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


### January 27, 2014 AirAgency Certificate # 

### YUJR093Y

Federal Aviation Administration 600 IndependenceAvenue, SW WilburWright 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 282014 

# HEARING DOCKET

Pursuantto FAR 13.16 (g)(2)(ii) and (h), Jett Pro Line Maintenance (hereafter, Jett Pro) requests a hearing in the matter ofa Final Notice ofCivil Penalty, FAA Case No. 2011WP910076, dated January 8, 2014 and received byJett Pro on January 13, 2014. This Final Notice seeks to assess a civil penalty of$107.600.00. As itsAnswer as required by FAR 13.35(c), Jett Pro files herewith a copy of its letter, dated June 29, 2012, to Ms. Autumn Killingham ofthe Chief Counsel's office. This lettersets forth Jett Pro's objectionsto 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 ofthe ChiefCounsel Enforcement Division Ref: FAA Case# 2011WP910076

Dear Ms. Killingham www.JettProLineMaintenance.com 

# RECEIVED JAN 2 82014 

# HEARING DOCKET

In reference to the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty letter recently received Jett Pro wishes to strongly objecttothe proposed fine of$86,080. Our main contention is drawn from the previous statements provided youroffice in the September 18, 2011 letter. Since our phone discussion and in lightofthis proposed fine we wish to submitthe following information foryour consideration. We request the removal ofthe fine orat least a greatly reduced penalty. The original penalty proposal was approximately $107000 which now has been reduced to $86080. The reason forthe reduction, thus far, is not understood but ourconjecture is one of more ofthe findings were removed. Ifthis is the case we don't know which, therefore, we submitthe following articles foryour consideration ofour request. Referencing the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty letterdated 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 dutyand follow uptests. 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 anytest information ofhis test until 10/16/09atwhich point he was due anotherfollow up test. Itwasn't until then did we learn he had received a BATtest only and notthe drug test as required. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests thisfinding be stricken. 3. Item 3(o) Mr. Velasquez was administered 3 tests of approxdates 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 dutytest wasconducted 7/1/09. The lasttestwas conducted 12/30/09. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests thisfinding 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 offollow up testing with th"e drug schedule as determined by the SAP in that itdid not consist ofat least 6 tests in the first 12 monthsfollowing Mr. Velasquez's return to duty. The tests in question were all within the time frame provided by Hughes & Shannon Associates. The return to dutytest was conducted 7/1/09. The lasttest was conducted 12/30/09.The only issue we see here is that moretests 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 thisfinding 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 Dutytest. 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 requeststhisfinding be stricken. 7. Item 3(t) Mr. Velasquez performed a safety sensitivefunction 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 thisfinding be stricken. 8. Item 4(j)(k) Jett Pro failed to complete the follow uptesting plan recommended bythe SAP afterJett Pro hired Mr. Downey. -The test forthe period 7/1/10
- 9/30/10 was administered 8/9/10. -The other4 tests priorto this date were not completed dueto 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 ita 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 ofdrug agencies questioning what should our role nowwe have hired the person. Itwas a recommendation that caused us to pick upthe remaining tests in October 2011, and still notsure a specific regulation covered such issue. This was not confirmed until we read the pt40 youroffice sent. We will also be obtaining a complete copy ofthis reg. Based on this Jett Pro respectfully request a reduction in penaltyforthis misunderstanding.



### 20 '"' 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 afterthe date ofthe maintenance function 3/12/10. Due to our lack of knowledge ofthe requirements and regulations (see #8 Item 4j, k above) itwas our understanding his negative Pre Employmenttest was sufficientfor him to perform maintenance work. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests any penalty be reduced if notstricken forthis misunderstanding. 10. Item 4(m) Contraryto 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 4j, k above). Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests a reduction in penalty forthis 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 howthis occurred as the tests are less than 2 weeks apart. He did complete a test 9/14/10 and it is suspected he was sentto earlyforthe nexttest scheduled forthe period 10/1/10
- 12/31/10. He was earlythen by 2 days. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests a reduction in any penaltyforthis oversight. 12. Item 4(o) Contraryto the SAP's testing plan Jett Pro failed to administer Mr. Downey's follow up drug and alcohol tests in November, 2010

- Mr. Downeywas administered a follow uptest 10/26/10.This coversthe 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 ofthe tests identified in paragraphs 4k,n, p were initiated by Mr. Downey and not byJett Pro. -This is not correct. All tests requested of Mr. Downey have been initiated byJett Pro and never by the individual. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests thisfinding 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 about4/6/10Jett Pro hired Mr. Ponce to perform the safety sensitive duties ofa Senior Line Maintenance technician. Jett Pro had not conducted a DOT pre employmenttest on Mr. Ponce.

