U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration April3, 2013 l Western-Pacific Region**Office~Af R~~P~a!;Cq:t;!PS~!**  -1 

### i**%~i.,>~,J f";~** **\~** •**""~·** < £* •.•.

CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 (310) 725-7110 (310) 725-6816 facsimile 

# RECEIVED**APR~** 

# 82813 HEARING DOCKET Wilbur Wright Building-- Suite 2W1000 

# F='"QmS 0\.C>l

# a.. Oo'fq Re: In the Matter ofBeltMakers, Inc.; CaseNo. 20llWP9l0400

# I**~I~**•AIIJA

## •t.f¥'-:1.1:>55''1 Enclosed is a copy ofa request for hearing dated Apri11, 2013, and the original and one copy of

·the Complaintinthe above-referencedproceeding. I request thatthe hearing inthis matter beheld in Gardena, California, and expectthatthe hearing will last one·(1) day. Please address all communications for the Regional Counsel ofthe Western-Pacific Region, to the undersigned, at: Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-7, Federal AviationAdministration, Western-Pacific Region, P. 

### 0. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007, Telephone: (310) 725-7110, FAX: (310) 725-6816. Sincerely, Naomi Tsuda Regional Counsel

# By:~~ 1 a J. oscano Attorney Enclosures: Request for Hearing; Complaint; Certificate ofService NOTE TO RESPONDENT: SECTION 13.209 OF THE CP RULES OF PRACTICE REQUIRE THAT A WRITTEN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT BE FILED NOTLATER THAN 30 DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT. AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO FILING AN ANSWER, A MOTION MAY BE FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 13.208(D) OR SECTION 13.218(F)(1-4) OF THE RULES OF PRACTICE.

cc: Michael L. Dworkin, Esq. AAM-850, AGC-30065 California Street Suite 210 

## • San Francisco Califor.nla. 94104

+ (41S) 421·2500 lax (415) 421-2560**www.avtal~com** 

### Michael L. 

### Dworkin and Associates Law Offices



### VIA J:<""EDEX ANDFAX: 

### Hearing Docket Federal Aviation Ad111inistration. 600 Independence Avenue, S.W

. Wilbur 

### Wright Building, Suite 2Wl000 Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 (FAX: 1-202-493"5142) 

### Naomi Tsuda, 

### Esq. Office ofthe Regional Counsel Federal Aviation Administration**Western~Pacific** 

### Region P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, California 90009-2007 (FAX: 1-310-725-6816)



### Re: 

### BELT MAKERS, INC. FAA Case

### No. 2011WP910400

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: April 1, 2013

. Pursuantto the

### provisions of

### 14 C.F.R. Section 

### 13.16, this 

### letter constitutes BeltMakers, Inc.'srequest for ahearing in the above-referenced matter. A copy of the FAA's FinalNotice ofProposedCivil Penalty is attached hereto. · We requestthatthe 

### hearing .be scheduled for Los Angeles, Californiaafter the filing ofthe requisite pleadings and completion ofanticipated discovery. Respectfully submitted,

cc: Belt Makers,**h~c.**

## u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATiofl

# E 

# cEIVED FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

## APR- 82013 

# HEARING DOCKET In the Matter of: FAADOCKET Belt Makers, Inc. FAA CASE NO. 2011WP910400 Respondent

mDGENOT ASSIGNED COMPLAINT The Complainant files its Complaint, pursuantto Rule 208 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.P.R. 13.208), and states as follows: I. Respondent, Belt Makers, Inc., was advised through a Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty and a FinalNotice ofProposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of$25,000.00. On April1, 2013, Respondent, through its attorney, Michael L. Dworkin, submitted a written request for a hearing.

II. 1. Respondent is now, and atall times mentioned herein was, the holder ofair agency certificate number YL3R002M with repair station privileges, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under Part 145 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations. 2. At all times mentioned herein, Respondent, as the holder ofan air agency certificate, performed safety-sensitive functions, as defined in 14 C.P.R. part 120, on aircraft operated under 14 C.P.R. part 121.-2- 

