07/11/2011 12:27 FAX 202^935112 FAA T DMS 001/006 

Law Offices of Houston Tuel 

1550 Harbor Blvd., tt206 

West Sacramento, CA 95691 

Tel.(916)37&0100 

Fax (916) 37&0299 

Memo 

To: FAA Hearing Docket Clerk. 

From: Houston Tuel 

Date: July 6,2011 ^OII'O^^L 

Re-. In the Matter of Greenwood Chevrolet, Case #2008WP700205 

Please find enclosed the original and two copies of Greenwood Chevrolet's 

Answer to Connplaint in the above case, assigned to Judge Richard C. Goodwin. 

Please file the same and return one endorsed copy to this office in the envelope 

provided. If you have any question, please feel free to give me a call at the telephone 

number above. 

Houston Tue( 

GmixswiCT; Cic v F^A.CtsJVrT¥::i.7-6-11 
07/11/2011 12:27 FAX 2024935142 FAA DMS [^1002/006 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES OF HOUSTON TUEL 

HOUSTON N. TUEL, JR., SB #060114 

1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 206 

West Sacramento, CA 95691 

(916) 376-0100 Telephone 

(916) 376-0299 Facsimile 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT 

M -. \ 

^;wARlNG^' ^^^r:Kt -

: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

In the Matter of: 

GREENWOOD CHEVROLET. 

Respondent 

FAA DOCKET 

FAA CASE NO. 2008WP700205 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

JUDGE - RICHARD C. GOODWIN 

Pursuant to Rule 209 ot the Rules of Practice (14 CFR 13.209), Respondent 

Greenwood Chevrolet files its Answer to the Complaint herein by stating as follows: 

1. In answer to Paragraph II.3. of the Complaint, Respondent lacks sufficient 

knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of such paragraph and, on that 

ground, denies each and every allegation thereof. 

2. In answer to Paragraph 11.4. of the Complaint, Respondent admits that the 

shipment consisted of a fiberboard box containing a fuel pump wrapped in plastic, but 

denies that "Apparently a quarter of a liter of motor gasoline had leaked from the fuel 

pump" and affirmatively alleges that the amount of motor gasoline that leaked from the fuel 

pump, if any, was less than a quarter of a liter. 

3. In answerto Paragraph 11.8. of the Complaint. Respondent admits that as of 

Gtoenwocd C.'"e».FAA.i*ni 7-1.1", 
07/14/201 1 12 27 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 0 003/00 6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

today's date Mark Lacasa is a hazmat employee of Respondent and that Greenwood 

Chevrolet is a hazmat employer, as defined in 49 CFR 171.8, but denies that Mark Lacasa 

was a hazmat employee on or before May 28.2008, and denies that Greenwood Chevrolet 

was a hazmat employer on or before such date. Respondent admits that Mark Lacasa 

offered the hazardous materials referred to in Paragraph 11.8. for transportation when he 

had not been trained in the transportation of hazardous materials in accordance with 

Subpart H of Part 172 of 49 CFR. 

4. In answerto subparagraph a. of Paragraph III of the Complaint, Respondent 

denies that it violated 49 CFR 171.2(e). 

5. In answerto subparagraph b. of Paragraph III of the Complaint, Respondent 

denies that it violated 49 CFR 172.200(a). 

6. In answerto subparagraph c. of Paragraph 111 of the Complaint, Respondent 

denies that it violated 49 CFR I72..202(a)(1)(2)(3)(4)&(5). 

7. In answer to subparagraph d. of Paragraph III of the Complaint. Respondent 

denies that it violated 49 CFR 172.204(a). 

8. In answer to subparagraph e. of Paragraph III of the Complaint, Respondent 

denies that it violated 49 CFR 172.300(a). 

9. In answerto subparagraph f. of Paragraph III of the Complaint, Respondent ~ 

denies that it violated 49 CFR 172.400(a). 

10. In answer to subparagraph g. of Paragraph III of the Complaint. Respondent 

denies that it violated 49 CFR 172.600(c). 

