U.S. DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATrON 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTR.'^TION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

DRYTAC CORPORATION, 

Respondent. 

BECEIVED 

JUL 2 n 20^1 

^\£|,Rl!^iG DOCKET 

"ill-

> 

FAA Docket No. [Unassighcd] ^/ " 

Judge Ronnie A. Yoder en - ^ ^ 

FDMS No. FAA-201 1-0480/2C)tV'^**^r»'^"^ 

FAA Gisc No. 2010SO70023? I |»/- ?^(o 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO DEEM ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED AND 

MOTION FOR HEARING ON SANCTION OiS'v ' 

Complainant, by and through the undersigned altorney, pursuant to Sections 

13.218 of the Rules of Praetice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions (14 C.F.R. § 13.218) hereby 

moves the Administrative Law .iudge to determine that due to tlie Complainant's failure 

to file a timely Answer to the Complaint, the allegations in the Complaint have been 

admitted, and if a hearing is necessary in this matter, that the as yet unscheduled hearing 

will only he for the purpose of detcmiining the sanction involvetl in the matter. As 

grounds for this motion, Complainant states the following: 

On May 13, 2011, Complainant.filedthc Complaint in this matter with the 

Hearing Docket and served a copy on Respondent. Exhibit L 
2. 

Respondent received the Complaint on May 16, 2011. Exhibit 2. 

3. 

Pursuant to §13.209(a) and § 13.211 (e) Respondent had 35 days (30 days plus 5 

for mail service) to file an answer. The Complaint explicitly reminded Respondent of 

(his 30-day deadline. Under these niles, Respondent's answer was due on or about June 

20, 2011. Respondent was again reminded of its duty to fde an answer in Ihc Order Of 

Chief Administrative Law Judge Establishing Procedures ser\ed June 10, 201 ]. 

4. 

According (o §i3.209(Q, a person's failure to file an answer without good cause 

shall be d^emeti_an^;id.mission.ofj,hejruth p.f f.;icb i?lle^;!!!on contained in the complaint. 

See, FAA v. Budde W. Piavter, FAA Docket No. CP89GL0257 (March 19, 1990) 

("Although this is a severe penalty for faihire to file an answer, the rule is clear and docs 

not permit exceptions."). 

5. 

Complainant requests a ruling on this motion as soon as possible, to allow 

adequate preparation if there is a hearing, but no later than seven days before tiic hearing 

as required by 14 C.F.R. §13.218(e)(2) ("The administrative law judge shall resolve all 

pending prehearing motions not later than seven days before the hearing.") 

WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully moves the Administrative Law Judge to: (I) 

deem as an admissioji of truth each allegation in the complaint, (2) if a hearing is still 
deemed necessary, order that it should be only for the purpose of detemiining the amount 

of the sanction in this matter. (3) Complainant also requests an extension of the 

discovery period lo at least 30 days after an answer is fded or there is a miing on these 

motions. 

Respectfully submitted this l/^dayof July, 2011. 

GERALD A. ELLIS 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

[ hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Complainant's Motion To Deem 

Allegations Admitted And Motion For Hearing On Sanction Only Motion has been 

mailed this date by Certified Mail, Retum Receipt Requested, to the following: 

The Honorable Richard C Goodwin (original) 

DOT, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Aveniic, SE 

East Building Ground Floor 

RoomEl2.320 

Washington, DC 20590 

Tim Rader, VP Finance (1 copy) 

Drylac Corporation 

5383 Glen AldcnDr. 

Richmond, VA 23231 

Hearing Docket Clerk (1 copy) 

FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2W1000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

800 hidependcnce Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

m::^dH 

Lcg:i\ AWstant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

WW. I 2 2011 

Dated 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Southern Region 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

(•KM) 305-5200 

(401) 305-5223 FAX 

MAi 1 3 ZOll 

CERTIFIED - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

llearing Docket Clerk 

FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2W1000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wa.shington. DC 20591 

Re: In the Matter of Drytac Corporation 

FAA Case No. 2010SO700233 

Enclosed herewith please fmd a copy of a request for hearing ajid the original and one copy of 

the Complaint in the above-referenced proceeding. 

