U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Personal Delivery February 11, 2014 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 Re: Jett Pro Line Maintenance, FAA Case No. 2011WP910076 Dear Sir or Madam: 

## 2....0\o- \ 

# Ot+ 

# RECEIVED FEB 1l 2014 HEARING DOCKET BOO Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591

Enclosedplease find an executed original and one copy ofthe amended complaint in the above-referenced case. The Complainantrequests thatthe hearing in this matter be held in Los Angeles, California, and expects thatthe hearing will last two days. Please address all communications for the Complainant to the undersigned at: Autumn Killingham Enforcement Division, AGC-300 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Telephone: (202) 267-7728 Facsimile: (202) 267-5106 Re**ectfyl~** 

### / ., gam EnforcementDivision, AGC-300 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel EnclosureU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ) 

# RECEIVED FEB 11 2014**N~ARING** 

## DOCKET In the Matter ofJett Pro Line Maintenance ) FAACaseNo.2011WP910076



# ___________j LOl3- lOtiAMENDED COMPLAINT The Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") by counsel, hereby files its Complaint,pursuantto Rule 208 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.F.R. 13.208), and states as follows: I. On September 7, 2011, Respondent was advised by mail through aNotice ofProposed Civil Penaltythat the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of$107,600. On January 27,2014, Respondent requested a hearing. I.I. 1. Jett Pro Line Maintenance ("Jett Pro") is, and at all times mentioned herein was, the holder ofAirAgency Certificate No.YUJR093Y, with Repair Station privilege issued under 14 C.F.R. Part 145.

2. Onor about April2, 2004, Jett Pro opted to include paragraph A449 in its part 145 operations specifications, whichrequired Jett Pro to comply withthe requirements of 14 C.P.R. part 120, and 49 C.P.R.§ 40, for its antidrug and alcohol misuse prevention program.

13. Withregard to employee Randol Velasquez:
a. On or about March 31, 2009, Jett Pro hired Mr. Velasquez to perform maintenance and preventive maintenance duties. b. Mr. Velasquez, a Senior Line Technician, performed aircraft maintenance and preventive maintenance duties onparts and/or components installed on aircraft used in operations conductedunder 14 C.F.R. part 121.
c. A records checkconductedby Jett Pro directed to Certified Aviation Services revealed that on or about September 19, 2008, Mr. Velasquez's random drug test results
were verified positive for the presence ofdrugs. d. On or about May 23,2009, June 11,2009, and June 18, 2009, while still employedby Certified Aviation Services, Mr. Velasquez had appointments with a SubstanceAbuse Professional (SAP). The SAP recommended that Mr. Velasquez receive six follow-up drug tests within twelve months following returnto duty in accordance withthe following schedule: July, 2009 August, 2009 September, 2009 November, 2009 December, 2009 January, 2010
e. On or about June 29,2009, Mr. Velasquez was administered a return-to-duty test that was verified negative on July 1, 2009.

2f. On or about July 25, 2009, Mr. Velasquez was administered a drug test, marked
as random onthe MRO report, designated "Ist test", and verified negative onJuly 28, 2009. g. On or about December 3, 2009, Mr. Velasquez was administered a drug test, marked as random onthe MRO report, designated "Employeetest #2", and verified negative on December 7, 2009. h. Jett Pro failed to direct a collection under direct observation ofMr. Velasquez for the above referenced second follow-up test. i. On or about December 28,2009, Mr. Velasquez was administered a drug test marked as random onthe MRO report, designated "RTS Random #3", and verified negative on December 30, 2009. 

### j. Jett Pro failed to direct a collectionunder direct observation ofMr. Velasquez during the above-referenced third follow-up test. 

### k. On or aboutNovember 29,2010, Mr. Velasquez was administered a follow-up drug test, designated "Test#4", and verified negative on December 1, 2010. 

### I. On or about December 7, 2010, Mr. Velasquez was administered a follow-up drug test, designated "#5", and verified negative on December 10,2010.
m. On or about December 20,2010, Mr. Velasquez was administered a follow-up drug test, designated "#6", and verified negative onDecember 22,2010.
n. Contrary to the SAP'stesting plan, on or about August, 25, 2009, Mr. Velasquez was administered an alcohol follow-up test, designated "Ist test Alcohol Test".

