by the company. Anytime errorswere made knowinregards to

### theprogram that 

### were broughtto out attentionby the consortium we correctedimmediately as it

### is the intention ofthe companyto comply, notbe in any 

### gray area. Werespectively request the above answers be interrupted in

### this light. p.7Oct 27 2011 11:22 Jett Pro Line MX


### Roger McKee From: Sent: To: Jody Godsey Ugodsey@jettpro.aero] Thursday, October27, 2011 9:51AM 'Roger McKee' Subject: PTO log Roger 

### Good morning. Please see belowforyour PTO Log RogerMcKee· 

### PTO Hours Hire Date:S/11/2007 AnniversaryYear 5(11/2011- 5/11/2012 

### Date Thursday, June 02,2011 

### Monday,July 25, 2011 10/10- lOJZ0/2011



### Total Enjoy your day. Jody



### ]odyM. Smith ExecutiveAssistant JettPro Line Maintenance 2601 Fortune Circle Drive E Suite lOlA Indianapolis, IN 46241 Ph: 317-240-5031 Fx: 317-240-5034 Email: ig-Odsey@jettpro.aero "Passionfor Per[ectfrmu Hours 

### 4 8 56



### 68 

### Balance 76 

### 68 12 Accrued on May 11,2011 9099800699 p.8

Please vlsitour websiteatwwwJettproline-rnaintenance.comThis- messageisintended only for the use ofthe addressee andmaycontaininformation thatis PRIVATE and CONFIDENTIAL. Ifyouare natthe intendedrecipientyou areherebynotifiedthatany disseminati<Jn ofthis communication is strictly prohibited. rfyou have receivedthis communication in error, please eraseall copies ofthe message and its attachments and notifY the sender immediately. Thankyou.

110/27/2011 15:30 

### FAX 202 2675106



### RECEPTION OK TX/RX NO RECIPIENT ADDRESS DESTINATION ID ST. TIME TIME USE PGS. RESULT 

### ********************* 

## *** RX REPORT 

## *** *********************

7773 9099800699 10/27 15:26 04'24 8 

### OK**~001**( 

# ..

",";; 909.980.0552**r~ 909.980~0699**  ::;; info@jettpro.aero**"''.~~** www.JettProLineMaintenance.com

June 29, 2012 Autumn Killingham Office of the Chief Counsel Enforcement Division Ref: FAA Case# 2011WP910076
Dear Ms. Killingham In reference to the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty letter recently received Jett Pro wishes to strongly object to the proposed fine of $86,080. Our main contention is drawn from the previous statements provided your office in the September 18, 2011 letter. Since our phone discussion and in light of this proposed fine we wish to submit the following information for your consideration. We request the removal of the fine or at least a greatly reduced penalty. The original penalty proposal was approximately $107000 which now has been reduced to $86080. The reason for the**r~duction,** thus far, is not understood but our conjecture is one of more of the findings were removed. If this is the case we don't know which, therefore, we submit the following articles for your consideration of our request. Referencing the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty letter dated September 7, 2011 1. Item #3(g)(h)(j) in which Jett Pro failed to direct a collection under direct observation on 12/3/09, 12/28/09.

- Both tests were random tests. In accordance with Western Aeromedical Consortium manual, Section "Instructors Guide" 6.10 a direct observed test is only required for return to duty and follow up tests. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests this finding be stricken. 2. Item 3(n) Mr. Valesquez was administered an alcohol test on or about 8/25/09 contrary to the SAP's testing plan.

- Jett Pro sent Mr. Velasquez for his test 8/25/09 in accordance with Hughes & Shannon Associates (SAP) follow up plan; however, we did not receive any test information of his test until 10/16/09 at which point he was due another follow up test. It wasn't until then did we learn he had received a BAT test only and not the drug test as required. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests this finding be stricken. 3. Item 3(o) Mr. Velasquez was administered 3 tests of approx dates of 11/29/10, 12/7/10 and 12/20/10 contrary to the SAP's follow up testing plan in that the 3 tests were all beyond the first 12 months after being returned to duty.

- The tests in question were all within the guidelines provided by Hughes & Shannon Associates. The return to duty test was conducted 7/1/09. The last test was conducted 12/30/09. Based on this, Jett Pro res ectfully requests this finding be stricken. 

### EXHIBIT 

# c 1

# ,**~:·~** 909.980.0552**F~** 909.980-0699 ::;, info@jettpro.aero**·-;~** www.JettProlineMaintenance.com

4. Item 3(p) Jett Pro did not adhere to the number and frequency of follow up testing with the drug schedule as determined by the SAP in that it did not consist of at least 6 tests in the first 12 months following Mr. Velasquez's return to duty. The tests in question were all within the time frame provided by Hughes & Shannon Associates. The return to duty test was conducted 7/1/09. The last test was conducted 12/30/09. The only issue we see here is that more tests were administered than required and the test in Sept/09 was conducted as a random test (see 3n above). Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests this finding be stricken. 5. Items 3 (r) Mr. Velasquez performed a safety sensitive function on 11/9/10.

