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 

FED EX: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building -Suite 2W1000 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

RE: Beltmakers, Inc. 

FAA Case No. 2011WP910400 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0049 

Dear Hearing Docket Clerk: 

ZiilJ APR 2b P 2: 0 t) 

April19, 2013 

RECEIVED 

APR 2 2 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

Enclosed herewith for filing is the following document: 

Beltmakers, Inc's Answer to Complaint (original plus one 

copy). 

cc: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Lisa Toscano, Esq. 

FAA,AWP-7 

Very truly yours, 

Caitlin M. Miller 

Legal Assistant 
·-

MICHAEL L. DWORKIN #6404 7 

MICHAEL L. DWORKIN and ASSOCIATES 

465 California Street, Suite 210 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 421-02500 

Facsimile: (415) 421-2560 

Email: law@avialex.com 

Attorneys for BELT MAKERS. INC 

RECEIVED 

APR 2 2 2t13 

HEARING DOCKET 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

BELT MAKERS, INC. 

FAA Case No. 2011WP910400 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0049 

BELT MAKERS. INC'S ANSWER TO 

COMPLAINT 

BELT MAKERS. INC ("BELT MAKERS"), by and through its undersigned counsel, 

hereby files its Answer to Complaint, pursuant to Rule 13.209 of the Rules of Practice, (14 CFR § 

13.209), and states as follows: 

I. 

Answering Part I. of the Complaint, BELT MAKERS admits that it was advised through 

a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, dated November 16, 2012, and by Final Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty, dated March 28,2013, that the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") proposed 

to assess a civil penalty in the amount of$25,000.00 and avers that on April1, 2013, BELT 
MAKERS submitted a timely written request for a hearing. Except as expressly admitted above, 

BELT MAKERS denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each 

and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

II. 

Answering Part II. of the Complaint: 

Answering Paragraph 1, BELT MAKERS admits that it holds Air Agency Certificate No. 

YL3R002M with repair station privileges, issued by the FAA under Part 145 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (FARs). Except as expressly admitted above, BELT MAKERS denies each 

and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both 

generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 2, BELT MAKERS admits that it performs safety-sensitive 

functions, as defined in FAR Part 120. Except as expressly admitted above, BELT MAKERS 

denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every part 

thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 3, BELT MAKERS admits that at all pertinent times alleged, its 

Operations Specifications ("OpSpecs") stated, among other things, that it elected to implement 

an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program. Except as expressly admitted above, 

BELT MAKERS denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each 

and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 4, BELT MAKERS is without information or belief as to the matters 

alleged and based thereon, denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, 

and each and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 5, BELT MAKERS admits that on or about September 16,2011, the 

FAA Case No. 2011WP910400 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0049 

BELT MAKERS. INC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

2 
FAA conducted an inspection at BELT MAKERS' facilities. Except as expressly admitted 

above, BELT MAKERS denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, 

and each and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 6, BELT MAKERS admits that Maria Sanchez was hired on or about 

May 16, 2011. Except as expressly admitted above, BELT MAKERS denies each and every, all 

and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 7, BELT MAKERS admits that at all pertinent times alleged, it 

utilized TAG/ AMS as its Employee Drug Testing Consortium and that certain records indicate 

that Maria Sanchez was enrolled in a random testing pool on September 20, 2011. Except as 

expressly admitted above, BELT MAKERS denies each and every, all and singular, allegations 

contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively 

and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 8, BELT MAKERS admits that it conducted a draw from its random 

testing pool on July 20, 2011. Except as expressly admitted above, BELT MAKERS denies each 

and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both 

generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 9, BELT MAKERS admits that Maria Sanchez was not in the 

random pool on July 20, 2011. Except as expressly admitted above, BELT MAKERS denies 

each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, 

both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 10, BELT MAKERS admits that Maria Sanchez was employed and 

working from May 16, 2011 to September 20, 2011. Except as expressly admitted above, BELT 

FAA Case No. 2011WP910400 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0049 

