909.980.0552 909.980-0699 info@jettpro.aero www.JettProLineMaintenance.com 

January 27, 2014 

Air Agency Certificate # 

YUJR093Y 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2W1000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

~(:\'(\· 2..0\~- \O~t 

Dear Sir/Madam, 

Jett Pro Line Maintenance 

P.O. Box 3190 

Ontario, CA 91761 

909.980.0552 

RECEIVED 

JAN 2 8 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

Pursuant to FAR 13.16 (g)(2)(ii) and (h), Jett Pro Line Maintenance 

(hereafter, Jett Pro) requests a hearing in the matter of a Final Notice of Civil 

Penalty, FAA Case No. 2011 WP910076, dated January 8, 2014 and received 

by Jett Pro on January 13, 2014. This Final Notice seeks to assess a civil 

penalty of $107.600.00. 

As its Answer as required by FAR 13.35(c), Jett Pro files herewith a copy of 

its letter, dated June 29, 2012, to Ms. Autumn Killingham of the Chief 

Counsel's office. This letter sets forth Jett Pro's objections to the FAA 

charges. 

Respectfully submitted, 

~Lf ~M'/L ( ~ ~- 17cr~ Sam Nugud 

President 

Jett Pro Line Maintenance 

Enclosure 

1 
,.~,. 909.980.0552 909.980-0699 info@jettpro.aero 

June 29, 2012 

Autumn Killingham 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division 

Ref: FAA Case# 2011WP910076 

Dear Ms. Killingham 

www.JettProLineMaintenance.com 

RECEIVED 

JAN 2 8 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

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 reduction, 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 respectfully requests this finding be stricken. 

1 
\"- 909.980.0552 : 0 909.980-0699 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 th"e 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 4(j)(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 
0

'"' 909.980.0552 909.980-0699 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 "-:'{~ 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 April 12, 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 Pt40.25(j) asking if he received a verified positive, adulterated or substituted 

DOT drug/alcohol test result. 

(e) Jett Pro released the above referenced form with the 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 
"• 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 ,:: ·- 909.980~0699 '-~" info@jettpro.aero 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 
-,~- 909.980.0552 909.980-0699 info@jettpro.aero -·;; www.JettProLineMaintenance.com 

January 27, 2014 

Air Agency Certificate # 

YUJR093Y 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2W1000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

\-A.~ - 2D I. "b -i ~y"'\·""'1-

Dear Sir/Madam, 

Jett Pro Line Maintenance 

P.O. Box 3190 

Ontario, CA 91761 

909.980.0552 

RECEIVED 

JAN 2 8 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

Pursuant to FAR 13.16 (g)(2)(ii) and (h), Jett Pro Line Maintenance 

(hereafter, Jett Pro) requests a hearing in the matter of a Final Notice of Civil 

Penalty, FAA Case No. 2011WP910076, dated January 8, 2014 and received 

by Jett Pro on January 13, 2014. This Final Notice seeks to assess a civil 

penalty of $107.600.00. 

As its Answer as required by FAR 13.35(c), Jett Pro files herewith a copy of 

its letter, dated June 29, 2012, to Ms. Autumn Killingham of the Chief 

Counsel's office. This letter sets forth Jett Pro's objections to the FAA 

charges. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/2u A/vt'Jiv_ CJ 

Sam Nugud 

President 

Jett Pro Line Maintenance 

Enclosure 

1