### " r::-FAF;TMEN T O F TRAi^SPOBTATlO H ^ sv.CKtTOPERAilON S I S.|P = " U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATION= ' "~

- il l o aI 3 1 OFFIC E O FHEARING S " ^Lh= D 

### ^' " ''^^ ' ' ^ WASHINGTON , D.C . ^U G- 2 201 1 FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N Complainant , 

# HEARIN G DOCKE T

V . FA A Docke t No . [T o b e Assigned ] Judg e Jesly n E . Sullivan FDM S No . FAA-20 ] 1-048 0 DRYTA C CORPORATIO N ^^^ ^ ^^ ^ ^Q^^H ^ Respondent . ANSWE R COME S NO Wyou r

responden t

Dryta c Corporatio n ("Drytac " o r "Respondent") , b y counsel , an dstate s a s follow s a s it s Answe r filedherei n pursuan t

t o 1 4 CF R§ 13.1-209 ; 1 . Responden t

admit s th e allegation s o f paragrap h1 o f

th e Complaint . 2 . Wit

hrespec t t o paragrap h2 o f

th e Complaint . Responden t admit s onl y that

i t knowingl y offere dth e reference dshipmen t t o Unite dParce l Servic e fo r transportatio n b y air . Statin g further , Responden t respcctfiill y aver s tha

t an y violatio n committe dwa s inadverten t an d unintended . Accordingly , t o th e exten t tha t th e allegation s o f

paragrap h2 o f

th e Complain t

ar e intende dt o infer

tha t Responden t

knowingl y o r

intentionall y violate dan y applicabl e statute s o r regulation s regardin g th e transportatio n o f hazardou s materials , suc hinferenc e i s denie dan d stric t proo f demande dthereof . 3 . Responden t

admit s th e allegation s o f paragrap h3 o f

th e Complaint . 4 . Responden t

admit s th e allegation s o f paragrap h4 o f

th e Complaint . 5 . Responden t

admit s th e allegation s o f paragrap h5 o f

th e Complaint . 6 . Responden t

admit s th e allegation s o f paragrap h6 o f

th e Complaint ./ • 7 . Responden t admit s th e allegation s o f paragrap h7 o f

th e Complaint . S . Responden t

admit s th e allegation s o f paragrap h8 o f

th e Complaint . 9

- Withrespec t

t o paragrap h9 o f

th e Complaint , Responden t state s tha

t th e Departmen t

o f Transportation' s Hazardou s Material s Regulation s spea k for themselves , an d Responden t

denie s an y allegation s inconsisten t therewith . Statin g further . Responden t respectfull y aver s tha t

th e allege dclassificatio n o f th e shippe dmaterial a s ahazardou s material unde r th e HM Rpursuan t

t o paragraph s 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 1 8 an d1 9 o f th e Complain t i s aquestio n o f

la w whic hResponden t

ca n neithe r admit o r den y a s afactual matter . 10 . Subjec t

t o th e qualification s o f paragrap h9 above . Responden t admit s th e allegation s o f

paragrap h1 0 o f

th e Complain t

an dal l subpart s thereof. 11 . Subjec t

t o th e qualification s o f paragrap h9 abov e Responden t admit s th e allegation s o f

paragrap h1 1 o f

th e Complain t

an dal l subpart s thereof. 12 . Subjec t

t o th e qualification s o f paragrap h9 abov e Responden t admit s th e allegation s o f

paragrap h1 2 o f

th e Complain t

an dal l subpart s thereof

. 13 . Subjec t

t o th e qualification s o f paragrap h9 abov e Responden t admit s th e allegation s o f

paragrap h1 3 o f

th e Complain t

an dal l subpart s thereof. 14 . Subjec t

t o th e qualification s o f paragrap h9 abov e Responden t admit s th e allegation s o f

paragrap h1 4 o f

th e Complain t

an dal l subpart s thereof. 15 . Subjec t

t o th e qualification s o f paragrap h9 abov e Responden t admit s th e allegation s o f

paragrap h1 5 o f

th e Complain t

an dal l subpart s thereof. 16 . Subjec t

to th e qualification s o f paragrap h9 abov e Responden t admit s th e allegation s o f

paragrap h1 6 o f

th e Complain t

an dal l subpart s thereof

.17 . Subjec t t o th e qualification s o f paragrap h9 abov e Responden t admit s th e allegation s o f

paragrap h1 7 o f

th e Complain t

an dal l subpart s thereof. 18 . Subjec t

t o th e qualification s o f paragrap h9 abov e Responden t admit s th e allegation s o f

paragrap h1 8 o f

th e Complain t

an dal l subpart s thereof. 19 . Wit

hrespec t t o paragrap h1 9 o f

th e Complain t

an dnumbere dsubparts 1 throug h 1 9 thereof

, Responden t

state s that

th e Departmen t

o f Transportation' s Hazardou s Material s Regulation s spea

k for themselves , an dResponden t denie s an y allegation s inconsisten t therewith . 20 . Wit