The FAA requests that the hearing in ibis matter be held in the Louisville. Kentucky area, and 

expects that the hearing will last one day. 

Please address all communications for the FAA to the undersigned, at: 

i'ederal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

Telephone: (404) 305-5200, facsimile (404) 305-5223. 

Sincerely, 

GERALD A. LLLIS 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Enclosures V 

•'''•• "^iiw - n 

If GOVERNMENT 

I EXH/B/T 

/ 
560) Coslt-TMl BoijJuv^/d 

Rirntnotid. Vitgmii) 23231 

Tel (80J)22?-3f)9J 

F.T- (B0J,>226-?330 

F.inn.ir^ Branch. IX 75?3-l 

Tol [9/2)9lGt;8i i 

Fa.: (972) 9)0-8839 

Romc'ovilri;. IL GCM-16 

It;!. (B15) 938-0226 

F;). OU')6.38 iCiO/ 

Los Angolas. CA 

10(500 Shoi,-m.(»iCf •avenue Unit O 

Sum;. Fe Spnrxjs. CA 90670 

Toi (!J62l'J4 1-9630 

f^.'>' (SC2; !J-n.29?7 

v^vw drvl3C.co m 

Way 5. 2011 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

AGC-400 

Room 2014 

600 Independence Ave.. SW 

Washington. DC 20591 

RE: FAA Case Number 2010SO700233 

To Whom ll May Concern: 

Please consider this a written request for a hearing regarding (he assessed civil penally 

proposed m (he final notice of proposed civil penalty letter dated April 19. 20 I I 

If you have any questions i can be reached at one of the foUowing. 

Email tnnrac1ei(^siiyt£ic com 

Phone 804-5'15-9204 

.^iVl 

Sincerely. 

V - 6 

• ( ^•.:N-, t 

Tun Rader 

Vice President/Finance 

Drytac Corporation 

Cc: Gerald A. Ellis • 

Regional Council 

Southern Region 

U S. Dept. of Transportation 

FAA 

1701 Columbia Ave. 

College Park, GA 30337 
U.S. OEPAUTMFNT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDEIML AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FRDER^XL AViATION ADM[N/STR.\'nON. 

Complainant, 

vs. 

[)r>1ac Corporation 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. 

.Iudge 

JUDGE NO I YET ASSIGNED 

COMPLAINT 

The Federal Aviation Administration (F.AA), by counsel, hereby files its Complaint 

pursuant to Rule 20S of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. 13.208). and slates as follows: 

1. On April 19, 201 1, Respondent, Drylac Corporation was advised through a Final 

Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount 

of $60,000. On May 3, 2011, the Agency Attorney received a written rcqucsl for a hearing froni 

(he Respondent. 

2. On or about April 15, 2010, Drytac Corporation (hereinafter "'Drytac") knowingly 

offered to United Parcel Service ("IJPS'T a one-piece shipment consisting of a flbcrboard box 

containing hazardous materials for transportution by air ("shipment") 

3. The above-mentioned shipment was a.ssigned UPS 2'"* Day Air tracking 

number/air waybill IZ 3S3 47^ 02 5728 6906. The shipment was ofTered by Drytac 

Con'»oralion, for transportation lo the consignee. 739 Cajial St., New Orleans, Louisiana 70130. 

4. At all limes mentioned herein, the above-mentioned shipmciil was not 

accompimied by a Shipper's Certification or Dechiratioii oi' Dangerous Goods. 
5. On or about April 15, 2010, the above-mentioned shipment was flown on a 

regularly scheduled UPS cargo flight in air transportation lo the UPS sort facility in l,ouisvillc, 

Kentucky 

6. On or about April 15, 2010, ground-handling personnel at the UPS sort facility 

discovered (he above-mentioned shipment leaking and exhibiting a stain. 

7. Flie above-mentioned fiberboard box contained an inner box labeled with a 

"Class 3, Flammable Liquid" label and marked 'Tsopropanol LrN1219". which in turn contained 

a 1-gallon plastic bottle of "Mumco'"'^ Isopropol Alcohol" (with screw-top lids). 

8 Further invesngation showed (hat approximately Vj gallon of the above-described 

material had leaked into and through both fjberboard containers 

9. (a) "Humco^^^ Isopropol Alcohol" is classified as a hazardous material under 

the Department of Trajisportation Hazardous Materials F<egvilations (HMR) (49 C.F.R. 

