02/19/2010 13:23 FAX 2024935142 FAA •» DMS 21002/004 

01/27/2010 15:3d 987271^f300 FAA PASE 02/04 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

REDOX TECH, LLC 

FAA DOCKET NO, CF09AL0013 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

DMSNO. FAA-2009-097S 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR DECISION REGARDING THE VIOLATHONS 

The Complainanti puisuant to § 13.218(f)(5) of the Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R. Fart 13, 

moves for a decision regarding the facts alleged in Section 11 of the Complaint and the regulatory 

violations alleged in Section III of the Complaint.' This Motion is based on the pleadings to date 

in. this matterThe Complaint alleges that Respondent knowingly offered a hydraulic pump with m Internal 

combustion engine and lead/acid storage battery as well as a can of starter fluid for transportation 

by air from Massachusetts to Alaska; that the engine battery, and starter fluid were hazai'dous 

materials; and that Respondent had not complied with the requirements of the United Stites 

Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), 49 C.F.R. Chapter I, 

Subchapter C (Parts 171-80). In its Answer Respondent admits substantially all of the factual 

allegations in Section II of the Complaint and all of the regulatory violations in Section III of the 

Complaint. Specifically, with respect to Section TI.l of the Complaint. Respondent asserts that 

while its employee knowingly offered the pump for transportation by air, this employee was not 

aware a shipment of hazardous materials was being made or of the regulatory requirements for 

the shipment of hazardous materials. With respect to the allegation in Section II.3 of the 

complaint. Respondent indicates a lack of knowledge as to-whether the engine quickly started 

and ran normally when it arrived in Anchorage, but questions it based on prior experience trying 

to start that engine. With respect to Section II. 18, Respondent admits the fuel lines and filter had 

Tf this itiotion is grant«d, the only remaining; issue will be ihc amount of any civil penalty to be assessed. 

I- h 
02/19/2010 13:24 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS lg!003/004 

01/27/2010 15:34 9072712800 FAA PAGE 03/84 

not been drained, but contends the fuel tank had been drained and that the fuel cap was tightened 

securely. 

None of the matters stated by Respondeat raises a genuine issue with respect to a material 

fact Complainant is not alleging in Section, III of the Complaint that Respondent Intentionally 

violated the HMR. Rather, Complainai:it is alleging that Respondent knowingly offered a 

shipment, and that the shipment contained hazardous materials. Respondent admits these facts, 

and these facts establish the knowledge requirement of 49 U.S.C. § 5123(a)(1). Knowledge of 

the regulations is irrelevant, Jn the Matter of Riverside MilU Corporation, FAA Order No, 2003-

10, September 12,2003. 

Regarding the allegation in Section 11.3 of the Complaint, the purpose of it was to establish a 

factual basis for tlie contention that the engine and all of its components had not been completely 

drained of fuel. Respondent admits this in its answer to Section II. 18 of the Complaint, Hence^ 

whether the engine readily started as alleged in Section 11.3 is not material with respect to 

establishing the violations alleged in Section III of the Complaint. 

Regarding the allegations in Section 11.18 of the Complaint, the portion in question fdlcges 

that when offered, the fuel tank, engine cotnponents, and fuel lines had not been completely 

drained and securely closed to prevent leakage of fuel. These requirements are stated using the 

conjunctive aprf, so each is separate, and proof that any one of them had not been met establishes 

the allegation, Respondent admits it failed to drain the fuel lines and fiicl filter, so whether it 

drained the fuel tank is not material with respect to establishing the violations alleged in Section 

in of the Coniplaint. 

Based on the foregoing, a review of the pleadings indicates there is no genuine issue 

regarding a material fact, and Complainant is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. 

Complainant is, therefore, entitled to a decision finding the facts and regulatory violations 

admitted by Respondent in its Answer, 

Respectfully submitted this 21^ day of January 2010-

HOWARD L. MARTIN, JR. 

Regional Counsel 

B.ifi^ 

Glenn H. Brown 

Senior Attorney 
02/19/2010 13:24 FAX 2024335142 FAA * DMS 1004/004 

01/27/2010 15:34 907271?flQQ FAA PAGE 04/04 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Re; Redox Tech, LLC 

FAA Docket No. CF09AL0013 

DMS No. FAA-2009-097 S 

I hereby certify that on this date 1 have served a copy of the Agency's Motion for Decision 

Regarding Violations by postage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested and facsimile to 

the following: 

The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin 

Office of Hearings, M-20; 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El 2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: (202)366-7536 

Dr, John Haselow 

Redox Tech, LLC 

200 Quade Drive 

Cary,NC 27513 

FAX: (919)678-0150 

1 further certify that on this date I have served the original and two copies of the Agency's 

Motion for Decision Regarding Violations by postage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt 

requested and fecsimtle, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washingtoi^, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000 

FAX: (202)493-5020 

DATED: ^^7--^ ^ • ^ ^ ^^^ ^ 

Federal Aviation Administratior^ / / 

Office of Regional Counsel ^ 

111 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, AAL-7 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587