hrespec t t o paragrap h2 0 o f

th e Complaint , Responden t state s that

th e cite d statu e an dregulation s promulgate dthereunde r speak for themselves , an dResponden t denie s an

y allegation s inconsisten t

therewith . 21 . Responden t

denies th e allegation s o f paragrap h2 1 o f

th e Complaint . AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE S 22 . Dryta c respectfull y aver s that th e sanction s requeste db y th e Complainan t ar e excessiv e under

th e fact s an dcircumstance s o f th e presen t

case . Specifically , Dr>lac note s that : a . Th e subjec t

violatio n wa s th e first

violatio n b

y Dryta c (i n it s 25 + yea r existence ) o f

an y Departmen t

o f Transportatio n regulation s o r applicabl e statutes . b . Th e subjec t

violatio n wa s inadverten t an dunintended . c . Whil e any hazardou s material spil l o r contaminatio n i s aseriou s matter , th e degre e an dgravit y o f th e subjec t

violatio n i s relativel y small , bein g limite dto th e releas e o f V 2 gallo n o r

les s o f acommon , Clas s 3 flammable liquid , onl y asmal l portio n o f whic hultimatel y escape dth e outermos t shippin g container . d . Th e violatio n wa s th e resul t o f a n isolate dinadverten t

ac t b y asingl e member o f Drytac' s sale s staf

f wh o i s no t

typicall y involve di

n the shipmen t

o f material s(hazardou s o r otherwise) . Specifically , th e shipmen t i n questio n wa s intende dto b e use d b y Dryta c sale s persorme l for demonstratio n purpose s a t atrad e show . Th e subjec t shipmen t wa s no t par t o f Drytac' s ordinary an dcustomary shipment s o f inventory an d material s t o customers , an dwa s no t originate db y o r

handle dtliroug hDryta c personne l typicall y charge dwit hth e shippin g o f materials . e . Dryta c ha s take n substantial post-inciden t step s t o preven t an y futur

e violations , includin g attendanc e b y key personne l a t hazardou s material seminar s an d firm-wide trainin g an dnotifications . f . Dryta c i s asmal l busines s employin g 3 1 employee s i n 6 location s acros s th e Unite dStates . Th e recen t economi c downtur n ha s bee n difficul t fo r Dryta c an dha s resulte di n th e eliminatio n o f 5 position s withth e company an di n th e closur e o f 2 location s countrywide . Th e employee s that remai n hav e bee n require dt o accep t cut s i n benefit s an dwag e freezes . Th e sanction s requeste db y th e Complainan t represen t

a significan t an dunsustainabl e burde n t o Dryta c an dwil l materiall y an dnegativel y impac t Drytac' s financial positio n o n ago-forwar dbasis . g . Whil e th e Complainan t ha s identifie dninetee n o r more specifi c violations , suc hviolation s al l resulte dfromasingle , discree t act , t o v/iX

: th e unfortunat e decisio n o f aDryta c salesperso n t o plac e agallo n o f isopropy l alcoho l i

n a n urmiarke dai r

shippin g container . Give n tha t

th e violatio n involve dasingle , isolate daction , i t i s inappropriat e fo r th e Complainan t

t o compoun dth e requeste dsanctio n b y essentiall y addin g up recommende d.sanctio n amoun t fo r eac han devery individuate dviolatio n tha t coul db e note dwit hrespec t t o suc hsingl e act .23 . In short , Dryta c respectfull y aver s tha t pursuan t t o th e provision s o f

FA A Orde r 2150. 3 B (Oc t

1 , 2007 ) an dothe r

applicabl e guidance , th e mitigatin g factor s presen t i n th e curren t cas e warran t

asanctio n tha t

i s substantiall y lowe r

than th e amount s requeste db y th e Complainan t

i n this Case . WHEREFORE , you r

Responden t

Dryta c Corporatio n respectfull y request s tha t thi s matte r b e dismisse dor , i n th e alternative , that th e sanction s assesse dagains t th e Responden t

b e reduce da s th e circumstance s an dequitie s o f th e cas e ma y require . DRYTA C CORPORATIO N 

# By : y?A^(^^ . MeredithI^Yoder<Counse l

MeredithL . Yoder , Esq . (Virgini aStat e Ba r #48951 ) PARKER , POLLARD , WILTO N & PEADEN , P.C . 680 2 Parago n Place , Suit e 30 0 Richmond , Virgini a23230-165 5 (804 ) 262-360 0 - telephon e (804 ) 262-328 4 -facsimil eCERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t th e atru e an daccurat e cop y o f th e foregoin g Answer

wa s maile d U.S . Certifie dMail , Retur n Receip t Requested , to th e followin g partie s a s o f thi s 28" ^ da

y o f July , 2011 : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk FAA , AGC-430 , Suit e 2W100 0 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Hon . Jesly n E . Sulliva n Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mEl2-32 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 Geral dA . Ellis , Esq . Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , ASO- 7 Southern Regio n Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 170 1 Columbi aAvenu e Colleg e Park-G A 3033 7 (Origina l an dI Copy )

( 1 Copy )

( 1 Copy )

Meredi^'L . Y^der , Counse l