§ 172.101). 

(b) The proper shipping name of the material is '"Humco'*''^^ Isopropitl 

Alcohol", h is in Fhizard Class 3 (Flammable Liquid), Packing Group II. and lias jn assigned 

idcntiOcation number of UN 1219. The proper label is FLAMMABLE LIQUID. 

10. Drytac offered the above-described shipment of hazardous material for 

transportation by air without shipping papers that inchided: 

(a) the assigned identification number prescribed for each hazardous maieriaU 

(b) the proper shipping name prescribed for each hazardous material; 

(c) the hazard class prescribed for each hazardous material: 

(d) the packing group prescribed for each hazardous material. 

(e) ihc total \\^\ mass per package of each hazardous material; and. 

(f) ihc number and type of packages containing hazardous material. 

11. Drytac offered the above-described shipment of hazardous materia! tbr 

transportation by nir iuid failed to: 

(a) certify that the materials were in accordance witl) the HMR (49 C.F.R. ^§ 

171, ct seg.) by printijig on the shipping papers the certification set forth in § 172.204(a)(1). 

172.204(a)(2), or § I 72.204(c) of the HMR; 

(b) prepare the required certiHcations in duplicate; and, 
18. Section 173.27(d) in that Drytac offered a package for transportation by air failed 

to ensure stoppers, corks or other such friction-type closures were held securely, tightly and 

effectively in |)lace by positive means, and that each screw-type closure on any packaging was 

secured to prevent closure from loosening due to vibration or substantia! change in temperature 

19. Section 1 73.202 in that Drytac otTered for transportation a package containing 

liquid haziirdous material in Packing Group 11 when §172 101 of this subchapter specified thai it 

be packaged under this section and failed to use non-bulk packagings prescribed in this section 

conforming to the general packaging requirements of subpart B of part 173. (o the requirements 

of part ! 78 of this subchapter at (he Flacking Group I or H perfbrmance level (unless otherwi.se 

excepted), and to the requirements of the special provisions of Column 7 of the §1 72 101 Table. 

20. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section 5123(a), Drytac Corporation is subject to a civil 

penalty not lower than $250 ($450 for training-related violations), nor greater than $50,000 

($100,000 ifdeath, .serious illness, severe injury, or substantial property damage results), for each 

violation of the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations 

21. Under the fads and circumstances of this ca.se, a civil penalty of $60,000 is 

appropriate. 

WMFI^.FORE, the Agency, by counsel respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge 

enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $60,000 

fhis amount includes consideration ot respondent's ability to pay and the corrective action it 

implemented as a result of the above allegations. 

Respectfully submillcd this day of May, 201 

GLl 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counse 

PLEASE NOTE: 

Pursu;mt to Title 14 CFR Section 13.209(a). you are required to file a written answer to this 

Complaint, or a wrillen Motion lo Dismiss if appropriate, not later than 30 days after the date 

shown on the Certiheate of Service which follows. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby ceilify that a copy of the foregoing Complaint has been mailed (his da(e by Certified 

Mail, Retum Receipt Requested, to the following: 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAA. AGC-430, Suite 2\V1000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

(original + 1 copy) 

Tim Rader, Vice-President 

Drytac, Inc. 

5383 Glen Alden, Dr. 

Richmond, VA 23231 

lY/N'H'/ricOOWELL 

LegM-^m^istiint 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

fiSAY I 3 2011 

Dated 

ru I nJ 

m m 

ru n j 

• o 

o • 

a CD 

o • 

^ r ^ 

O O 

r^ r-1 

O CI 

O F F J^1AJ^_LLS_E 

Ceni'iuri Fco 

IGnaorsciiiCnl Ri'quircd) 

Hcsincte',1 Delivery Fee 

(Enrlorsemenl Bequi'Wl) 

T«3i Pofitafji; ?. PeuE 

^ 

Sfreof, --U" Ni). 

^I^LSTK:. 

Hero 
UNITED STATES PC ^ xS^i^^ ^ .^,^^ . 

rN^®"^^=P'ease print your name, address, and ZIP+. 

