12/06/2012 17:19 FAX 2024935142 FAA 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Adminimation 

Oclober 4, 20 12 

Office of the Chief CoonSel ':·c· •. "l 

Enforcement Division.. . . ._ ·, ' 

~ OMS lii!001/013 

I s aoo Independence Ave .. SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Area Code 202 267-7100 

CF.R'llFlED RECEIVED Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administrat1on 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk 

AGC-430, Wilber Wright Building 

Suite 2W l 000 

OCT 0 5 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

Enclo.sed herewith please find a copy of a request for hearing and the original and one copy of 

the Complaint in the above-referenced proceeding. 

The FAA requests that the hearing in this matter be held in Los Angeles, CA, and expects that 

the hearing will last one day. 

Please address all comn1Unications for the F J\A to the undersigned at: 

Otl1cc of the Chief Counsel 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Ph: 202-267·7100 

Fax: 202-267-5106 

E-mail: michael.[mckinley@faa.gov 

Enclosures: Request for Hearing 

Complaint 

cc: Respondent (w/copy of Complaint) 

Michael F. McKinley 

Senior Attorney 
12/0B/2012 17:19 FAX 2024935142 FAA ~ OMS ~002/013 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have, this date, served the foregoing Complaint by mailing the following 

copies, Certified Mail (Return Receipt Requested): 

Original and I Co:Qx: 

One Copy; 

Dated this 4th day of October, 2012. 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk 

AGC-430, Wilber Wright Building 

Suite 2W1 000 

Dave Magorien 

Magoricn Honing & Hydraulics 

1212 South Vail A venue 

Montenbello, CA 90640 
12/08/2012 17:18 FAX 2024835142 FAA -> OMS 

U.S. DEIJARTMI~:NT OJ:I' TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ill 003/013 

IN THE MATTER OF 

Mj\GORIEN HONING & HYDRAliLICS RECEIVED 

FAA DOCKET NO. (not assigned) 

(Civil Penalty Acti011) 

FDMSNO. FAA 

FAA CASE NO. 2011WP910318 

COMPLAINT 

OCT 0 5 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

The Federal Aviation Admjnistration (FAA), by coul"ISel, hereby files its Complaint, 

pursuant to Rule 208 ofthe Rules of Practice (14 C .. F.R. 13.208), and states as foll()ws: 

I 

1. On September 10, 2012, Magorien Honing & Hydraulics (Respondent) was advised 

by a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil 

penalty in the am.ount of $40,000.00. On September 25, 2012, Respondent submitted a 

written request tor a hearing. 

2. On all dales relevant herein, Respondent was a non·certificated company providing 

contract maintenance functions under contractor registration number CONN062C. 

3. On aU dates relevant herein, Respondent was required to comply with the requirements of 

14 C.F.R. part 120 and 49 C.F.R. part40 fhr its Drug and Alcohol Testing Program. 
12/08/2012 17:20 FAX 2024935142 FAA ~ OMS ~004/013 

······ 

4. On June 24, 2011, the FAA conducted an inspection of Respondent's Antidrug and 

Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program. 

5. 1\s a result ofthe inspection. the following was discovered: 

a. Respondent hired employee Doy lc House on May 14, 1984 and employee 

Douglas Godown on October 11. 1988; 

2 

b. On March 18,2010, Respondent was approved for a contractor registration 

number and began performing safety-sensitive work on aircrafl. parts 

belonging to American Airlines, Inc.; 

c. On March 18, 2010, Respondent authorized employee Doyle House to 

perform safety-sensitive maintenance work on American Airlines, Inc. 

aircrall parts, despite not subjecting Mr. House to a pre-employment drug 

test; 

d. On April 1, 2010, TAG/AMS, Inc., the consortium/third party drug test 

administrator for Respondent. completed an '"Add and Delete Form" to 

have employees Doyle House and Douglas Godown added to the random 

dmg testing pool; 

e. On April 1, 201 0, TAG/ AMS, Inc. subjected Doyle House to a preemployment drug test; 