11. In answer to subparagraph h. of Paragraph III of the Complaint, Respondent 

denies that tt violated 49 CFR 172.604(a). 

12. In answer to subparagraph i. of Paragraph III of the Complaint, Respondent 

Gf^enwooJCIni..F'\A Ana 7.1-11 
07/U/201 1 12.27 FAX 2024935i42 FAA r OMS 12)004/006 

1 

2 

3 

A 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

denies that it violated 49 CFR 172.702(a). 

13. In answerto subparagraph), of Paragraph 111 of the Complaint, Respondent 

denies that it violated 49 CFR 172.704. 

14. In answer to subparagraph k. of Paragraph III of the Complaint, Respondent 

denies that it violated 49 CFR 173.1(b). 

15. In answer to subparagraph I of Paragraph III of the Complaint, Respondent 

denies that it violated 49 CFR 173.3(a). 

16. In answer to subparagraph m. of Paragraph IN ofthe Complaint. Respondent 

denies that it violated 49 CFR 173.22(a). 

17. In answerto subparagraph n. of Paragraph III of the Complaint, Respondent 

denies that it violated 49 CFR 173.24(b)(1). 

18. In answer to subparagraph o. of Paragraph III ofthe Complaint, Respondent 

denies that it violated 49 CFR 173.27(e)(3). 

19. In answer to Paragraph IV. 1. of the Complaint, Respondent denies that it is 

liable for a civil penalty in any amount whatsoever. 

20. In answer to Paragraph IV.2. ofthe Complaint, Respondent denies that a civil 

penalty of $56,000.00 is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case. 

21. Respondent admits the allegations of the Complaint except for those herein 

denied. 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Complainant's action against Respondent is barred by the. Doctrine of Laches in that 

Complainant unreasonably delayed the sending of a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty and 

the Final Notice of Civil Penalty as well as the filing of the Complaint, all to the detriment 

and prejudice of Respondent. 

Greenwood.Cnen FAy^Ar.j.7 11 1 O 
07/14/2011 12:27" FAX 2024935142 FAA -• 0^.1 S 121005/OOG 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

The amount of gasoline Respondent attempted to transport fell within the 

parameters of the "small quantity exception" set forth in 49 CFR 173.4. 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

The quantity of gasoline attempted to be shipped by Respondent was small enough 

to represent a de minimus amount. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

The employee who attempted to ship the gasoline was not authorized by 

Respondent to do so. did not realize he was shipping gasoline, and has been reprimanded 

for violating Respondent's policies and procedures, and Respondent has taken all 

necessary and reasonable corrective actions following the unauthorized shipment, 

including providing hazmat training to the subject employee. Respondent has taken 

reasonable precautions to prevent the reoccurrence of the violations alleged in the 

Complaint, if any. Accordingly, Complainant's proposed civil penalty denies Respondent 

fundamental fairness in violation ofthe Due Process Clause ofthe U.S. Constitution. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge 

find that Respondent has violated none of the regulations cited in the Complaint and that 

he enter an order assessing no civil penalty against Respondent 

Dated: July 6, 2011 Respectfully submitted. 

Law Offices of Houston Tuel 

HOUSTON N. TUEL, JR, ^ 

Attorneys for Respondent 

By: 

Cmsn*oM ZhC' F&A.Ant /-i-i i 
07/14/2011 12.28 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS aooe/ooe 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

25 

26 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this date I have placed in the United States mail, postage 

prepaid, the executed original ofthe Answerto Complaint, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D-C 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

I further certify that on this date I have placed in the United States mail, postage 

prepaid, a true copy of the Answer to Complaint, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Giround Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington. D.C. 20590 

Lisa J. Toscano, Attorney 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-7 

Western-Pacific Region 

Federal Aviation Administration • 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

Dated: July 6. 2011 

^r- Katherv Katheryn HuDoeruppt\ ^ 

Legal Secretary 

Law Offices of Houston Tuel 

G'acninrDOO CJn*" FA>» Po(3