05/22/2015 09:23 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 02/10 

U.s. Department 

ot Transportation 

Feder~:~l Aviation 

Administration 

Northwest Mountain Region 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 

Oregon, Utah, Washington, 

Wyoming 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057 

Tel: (425) 227-2165 

June 22, 2015 

Fax: (425) 227-1007 

david.f.shayne@tae.gov 

VIA FACSIMILE M'D CERTIFJED J:v'IAIL- RETIJRN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGCA30 Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration (Wilbur Wright Bldg --Room 2Wl 000) 800 Independence Avenue S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Re: In the Aircal, Inc.- FAA No. 20l4WP910129 

referenced 

Enclosed is 

proceeding. 

an original and one copy of a request for hearing and Complaint for the abovePortland, 

The Federal 

Oregon, 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requests that the hearing in this matter be held in and expects that the hearing will last one (l) day. 

through 

For scheduling 

July 2, 2015; 

purposes counsel for the FM is unavailable the following dates in 2015: June 24 

August 21, 2015; August 

July 13 and 14, 2015; August 3 through August 7, 2015; August 17 through 

October 5 

22, through August 27, 2015; September 14, 15, 23, 28 and 29, 2015; 

and 6, 2015. 

Plea.se address all communications for the FAA to the undersigned at: 

Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region, ANM -7 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057 Telephone: (425) 227-1847 FAX: (425) 227~1007 

./----

/~ely----~ 

~avrc{Shayne FAAAttomey 

DFS/tek 

Enclosures: Request for Hearing (Appeal) Complaint 
05/22/2015 0g:23 4252271007 

DAVID F. SHAYNE 

P AA OFFlCE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 

1601 LIND AVE., SW 

RENTON, WA.SH!NGTON98057 

TELEPHONE: (425) 227·2165 

FACSIMILE: (425) 227·1007 

ANM7 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

Aircal, Inc. FAA Case No. 20l4WP910129 

Judge Not Assigned 

COMPLAINT 

PAGE 03/10 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Complaint, 

pursuant to Rule 208 ofthe Rules of Practice (14 Code of Federal Regulations (C.P.R.) Section 

13 .208), and states as follows: 

L 

On June 3, 2015, Aircal, Inc., was advised through a Final Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $12,350. On June 18, 

2015, Aircal, Inc. submitted a written request for s hearing. 

II. 

1. Aircal, Inc. (Aircal) is now, and at all times relevant herein was, the holder of Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Carrier Certificate 62CA222N, and conducts its 

operations pursuant to Part 119 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, 14 Code of 

Federal Regulations (C.P.R.) Chapter I. 

COMPLAlNT 

FAA v. Aircal, Inc. 

FAA Case No. ~014-WP91 0129 

P•gc 2 of8 

DAVID F. SHAYNE,FAAATTORNEV 

TE.!.: (425) 227·2165; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
05/22/2015 0g:23 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 04/10 

At ~II tim~s relevant herein, Aircal held appropriate Operations Specific~tions 

certtfYmg 1t would comply with the requirements of 14 C.P.R. Part 120 and 49 C.F.RPart 40 for its Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program. 

At all times relevant herein, Ai.rcai was authorized to operate N227EC, a Piper PA-31-

350 aircraft, pursuant to 14 C,F.R. Part 135. 

On o:r about February 26, 201.4, a mechanic employed by Baker Aero Electric 

perfonned m:lln,tenance on the engine installed onto N227EC. 

At the time of maintenance referenced in paragraph 4, Baker Aero Electric di.d not 

have a drug and alcohol testing program. 

At no time relevant herein, did Aircal test the personnel identified in paragraph 4 for 

drugs or alcohol misuse in accordance with is operations specifications identified in 

paragraph 2. 

On or about March 25, 2013, Aircal hired Edras Guevara as a mechanic, a safety 

sensitive position and: 

a) Prior to his employment with Aircal, he had been employed within two years 

preceding with another Department of Transportation (DO I)-regulated employer. 

b) At no time since his hiring had Ai.rcal requested all of the infom1ation listed in 49 

C.F.R. Section 40.25(b) from the employer referenced above. 

8. On or about June 8, 2013, Aircal hired Ivan Hyland as a pilot, a safety sensitive 

position and: 

a) Prior to his employment with AJrcal, he had been employed within two (2) years 

preceding w)th another DOT-regulated employer, 

b) At no time since his hiring had Aircal requested all of the infonnation listed in 49 

C.P.R. Section 40.25(b) from the employer referenced above. 

9. On or about April 8, 2013, Aircal hired Michael Underwood as a mechanic, a safety 

sensitive position and: 

a) Prior to his employment with Aircal, he had been employed within two (2) years 

preceding with another DOT-regulated employer. 

b) At no time since his h.iting had Aircal requested all of the infon:nation listed in 49 

C.P.R. Section 40.25(b) from the employer referenced above. 