C On AprilS, 2010, TAG/AMS, Inc. su~jectcd Douglas Godown to a preemployment drug test; 

g. On April 7, 2010, the result of Doyle House's drug test was vcriiicd as 

NEGATIVE; 
12/06/2012 17:20 FAX 2024935142 FAA ~ OMS ~005/013 

h. On April 9, 2010, Douglas Godown and Doyle House were added to Lhe 

TAG/AMS, Inc. random testing pool; 

i. On or about Apri1 9, 2010, Respondent allowed Dougla~ Godown to 

perform safety-sensitive maintenance work, despite not having a verified 

NEGATIVE drug test result; 

j. On April 14, 201 0, Douglas Godown's drug test result was verified as 

POSITIVE for marijuana; 

3 

k. After receiving a verified POSITIVE drug test result for Douglas Godown 

on Aprill4, 2010, Respondent allowed him to continue pertorming safetysensitive maintenance work. and kept him in the random te!>ting pool 

through Februa1y 2, 201 1; 

1. On December 6, 2010, Respondent subjected Douglas Godown t<? a 

second random drug test, which was verified as POSITIVE for marijuana 

on December 13,2010, and reconfirmed as POSITIVE on December 21, 

20 10, after the split specimen was sent to Central Drug System for 

reconfirmation testing; 

m. Rcspondentallowed Mr. Godown to continue perfonning safety-sensitive 

maintenance duties, despite the second veritled POSITIVE drug test result: 

n. Douglas Godown remained in the random testing pool through February 2, 

2011, continued to be available to perform safety-sensitive maintenance 

duties, and never completed the return-to-duty process outlined in 49 

C.F.R. pt. 40, subpart 0; 
12/06/2012 17:20 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS ~ 006/013 

4 

o. On Pebruary 2, 2011, Respondent contacted TAG/AMS and terminated 

their relationship, which caused Respondent's safety-sensitive employees 

to no longer be subject to random drug and alcohol testing; 

p. After terminating their relationship with TAG/ AMS, Respondent 

continued to pcrlorm. safety-sensitive work for American Airlines, Inc.; 

q. On April 13, 2011, TAG/AMS made a random selection from their 

consortium random pool and none of Respondent'S safety-sensitive 

employees had a chance ofbeing selected. 

6. In addition to the foregoing, the FAA inspection also revealed the following: 

a. Respondent did not ask safety-sensitive employees Doyle House, Douglas 

Godown, and Conrad Yu, if, during the pa<;;t two years, 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-~ensitive work covered by the Department of Transportation 

drug and alcohol test1ng rules; 

b. Respondent did not distribute informational materials on drug use and 

abuse to all covered employees, including Doyle House, D()uglas Godown, 

and Conrad Y u; 

c. Respondent did not distribute the cornpany's policy regarding drug use )n 

the workplace 10 all covered employees, including Doyle House, Douglas 

Godown, and Conrad Yu; 
12/08/2012 17:20 FAX 2024935142 FAA -+ OMS 141007/013 

d. Respondent did not implement any type of initial drug training for any of 

its employees, and did not document whether supervisory pers,onnel had 

completed the required dmg usc training; 

e. Respondent failed to follow the detailed information which TAG/ AMS, 

Inc. sent the company in a 2-pagc document entitled, "What to do if you 

have a POSITIVE for drug or alcohol te$t result"; 

f. Respondent did not maintain two years of documentation shovving they 

trained their supervisors to make a dctcnnination, based on reasonable 

suspicion, that an employee needed alcohol testing. 

11 

By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the following 

Federal Aviation Regulations: 

a. 14 C.F.R. § 120.105: Each employee, including any assistant, helper, or 

individual in a trait1ing status, who performs a safety-sensitive function listed in this 

section directly or by contract (including by subcontract at any tier) tor an employer as 

detined in this subpart must be subject to drug testing under a drug testing program 

implemented in accordance with this subpart. This includes full-time, part-time, 

temporary, and intermittent employees regardless of the degree of supervision. The 

safety~sensitive functions are: (e) Aircraft maintenance and preventive maintenance 

duties. 

