U.S. DEPARTMENT OF Tf^ANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION r ^ntf) 

In the Matter of: 

FAA Docket No. Unassigned 

Carlile Transportation Systennis 

^:' .:>.;;o 

^..•; i^i>'."-" c 

Judge Not Assi2;ned ^o -^O ^ 

ANSWER

v-^;) 

 '=c:f Fi^^^iO'OlXj 

CO 

Carlile Transportation Systems, Inc. (Respondent), by counsel, hereby files its Answer 

pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.209 and states as follows: 

I. 

On December 22, 2009, Respondent was advised through a Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $90,000. On August 10, 

2010 a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty in the amount of $67,500 was issued. Because the 

subject Sexauer Mule Kick Drain Cleaner is not properly classified as hazardous material and 

because the FAA failed to consider several legitimate mitigating factors offered by Respondent 

in an attempt to eliminate or lower the Proposed Civil Penalty to an amount more in keeping 

with the FAA past practices, on August 24, 2010, Respondent submitted a written request for a 

hearing. 

II. 

1. Answering the allegations of Section II, Paragraph I of the Complaint, Respondent denies 

that it knowingly offered to Alaska Airlines a shipment containing hazardous material for 
transportation by air aboard a passenger aircraft from Anchorage, Alaska, to Prudhoe Bay, 

Alaska. Respondent admits that it offered for shipment two 32 ounce bottles of drain cleaner 

on the Alaska Airlines flight in question, however. Respondent denies having knowledge the 

package contained two 32 ounce bottles of drain cleaner or of the materials' hazardous 

material status. Respondent's representative picked up a "pump" for shipment from 

Anchorage, Alaska to Deadhorse, Alaska. Concealed in the packaging were the two 32 

ounce bottles of drain cleaner. 

2. Answering the Allegations of Section II, Paragraph 2, Respondent, admits each and every 

allegation, except the allegation that the waybill was marked to indicate the package did not 

contain dangerous goods; there were no markings on the package indicating that it did or did 

not contain dangerous goods. Additionally, there is no indication the drain cleaner is 

"dangerous goods". 

3. Answering the Allegations of Section II, Paragraph 3, Respondent, admits that the package 

offered for shipment contained two 32-ounce bottles of Sexauer Mule Kick drain cleaner. 

4. Answering the Allegations of Section H, Paragraph 4, Respondent argues that the drain 

cleaner is not hazardous material; and that the manufacturer of the drain cleaner improperly 

labeled the product on the product's Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). Additionally, 

Respondent, had no reason to suspect the product was regulated under the Hazardous 

Materials Regulations (HMR). 

5. Answering the Allegations of Section II, Paragraph 5, Respondent, admits each and every 

allegation, except that because the drain cleaner is not hazardous material, a Shipper's 

Declaration for Dangerous Goods is not required. 
6. Answering the Allegations of Section IF Paragraph 6, Respondent, admits each and every 

allegation; except that the drain cleaner is hazardous material. 

7. Answering the Allegations of Section 11, Paragraph 7, Respondent, admits each and every 

allegation except that because the drain cleaner is not hazardous material, an emergency 

response telephone number as prescribed in Subpart G of Part 172 of the HMR is not 

required. 

8. Answering the Allegations of Section II, Paragraph 8, Respondent, admits each and every 

allegation except that because the drain cleaner is not hazardous material, it is not required to 

certify that the drain cleaner was in accordance with the HMR by printing the certificate set 

forth in § 172.204(a) or § 172.204(c)(1) of the HMR on the shipping papers. 

9. Answering the Allegations of Section II, Paragraph 9, Respondent, admits each and every 

allegation except that because the drain cleaner is not hazardous material, it was not required 

to provide two (2) copies of the required shipper's certification. 

10. Answering the Allegations of Section II, Paragraph 10, Respondent, admits that if offered 

the package for shipment without any markings or label in any manner that would indicate 

the hazardous nature of its contents because the drain cleaner is not hazardous nor did it 

know of the existence of the drain cleaner in the package. 

11. Answering the Allegations of Section II, Paragraph 11, Respondent denies that the drain 

cleaner is hazardous material. 

12. Answering the Allegations of Section II, Paragraph 12, Respondent, denies that the drain 

cleaner is hazardous material and so no corrosive label was required. 

13. Answering the Allegations of Section II, Paragraph 13, Respondent, admits each and every 

allegation. 
14. Answering the Allegations of Section 11, Paragraph 14, Respondent, admits each and every 

allegation. 

in 

1. Answering the Allegations of Section III, Paragraph I, Respondent, denies each and every 

allegation. Respondent further argues that the violations in Paragraph 1, Sections (a) thru (s) 

are duplicative and that the violation listed in Section (a) encompasses all the other 

violations listed in Sections (b) thru (s). 

IV. 

1. Answering the Allegations of Section IV, Paragraph 1, Respondent, denies each and every 

allegation. 

2. Answering the Allegations of Section IV, Paragraph 2, Respondent, denies each and every 

allegation. Specifically, the case law and the circumstances of this particular matter indicate 

that a civil penalty of $67,500.00 is not appropriate. Given the question of whether the drain 

cleaner is hazardous material as well as mitigating factors in this case. Respondent's swift 

action in ensuring future compliance with the HMR and the case law regarding appropriate 

civil penalties in similar fact patterns, the civil penalty of $67,500 is much too high. 

Respondent seeks relief in the form of elimination of the civil penalty, or in the alternative a 

lower civil penalty in the amount of $500.00. 

V 

AFFIRM ATF^E DEFENSES 

As and for affirmative defenses to the claims in FAA's Complaint and based on the knowledge 

and information available to them to date, Respondents are informed and believe and based 

thereon allege as follows; 
1. Respondent did not violate the HMR because Sexauer Mule Kick Drain Cleaner is not a 

hazardous material according to the HMR and the product's own MSDS. 

2. The manufacturer of Sexauer Mule Kick Drain Cleaner failed to properly identify the 

hazardous material status of the product in compliance with the HMR. The FAA contends 

that the label complied with the HMR because the only mention of its potential hazardous 

material status on the MSDS was that it directed the user to the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards. The FAA contends that the ICAO standards are "similar" to 

the HMR. However, the FAA has not shown how the ICAO standards are similar to the 

HMR and how its alleged similarities would direct the user of the product to infer that it is a 

regulated hazardous material under the HMR. The lack of a clear and proper label on the 

product in question prevented the Respondent and its employee from checking the HMR to 

determine its hazardous status. This led directly to many of the violations of the HMR 

contained in the Complaint. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ^^ ~ day of September 2010. 

ROY LONGACRE 

Counsel for Respondent 

Roy Loiigacre -^ 

Attorney at Law