### 3. At all times mentioned herein, Respondent's part 145 Operations Specifications stated that, among other things, the company elected to implement an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program because it performs safety-sensitive functions for a 14 C.P.R. part 121 and 135 certificate holder. 4. At all times mentioned herein, Respondent certified that it would comply with the requirements of 14 C.P.R. part 120 and 49 C.P.R. part 40 for its Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program. 5. On or about September 16, 2011, the FAA's DrugAbatementDivision conducted an inspection ofRespondent's Antidrug Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program, which revealed the following. 6. On or about May 16, 2011, Respondent hired Maria Sanchez to perform safety-sensitive functions. 7. Respondent, through TAG/AMS (its Employee Drug Testing Consortium), did not enroll Maria Sanchez into its random testing pool until September 20, 2011. 8. OnJuly 20, 2011, Respondent conducted a draw from the random testing pool. 9. Based on the facts and circumstances set forth in ParagraphNos. 6-8 above, because Maria Sanchez was not in the random testing pool when the draw was conducted on July 20, 2011, she had no chance ofbeing selected for random testing from that draw. 10. Maria Sanchez performed safety-sensitive functions for Respondent between the time she was hired on May 16, 2011, and when she was placed in the random testing pool on September 20, 2011. 11. On or aboutMay 23, 2011, Respondent hired SamanthaVillalobos to perform safety-sensitive functions. 12. Respondent, through TAG/AMS (its Employee Drug Testing Consortium), did not enroll Samantha Villalobos into its random testing pooluntil September 20,2011. 13. On July 20, 2011, Respondent conducted a draw from the random testing pool.-3- 14. Based on the facts and circumstances set forth in ParagraphNos. 11-13, above, because Samantha Villalobos was not inthe random testing pool when the draw was conducted on July 20, 2011, she hadno chance ofbeing selected for random testing from that draw. 15. SamanthaVillalobos performed safety-sensitive functions for Respondent between the time she was hired on May 23, 2011, and when she was placed in the random testing pool on September 20, 2011. 16. On or about February 2, 2011, Respondent hired Emesto Mendozato perform safety-sensitive functions. 17. Respondent, through TAG/AMS (its Employee Drug Testing Consortium), did not enroll Ernesto Mendoza into its random testing pool until September 20, 2011. 18. On April13, 2011, and July 21, 2011, Respondent conducted draws from the random testing pool. 19. Based onthe facts and circumstances set forth in ParagraphNos. 16-18, above, because Ernesto Mendoza was not inthe randomtesting pool when the draws were conducted on Aprill3, 2011, and July 21, 2011, he had no chance ofbeing selected for random testing from either ofthose draws. 20. Emesto Mendozaperformed safety-sensitive functions for Respondent between the time he was hired onFebruary 2, 2011, andwhenhe was placed in the random testing pool on September 20, 2011. 21. Based onthe facts and circumstances set forth in ParagraphNos. 6-20, above, Respondent employed at least three persons in safety-sensitive functions when those persons were not inthe random pool for drug and alcoholtesting betweenthe dates they were hired (May 16, 2011, for Maria Sanchez), (May 23, 2011, for Samantha Villalobos), and (February 2, 2011, for Ernesto Mendoza) and September 20,2011, whenthey were placed inthe random pool. 22. At all times mentioned herein, 14 C.P.R.§ 120.115(a) required Respondent to provide an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for its employees, and each EAP must include education and training on drug use for employees and training for supervisors making determinations for testing ofemployees based onreasonable cause.-4- 23. At all times mentioned herein, 14 C.F.R § 120.115(c)(1)(iii)required Respondent's EAP to include documentation oftraining givento employees and employer's supervisory personnel. 24. At all times mentioned herein, 14 C.F.R § 120.115(c)(3) required Respondent to ensure that, under its EAP, supervisors who will make reasonable cause determinations receive at least 60 minutes ofinitial training. 25. At all times mentioned herein, 14 C.F.R § 120.219(a)(2)(ii)(G) required Respondentto maintain for two years records documenting training provided to supervisors forthe purpose ofqualifying the supervisors to make a determination concerning the need for alcohol testing based onreasonable suspiciOn. 26. Withrespect to Respondent hiring for safety-sensitive functions the following employees: Maria Sanchez on May 16,2011, SamanthaVillalobos on May 23, 2011, and Ernesto Mendoza on February 2, 2011 (as statedinParagraph Nos. 6, 11, and 16, above), Respondent failed to have documentation of training on drug use. 27. During the September 16, 2011, inspection referenced inParagraphNo.5, above, Respondent was unable to provide documentation ofEAP initial training onreasonable cause given to Leonard Byrd, a supervisor. 28. During the September 16, 2011, inspection referenced in ParagraphNo.5, above, Respondent was unable to provide documentation oftraining provided to Leonard Byrd, a supervisor, for the purpose ofqualifying him to make a determination concerning the need for alcohol testing based on reasonable suspicion. 29. Atall times mentioned herein, 14 C.F.R § 120.219(a)(2)(ii)(F) required Respondentto maintain for two years records documenting compliance with the requirements of§ 120.223(a), which requires the company to provide educational materials that explainthe subpart's alcohol testing requirements and its policies andprocedures with respectto meeting those requirements. 30. During the September 16, 2011, inspection referenced in Paragraph No.5, above, Respondent was unable to provide documentation that it had provided the educational materials referenced in paragraphNo. 29, above, to Maria Sanchez (hired on May 16, 2011), Samantha Villalobos (hired on May 23, 2011), or Ernesto Mendoza (hired on February 2, 2011).-5- III. Byreason ofthe foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the following Federal Aviation Regulations (Title 14, Code ofFederal Regulations):