5 
12/08/2012 17:20 FAX 2024835142 FAA ~ OMS 141008/013 

b. 14 c~F.R. § 12(U09: .Each employer shall C<,:mduct the types of testing described 

in this section in accordance with the procedures sei f()rth in this subpart. and the DOT 

"Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug Testing Programs'' (49 CPR part 40). 

6 

c. 14 C.F.R. § 120.109(a)(2): No employer may allow an individual to transJcr from 

a nonsafety-sensitivc to a safety-sensitive function unless the employer first conducts a 

pre-employment test and receives a verified negative dn1g test result for the individual.'' 

d. 14 C.lf.R, § 120.109(b)(6)(i)(B), which states, in pertinent part, only safetysensitive employees arc to be in an employer's random testing pool, and all safetysensitive employees must be in the random pool. 

e. 14 C.F.R. § 120.215(a): Each employee, including any assistant, helper, or 

individual in a training status, who performs a satcty-scnsitivc 1llnction listed in this 

section directly or by contract (including by subcontract at any tier) for an employer as 

deHned in this subpart must be subject to alcohol testing under an alcohol testing program 

implemented in accordance with this subpart. This includes full-time, part-time, 

temporary, and intennittent employees regardless of the degree of supervision. The 

safety-sensitive functions are: (5) Aircraft maintenance or preventative maintenance 

duties. 

f. 14 C.F.R. § 120.217(c)(6)(i)(B), which states, in pertinent part, that only safetysensitive employees are to be in an employer's random tesling pool, and all safetysensitive employees must be in the random pool. 

g. 49 C.F.R. § 40.23(a): As an employer who receives a veri1ied positive drug test 

result, you must immediately remove the employee involved from per1orming safetysensitive functions. You must take this action upon receiving the initial report ofthe 
12/08/2012 17:20 FAX 2024935142 FAA "' OMS ~009/013 

7 

verified positive test result. Do not wait to receive the written report or the result of a split 

specimen test. 

h_ 49 C.F.R. ~ 40.23(d): As an employer. when an employee has a verified positive, 

adulterated, or substituted test result, or has otherwise violated a DOT agency drug and 

alcohol regulation, you must not return the employee to the performance of safety· 

sensitive functions untjl or unless the employee successfully completes the return-to-duty 

process of Subpart 0 of this part. 

i. 49 C.F.R. § 40.25(j): As the employer, you must also ask the employee whether 

he or she has tested positive, or refused to test, on any pre-employment drug or alcoh<)l 

test administered by an employer to which the employee applied for, but did not obtain, 

safcty·:sensitive transportation work covered by DOT agency drug and alcohol testing 

rules during the past two years. If the employee admits that he or she had a positive test or 

a refusal to test, you must not use the employee to perfonn safety-sensitive functions for 

you, until and unless the employee documents succ~ssful completion or the return-to-duty 

process. 

J. 14 C.F.R. § 120.219(a)(2)(ii)(F): Employers must maintain two years 

documentation of compliance with the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § l20.223(a). ln 

summary, 14 C.F.R. § 120.223(a) states each employer shall provide educational 

materials that explain alcohol testing requirements and the employer's policies and 

procedures with respect to meeting those requirements. 

k. 14 C.F.R. § 120.219(a)(2)(ii)(G): Employers must maintain two years 

documentation of training p1-ovided to supervisors for the purpose of qualifying the 
12/06/2012 17:20 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS f41010/013 

supervisors to make a detennination concerning the need for alcohol testing based on 

reasonable suspicion. 

L 14 C.F.R. § 120.l15(b)(1)(ii): An employer's EAP education program must 

indude displaying and distributing a community service hot·Iine telephone number for 

employee assistance; 

m. .14 C.F.R. § 120.115(b)(l)(iii): An employer's EAP education program must 

8 

include displaying and distributing the employer's policy regarding dmg use in the office; 

n. 14 C.F.R. § 120.115(c)(l): Rach employer shall implement a reasonable prograp:1 

of initial training for employees. The employee training program must include at least the 

following elements: (i) The eftects and consequences of drug use on individual health, 

safety, and work environment; (ii) The manifestations and behavioral cues that may 

indicate drug usc and abuse; and (iii) Documentation of training given to employees and 

employer's supervisory personnel. 