- Mr. Ponce was send to the clinicwith the wrong form (Non DOT). When Jett Pro realized this he was immediately returned fora DOT test. All tests results proved negative. In accordance with understood procedures when this mistake happensJett Pro retrained the managerwho sent Mr. Ponce forthe testwith the wrong form and retrained all managers on use ofthe correctform. Also our initial hire package sentto a managerwas changed to specifically stateto usethe DOT form with the "green sticker"to help clarifythis issue. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requests a reduction in any penaltyfor this oversight. 17. Item S(e) On oraboutApril 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 thejob. He did notsign any work off. His name was included on Jett Pro's Work Orderform, M2, as it is required for billing purposes only. The task involved one person standing in the back ofthe aircraft listening toverify ifthe call button chime (activated from the cockpit) was audible in the rearofthe aircraft. Mr. Ponce was listening only and as stated he did notsign any work off. Based on this, Jett Pro respectfully requestthis 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 oralcohol testing, or whether he tested positive on any pre employment drug oralcohol testfor application to safety sensitive transportation work covered by DOTtesting rules. (c) On or about September 8. 2009 Mr. Guerrero completed a consentform permitting US Airways, hisformer employer, to release to Jett Pro confidential drug/alcohol testing information as part ofa record check. (d)The above referenced form included Mr. Guerrero's response to the question required by 49 CFR Pt40.25(j) asking ifhe received a verified positive, adulterated orsubstituted 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 admitsthe form was not checked by the employee concerning the specific question. Itis, however, the habit of HR and local station managersto doubly check this information verbally. This was done butwe admit to missing this check off box when he signed the Consent forthe Release ofConfidential Information form. Also, Jett Pro has taken steps to have an extra person view the form priorto release to anothercompanyto 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 forthe Release of Confidential Information form priorto release to US Airways. The finding (c) is contrary tofinding (e). Based on this we respectfully request this particularfinding be stricken. -In addition to item (e) above to the release ofthe medical information, it has been the practice ofJett Pro since becoming a Pt 145 Repair Station in 2002. The same form has gone through 9 years ofdrug audits yetthis has never been an issue. In addition, itwas the recommendation (only) ofthe drug auditorthat Jett Pro remove thisfrom the form stating "asfaras he understood itwasn't a regulation buta good practice". Jett Pro discussed this with the auditorand agreed to remove that informational portion and before the auditors leftthe 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 subjectto drug and alcohol testing in accordance with 14CFR 120.105 and 120.215. On orabout 1/6/2011 Mr. Freuler was added to Jett Pro's random drug and alcohol pool.

- Mr. Frueler'sjob description as a ground vehicle equipment mechanic is not a covered position pertheTestable Job Category's. The fact that he was tested underthe DOT program was a mistake by our company. The Non DOT Forensic CofCform 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 exteriorsurfaces ofcommercial aircraftwith waterand was not a covered employee subjectto 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'sjob ofaircraftwasher is not a covered position perthe Testable Job Category's. The fact that he was tested underthe DOT program was a mistake by our company. The Non DOT Forensic C ofCform 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 aswe have stated before has been to comply with the drug program and notfind ways to circumvent any procedures. We have benefitted from the audit and trust the changes implemented are satisfactoryto 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 drasticeffect on ourgrowth therefore; we hope the Office will see that where mistakes were made they were primarily ofnot havingthe regulations, such as yourOffice recently provided 'us. We havetaken steps to obtain more complete documents than those provided also. We thankyou foryourconsideration ofthese 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 AirAgency Certificate 

### # YUJR093Y

Federal Aviation Administration 600 IndependenceAvenue, SW WilburWright Building Suite 2W1000 Washington, DC 20591

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430**\-A.~**

## - 2DI.

## "b
-

## i**~y"'\·""'1-** 

### Dear Sir/Madam, Jett Pro Line Maintenance P.O. Box 3190 Ontario, CA 91761 909.980.0552 

# RECEIVED JAN 282014 

# HEARING DOCKET

Pursuantto FAR 13.16 (g)(2)(ii) and (h), Jett Pro Line Maintenance (hereafter, Jett Pro) requests a hearing in the matter ofa Final Notice ofCivil Penalty, FAA Case No. 2011WP910076, dated January 8, 2014 and received byJett Pro on January 13, 2014. This Final Notice seeks to assess a civil penalty of$107.600.00. As itsAnsweras required by FAR 13.35(c),Jett Pro files herewith a copy of its letter, dated June 29, 2012, to Ms. Autumn Killingham ofthe Chief Counsel's office. This lettersets forth Jett Pro's objectionstothe FAA charges. Respectfully submitted,



# /2u A/vt'Jiv_



# CJ Sam Nugud President Jett Pro Line Maintenance

Enclosure 1