BELT MAKERS. INC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

3 
MAKERS denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and 

every part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 11, BELT MAKERS admits that it hired Samantha Villalobos on 

May 23,2011. Except as expressly admitted above, BELT MAKERS denies each and every, all 

and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 12, BELT MAKERS admits that at all pertinent times alleged, it 

utilized TAG/AMS as its Employee Drug Testing Consortium and that records indicate that 

Samantha Villalobos was enrolled into a random testing pool on September 20, 2011. Except as 

expressly admitted above, BELT MAKERS denies each and every, all and singular, allegations 

contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively 

and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 13, BELT MAKERS admits that it conducted a draw from the 

random testing pool on July 20, 2011. Except as expressly admitted above, BELT MAKERS 

denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every part 

thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 14, BELT MAKERS admits that Samantha Villalobos was not 

enrolled in a random testing pool on July 20, 2011. Except as expressly admitted above, BELT 

MAKERS denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and 

every part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 15, BELT MAKERS admits that Samantha Villalobos was employed 

and working from May 23, 2011 until September 20, 2011. Except as expressly admitted above, 

BELT MAKERS denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each 

FAA Case No. 2011WP910400 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0049 

BELT MAKERS. INC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

4 
and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 16, BELT MAKERS admits that it hired Emesto Mendoza on 

February 2, 2011. Except as expressly admitted above, BELT MAKERS denies each and every, 

all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally 

and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 17, BELT MAKERS admits that at all pertinent times alleged, it 

utilized TAG/AMS as its Employee Drug Testing Consortium and that certain records indicate 

that Emesto Mendoza was enrolled into a random testing pool on September 20, 2011. Except as 

expressly admitted above, BELT MAKERS denies each and every, all and singular, allegations 

contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively 

and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 18, BELT MAKERS admits that it conducted a draw from the 

random testing pool on April13, 2011 and denies that a draw was made on July 21, 2011. Except 

as expressly admitted above, BELT MAKERS denies each and every, all and singular, 

allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, 

conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 19, BELT MAKERS admits that Emesto Mendoza was not enrolled 

in a random testing pool on April 13, 2011. Except as expressly admitted above, BELT 

MAKERS denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and 

every part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 20, BELT MAKERS admits that Emesto Mendoza was employed 

and working from February 2, 2011 until September 20, 2011. Except as expressly admitted 

above, BELT MAKERS denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, 

FAA Case No. 2011WP910400 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0049 

BELT MAKERS. INC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

5 
and each and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 21, BELT MAKERS admits that it employed Maria Sanchez, 

Samantha Villalobos and Ernesto Mendoza, who were enrolled in the random testing pool on 

September 20, 2011. Except as expressly admitted above, BELT MAKERS denies each and 

every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both 

generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 22, BELT MAKERS avers that 14 C.P.R. Section 120.115(a) speaks 

for itself. Answering the remainder of Paragraph 22, BELT MAKERS denies each and every, all 

and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 23, BELT MAKERS avers that 14 C.F.R. Section 120.115(c)(l)(iii) 

speaks for itself. Answering the remainder of Paragraph 23, BELT MAKERS denies each and 

every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both 

generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 24, BELT MAKERS avers that 14 C.P.R. Section 120.115(c)(3) 

speaks for itself. Answering the remainder of Paragraph 24, BELT MAKERS denies each and 

every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both 

generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 25, BELT MAKERS avers that 14 C.F.R. Section 

120.219(a)(2)(ii)(G) speaks for itself. Answering the remainder ofParagraph 25, BELT 

MAKERS denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and 

every part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 26, BELT MAKERS avers that Ernesto Mendoza, Maria Sanchez 

FAA Case No. 2011WP910400 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0049 

BELT MAKERS. INC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

6 
and Samantha Villalobos received drug and alcohol testing training on or about their respective 

dates of hire and that documentation ofthis training was maintained and available for FAA 

inspection. Except as expressly admitted above, BELT MAKERS denies each and every, all and 

singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 27, BELT MAKERS avers that Leonard Byrd received the requisite 

EAP initial training. Except as expressly admitted, BELT MAKERS denies each and every, all 

and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively, and specifically denies that documentation ofEAP 

initial training for Leonard Byrd was not available on September 16, 2011. 