Pursuant to Title 49 of the United States Code, Section 4630 I, Respondent is subject to a 

civil penalty not to exceed $11,000 for each violation alleged. 

Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of$40,000.00 is 

appropriate. 
12/08/2012 17:20 FAX 2024835142 FAA -+ OMS 

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

Law Judge emer an Order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of 

$40,000.00. 

R~spectfully submitted this 4111 day of October, 2012. 

Ji~!:.:i~r Senior All(>rney 

Otllce of the Chief Counsel 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Ph: 202-267-7100 

Fax: 202-267-5106 

E-mail: micha.eLf.mckinley@faa.gov 

@011/013 

9 
12/06/2012 17:20 FAX 2024935142 FAA -. OMS ~012/013 

10 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Complaint has been mailed this date by Ccrtit1ed Mail, Return 

Receipt Requested, to: 

Original and One Copy: 

One Copy: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk 

AGC.-430, Wilber Wright Building 

Suite 2Wl 000 

Dave Magorien 

Magorien Honing & Hydrau!lcs 

1212 South Vail Avenue 

Montenbell<>, CA 90640 

Dated this 4Lh day of"October, 2012. 
12/08/2012 17:21 FAX 2024935142 FAA "' OMS @013/013 

~""'""'".!...,...,I 

;:A;;.~~-~~ 

M~~~~~EN Honing & Hvdraolics ............. --. . 

To: Federal Aviation Adminis:tration 

600 )nde:pend@ncoe Ave, SW 

Wilbur Wright !!.ulldlng -Suite 2W1000 

Washington, DC 20S9l 

Attn: l-4carint; Ooell:et Cler~, AGC.43C 

To whom it may concPrn, 

1212 Soutn vail Ave 

MDnt~bflllo, CA SIQ641l 

Till: 323-?23-1151 

F.u: S23-W-1154 

......,....,map:orien • .::orn 

~pte'Tiber 2.5, 2012 

We are formally requesting a hearing In regards to case No. :Z011WP910318. We feel that the penalty 

and ex:planation of violations were excessive and not ;lccuratc. 

We have been unfairly issued a $40,000 penalty was for work we had done which totaled $1,200 worth of gross 

sales for us. These happened to be C.F.R. parts that were given to us from one p:arth;;uldr customer who is a 

licensed FAA repair station. The work that we c;gmpleted was in accordance with all FAA standards, and was 

cen:itied and passed by all entities involved and met :aU regulations and req~irements tlut were needed. The said 

FAA repair !ltation was required tg send thP.Ir Pl'lrts to a company that was licensed to work on thc:>e ~aid parts. It 

was not up taus to check to see If these parts were C.F.R. parts. We are just a srnall honing shop and we do work 

far vilrious companJ~s Including aerospace, automobile, machine shops, etc. 

We feel we have been harshly p•nall~ed due to minor procEldure and semantics that did not pertain to our 

company. Many of the infractions that we have been accused ohnd penalized for, were lnaccuratf!!! and surely not 

worth a penalty l)f 1/3 of our yearly revenue. We are in jeopardy of going out of business due to this penalty and 

we are unable to pay this amount which we will.!:haw was unf~ir and inaecurate. 

TI'erefore we kindly request a formal hE!aring which we are to understand is a choir:E' that we were offl!red by the 

FM in regards to this case. We also request the hearing to be in the city of Los Angeles, California since the said 

neoalties were in the state of California and our comp~11y is Blso located here. We have never conducted any 

bu~lness physically in Washington DC nor do we nave any customers thP.re. We thank you f9r your time and look 

forward ro your respons~ and the information needed for our hearing. · 

~ Neel Vlradia 

General Manager RECEIVED 

ocr- 3 2012 

HEARING DOCKET