U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTf^ANSPORTATIO N FEDERAL AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N r^ntf ) I n th e Matte r

of : FAA Docke t No . Unassigne d Carlil e Transportatio n Systenni s ^: ' .:>.;; o ^..• ; i^i>'."-" c Judg e No t

Assi2;ned^ o -^O ^

v-^; ) 

# ANSWE R'=c: f Fi^^^iO'OlXj C O Carlil e Transportatio n Systems , Inc . (Respondent) , b y counsel , hereb y file s it s Answe r pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.20 9 an dstate s a s follows : I . O n Decembe r

22 , 2009 , Responden t

wa s advise dthroug h aNotic e of Propose dCivi l Penalt y that th e FA A propose dt o asses s acivi l penalt y i n th e amoun t o f $90,000 . O n Augus t

10 , 201 0 aFinal Notic e o f

Propose dCivi l Penalty in th e amoun t o f $67,50 0 wa s issued . Becaus e th e subjec t Sexaue r Mul e Kic k

Drai n Cleane r

i s no t properl y classifie da s hazardou s materia l an d becaus e th e FAA faile dt o conside r severa l legitimat e mitigatin g factor s offere db y Responden t in a n attemp t t o eliminat e o r

lowe r th e Propose dCivi l Penalt y to a n amoun t mor e in keepin g wit h th e FAA pas t

practices , o n Augus t

24 , 2010 , Responden t

submitte dawritte n reques t fo r a hearing . II . 1 . Answerin g th e allegation s o f Sectio n II , Paragrap h I o f th e Complaint , Responden t denie s that it knowingl y offere dt o Alask aAirline s ashipmen t containin g hazardou s material fo rtransportatio n b y air aboar dapassenge r

aircraf t fro mAnchorage , Alaska , t o Prudho e Bay , Alaska . Responden t

admit s that

i t offere dfor

shipmen t tw o 3 2 ounc e bottle s o f

drai n cleane r on th e Alask aAirline s fligh t i n question , however . Responden t denie s havin g knowledg e th e packag e containe dtw o 3 2 ounc e bottle s o f drai n cleane r

o r o f th e materials ' hazardou s materia l status. Respondent' s representativ e picke du p a"pump " for shipmen t fro m Anchorage , Alask at o Deadhorse , Alaska . Conceale di n th e packagin g wer e th e tw o 3 2 ounc e bottle s o f

drai n cleaner . 2 . Answerin g th e Allegation s o f Sectio n II , Paragrap h 2 , Respondent , admit s eac h an dever y allegation , excep t

th e allegatio n that

th e waybil l wa s marke dt o indicat e th e packag e di dno t contai n dangerou s goods ; ther e wer e n o marking s o n th e packag e indicatin g that it di do r di d no t contai n dangerou s goods . Additionally , ther e i s n o indicatio n th e drai n cleane r i s "dangerou s goods" . 3 . Answerin g th e Allegation s o f Sectio n II , Paragrap h 3 , Respondent , admit s that th e packag e offere dfor

shipmen t containe dtw o 32-ounc e bottle s o f Sexaue r Mul e Kic k

drai n cleaner . 4 . Answerin g th e Allegation s o f Sectio n H , Paragrap h 4 , Responden t argue s tha t

th e drai n cleane r i s no t hazardou s material ; an dthat th e manufacture r

o f th e drai n cleane r

improperl y labele dth e produc t

on th e product' s Materia l Safety Dat aShee t (MSDS) . Additionally , Respondent , ha dn o reaso n t o suspec t th e produc t

wa s regulate dunde r

th e Hazardou s Material s Regulation s (HMR) . 5 . Answerin g th e Allegation s o f Sectio n II , Paragrap h 5 , Respondent , admit s eac h an devery allegation , excep t

that becaus e th e drai n cleane r i s no t hazardou s material , aShipper' s Declaratio n for

Dangerou s Good s i s no t

required .6 . Answerin g th e Allegation s o f Sectio n I FParagrap h 6 , Respondent , admit s eac h an devery allegation ; excep t

tha t th e drai n cleane r

i s hazardou s material . 7 . Answerin g th e Allegation s o f Sectio n 11 , Paragrap h 7 , Respondent , admit s eac h an devery allegatio n excep t

that becaus e th e drai n cleane r i s no t hazardou s material , a

n emergenc y respons e telephon e numbe r a s prescribe di n Subpart

G o f Par t 17 2 o f th e HM Ri s no t required . 8 . Answerin g th e Allegation s o f Sectio n II , Paragrap h 8 , Respondent , admit s eac h an devery allegatio n excep t

