U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

) 

In the Matter of Jett Pro Line Maintenance ) 

RECEIVED 

MAR 1 2 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

) 

) 

________________________ ) 

FAA. Case No. 2011 WP91000076 

Judge Richard C. Goodman 

FAfl-2o!3-lo77 

AGENCY'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES 

AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

Pursuant to 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 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 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 of the 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 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 of the document, the name and 
address, addresses of all persons to whom copies of the docwnent 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 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 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 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 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 

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. l. 
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 in your possession that 

support your contention that 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 of your contention that any follow-up tests 

referenced in the Complaint were, in fact random tests and therefore not required to be 

directly observed. 
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: Copies of all documents that you identified in 

Interrogatory No.4. 

DOCUMENT REQUESY NO 5. Copies of all documents that you identified in 

Interrogatory No. 5. 

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.6 Copies of all documents that support your contention 

that Jett Pro initiated the follow-up tests for Mr. Downey referenced in paragraph 4k, 4n, 

and 4p of the Complaint 
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 

The FAA hereby requests that Respondent admit or deny that each of the 

following statements is true and accurate. If Respondent denies any part of the statement, 

specify that part of the statement that is denied and that part of the statement, if any, that 

Respondent admits is true and accurate. If objection is made to any request, the reason 

for the objection shall be specifically stated. If Respondent 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 of information 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 FOR ADMISSIONS 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. At the time Mr. McKee wrote the abovereferenced March 3, 2011 letter, he was acting within the scope of his employment with 

Jett Pro. 
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 4 . The letter dated September 28, 2011, and 

attached as Exhibit B, was written by DER Roger McKee. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 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 FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 6 At the time Mr. McKee wrote the abovereferenced September 28, 20111etter, he was acting within the scope of his employment 

with Jett Pro. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS N0.7 The letter dated January 29,2012, and attached 

as Exhibit C, was written by DER Roger McKee. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 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 FOR ADMISSION NO.9 At the time Mr. McKee wrote the abovereferenced January 29, 2012letter, he was acting within the scope of his employment 

with Jett Pro. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

of Documents, and Request for Admissions in the matter of Jett 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 281

h Street 

Suite 200 

Santa Monica, CA 90405 

I hereby certify that an original and one copy of the 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 of the foregoing documents was faxed to: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearing, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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 of Aerospace 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 of the 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 of the error mentioned. Upon realization of this 

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 our personnel 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 of the 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 HR 1009, 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 of the 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 the job 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 after the consortium called Jett Pro advising us 

of this 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 

j 
Oct 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 

FAA Case No. 20llWP910076 

Autunm K.illingham 

Attorney, Enforcement Division 

Office of Chief Counsel 

Dear Sir/Madam, Please note the following response to the letter dated Sept. 7th regarding the 

proposed civil penalty. In reading of1he violations we noticed there are several incorrect 

statements. These and the other violations have supporting arguments or explanations for your 

review. Notwithstanding 1he items stated, our biggest concern is Jett Pro did everything 

known to do with regards to the fulfillment of its obligations to the drug and alcohol program 

yet evidently came up short to where civil penalties are now pending. Our concern is how 

does a company meet the drug and alcohol program requirements where there are limited 

guidelines or directions as in the case of two of the violations with regard to following SAP 

reco=endations. Any guidelines to these items would be received thankfully. 

Item 3hj. Violation: JettPro failed to direct a collection under direct observation of Mr. 

V elesquez for the second follow up test 12/7/09. (See attached Random Test Notification 

page attached.) 

Answer3hj. Nowhere does it state a Random test is to be under a direct observation. The 

notice received for the 4th Random test for 2009listed 9 employees, none of which received 

any such notice. Jett Pro was not aware such test existed then and was not notified by any 

office or collection agency that this type of test was required. 

Item 3n. Violation: Contrary to the SAP's testing plan, on or about August 25, 2009 Mr. 

V alesquez was administered an alcohol follow up test, designated "1" Alcohol Test. 

Answer 3n. The designation "1" Alcohol test was a company note only. This has nothing to 

do with the test he undertook. It was (and still is) totally unknown if Jett Pro was to continue 

to follow the recommended SAP's plan on the suggested test dates. Nowhere is there 

guidance stating a (second, or subsequent) hiring company must follow a SAP's plan or 

reco=ended tests. Jett Pro did elected to undertake at it own cost a session of 6 tests just to 

be sure as six seems to be the usual number of SAP's recommended tests after a person is 

tested positive for drug abuse. We hired the individual and after learning he previously tested 

positive we requested a copy of his return to duty test from the previous company. It showed 

negative so he was put to work.lfiSIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!i!!l!'!!!l!!!!~llllill" 

EXHIBIT 

p.2 
Oct 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 wete later provided a copy of the SAP's multiple tests recommendations. We weren't 

provided with all his records so we had no knowledge of whether he had done them all OR if 

he was required now he was working for a different company There are no guidelines or 

regulations provided so just to make sure he was still negative Jett Pro decided to send him on 

extra tests. The results showed he was negative. One of those tests v.-as also an alcohol test. 

