U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

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~ 8 2813 

HEARING DOCKET 

Wilbur Wright Building-- Suite 2W1000 F='"QmS 0\.C>l a .. Oo'fq 

Re: In the Matter of Belt Makers, Inc.; Case No. 20 ll WP9l 0400 I ~I~ •AIIJA •t.f¥'-:1.1:>55''1 

Enclosed is a copy of a request for hearing dated Apri11, 2013, and the original and one copy of 

· the Complaint in the above-referenced proceeding. 

I request that the hearing in this matter be held in Gardena, California, and expect that the 

hearing will last one·(1) day. 

Please address all communications for the Regional Counsel of the Western-Pacific Region, to 

the undersigned, at: Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7, Federal Aviation Administration, 

Western-Pacific Region, P. 0. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007, Telephone: (310) 

725-7110, FAX: (31 0) 725-6816. 

Sincerely, 

Naomi Tsuda 

Regional Counsel 

By:~~ 1 a J. oscano 

Attorney 

Enclosures: Request for Hearing; Complaint; Certificate of Service 

NOTE TO RESPONDENT: SECTION 13.209 OF THE CP RULES OF PRACTICE 

REQUIRE THAT A WRITTEN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT BE FILED NOT LATER 

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-300 
65 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 AND FAX: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Ad111inistration. 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W . 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2Wl 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

(FAX: 1-202-493"5142) 

Naomi Tsuda, Esq. 

Office of the 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 

. Pursuant to the provisions of 14 C.F.R. Section 13.16, this letter constitutes 

Belt Makers, Inc.'s request for a hearing in the above-referenced matter. A copy of 

the FAA's Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty is attached hereto. · 

We request that the hearing .be scheduled for Los Angeles, California after 

the filing of the requisite pleadings and completion of anticipated discovery. 

Respectfully submitted, 

cc: Belt Makers, h~c. 
u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATiofl E c E IVE D 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION APR- 8 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

In the Matter of: 

FAA DOCKET 

Belt Makers, Inc. 

FAA CASE NO. 2011WP910400 

Respondent 

mDGE NOT ASSIGNED 

COMPLAINT 

The Complainant files its Complaint, pursuant to Rule 208 ofthe Rules of Practice (14 

C.P.R. 13.208), and states as follows: 

I. 

Respondent, Belt Makers, Inc., was advised through a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty 

and a Final Notice of Proposed 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 at all times mentioned herein was, the holder of air 

agency certificate number YL3R002M with repair station privileges, issued by 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under Part 145 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations. 

2. At all times mentioned herein, Respondent, as the holder of an 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 Drug Abatement Division 

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. On July 20, 2011, Respondent conducted a draw from the random testing 

pool. 

9. Based on the facts and circumstances set forth in Paragraph Nos. 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 of being 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 about May 23, 2011, Respondent hired Samantha Villalobos to perform 

safety-sensitive functions. 

12. Respondent, through TAG/AMS (its Employee Drug Testing Consortium), 

did not enroll Samantha Villalobos into its random testing pool until 

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 Paragraph Nos. 11-13, 

above, because Samantha Villalobos was not in the random testing pool when 

the draw was conducted on July 20, 2011, she had no chance of being selected 

for random testing from that draw. 

15. Samantha Villalobos 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 Mendoza to 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 on the facts and circumstances set forth in Paragraph Nos. 16-18, 

above, because Ernesto Mendoza was not in the random testing pool when the 

draws were conducted on Aprill3, 2011, and July 21, 2011, he had no chance 

of being selected for random testing from either of those draws. 

20. Emesto Mendoza performed safety-sensitive functions for Respondent 

between the time he was hired on February 2, 2011, and when he was placed 

in the random testing pool on September 20, 2011. 

21. Based on the facts and circumstances set forth in Paragraph Nos. 6-20, above, 

Respondent employed at least three persons in safety-sensitive functions when 

those persons were not in the random pool for drug and alcohol testing 

between the 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, when they were placed in the 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 of employees based 

on reasonable cause. 
-4-

23. At all times mentioned herein, 14 C.F.R § 120.115(c)(1)(iii) required 

Respondent's EAP to include documentation of training given to 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 of initial training. 

25. At all times mentioned herein, 14 C.F.R § 120.219(a)(2)(ii)(G) required 

Respondent to maintain for two years records documenting training provided 

to supervisors for the purpose of qualifying the supervisors to make a 

determination concerning the need for alcohol testing based on reasonable 

suspiciOn. 

26. With respect to Respondent hiring for safety-sensitive functions the following 

employees: Maria Sanchez on May 16,2011, Samantha Villalobos on May 

23, 2011, and Ernesto Mendoza on February 2, 2011 (as stated in Paragraph 

Nos. 6, 11, and 16, above), Respondent failed to have documentation of 

training on drug use. 

27. During the September 16, 2011, inspection referenced in Paragraph No.5, 

above, Respondent was unable to provide documentation of EAP initial 

training on reasonable cause given to Leonard Byrd, a supervisor. 

28. During the September 16, 2011, inspection referenced in Paragraph No.5, 

above, Respondent was unable to provide documentation of training provided 

to Leonard Byrd, a supervisor, for the purpose of qualifying him to make a 

determination concerning the need for alcohol testing based on reasonable 

suspicion. 

29. At all times mentioned herein, 14 C.F.R § 120.219(a)(2)(ii)(F) required 

Respondent to maintain for two years records documenting compliance with 

the requirements of§ 120.223(a), which requires the company to provide 

educational materials that explain the subpart's alcohol testing requirements 

and its policies and procedures with respect to 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 paragraph No. 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. 

By reason of the 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), in that Respondent failed to include at least three of 

its safety sensitive employees in the random pool 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 least three of its safety-sensitive employees; 

d. 14 C.F.R § 120.115(c)(1)(iii), in that Respondent failed to have documentation of 

training on making reasonable cause determinations required by§ 120.115(c)(3), for 

at least one of its 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 of its supervisors for the 

purpose of qualifying him to make a determination concerning the need for alcohol 

testing based on reasonable suspicion; 

f. 14 C.F.R § 120.219(a)(2)(ii)(F), in that Respondent failed to maintain for two years 

records documenting compliance with§ 120.223(a), which requires the company to 

provide educational materials that explain the subpart's alcohol testing requirements 

and its policies and procedures with respect to meeting those requirements for at least 

three of its 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 of the violations alleged. 

2. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of $25,000.00 is 

appropriate. 
-6-

WHEREFORE, the Complainant, respectfully requests that the Administrative Law 

Judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $25,000.00. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

DATED: April 3, 2013 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by facsimile and placed in the United States 

mail, postage prepaid, certified mail-return receipt requested, the executed original of the 

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 on this date I have sent by facsimile and placed in the United States 

mail, postage prepaid, certified mail-return receipt requested, a true copy of the 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 of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

Lawndale, California 
465 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 FEDEX AND FAX: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2Wl 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

(FAX: 1-202;.4~J3:.5142) 

Naomi Tsuda, Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, California 90009-2007 

(FAX: 1-31 0-725-6816) 

Re: BELT MAKERS, INC. 

FAA Case No. 2011WP910400 

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: 

April1, 2013 

RECEIVED 

APR- 8 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

Pursuant to the provisions of 14 C.F.R. Section 13.16, this letter constitutes 

Belt Makers, Inc.'s request for a hearing in the above-referenced matter. A copy of 

the FAA's Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty is attached hereto. 

We request that the hearing be scheduled for Los Angeles, California after 

the filing of the requisite pleadings and completion of anticipated discovery. 

Respectfully submitted, 

cc: Belt Makers, Inc.