Otfice:^ of the Regional Cou 

foi the Soolhern Region, 

Foc/erai Aviation Administ 

Post Office Box 20636 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

J C ; l"if'll<'nJI..,!,/ll..,fl,..,ll,„JI„fl,„JI,J{^,I^JJ 

1. AiticlQ AdtlresGed to: 

i o^CiSmpIeW items 1, 2, euid 3. Also complete 

rt^m 4 ff Restricted Delivery (s desired^ 

B Print your name and address or 

so that wr'Q can rotum the cac " 

• o Attach this card to ihe bad^dPthfflnailpiect 

or on the front if space pgnws . 

Tim Rad( 

Drytac, lnc.X:^:^^\fl^ 

5383 Glen Alden, Dr. 

Richtnond.VA 23231 

p. Js delivery 8ddress^Jifl(fK»Wrbm Hem i?''H f Yes 

H YES, enter doltvefy address betow: O No 

(^^^h^P^or^C^• \/cx • ^3ot ^ 

3. Sop/ice type 

WCeme d Mail D Express MoJI 

113 flogtetered D RaJum Rocelpt tor Meretiandlse 

D Insured Mail D C.O.D. 

4. Restricted Delivery? (Brtra FeeJ DYS S 

2. Mick) Number 

(Tmtsterfrptn service iabeO 7Q1D 167Q ODOe h3^^ 55bM 

: PS Form 3811 . February 2004 Domestic Retum Receipt 1CG59WJ2-M-1M0 

I EXHIBIT 
{c} add to the certification required in this section the following statement: 

"1 declare that all of the applicable air transport requirements have 

been met." 

12. Dr\lac offered the above-described shipment ot hazardous materials for 

transportation by air when: 

(a) the outer container was not marked with the proper shipping name of e;ich 

haz;u-dous material contained therein; 

(b) the outer container was not marked with the assigned identification 

number of each hazardous material contained therein; 

(c) the outer container was not marked with standard orientation markings (as 

prescribed in 49 C.F.R. § 172.312(a)} on two opposite vertical sides ofthe package with Ihe 

arrows pointing in the correct upright direction; and 

(d) a "FLAMMABLE LIQUID" label was not atTixed to the outer container. 

13. Drytac offered the above-described shipment of hazardous material for 

transportation by air ;md failed to make emergency response infbmiaiion available for use at all 

times the hazardous material was present. 

14. Drytac offered the above-described shipmeni of hazardous material tbr 

transportation by air and tailed to make an emergency response telephone number immediately 

available to the appropriate oft'icial person designated to respond lo an incident involving a 

hazardous material, or who was conducting an investigation involving a hazardous material 

15. Drytac olTered the above-described shipmeni of hazardous material tor 

transportation by air mid failed to ensure that each ofits hazmat employees was trained in 

accordance with the prescribed requirements as set forth in Section 1 72 704. 

16. Llpy'tac oiTered the above-described shipmeni of hazardous material for 

transportation by air when the packaging was not designed, constnjctcd. fnainfained, fjlk\\, its 

contents so limited, and closed, so that under conditions normally incident to transportation, 

there would be no identifiable release of hazardous material lo Ihc cnvironj7)ent. 

17. Drytac offered the above-described shipmeni for transportation by air and failed 

to use stoppers, corks, or other such friction-type closures that were held in place securely, 

tightly and effectively by positive means. 

18. Drylac offered (he above-described shipment of liquid hazardous materials for 

transportation by air and failed to use an auliiorized combination packaging tor its transportation. 
111. 

19. By reason of the above,. Drytac Corporation violated the following Department of 

Transportation II:iz;irdous Materials Regulations ('ritic 49 of Ihe Code of Federal Regulations)-

1. Section I 71.2(e) in that Drylac offered or transported a hazardous material for 

transportation in commerce when the hazardous material was not properly classed, described, 

packaged, marked, labeled, and in condition for shipment as required or authorized by applicable 

requirements o\' this subchapter, or an exemption, approval, or registration issued under this 

subchapter or under subchapter A of Ihis chapter. 