This was not required but we chose to do so anyway. Is this in violation of any regulations? If 

so we would like to be informed so we know what our requirements are for any future cases 

that may come our way. In addition, the SAP's recommendations that were provided us after 

he commenced employment with Jett Pro did not state test alcohol testing was not required. 

What are the regulations concerning following a SAP's plan. 

Item 3o. Violation: Contrary to the SAP's follow up testing plan on or about November 29, 

20 I 0, December 7, 2010 and December 20, 2010, Mr. V alesquez was administered follow-up 

drug tests- all beyond the first 12 months after being returned to duty. 

Answer 3o. It was not known to J ett Pro that the dates on the SAP's recommended tests were 

to be followed strictly as stated, This is Jett Pro's first dealing with hiring an employee from 

another employer that had tested previous with that other company. Jett Pro did not know they 

were to continue the SAP's.recommended testing, as stated above. A phone conversation with 

Western Aeromedical Consortiwn on another subject revealed we ought to follow the SAP's 

plan for 2010 so we sent the employee on several tests in December. Again, Jett Pro did not 

know if it was to follow an SAP's recomendations as we weren't immediately provided 

with his past records nor once received we did not know if they were complete or accurate as 

the records provided were not offici!ll in that no signatures or company logo was indicated. 

They were made on a Word document like someone had made them up. They were not an 

official document one might expect. The employee did not have records to provide us either. 

He also did not inform Jett Pro that he was to follow the SAP's entire recommended test when 

being employed by another employer at a later date. Again, no regulations nor guideliiJ.eS that 

we know of are available to inform us on such matters. If we had known we would have 

followed them implicitly. 

p.3 
Oct 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, contrary to 49CFR & 40.30.307(d) the number and 

frequency of Mr. V alesquez follow-up testing did not comply with the drug testing schedule 

determined by Jett Pro's SAP or Certified Aviation Services' SAP and did not consist of at 

least 6 test in the first 12 months following Mr. Valesquez's return to du1y. 

Answer 3p. Six tests were provided Mr. Valesquez by Jett Pro. Records are available to show 

proof. fu addition, Jett Pro did not have any dealings with a SAP as the drug offense by Mr. 

Va1esquez was done while he was employed by another company. It is Jett Pro understanding 

that once a person is released from a SAP he (nor another employer) does not need to have 

dealings with the SAP once testing negative on his return to du1y test. Are we in error there? 

Items 3q,r,s,t. Violations: On the dates as stated (5/8/09, 11/9/10, 1/18/11 and 1/19/11) Mr. 

Valesquez performed maintenance for 4 different airlines. 

Answer 3q,r,s,t. It is unknown what the violation is here as Mr. Valesquez had previously 

tested negative for his tests, is a certific.ated and lic()nsed mechanic and was in, the 

understanding of Jett Pro, legal to perform maintenance as employed. Is there something we 

are in violation of? 

Item 4j,k,l,m,n,o. Violation: Jett Pro failed to complete the follow-up drug and alcohol testing 

plan recommended by the SAP after J ett Pro hired Mr. Downey. 

Answer 4j,k.,l,m,n,o. As in the case of Mr. Valesquez, the same answers apply for Mr. 

Downey. Jett Pro was stepping in uncharted waters when dealing v;ith new employees from a 

previous employer's positive drug test. It was not (and is not today) Jett Pro's intention to 

bypass any requirement of the DOT drug program. Dates and schedules of previously 

recommended tests not done, where unknown to ·be a requirement to be completed by a new 

employer. In the case of both employees a time lapse of test dates occurred as both employees 

were not employed by Jett Pro during that time. This is why the Jett Pro sent the employee on 

extra 6 tests, at Jett Pro's expense after being employed, just to make sure. J ett Pro was acting 

out of ignorance in these matters as no written guidelines nor regulations are provided. In 

fact, when being made known of this during the audit we requested direction to where we can 

find these regulations or guidelines as we wished to be compliant. We have. not received 

anything as of this date. Jett Pro did take the step of attending a drug seminar put on by Ms. 

Colleen Wienhoff, CEO of DNA & Drug Screening Serviced, Inc. She also was unsure where 

or ifthere are regulations in these matters. We only wish to be compliant. 

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

initiated by Mr. Downey and not by Jett Pro. 

Answer 4q. ALL tests were initiated by Jett Pro and NOT by the employee. The company has 

as its written drug statements that follow-up test costs are borne by the employee. Mr. 

Downey went on Jett Pro'srequest as by then we had learned some things from Mr. 

Valesquez's experience. 