Answering Paragraph 28, BELT MAKERS avers that documentation evidencing Leonard 

Byrd's training was maintained and available for FAA inspection. Except as expressly admitted, 

BELT MAKERS denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each 

and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively, and 

specifically denies that the sign-in sheet document was not available for inspection on September 

16, 2011. 

Answering Paragraph 29, BELT MAKERS avers that 14 C.P.R. Section 

120.219(a)(2)(ii)(F) speaks for itself. Answeringthe remainder of Paragraph 29, BELT 

MAKERS denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and 

every part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 30, BELT MAKERS denies each and every, all and singular, 

allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, 

conjunctively and disjunctively. 

FAA Case No. 2011WP910400 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0049 

BELT MAKERS. INC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

7 
III. 

Answering Part III. of the Complaint, BELT MAKERS denies that it violated the cited 

statutory and regulatory provisions and avers that 14 C.P.R. Sections 120.109(b)(6)(i)(B), 

120.217(c)(6)(i)(B), 120.115( c )(1 )(iii), 120.219(a)(2)(ii)(G), and 120.219(a)(2)(ii)(F) and 49 

U.S.C. Section 46301 speak for themselves 

IV. 

Answering Part IV. of the Complaint, BELT MAKERS denies that a civil penalty of 

$25,000, or in any other amount, is appropriate. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

As and for a separate and distinct defense, BELT MAKERS alleges: 

I. 

The sanction sought by Complainant is unwarranted by the facts, safety in commerce and the 

public interest and is not only excessive, but, far exceeds policy, precedent and Complainant's 

own Sanction Guidance Table. Further, the sanction is compounded, in violation of the 

Complainant's own Sanction Guidance Table. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

As and for a separate distinct defense, BELT MAKERS alleges: 

I. 

The Complainant's case, is unwarranted and without basis or jurisdiction in law or fact. 

FAA Case No. 2011WP910400 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0049 

BELT MAKERS. INC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

8 
' ' 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

As and for a separate distinct defense, BELT MAKERS alleges: 

I. 

On September 16,2011, the FAA was not able to find those records referenced in its 

Complaint because ofthe FAA's failure to perform a thorough inspection, not because of any 

failure or inability of BELT MAKERS to maintain required documentation. 

II. 

Any and all alleged discrepancies with the requirements of the cited provisions of 14 

C.F.R. Sections 120.109(b)(6)(i)(B), 120.217(c)(6)(i)(B), 120.115(c)(1)(iii), 

120.219(a)(2)(ii)(G), and 120.219(a)(2)(ii)(F), if true, are the product of simple human error, 

contrary to BELT MAKERS's own policies and procedures, and contrary to the training and 

guidance that the employees were provided, and are in no way indicative of BELT MAKERS's 

regulatory compliance disposition. The employees involved, all received initial job placement 

drug testing, were adequately trained and knowledgeable ofBELT MAKERS's approved drug 

and alcohol testing program and have since received additional training. 

Moreover, BELT MAKERS, in an immediate response to the matters giving rise to this 

case, revised and updated its drug and alcohol testing procedures, its documentation of training, 

including but not limited to EAP training, revised its compliance document retention program 

and mandated additional training, including training for all management personnel responsible 

for EAP compliance. Subsequent internal audits have shown that compliance has been achieved. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

As and for a separate distinct defense, BELT MAKERS alleges: 

I. 

