U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

July 30, 2015 

Northwest Mountain Region 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 

Oregon, Utah, Washington, 

Wyoming 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057 

Tel: (425) 227-1417 

Fax: (425) 227-1007 

robert.spitzer@faa.gov 

VIA FACSIMILE AND CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

(Wilbur Wright Bldg-- Room 2Wl000) 

800 Independence Avenue S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Re: In the Matter ofB&G Industries, LLC, FAA Case No. 2013NM910238 

Enclosed is an original and one copy of a request for hearing and Complaint in the abovereferenced proceeding. 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requests that the hearing in this matter be held in 

Seattle, Washington, and expects that the hearing will last one (1) day. 

For scheduling purposes, FAA attorney, Robert Spitzer will be unavailable August 24,2015 through 

August 28, 2015. 

Please address all communications for the FAA to the undersigned at: 

Sincerely, 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057 

Telephone: (425) 227-1847 

FAX: (425) 227-1007 

~n--ta~ I .-1 Rob! S pjl'zer T ~FAA Attorney 

RS/tek 

Enclosures: Request for Hearing (Appeal) 

Complaint 

ECEI\/ED 

AUG 0 4 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 
ROBERT SPITZER 

FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 

1601 LIND AVE., SW 

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 

TELEPHONE: (425) 227-1417 

FACSIMILE: (425)227-1007 

RECEIVED 

AUG 0 4 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

B& G Industries, LLC FAA Case No. 2013WP910238 

Judge Not Assigned 

COMPLAINT 

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

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

13 .208), and states as follows: 

I. 

On July 8, 2015, B & G Industries, LLC (B & G), was advised through a Final Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $10,285. 

On July 20, 2015, B &G submitted a written request for a hearing. 

II. 

1. B & G is now, and at all times mentioned herein was, the holder of Repair Station 

Certificate No. KGBR507Y. 

COMPLAJNT 

FAA v. B & G Industries, LLC 

FAA Case No. 2013WP910238 

Page 2 of6 

ROBERT SPITZER, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-1417; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
2. At all times relevant herein, B & G was required to comply with the requirements of 

14 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 120 and 49 C.F.R. Part 40 for its drug 

and alcohol testing program. 

3. On or about August 6, 2012, B & G hired Josh Cyr to perform safety sensitive 

mechanic functions. 

4. B &G did not conduct a pre-employment drug test on Mr. Cyr until August?, 2012, 

and did not receive a negative result until August 8, 2012. 

5. By reason of the above, B & G hired an individual for a safety-sensitive function 

listed in 14 C.F.R. Section 120.105, without first having conducted a pre-employment 

test and without having received a verified negative drug test result for that 

individual. 

6. B & G required employees hired in August 2012 and September 2012 to sign a 

consent and release form with respect to drug and alcohol testing. 

7. B & G failed to have its Employee Assistance Program (EAP) include, display and 

distribution of informational material, a community service hot-line telephone number 

for employee assistance, and B & G' s policy regarding drug use in the workplace. 

8. B & G's EAP policy failed to include information regarding the consequences under 

the rule of using drugs while performing safety-sensitive functions, receiving a 

verified positive drug test result or refusing to submit to a drug test required under the 

rule. 

III. 

1. By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, B & G violated the following 

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

a. Section 120.115(b)(l)(ii), in that B & G's EAP testing program did not include at least 

display and distribution of a community service hot-line telephone number for employee 

assistance; 

COMPLAINT 

FAA v. B & G Industries, LLC 

FAA Case No. 2013WP910238 

Page 3 of6 

ROBERT SPITZER, fAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-1417; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
b. Section 120.115(b)(2), in that B & G's policy failed to include information regarding 

the consequences under the rule of using drugs while performing safety-sensitive 

functions, receiving a verified positive drug test result, or refusing to submit to a drug 

test required under the rule; and 

c. Section 120.1 09(a)(l ), in that B & G hired an individual for a safety-sensitive function 

listed in 14 C.P.R. Sectionl20.105(a)(l) when B & G had not first conducted a preemployment test andl"ecdved a verified negative drug test result for that individual. 

2. In accordance with Sections 46301(a) and (d) of Title 49 of the United States Code 

(U.S.C.) (Transportation) [49 U.S.C. Sections 46301(a) and (d)], B & G is liable for a civil 

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

3. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of $10,285 is appropriate. 

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

Law Judge enter an order that B & G be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $10,285. 

Respectfully submitted this 30th day of July, 2015. 

COMPLAINT 

FAA v. B & G Industries, LLC 

FAA Case No. 2013WP910238 

Page 4 of6 

ROBERT SPITZER, FAA A HORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-1417; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
ANSWER 

In accordance with Section 13.209 of the F edera1 Aviation Regulations, B & G Industries, LLC, 

must answer this Complaint not later than thirty (30) days from the time it is served on it. Failure 

to file an Answer within thirty (30) days without good cause shall be deemed an admission of the 

truth of each allegation contained in the Complaint [14.C.F.R. § 13.209(£)]. 

COMPLAINT 

FAA v. B & G Industries, LLC 

FAA Case No. 2013WP910238 

Page 5 of6 

ROBERT SPITZER, fAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-1417; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing Complaint has been served via facsimile and Certified Mail -

Return Receipt Requested this date, to the following: 

COMPLAINT 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGCA30 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

Fax: (202) 267-1293 

Karl Bertagnole, President 

B & G Industries, LLC. 

2441 Highway 20 West 

Greybull, WY 82426 

Dated this 30th day of July, 2015. 

T i Kirk 

Office of Regional Connsel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

(425) 227-2007 

FAA v. B & G Industries, LLC 

FAA Case No. 2013WP910238 

Page 6 of6 

ROBERT SPITZER, F AAATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-1417; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
• 

Regional Counsel 

B&G INDUSTRIES, LLC 

AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS 

PO BOX 669, GREYBULL WYOMING 82426 

(307) 765-9911 

July 20, 2015 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2Wl000 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

\Vashington, DC 20591 

Dear Sirs, 

JUL 2 3 2015 

ANM·1 

< . 

~~:?1'I1fes ,.,.~ 

AlRCRAfT OPERATIONS 

We are in receipt of your letter dated July 8, 2015 regarding the Final Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty. Again, we object to assessment of this penalty, do not feel that it is 

justified, and feel that the amount is extremely excessive considering the circumstances. 

As discussed with FAA personnel previously, B&G Industries, LLC. did not hire Josh 

Cyr to perfonn any safety sensitive functions nor could he have performed them as we 

only had Part 91 repair work in our facility at the time of his hire and for many months 

following. The aircraft in our facility during this period of time did not even have a 

United States Air Worthiness Certificate as they had been delivered to us from out of the 

country. An Air Wmthiness Certificate wasn't even applied for until the aircraft were 

completed in our facility during the end of2012 and first qua:tter of2013. 

It is our understa:t1ding that the requirements of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 

Part 120 and 49 C.F.R. Pa:tt 40 regarding drug and alcohol testing program is releva:t1t 

only if work is being performed under our Repair Station Certificate is work that can 

quality as Air Carrier work under Pmi 135 and 121. We had no workload that met that 

criteria during the period stated, rendering ail three of the findings invalid. 

We request a hearing in this matter per the letter we have received. Please advise us of 

the time and place so that we may defend ourselves against this proposed penalty. 

Sincerely, 

~' 

Karl B agnole, Pre · 

B&G I~stries, LLC. 

"----...,_ 

-----