a. 14 C.F.R § 120.109(b)(6)(i)(B), inthat Respondent failed to include at least three of its safety sensitive employees in therandompool for drug testing; b. 14 C.F.R § 120.217(c)(6)(i)(B), in that Respondent failed to include at least three of its safety sensitive employees in the random pool for alcohol testing;

c. 14 C.F.R § 120.115(c)(1)(iii), in that Respondent failed to have documentation of training on drug use for at leastthree ofits safety-sensitive employees; d. 14 C.F.R § 120.115(c)(1)(iii), in that Respondent failed to have documentation of training onmaking reasonable cause determinations required by§ 120.115(c)(3), for at least one ofits supervisors;

e. 14 C.F.R § 120.219(a)(2)(ii)(G), in that Respondent failed to maintain for two years records documenting training provided to at least one ofits supervisors for the purpose ofqualifying him to make a determination concerning the need for alcohol testing based onreasonable suspicion; f. 14 C.F.R § 120.219(a)(2)(ii)(F), inthat Respondent failed to maintain for two years records documenting compliance with§ 120.223(a), whichrequires the company to provide educational materials that explainthe subpart's alcohol testing requirements and its policies andprocedures withrespectto meeting those requirements for at least three ofits safety-sensitive employees.

IV. 1. Pursuant to Title 49 U.S.C. Section 46301, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000.00 for each ofthe violations alleged. 2. Under the facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civil penalty of$25,000.00 is appropriate.-6- WHEREFORE, the Complainant, respectfully requests thatthe Administrative Law Judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty inthe amount of$25,000.00.

Respectfully submitted,

Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region DATED: April 3, 2013CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that onthis date I have sentby facsimile and placed inthe United States mail, postage prepaid, certified mail-return receipt requested, the executed original ofthe Complaint, addressed as follows: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 Facsimile: 202-493-5142

I further certify that onthis date I have sent by facsimile and placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, certified mail-return receipt requested, a true copy ofthe Complaint, addressed as follows:

Dated: April3, 2013

Agnes Ebilane Legal Technician Michael L. Dworkin, Esq. 465 California Street, Suite 210 San Francisco, CA 94104 Facsimile: 415-421-2560

Office ofthe Regional Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Lawndale, California465 California Street Suite 210 

## •

San Francisco California 94104 

## • (415) 421-2500 Fax (415) 421-2560

www.avialex.com law@avialex.com 

### Michael 

### L. Dworkin and Associates Law Offices

VIA FEDEXANDFAX: Hearing Docket Federal AviationAdministration 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2Wl000 Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

### (FAX:**1-202;.4~J3:.5142)** Naomi Tsuda, Esq. Office ofthe Regional Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, California 90009-2007 (FAX: 1-310-725-6816)

Re: BELT MAKERS,INC. FAA Case No. 2011WP910400

DearLadies and Gentlemen: April1, 2013 

# RECEIVED APR- 82013 HEARING DOCKET

Pursuant to the provisions of 14 C.F.R. Section 13.16, this letter constitutes BeltMakers, Inc.'s request for a hearing in the above-referenced matter. A copy of the FAA's Final Notice ofProposedCivil Penalty is attached hereto. We request thatthe hearing be scheduled for Los Angeles, California after the filing ofthe requisite pleadings and completion ofanticipated discovery. Respectfully submitted,

cc: Belt Makers, Inc.