FAA Case No. 2011WP910400 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0049 

BELT MAKERS. INC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

9 
. ' 

BELT MAKERS has proactively mitigated any and all damage such that this action is 

unwarranted by policy or the need for safety. Specifically, BELT MAKERS has: 

1. Counseled all employees involved in incidents alleged in the Complaint; 

11. Counseled all managerial personnel in the interests of preventing recurrence of such 

incidents; 

111. Revised its employee drug and alcohol testing program to specifically address said 

problems and ensure future compliance; 

IV. Revised those documents documenting compliance to ensure employees are aware of 

company policy towards retaining compliance documents; 

v. Provided its personnel with additional training so as to prevent recurrence of such 

incidents; and 

v1. Implemented a program of audits of all BELT MAKER employee files which have 

since shown that compliance has been achieved. 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

As and for a separate distinct defense, BELT MAKERS alleges: 

I. 

BELT MAKERS has taken all necessary corrective actions to avoid repeated mishaps 

such that penalties are redundant and will not result in any increase in safety. 

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

As and for a separate distinct defense, BELT MAKERS alleges: 

I. 

To the extent that the Complainant has relied upon FAA Order 2150.3B in 

determining the sanction in this case: 

FAA Case No. 2011WP910400 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0049 

BELT MAKERS. INC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

10 
' ' 

1. Complainant has compounded the alleged violations and sanctions in 

contravention of said Order; 

2. Complainant seeks civil penalties in excess of those suggested in said Order's 

Figure 7-4, for small businesses; 

3. Complainant has further contravened said Order in not taking into 

consideration the considerable corrective action that was immediately 

thereafter taken by BELT MAKERS; 

4. Said Order, to the extent that it treats BELT MAKERS as anything other than a 

small business, is arbitrary, capricious and unenforceable. 

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

As and for a separate distinct defense, BELT MAKERS alleges: 

I. 

Complainant's case is devoid of any sense ofproportion. 

II. 

During the period oftime covered by the Complaint, BELT MAKERS was able to find 

and provide all documentation sought by Respondent. 

III. 

As a small company (and a small business) that employs less that a dozen people, 

occupying a business premises of only about 5,000 square feet, the burden on BELT MAKERS 

caused by a $25,000.00 penalty would be excessive. 

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

As and for a separate distinct defense, BELT MAKERS alleges: 

I. 

FAA Case No. 2011WP910400 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0049 

BELT MAKERS. INC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

11 
Complainant contacted BELT MAKERS customers alleging unfounded and unproven 

violations with the intent of destroying BELT MAKERS credibility and to cause financial harm 

in an attempt to punish BELT MAKERS without having to follow standard protocol for initiating 

and following through with an investigation. As a direct and foreseeable result of Complainant's 

malicious and despicable efforts and acts, BELT MAKERS has suffered irreparable harm, 

including lost business opportunities, lost revenue and loss of good will. 

II. 

By virtue ofthe FAA's malicious and despicable efforts and acts alleged above, BELT 

MAKERS has been punished by Complainant and any further sanction is unwarranted, 

excessive, overly punitive and in violation of the Complainant's statutory authorization for 

ensuring safety in air commerce. 

WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the Administrative Law Judge not enter an order that 

BELT MAKERS be assessed civil penalties in the amount of $25,000, or in any other amount; 

that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; and for such other and further relief as may be 

deemed appropriate. 

Dated this 19th day of April, 2013. 

1chael L. Dworkin 

Attorneys for BELT MAKERS. INC 

FAA Case No. 20l1WP910400 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0049 

BELT MAKERS. INC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

12 
* L • -w 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 19th day of April, 2013, a true and correct 

copy ofthe foregoing BELT MAKERS. INC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT was served as 

follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

800 Independence A venue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

(Original plus one copy) 

{Federal Express) 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: 1-202-366-7536 

{FAX and Federal Express) 

Lisa Toscano, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region, AWP- 7 

15000 Aviation Boulevard 

Lawndale, CA 90261 

FAX: 1-310-725-6816 

{FAX and Federal Express) 

Ca m M. Mtller 

FAA Case No. 2011WP910400 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0049 

BELT MAKERS. INC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

13