- Mr. Velasquez completed a return to duty 7/1/09. Our understanding is he is legal to perform safety sensitive functions once completing the Return to Duty test. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests this finding be stricken. 6. Item 3(s) Mr. Velasquez performed a safety sensitive function on 1/18/11.

- Mr. Velasquez completed a return to duty 7/1/09. Our understanding is he is legal to perform safety sensitive functions once completing the RTD test. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests this finding be stricken. 7. Item 3(t) Mr. Velasquez performed a safety sensitive function on 1/19/11.

- Mr. Velasquez completed a return to duty 7/1/09. Our understanding is he is legal to perform safety sensitive functions once completing the RTD test. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests this finding be stricken. 8. Item 4U)(k) Jett Pro failed to complete the follow up testing plan recommended by the SAP after Jett Pro hired Mr. Downey. -The test for the period 7/1/10
- 9/30/10 was administered 8/9/10. -The other 4 tests prior to this date were not completed due to Jett Pro not knowing the procedures or regulations that pertained to a second employer picking up a previous SAP's test recommendations. (The regulation Subpart 0 Substance Abuse Professionals and the Return to Duty Process pgs 63-68) that were provided by your office in the past week or so). Jett Pro did not have this regulation in hand until your office provided it a week ago. Had Jett Pro had this regulation in hand this when Mr. Downey was hired, the oversight of 5 months of lapse in testing would not have occurred. In fact, when Jett Pro became aware of Mr. Downey's previous positive tests, the company contacted a couple of drug agencies questioning what should our role now we have hired the person. It was a recommendation that caused us to pick up the remaining tests in October 2011, and still not sure a specific regulation covered such issue. This was not confirmed until we read the Pt 40 your office sent. We will also be obtaining a complete copy of this reg. Based on this Jett Pro respectfully request a reduction in penalty for this misunderstanding.



### 2

# ,

'/;, 909.980.0552 '";'' 909.980-0699**::2~** info@jettpro.aero ;,": www.JettProLineMaintenance.com

9. Item 9(L) Mr. Downey performed a safety sensitive function on an aircraft, 3/12/10.

- Copies of Mr. Downey's SAP recommended follow up plan were received after the date of the maintenance function 3/12/10. Due to our lack of knowledge of the requirements and regulations (see #8 Item 4 j, k above) it was our understanding his negative Pre Employment test was sufficient for him to perform maintenance work. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests any penalty be reduced if not stricken for this misunderstanding. 10. Item 4(m) Contrary to the SAP's testing plan Mr. Downey was not administered drug and alcohol follow up testing in 3/10, 4/10, 5/10, 6/10, 7/10.

- (same as #8 Item 4 j, k above). Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests a reduction in penalty for this misunderstanding. Note: The test during the July-Sept period was administered. 11. Item 4(n) Contrary to the SAP's testing plan Mr. Downey should have received 1 follow up test for September/10 but in fact he received 2. (September 14th and 28th)

- It is not known how this occurred as the tests are less than 2 weeks apart. He did complete a test 9/14/10 and it is suspected he was sent to early for the next test scheduled for the period 10/1/10
- 12/31/10. He was early then by 2 days. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests a reduction in any penalty for this oversight. 12. Item 4(o) Contrary to the SAP's testing plan Jett Pro failed to administer Mr. Downey's follow up drug and alcohol tests in November, 2010

- Mr. Downey was administered a follow up test 10/26/10. This covers the SAP's recommendation follow up plan during the period of 10/1/10
- 12/31/10. Based on this, Jett Pro requests this finding be stricken. 13. Item 4(q) All of the tests identified in paragraphs 4k,n, p were initiated by Mr. Downey and not by Jett Pro. -This is not correct. All tests requested of Mr. Downey have been initiated by Jett Pro and never by the individual. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests this finding be stricken. 14. Item 4(r)(s)(t). Safety sensitive functions were performed by Mr. Downey 10/20/10, 12/15/10 and 1/18/11.

- Jett Pro does not understand why Mr. Downey could not perform these tests as he was the program and had a valid A&P license. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests this finding be stricken. 15. Item 5(a) about 4/5/10 Mr. Ponce was administered a Non DOT pre employment drug test and Jett Pro received a verified positive test. -This is not correct. Mr. Ponce's test was negative. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests this finding be stricken.


### 3

### '

'/; 909.980.0552**~~** 909.980-0699 ·:":; info@jettpro.aero 1h www.JettProLineMaintenance.com

16. Item S(b)(c) On or about 4/6/10 Jett Pro hired Mr. Ponce to perform the safety sensitive duties of a Senior Line Maintenance technician. Jett Pro had not conducted a DOT pre employment test on Mr. Ponce.

- Mr. Ponce was send to the clinic with the wrong form (Non DOT). When Jett Pro realized this he was immediately returned for a DOT test. All tests results proved negative. In accordance with understood procedures when this mistake happens Jett Pro retrained the manager who sent Mr. Ponce for the test with the wrong form and retrained all managers on use of the correct form. Also our initial hire package sent to a manager was changed to specifically state to use the DOT form with the "green sticker" to help clarify this issue. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests a reduction in any penalty for this oversight. 17. Item S(e) On or about April12, 2012 Mr. Ponce performed a safety sensitive function in that he performed maintenance on an aircraft.