3o. Contrary to the SAP's follow-up testing plan on or about November 29,2010, December 7, 2010, and December 20,2010, Mr. Velasquez was administered follow-up drug tests-allbeyond the first twelve months after being returned to duty. p. Consequently, contrary to 49 C.P.R. § 40.307(d), the number and frequency of Mr.Velasquez's 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 ofat least sixtests in the first twelve months following Mr. Velasquez's return to duty. q. On or about May 8, 2009, Mr. Velasquez performed a safety-sensitive function in that he performed maintenance on civil aircraft N625CA, an aircraft operated by ComAir, an air carrier with an air carrier operating certificate issued under Part 119 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) and appropriate operations specifications, issued under Part 135 ofthe FAR (14 C.P.R. parts 119 and 135).
r. On or about November 9, 2010, Mr. Velasquez performed a safety-sensitive function in that he performed maintenance on the AFT Portable 02 Bottle for civil aircraft N642RW, an aircraft operated by Shuttle America, an air carrier with an air carrier operating certificate issued under Part 119 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) and appropriate operations specifications, issued under Part 121 ofthe FAR (14 C.P.R. parts 119 and 121).
s. On or about January 18, 2011, Mr. Velasquez performed a safety-sensitive function in that he performed maintenance on the internal cabin WIFI system removed and replaced on civil aircraft N347NW, an aircraft operated by Delta Air Lines, an air carrier with an air carrier operating certificate issued under Part 119 of the Federal

4Aviation Regulations (FAR) and appropriate operations specifications, issued under Part 121 ofthe FAR (14 C.F.R. parts ll9 and 121). 

### t. On or about January 19, 2011, Mr. Velasquez performed a safety-sensitive function in that he performed maintenance on the internal cabin WIFI system on civil aircraft N126AT, an aircraft operated by AirTran Airways, Inc., an air carrier with an air carrier operating certificate issued under Part 119 ofthe FAR and appropriate operations specifications, issued under Part 121 oftheFAR (14 C.F.R. parts 119 and 121).

4. With regard to employee Paul Downey:
a. On or about February 24, 2010, Jett Pro hired 

### Mr. Downeyto perform maintenance and preventive maintenance duties. b. 

### Mr. Downey, a Senior Line Technician, performed maintenance and preventive maintenance duties on parts and/or components installed on aircraft used in operations conductedunder 14 C.F.R. part 121.
c. Prior to employmentby Jett Pro, Mr. Downey was employed by USAJet Airlines, Inc, holder ofAir Agency Certificate No. Y2PR154Y, dbaActive Aero Services. ("Active Aero"). d. USAJet Airlines is an air carrier with an air carrier operating certificate issued underpart 119 ofthe FAR and appropriate operations specifications, issued under parts 121 and 135 oftheFAR (14 C.F.R. parts 119, 121, and 135).



### 5e. A records check conductedbyJett Pro directed to USA JetAirlines revealed that on or about May 8, 2008, Mr. Downey's random drug testresults were verified positive for the presence ofdrugs. f. On or aboutMay 12, 2008, while still employed by USA JetAirlines, Mr. Downey completed his initial SAP substance abuse assessment. The SAP's recommendationrequired follow-up drug and alcohol tests twice eachmonth for six months, followed by a drug and an alcohol test eachmonthfor 18 months, followed by a drug and an alcohol test each quarter for the following 24 months. g. Mr. Downey completed five ofthe six months oftwice-monthlytesting for drugs and alcohol recommended bythe SAP before USA Jet Airlines terminatedhis employment on August 11, 2009. h. Priorto his termination at Active Aero, Mr. Downey completed five ofthe eighteen once-monthly drug and alcohol tests recommendedbythe SAP. i. At the time Jett Pro hired Mr. Downey, Mr. Downey was stillrequired to compete thirteen drug and alcohol tests administered eachmonth and eight drug and alcohol tests administered each quarter in accordance withthe SAP's testing plan. 

### j. Jett Pro failed to complete the follow-up testing planrecommended bythe SAP after Jett Pro hired Mr. Downey. k. JettPro didnot begin administering to Mr. Downey follow-up drug and alcohol testing until August 5, 2010, five months after Jettpro hired Mr. Downey. 

