Rusty Rinehart, Esq. (CSBN 93330) 

Rinehart Law Offices 

2105 S. Bascom Ave., Ste. 340 

Campbell, CA 95008 

408-871-2696 

Attorney for Respondent, 

Ed Staub & Sons Petroleum, Inc. 

: :-f:-ORTATION 

.•i'::TOPERATIOi^o 

:J'I ^PR 20 A q:i| l 

FEDERAL AVUTION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

ED STAUB & SONS PETROLEUM, INC. 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. 

FAA Case No. 2010SO700080 

Judge 

FAA'Zoil-oobT 

ANSWER 

JUDGE NOT YET ASSIGNED 

HEARING LOCATION: 

Pursuant to Rules of Practice §13.209, Respondent requests Renton, Washington 

as the hearing location. Respondent and most of the pertinent witnesses are closest to this 

location. 

.ANSWER 

Respondent answers the allegations of the COMPLAINT in the order set forth 

therein: 

1. Adyiit. 

RECEIVED 

APR 11 2(5" 

HEARING DOCKET 
II. 

2. Respondent denies that on or about 12-22-09, it knowingly offered to United 

Parcel Services ("UPS") a one-piece shipment consisting of a fiberboard box containing 

hazardous materials for transportation by air. 

3. Re^xjndent denies that the referenced tracking number reflects an "air 

waybill" and/or that anyone representing Respondent specified or knowingly offered a 

package for transportation by air. 

4. Admit. 

5. Respondent denies each and every allegation set forth in this paragraph. 

Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny what 

constitutes regularly scheduled UPS cargo protocols, and denies working knowledge 

thereof. 

6. Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny 

this allegation. 

7. Respondent denies that the subject container was a 24-ounce container. 

8(a). Respondent denies the allegation that diesel fuel is classified as a hazardous 

material under all circumstances, including this one. 

8(b). Respondent denies each and every allegation set forth in this paragraph. 

9. Respondent denies that it offered the described shipment for transportation by 

air and that the specified packing requirements alleged (a-f) were required. 

10. Respondent denies that it offered the described shipment for transportation by 

air and that it failed to properly certify and/or provide stated disclosures as alleged (a-c). 
11. Respondent denies that it offered the described shipment for transportation by 

air and/or that stated shipment was improperly marked as alleged (a-c). 

12. Respondent denies that it offered the described shipment for transportation by 

air and that it failed to make emergency response information available. 

13. Respondent denies that it oflered the described shipment for transportation by 

air and that it failed to make emergency response information available. 

14. Respondent denies that it oflered the described shipment for transportation by 

air and that stated shipment was not properly packaged, secured, and/or cushioned to 

prevent its breakage or leakage and to control movement within the outer package under 

conditions normally incident to transportation. 

15. Respondent denies that it offered the described shipment for transportation by 

air and/or used an unauthorized combination packaging for its transportarion. 

in. 

16. Respondent denies that it violated any of the regulations set forth herein 

(Subsections a-q). Respondent incorporates herein its responses to paragraphs 2-15, 

above. 

rv. 

1, Respondent denies that on or about 12-29-09, it knowingly offered to United 

Parcel Services ("UPS") a one-piece shipment consisting of a fiberboard box containing 

hazardous materials for transportation by air. 

2, Respondent denies that the referenced tracking number reflects an "air 

waybill'* and/or that anyone representing Respondent specified or knowingly offered a 

padcage for transportation by air. 
3. Admit. 

4. Respondent denies each and every allegation set forth in this paragraph. 

Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny what 

constitutes regularly scheduled UPS cargo protocols and denies working knowledge 

thereof 

5. Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny 

this allegation. 

6. Respondent denies that the subject container was a 24-ounce container. 

7. Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny 

this allegation. 

8(a). Respondent denies the allegation that diesel fuel is classified as a hazardous 

material under all circumstances, including this one. 

8(b). Respondent denies each and every allegation set forth in this paragraph. 

9. Respondent denies that it offered the described shipment for transportation by 

air and that the specified packing requirements alleged (a-f) were required. 

10. Respondent denies that it offered the described shipment for transportation by 

air and that it failed to properly certify and/or provide stated disclosures as alleged (a-c). 

11. Respondent denies that it offered the described shipment for transportation by 

air and/or that stated shipment was improperly marked as alleged (a-d). 

12. Respondent denies that it offered the described shipment for transportation by 

air and that it failed to make emergency response information available. 

13. Respondent denies that it offered the described shipment for transportation by 

air and that it failed to make emergency response information available. 
14. Respondent denies each and every allegation set forth in this paragraph. 

15. Respondent denies that it offered the described shipment for transportation by 

air and that stated shipment was not properly packaged, secured, and/or cushioned to 

prevent its breakage or leakage and to control movement within the outer package under 

conditions normally iiwiident to transportation. 

16. Respondent denies that it offered the described shipment for transportation by 

air and/or used an unauthorized combination packaging for transportation. 

17. Respondent denies that it violated any of the regulations set forth herein 

(Subsections a-r). Respondent incorporates herein all prior responses, above. 

18. Respondent denies it is subject to any civil penalty and/or if subject to such 

penalty it is limited to two (2) inadvertent violations that created minimal risk and no 

actual damage. 

19. Respondent denies that a civil penalty of $91,500 is appropriate based on the 

facts of this case and that the FAA seriously considered the facts of this case. 

Dated: April 6, 2011 

Rus*^Rinehart, Attorney for 

Ed Staub & Sons Petroleum, Inc. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing ANSWER has been mailed this date by 

Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

ADDRESS IF SENDING BY US MAIL 

Hearing Docket Clerk (original + 1 copy) 

FAA. AGC-430, Suite 2W1000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

( t ^ 

RUSTY R^HART, attorney for 

Ed Staub Jc Sons Petroleum, hic. 

Dated: April 6, 2011