# EECUTIVE 'FLITEWAVS
April 29, 2014 Federal Aviation Administration 800 IndependenceAvenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 ONECLARKDRIVE, RONKONKOMA, NY 11779 (631) 588-3480 ext. 128 fax: (631) 588-5527


# RECEIVED

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilberWright Building, Suite2W100 

## MAY -5 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET

RE: FAACase No. 201280950377 Please consider this letter an amended written response to the Complaint that we received on March 11, 2014. ComplaintItem number 1. Executive Fliteways, Inc. admitsthat itreceived a Final Notification of Proposed Civil Penalty advising thata civil penalty in the amount of$15,400.00was proposed. Complaint Item number2. Executive Fliteways, Inc. admitsthat itisthe holderof AirCarrierCertificate NumberA)QA201C. Complaint ttem number3. Executive:Fiiteways, Inc. admits thatit is required to comply with 14 C.F.R. part 120 and 49 C.F.R. part.40 for its drug.and alcohol testing program. Complaint item number 4. Executive Fliteways, Inc. admits that it failed to conduct random drug and alcoholtesting in accordance with the procedures set forth in 14 C.F.R. part 120 when we did not include mechanic Leon Parra in the randomtesting pool: Mitigatingfactor: Mr. Parra received a pre-employment drug test and was enrolled in the N.A.D.E. random pool via facsimile. For some undetermined reason, Mr. Parra's name did not appear in the random pool, however he was continuously under the assumptionthat he was subjectto random alcohol and drug testing.
The 16 months that elapsed between his pre-employmentdrug test and the recognition of ciLiromission was not an uncommon period oftime between random tests. Looking back since 2010, the average period between random tests for all our covered employees is over30 months! •' Immediately upon recognition of the om1ss1on of Mr. Parra from the random pool, Fliteways**self·disi::los~d** the·apparent omission to the FAA and sent Mr. Para to a testing facility for a random drug test which came back negative. It is Fliteways'contention that the inadvertent omission of Mr. Parra in the random testing pool does nottruly representa serious safetyviolation. Fliteways has instituted a procedure to preclude this type of error for all future new hires. Complaint item number 5. Executive Fliteways, Inc. admits that it failed to conduct a drug and alcohol records check on Michael Martinez, Peter Schouwenaars, and Leon Parra prior to hiring them to perform safety-sensitive functions. Mitigating Factor: Prior to this most recent audit of our Drug and Alcohol Testing Program, Fliteways, had never requested drug and alcohol records from previous employers for new hire maintenance technicians. In the four previous audits of our Drug and Alcohol Testing Program, no mention ofthis omission has ever been cited by any of the auditors. Additionally, until recently, we have never received a SINGLE request for the records for-any maintenance technician that had left our employ and wenton to workforother FAR Part 121 or 135carriers orthe Long Island Railroad! Our procedures manual has been amended to reflect the requirement to obtain these records for all future maintenance technicians. All technicians, in addition to their peremployment drug tests were subjected to a Criminal History background check and a check of their driver's licenses for any alcohol or drug related violation. All were negative. Complaint item number 6. Executive Fliteways, Inc. admits that it violated 14 C.F.R. part 120 when we included non-safety-sensitive employees in the same random drug and alcohol testing pool as DOT covered safety-sensitive employees. Mitigating Factor: Itwas explained to the auditorthat each ofthe individuals listed had unregulated access to company aircraft, were authorized to energize aircraft systems and assisted in aircrafttowing operations. Based on the "spirit" ofthe law, it seemsthat these employees did perform safety sensitive functions. Consequently, we felt it prudentto conduct pre-employmenttesting and include these employees in the random testing pool. Onceagain, in all previous FAAauditsthiswas nevercited as aviolation. However, the auditordemanded thatthey be removed from the random pool with which we immediately complied. The fact that we incurred the additional expense to include these individuals in the testing program should be proofthatwe take our responsibilities to provide our passengers with aircraft operated and maintained by employees that are free ofthe effectsofdrugs and/oralcohol.
Executive Fliteways, Inc. admits to the three major violations cited in the Complaint. However, we feel that the proposed Civil Penalty of $15,400.00 is excessive and unwarranted based on the mitigating factors ofthis case. The three violations thatwere cited were addressed immediately upon discovery and actions have been taken to prevent recurrences.Please advise the date and location of the proposed hearing as I look forward to presenting our case that each ofthese issues is of small consequence in regards to ensuring that our workforce is drug free and never operating under the influence of alcohol.

Sincerely,

# ~ / Kenneth S. Gray DirectorofOperations Cc: JohnW. Grillo, President