COMPLAINt 

FAA v. Aircal, Inc. 

FAACa_<ONo, 20I4WP910!Z9 

Pagd ofS 

bA.VIDF. SHAYNE, FAA ATtORNEY 

TEL: (425) 2<7,2165; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
05/22/2015 09:23 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 05/10 

10. ~nor about May 3, 2?13, Aircal selected an employee for random alcohol testing but 

d1d not actually test him for alcohol; rather, the employee was subjected to a druo- test 

method 

for which he was not selected. Airoal thereby failed to follow a scientifically valld 

for testing. 

ll. On or about December 30, 2013, Aircal selected an employee for random alcohol 

testing but did not actually test him for alcohol; rather, the employee was subjected to 

a drug test for which he was not selected. Aircal thereby failed to follow a 

scientifically valid method for selection for testing. 

12. On or about December 23, 2013, Aircal selected an employee for random alcohol 

testing but did not actually test him for alcohol; rather, the employee was subjected to 

a drug test for which he was not selected. Aircal thereby failed to follow a 

scientifically valid method for selection for testing. 

13. Investigation showed thatAircal failed to maintain documentation related to the 

testing process and training. 

14. Investigation showed that Aircal failed to maintain documentation showing 

compliatlce with 14 C.P.R. 120.223(a). 

JII. 

I. By reason of the foregoing facts and circum.st~nces, Aircal violated the following sections 

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.P.R.): 

a. Section 120.3 5(b ), in that it used a contractor to perform a function listed in Subpart E 

of 14 C.F.R Part 120 when that contractor did not test each employee performing 

such a function for the certificate holder or operator; 

b. Sectiol:l 120.39(b) in that it used an individual who met the definition of covered 

employee in Subpart A of 14 C.P.R. Part 120 to perform a safety-sensitive function, 

when that individual. was not subject to testing for alcohol misuse; 

c. Section 120.105, in that an employee performing safety-sensitive functions was not 

subject to a drug testing program implemented in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 120, 

Subpart E. 

d.. .. Section 120.115( c)(5), in that its Employee Assistan.ce Education training program did 

not include documentation of training given to employees and employer's supervisory 

personnel. 

COMPLAINT 

FAA v. Aircal. Inc. 

FAA Case No. 2014WP910129 

Page 4 of 8 

DAVID F. SRA YNE. FAA ATTORNEY 

TEl,: (425) 227-2165; FAX: (425) 227·1007 
05/22/2015 09:23 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 05/10 

e. Section 120.215(a), in that employees performing safety-sensitive functions were not 

subject to an alcohol testing program implemented in accordance with 14 C.P.R. 

Part 120, Subpart F. 

f. Section 120.217(c)(5), in that it failed to make the selection of employees for random 

alcohol testing by a scientifically valid method, such as a random-number table or a 

computer-based random number generator that is matched with employees' Social 

Security numbers, payroll identification numbers, or other comparable id~;ntifying 

numb~;rs. 

g. Section !20.219(a)(2) (ii) (F),(!) In that it failed to retain documentation of 

compliance with the requirements of Section 120.223(a). 

Additionally, it appears Aircal violated the following sections of 49 C.F.R.: 

a. Section 40.25(a), in that it failed to request information about a new safety-sensitive 

employee from previous DOT-regulated employers who employed that employee 

within the two years preceding that employees application. 

b. Section 40.25(b), in that it failed to request all of the information about anew safetysensitive employee from previous DOT-regulated employers who employed that 

employee ~Nithin the two years preceding that employees application which includes: 

(I) Alcohol tests with a result of 0.04 or higher alcohol concentration; 

(2) Verified positive drug tests; 

(3) Refusals to be tested (including verified adulterated or substituted drug test 

results); 

(4) Oth<:r violations of DOT agency drug and alcohol testing regulations; and 

(5) With respect to any employ<:e who violated a DOT drug and alcohol 

regulation, documentation of the employee's successful completion of DOT 

return-to-duty requirements (including follow-up tests). Ifthe previous 

employer does not have information about the return-do-duty process (e.g., an 

employer who did not hire an employee -wno tested positive on a preemployment test), you must seek to obtain this information from the 

employee, 

COMPLAINT 

FAA v, Alrcal, Inc, 

FAA Case No. 2014WP910!29 

PageS of8 

DAVID F. SHAYNJ!, FAA ATTORNEY 

TI:L; (425) 227-2165; FAX: (425) 227·1007 
05/22/2015 09:23 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 07/10 

2. In accordance with Sections 4630l(a) and (d) of Title 49 of the United Slates Code 

(U.S.C-) (Transpor1ation) [49 U.S. C. Sections 46301 (a) and (d)), Aircal is liable for a civil 

penalty not to exceed $11,000 for each of the violations noted. 

3. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of $12,350 is appropriate. 