that becaus e th e drai n cleane r i s no t hazardou s material , i t

i s no t require dt o certif y that th e drai n cleane r

wa s i n accordanc e wit

h th e HM Rb y printin g th e certificat e set fort h i n § 172.204(a ) o r

§ 172.204(c)(1 ) o f

th e HM Ro n th e shippin g papers . 9 . Answerin g th e Allegation s o f Sectio n II , Paragrap h 9 , Respondent , admit s eac h andevery allegatio n excep t

that becaus e th e drai n cleane r i s no t hazardou s material , i t

wa s no t require d t o provid e tw o (2 ) copies o f th e require dshipper' s certification . 10 . Answerin g th e Allegation s o f Sectio n II , Paragrap h 10 , Respondent , admit s that i f offere d th e packag e fo

r shipmen t withou t any marking s o r

labe l i n any manne r

that woul dindicat e th e hazardou s natur e o f

it s content s becaus e th e drai n cleane r i s no t hazardou s no r

di di t kno w o f th e existenc e o f

th e drai n cleane r

i n th e package . 11 . Answerin g th e Allegation s o f Sectio n II , Paragrap h 11 , Responden t denie s that

th e drai n cleane r i s hazardou s material . 12 . Answerin g th e Allegation s o f Sectio n II , Paragrap h 12 , Respondent , denie s that th e drai n cleane r i s hazardou s materia l ands o n o corrosiv e labe l wa s required . 13 . Answerin g th e Allegation s o f Sectio n II , Paragrap h 13 , Respondent , admit s eac h an devery allegation .14 . Answerin g th e Allegation s of Sectio n 11 , Paragrap h 14 , Respondent , admit s eac h an devery allegation . 

### i n 1 . Answerin g th e Allegation s o f Sectio n III , Paragrap h I , Respondent , denies eac h an devery allegation . Responden t

further argue s that

th e violation s i n Paragrap h 1 , Section s (a ) thr u (s ) ar e duplicative an dtha t

th e violatio n liste din Sectio n (a ) encompasse s al l th e othe r violation s liste din Section s (b ) thr u (s) . IV. 1 . Answerin g th e Allegation s o f Sectio n IV , Paragrap h 1 , Respondent , denie s eac h an devery allegation . 2 . Answerin g th e Allegation s o f Sectio n IV , Paragrap h 2 , Respondent , denie s eac h an devery allegation . Specifically , th e cas e law an dth e circumstance s o f thi s particular

matte r indicat e tha t acivi l penalty o f

$67,500.0 0 i s no t

appropriate . Give n th e questio n of whethe r th e drai n cleane r i s hazardou s materia l a s wel l a s mitigatin g factor s in thi s case . Respondent' s swif t actio n in ensurin g future complianc e with th e HM Ran dth e cas e la w regardin g appropriat e civi l penaltie s in similar

fac t patterns , th e civi l penalt y o f $67,50 0 i s muc h to o high . Responden t

seek s relie f

i n th e for mof eliminatio n of

th e civi l penalty , o r

i n th e alternativ e a lowe r civi l penalt y in th e amoun t o f $500.00 . V AFFIRM ATF^ E DEFENSE S A s an dfor

affirmativ e defense s to th e claim s in FAA' s Complain t an dbasedo n th e knowledg e an dinformatio n availabl e t o the mt o date , Respondent s ar e informe dan dbeliev e an dbase d thereo n alleg e a s follows ;1 . Responden t di dnot violat e th e HM Rbecaus e Sexaue r Mul e Kic k

Drai n Cleane r

i s no t a hazardou s materia l accordin g t o th e HM Ran dth e product' s ow n MSDS . 2 . Th e manufacture r

o f Sexaue r Mul e Kic k

Drai n Cleane r

faile dt o properl y identif y th e hazardou s materia l statu s o f th e produc t

i n complianc e wit

h th e HMR . Th e FAA contend s that th e labe l complie dwit

h th e HM Rbecaus e th e onl y mentio n o f it s potential hazardou s material statu s o n th e MSD S wa s that it directe dth e use r

t o th e Internationa l Civi l Aviatio n Organizatio n (ICAO ) Standards . Th e FA A contends that th e ICA O standard s ar e "similar " to th e HMR . However , th e FA A ha s not show n ho w th e ICA O standard s ar e similar t o th e HM Ran dho w it s allege dsimilaritie s woul ddirec t th e use r o f th e produc t

t o infer tha t it i s a regulate dhazardou s materia l unde r th e HMR . Th e lac k

o f aclear an dprope r

labe l o n th e produc t in questio n prevente dth e Responden t an dit s employe e fromcheckin g th e HM Rt o determin e it s hazardou s status . Thi s le ddirectl y t o man y o f th e violation s o f

th e HM R containe din th e Complaint . RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTE D thi s ^^ ~ day o f Septembe r

2010 . RO Y LONGACR E Counse l for

Responden t

Ro y Loiigacr e - ^ Attorne y a

t Law