2. Sections 172.200(a) and 172.202(a)(I) in that Drytac offered a hazardous material 

for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on shipping papers including the 

identification number prescribed for the material ;is shomi in Column 4 of the jj 172.101 Table, 

in the manner required by this subpart. 

3. Sections 172.200(a) and 172.202(a)(2) in that Drylac offered a hazardous material 

for transportation cuid failed to de.scribe tiie hazardous material on shipping papers including the 

proper shipping name prescribed for the material as shown in Column 2 of the § 172,101 

Table. 

4. Sections 172.200(a) and 172.202(a)(3) in that Drytac offered a hazardous material 

for traasportalton and tailed to describe the hazardous material on shipping papers including the 

hazard class or division number prescribed for the material as shovsqi in Column 3 of the ^ 

I / Z. . I M 1 I tlL'll . . 

5. Sections 172 200(a) and 172.202(aX4) in (hat Drytac offered a hazardous material 

tor transportation and failed to dcscnbc the hazardous material on shipping papers including ihe 

packing group in Roman numerals, as designated for the hazardous material m Column 5 of the 

§ 172 101 Table. 

6. Sections 172 200(a) and 172.202(a)(6) in that Drylac offered a haziu-dous material 

for transportation by aircraft and failed to describe the hjizardous material on shipping papers 

showing the total mass per package, unless a gro.ss mass is indicated in Columns (9A) or (9B) 

of the § 1 72.101 fable in which case the total gross mass per package must be shown; or , for 

Class 7 materials, the quantity of radioactive must be shown by activity. 

7. Sections 172.200(a) ;uid 172.202(a)(7) in that Drytac offered a hazjirdous material 

for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous materia! on shipping papers indicating the 

number and typo of packages (tbr exiuiiple, " 12 drum:^"). 

8. Sections 172.204(a) or (c)( I) in that Drytac offered a hazardous material for 

transportation and failed to certify that the material was offered for transportation in accordance 

with this subchapter by printing on the shipping paper containing the required shipping 

description one of the certifications set forth in this part. 
9. Section 172.204(c)(2) in that Drylac offered a hazardous material to an aircraft 

operator for transportation by air and failed to provide two copies of the cenification required in 

this .section. 

10. Section 172.204(c)(3) in that Drytac offered for transportation by air a hazardous 

material authorized for air transportation and failed to add to the certification required in this 

section the following statement: 

"1 declare that all of the applicable air transport requirements have been met." 

1 1. Section 172.301(a) in that Drylac offered for transportation a hazardous material 

in a non-bulk packaging and failed to mark the package with the proper shipping narne and 

identification number (preceded by ''UN" or "NA", as appropriate) for the material as showii in 

the §172.101 table. 

12. Sections 172.300(a) ;ind 172.312(a)(2) in that Dryiac offered a non-bulk 

combination package having inner packagings containing liquid hazardous material for 

transportation and failed to legibly mark the outer package with package orientation markings 

that conform pictorially to ISO Standard 780-1895, on two opposite vertical sides of the package 

with the arrows pointing in the correct upright direction. 

1 3. Section I 72.400(a) in that Drytac offered for transportation a hazardous material 

in one of the packages or containment devices listed in this subpart and failed to label the 

package or eontaimnent device with the labels sjDCcified for the material in the >; 1 72.101 Table 

and in this subpart. 

14. Section 172.600(c)(1) in that Drylac offered for transportation a h.'izardous 

material and failed to make the emergency response information conforming to this subpart 

inuncdiatcly available for use at all times the hazardous material was present. 

1 5 Section 172.600(c)(2) in that Drytac offered for transportaiion a hazardous 

material and failed to make emergency response information including the emergency response 

telephone number, immediately available (o atiy government agency responding fo an incider?l 

involving hazardous materials or conducting an investigation which involves a hazardous 

material. 

16. Section 172.702(a) in that Drytac offered a hazardous material for transportation 

and tailed to ensure that each ofits hazmat employees was trained in accordance with the 

requirements prescribed in this subpart 

1 7. Section 173.24(b)(1) in that Drytac failed to use a package which was designed, 

constnicted, maintained, filled, its contents so limited, and closed, so that under conditions 

nomially incident to transportation, there would be Jio identifiable (without the use of 

instruments) release of hazardous material to the enviroinnent.