### 1. On or aboutMarch 12, 2010, Mr. Downeyperformed a safety-sensitive function inthat he performedmaintenance on civil aircraft N625CA, an aircraft operated by Comair, an air carrier with an air carrier operating certificate issuedunder part 119 ofthe

6FAR and appropriate operations specifications, issued under part 121 ofthe FAR (14 C.F.F. parts 119 and 121).
m. Contraryto the SAP's testing plan, Mr. Downey was not administered drug and alcohol follow-up testing inMarch, 2010, April, 2010, May, 2010, June, 2010, or July, 2010.
n. Contraryto the SAP's testing plan, during the time Mr. Downing was required to be administered monthly follow-up drug and alcohol tests, twice during the same month (September 14,2010, and September 28, 2010), Mr. Downing was administered follow-up drug and alcohol tests.
o. Contraryto the SAP'stesting plan, Jett Pro failed to administer to Mr. Downing follow-up drug and alcohol tests in November, 2010. p. Mr. Downing was administered a follow-up drug and alcohol test onDecember 13, 2010. q. All ofthe follow-up tests identified inparagraphs 4k, 4n, and 4p above were initiated by Mr. Downey and not byJett Pro.
r. On or about October 20,2010, Mr. Downeyperformed safety-sensitive functions whenhe performed maintenance on civil aircraftN601A W, an aircraft operated by US Airways, an air carrier with an air carrier operating certificate issued underpart 119 ofthe FAR and appropriate operations specifications, issued under part 121 ofthe FAR (14 C.F.R. parts 119 and 121).
s. On or about December 15, 1010, Mr. Downeyperformed safety-sensitive functions whenhe performed maintenance on civil aircraftN562RP, an aircraft operated by ChautauquaAirlines, an air carrier with an air carrier operating certificate issued

7underpart 119 ofthe FARand appropriate operations specifications, issued under part 121 ofthe FAR (14 C.P.R. parts 119 and 121). t. On or about January 18,2011, Mr. Downeyperformed safety-sensitive functions whenhe performedmaintenance on civil aircraft N592AA, an aircraft operated by AmericanAirlines, an air carrier with an air carrier operating certificate issued under part 119 ofthe FAR and appropriate operations specifications, issuedunder part 121 of the FAR (14 C.P.R. Parts 119 and 121).

5. Withregard to employee Sean Ponce:
a. On or about AprilS, 2010, SeanPonce was administered a Non-DOT preemploymenttest and Jett Pro received a verified negative result. b. On or about April6, 2010, Jett Pro hired Mr. Ponce to performthe safetysensitive duties ofa SeniorLine Maintenance Technician.
c. Atthe time Jett Pro hired Mr. Ponce, Jett Pro hadnot conducted a DOTpreemploymenttest on Mr. Ponce. d. At the time Jett Pro hired Mr. Ponce, Jett Pro had notreceived a DOT preemployment verified negative drug testresult for Mr. Ponce.
e. On or about April12, 2010, Mr. Ponceperformed a safety-sensitive function in thathe performedmaintenance on a civil aircraft identified as AircraftNo. 4631, an aircraft operated byUnited Airlines, an air carrier with an air carrier operating certificate issued underPart 119 ofthe FARand appropriate operations specifications, issued under Part 121 ofthe FAR (14 C.P.R. Parts 119 and 135.)

8f. On or about April12, 2010, Mr. Ponce was administered a DOTpreemploymenttestthat was verified negative on April13, 2010.

6. Withregard to employee Wilson Guerrero:
a. Onor about October 7, 2009, Mr. Guerrero, an aircraft maintenance technician,
was addedto 

### lett Pro's randompool and available to perform safety-sensitive functions. b. Pursuantto 49 C.F.R. § 40.25(j), 

### lett Pro did not ask Mr.Guerrero whetherhe refused pre-employment drug or alcohol testing, orwhether hetestedpositive on anypreemployment drug or alcohol test for application to safety-sensitive transportation work covered by DOTtesting rules.
c. On or about September 8, 2009, 

### Mr. Guerrero completed a consentform permitting U.S. Airways Express, his former employer, to release to 

### lett Pro confidential drug/alcoholtesting information as part ofa record check. d. The above-referenced form included Mr. Guerrero's response to the question requiredby49 C.F.R. § 40.25(j), asking ifhe received a verified positive, adulterated or substituted DOT drug/alcohol testresult.
e. 