- The maintenance record provided the auditors showed Mr. Ponce provided assistance only in the job. He did not sign any work off. His name was included on Jett Pro's Work Order form, M2, as it is required for billing purposes only. The task involved one person standing in the back of the aircraft listening to verify if the call button chime (activated from the cockpit) was audible in the rear of the aircraft. Mr. Ponce was listening only and as stated he did not sign any work off. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully request this finding be stricken. 18. Item 6(a) On October 7, 2009 Mr. Guerrero was added to Jett Pro's random pool and available to perform safety sensitive functions. (b)Jett Pro did not ask Mr. Guerrero whether he refused pre employment drug or alcohol testing, or whether he tested positive on any pre employment drug or alcohol test for application to safety sensitive transportation work covered by DOT testing rules. (c) On or about September 8. 2009 Mr. Guerrero completed a consent form permitting US Airways, his former employer, to release to Jett Pro confidential drug/alcohol testing information as part of a record check. (d) The above referenced form included Mr. Guerrero's response to the question required by 49 CFR Pt40.25U) asking if he received a verified positive, adulterated or substituted DOT drug/alcohol test result. (e) Jett Pro released the above referenced form with the medical information identified in paragraph 6(d) above to US Airways without Mr. Guerrero's specific written request. -In reference to item (b) above Jett Pro admits the form was not checked by the employee concerning the specific question. It is, however, the habit of HR and local station managers to doubly check this information verbally. This was done but we admit to missing this check off box when he signed the Consent for the Release of Confidential Information form. Also, Jett Pro has taken steps to have an extra person view the form prior to release to another company to ensure all blocks are checked. All old forms have been removed.



### 4Jett Pro Line Mainten-ance 2820 E. lnl<>nd Empire B;':d,, Suit-e# 103 Ontario,**Callfcrni~** fl"l764**"~;~** 909.980.0552**·~~** 909.980-0699 ::;; info@jettpro.aero "/,'; www.JettProlineMaintenance.com

-In reference to item (c) and (e) above Mr. Guerrero did sign the Consent for the Release of Confidential Information form prior to release to US Airways. The finding (c) is contrary to finding (e). Based on this we respectfully request this particular finding be stricken. -In addition to item (e) above to the release of the medical information, it has been the practice of Jett Pro since becoming a Pt 145 Repair Station in 2002. The same form has gone through 9 years of drug audits yet this has never been an issue. In addition, it was the recommendation (only) of the drug auditor that Jett Pro remove this from the form stating "as far as he understood it wasn't a regulation but a good practice". Jett Pro discussed this with the auditor and agreed to remove that informational portion and before the auditors left the new form was shown them. It has been in place since. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests this finding be stricken. 19. Item 7(a)(b) Mr. John Freuler handled support equipment and ground service equipment used to access aircraft and support aircraft repair and was not a covered employee subject to drug and alcohol testing in accordance with 14CFR 120.105 and 120.215. On or about 1/6/2011 Mr. Freuler was added to Jett Pro's random drug and alcohol pool.

- Mr. Frueler's job description as a ground vehicle equipment mechanic is not a covered position per the Testable Job Category's. The fact that he was tested under the DOT program was a mistake by our company. The Non DOT Forensic C of C form should have been used as Jett Pro has a company drug program in place. When this was realized Jett Pro requested Western Aeromedical Consortium to change his status and remove him from the DOT program based on his non safety sensitive position. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests this finding be stricken. 20. Item 8 (a) Employee Mr. Charles Hass washed the exterior surfaces of commercial aircraft with water and was not a covered employee subject to drug and alcohol testing in accordance with CFR 120.105 & 120.215. (b) On January 6, 2011 Mr. Hass was added to Jett Pro's random drug and alcohol pool.

- Mr. Hass's job of aircraft washer is not a covered position per the Testable Job Category's. The fact that he was tested under the DOT program was a mistake by our company. The Non DOT Forensic C of C form should have been used as Jett Pro has a company drug program in place. When this was realized Jett Pro requested Western Aeromedical Consortium to change his status and remove him from the DOT program based on his non safety sensitive position. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests this finding be stricken. In conclusion, our intention as we have stated before has been to comply with the drug program and not find ways to circumvent any procedures. We have benefitted from the audit and trust the changes implemented are satisfactory to ensure total compliance with the program.


### 5

### '**~:** 909.980.0552 P: 909.980-0699**·.~~** info@jettpro.aero -h www.JettProLineMaintenance.com

As a small company any penalty will have a drastic effect on our growth therefore; we hope the Office will see that where mistakes were made they were primarily of not having the regulations, such as your Office recently provided us. We have taken steps to obtain more complete documents than those provided also. We thank you for your consideration of these factors. Roger McKee

DER/QA Manager Jett Pro Line Maintenance 

### (909) 980 0552



### 6