Items 4r,s,t. Violation; On the dates as stated (1 0/20/l 0, 12/15110 and 1118/11) Mr. Downey 

performed maintenance for 3 different airlines. 

Answer 4r,s,t. It is unknown what the violation is here as Mr. Downey had previously tested 

negative for his tests, is a certificated and licensed mechanic and was, in the understanding of 

J ett Pro, legal to perform maintenance as employed. Is there something we are in violation of? 

5a. Violation: On or about April 5, 2010 Sean Ponce was administered a Non DOT Pre 

. Employment test and Jett Pro received a verified positive result. 

Answer: Mr. Ponce test result was negative not positive as stated. Records from the MRO on 

file attest to this. 

Violation Sc. At the time Jett Pro hired Mr. Ponce, Jett Pro had not conducted a DOT pre 

employment test on Mr. Ponce. 

Answer Sc. Mr. Ponce was sent for his pre employment test with the wrong Custody and 

Control form i.e. Forensic Drug Testing Record. As soon as we learned be was tested using · 

the non DOT test form we contacted Western Aeromedical Consortium for advice and upon 

their suggestion we innnediately re sent Mr. Ponce for a DOT test. Both test proved negative. 

p.5 
Oct 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 aircraft technician was 

added to 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 whether he refused pre employment 

drug or alcohol or whether he tested positive on any pre employment drug or alcohol 

application to safety sensitive transportation work covered by DOT testing rules. 

· Answer 6a,b. Mr. Guerrero was asked the question as it is standard practice of our HR 

Department. The point being missed was the check box on the form was inadvertently not 

checked offby Mr. Guerrero and it was overlooked by Jett Pro HR. This was a mistake and 

checks have been put into the hiring system to double check forms such as this. 

Violation 6c,d,e. On or about Sept 8th, 2009 Mr. Guerrero completed a consent form 

permitting US Airways Express, his former employer, to release to J ett 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 & 40.25 G) asking if he 

received a verified positive, adulterated or substituted DOT drug/alcohol test result. (e) Jett 

Pro released the above referenced form with the referenced medical information identified in 

6d above to US Airways Express without Mr. Guerrero's specific written request. 

Answer 6e. It has been the practice of using the form in question froin the start of the 

company several years ago. There has never been any issue or noted concern by Drug 

Abatement auditors in the past. It was in fact a recommendation only by the auditors on this 

visit to separate the medical information. Jett Pro did so immediately even though it was a 

suggestion only. If there was any error Jett Pro was unaware of it. It may be noted Jett Pro 

receives sim.ilar forms into the office with the same information we are in 'violation' of 

constantly. It appears other companies and airlines are unaware of this recommendation also. 

Violation 7. M:r, 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 to 14 CFR & 120.105 and 120.215 

Answer 7. Mr. Freuler received a DOT drug test not required for the job he was hired for. He 

was sent for the pre employment test using the DOT form whereas he should have used the 

non DOT form i.e. Forensic form as this is consistent with his duties. He is a non licensed 

person and was not working in a safety sensitive position. He was not involved in aircraft 

repairs as stated. Jett Pro upon realizing the wrong fonn was used and requested Western 

Aeromedical Consortium to take him off the random pool as he should not have been placed 

there in the first place. This was revealed when he was called up for a DOT random test. 

p.S 
Oct 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 washed the exterior surfaces of commercial aircraft with water and was 

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 not fall into the criteria for a safety sensitive 

function. 

The above response by Jett Pro is provided to illustrate no mal intent or purposed 

contradiction to the DOT drug and alcohol program. It is understood ignorance is not bliss but 

the company has done due diligence to the only materials known to it regarding the drug 

program. The documents or manuals were provided by Western Aeromedical Consortium and 

were followed and adhered to as best understood by the company. Any time errors were made 

know in regards to the program that were brought to out attention by the consortium we 

corrected immediately as it is the intention of the company to comply, not be in any gray area. 

We respectively request the above answers be interrupted in this light. 

p.7 
Oct 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 below for your PTO Log 

Roger McKee· PTO Hours 

Hire Date:S/11/2007 

Anniversary Year 5(11/2011- 5/11/2012 

Date 

Thursday, June 02,2011 

Monday, July 25, 2011 

10/10- lOJZ0/2011 

Total 

Enjoy your day. 

Jody 

]ody M. Smith 

Executive Assistant 

Jett Pro 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 

"Passion for Per[ectfrmu 

Hours 

4 

8 

56 

68 

Balance 

76 

68 

12 

Accrued 

on May 

11,2011 

9099800699 p.8 

Please vlsitour website at www Jettproline-rnaintenance.com This- message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is 

PRIVATE and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are nat the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disseminati<Jn of this communication is strictly 

prohibited. rfyou have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notifY the sender immediately. 

Thank you. 

1 
10/27/2011 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. 

4 
Jett 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