### lett Pro released the above-referenced form with the referenced medical informationidentified inparagraph 6d above to U.S. Airways Express without

### Mr. Guerrero's specific written consent.

97. Withregard to employee JohnFreuler:
a. Mr. Freulerhandled support equipment and ground service equipment usedto
access aircraft and support aircraft repair and was not a covered employee subjectto drug and alcohol testing in accordance with 14 C.F.R §§ 120.105 and 120.215. b. On or about January 6, 2011, Mr. Freuler was addedto Jett Pro's random drug and alcoholpool.

8. Withregard to employee Charles Hass:
a. Mr. Haas washedthe exterior surfaces ofcommercial aircraft withwater and
was not a covered employee subjectto drug and alcohol testing in accordance with 14 C.F.R §§ 120.105 and 120.215. b. On or aboutJanuary 6, 2011, Mr. Haas was addedto Jett Pro's random drug and alcohol pool.

9. Byreason ofthe foregoing, Jett Pro violated the following Federal Aviation Regulations:
a. 14 C.P.R.§ 120.5 inthat it failed to comply with49 C.P.R.§ 40.309(a), when JettPro failed to carry outthe SAP's follow-up testing requirements. Moreover, Jett Pro allowedtwo employees to continue to perform safety-sensitive functions when follow-up testing had notbeen conducted as directedbythe SAP.

10b. 14 C.F.R. § 120.109(a)(l) in that Jett Pro hired an individual for a safetysensitive function listed in 14. C.F.R. §120.105 when Jett Pro had not first conducted a pre-employmenttest and received a verified negative drug test result for that individual.

c. 14 C.F.R. §120.5, in that it failed to comply with 49 C.F.R. §40.25(j), when Jett Pro failed to conduct DOT-regulatedpre-employment drug and alcohol records checks on all employees by not asking an employee whether he hadtested positive, or refused to test, on any pre-employment drug or alcohol test administered by an employer to which the employee applied for, but did not obtain, safety-sensitive transportation workcovered by DOT agency drug and alcohol testing rules during the pasttwo years. d. 14 C.F.R. § 120.5 inthat it failed to comply with 49 C.F.R. §40.347(b)(2), whenJett Pro allowed employees not coveredby DOT agency regulations to be part of the same random pool withDOT covered employees.

e. 14 C.F.R. § 120.5 inthat it failed to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 40.321, whenJett Proreleased individual testresults ormedical information about an employee to third parties without the employee's specific written consent. f. 14 C.F.R. § 120.5 in that itfailed to comply with 49 C.F.R. §40.67(b), when Jett Pro failed to direct a collection under direct observation ofan employee whenthe drug test was a return-to-duty test or a follow-up test.

11

### III. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. §46301(a)(l)(A) 1, Jett Pro is subject to a civil penaltynotto exceed $25,000 for each violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations. By
reason ofthe foregoing facts and circ\Ullstances, the FAA finds that a civil penalty inthe amount of$ 107,600 is appropriate for the allegations set forth in this Complaint.
WHEREFORE, the Agency, by counsel, respectfully requests thatthe Administrative LawJudge enter an order thatRespondent be assessed a civil penalty inthe amount of $107,600.

Dated this 11th day ofFebruary, 2014.

Peter J. Lynch Assis}an7fCou ..nse·l· for>fi1 orce ent 

# i
. /**/.~ ~.** **B'i::_~Aut\Ulln** Killingham EnforcementDivision Office ofthe ChiefCounsel (202) 267-7728

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuantto Title 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(a), you are required to file a written answer to this Complaint, or a written Motionto Dismiss ifappropriate, not later than thirty (30) days after the date shown onthe Certificate ofService which follows.

1 The Complainant stated in error in the Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty (NPCP) and the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty (FNPCP) thatthe amount ofthe proposed civil penalty was authorized in accordance with 49 U.S.C. §4630l(a)(5)(A). 12CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify thatthe foregoing Amended Complaint, in the Matter ofJett Pro Line Maintenance, FAA Case No. 2011WP910076, has been mailed this date by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to: SamNugud President Jett Pro Line Maintenance 8517 Earhart Road, Suite 210 Oakland, CA 94621 The original and a copy was also personally delivered to: Hearing Docket (Original and 1 copy) Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Room 2Wl000-AGC-430 Washington, DC 20591 February 11,2014

13