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

Law Judge enter an order that Aircal be assessed a civil peualty in the amount of$12,350. 

Respectfully submitted this 22"d day of June, 2015. /_..--...._) 

FAA 

David\Fnla:Yhe 

Attorney 

~~ 

COMPLAINT 

FAA v, Aircal, Tnc. 

FAA Case No. 20T4WP910129 

P•gc 6 of8 

DAVID F. SHAYNE,FAA.AITORNE'( 

TEJ.: (425) 227-2165; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
05/22/2015 09:23 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 08/10 

ANSWER 

In accordan.ce with Section 1,3.209 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Aircal, must answer this 

within 

Complaint not later than thirty (30) days from the time it is served on it. Failure to file an Answer 

thirty (30) days without good cause shall be deemed au adm.ission of the truth of each 

allegation contained in the Complaint [!4.C.F.R. § 13.209(f)]. 

COMPLA1NT 

FAA v. Alrcal. Inc. 

FAA Case No. Z0!4WP910129 

Page 7 ofS 

DAVIn F. SHAYNl', FAAATTOl<NEY 

TEL: (425) :127,2!65; !'AX: {425) 227-1007 
05/22/2015 09:23 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 09/10 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I 

Return 

hereby 

Receipt 

certifY 

Requested 

that the foregoing this date, Complaint has been se.rved via facsimile snd certified mail - to the following: 

COMPLAINT 

FAA. v, Airca.t. Inc. 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Bearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

Fa'{: (202) 267-1293 

Leonardo Concepcion 

President 

Aircal, Inc. 

6411 West Imperial Highway 

Los Angeles, CA 90045 

FAX: (503) 678-3374 

Dated this 22"d day of June 2015. 

. .i .. · I 

~~-?f:~ Tterri Kirk 

Office ofRegionat Counsel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lin,d Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

(425) 227-2007 

DAVID F. SHAYNE. FAAAITDRNllY 

FAA Case No. 2014\VP9!0129 

TEL: (425) 227·2165; FAX: (4;lo) 227-1007 

Page8of8 
05/22/2015 0g:23 4252271007 

From: Kevin Sullivan [mailto:krsSOO@msn.com] 

Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 12:16 AM 

To: Shayne, David F (FAA) 

Subject: RE: Air Cal Financial Submission 

Dear Mr. Shayne, 

ANM7 PAGE 10/10 

Certified 

As per your 

Mail, 

Final 

Air 

Notice 

Cal is requesting 

of Proposed 

a Hearing 

Civil Penalty, dated June 3, 2015 and received on a date later via 

on the Matters contained in that Final Notice. 

This notice and request for hearing is also being forwarded to the following addresses: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W10DO 

800 /ndepende nee Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attention: Office of the Regional Counsel- ANM-7 

Northwest Mountein Region 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

supplied 

Please note 

via 

that 

emeil 

Air 

to 

Cal 

your 

will 

office, 

request Judicial Notice ofthe financial report prepared by Air Cal and 

and the communications indic'lting time constraints regarding vacation 

time off, out of country travel to areas resulting 

unexpected and unarmounced 

in extended out of communication areas and 

trip extensions by the client. 

It is my intent to settle this matter in the most expeditious, efficient and cost effective manner possible. 

As reflected in the financial report supplied to you, Air Cal is not in a position to pay a $12,350.00 

Proceeding in this process without 

fine. 

at least some dialogue regarding the financial condition ofthis small 

particularly 

business Air 

where 

Carrier 

such 

is not 

a 

in compliance with the guidance or the intent of the 2150.38 (Change 8) 

fine will result in the ability of the Air Carrier to continue in business. 

If you wish to contact me to meet and confer (discuss) 

numbers: 

this matter, I am available at the following 

(714) 337-6912 cell 

(714) 844-2520 office 

Sincerely, 

Kevin Sullivan 
05/22/2015 09:23 4252271007 ANM7 

FACSIMILE MESSAGE 

DAVID F. SHAYNE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSF..L 

ANM-7 

1601 LIND AVENUE S.W. 

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 

PAGE 01/10 

The information contained in this facsimile message is legally privileged and confidential 

information and is intended only for the use ofthe individual named on this cover sheet. 

If the reader of this mc;:ssage is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 

use, dissemination, distribution, or copy of this facsimile is strictly prohibited. lf you 

have received this facsimile in error, please immediately notifY us by telephone at 

425-227-2007. 

DATE: 

TO: 

.June 22, 2015 

FAA 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAX NO.: (202) 267-1293 

PHONE NO.: 

RE: AIRCAL Email: 

2014WP910l29 

__ ... ___ ! ---·--- ---

COMPLAINT 

NO. PAGES: 10 including cover 

FROM: David F. Shayne 

FAX NO.: 425-227-2165 

PHONE NO.: 425-227-2160 

___ j