09/10/201 0 17:0 0 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS glOOI/OOS 

RlTZERT & LEYTON 

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

ATTORNEY S AT LAW 

11350 RANDOM HILLS ROAD surrc 400 

FAI HI-AX, VIRGINIA 22030 

703.934.2660 voiCF. 703.934 9840 FAX , ^ , 

Also admitted in Maryland stchema@ritzert-leyton.com 

Direct: 703-934-9835 

September 1, 2010 

Via Federal Express. Priority Overnight Delivery •~> i 

^ "'^i^-^WC 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAA. AGC-430. Suite 2W1000 $£p n ; 2 m 

Wilbur Wright Building 

800 Independence Ave, SW >,- .-. i-tm . ^ 

Washington, DC 20591 ^ ' --^^HJNG DOCKE T 

RE: In the Matter of Milan Institute of Cosmetology !-^ i ' o 

FAA Docket No. CP10SO0009 -^ -10.^3 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0629 - ^jo^ : 

FAA Case No. 2010SO700101 ^=5^5-' 

-0 P 

Dear Sir or Madam: o c75 

In connection with the above-referenced case, please find enclosed Respondent, 

Milan Institute of Cosmetology's, answer to the Federal Aviation Administration's 

Complaint. Also enclosed are two photocopies of the filing and a pre-addressedpostage paid envelope. We kindly request that you send Respondent's counsel a timestamped copy using the enclosed envelope. We thank you in advance for this favor. 

Respondent requests that the hearing in this matter be held in Washington, DC, and 

concurs with counsel for the FAA that the hearing should not last longer than one day. 

Sincerely, 

Stephen T. Chema II 

Counsel for Milan Institute of Cosmetology 

^^i* ; 

^'^'Q . 

Enclosures as referenced above. 

SIC/ 
09/10/2010 17:01 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS gioo2/ooe 

EfVED 

IJ.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION $£p Q y pMn 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS "'*' 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In the madcr of: 

Milan Institute ot Cosmetology 

Respondent. 

HEARING DOCKBT 

FAA Docket No. CP10800009 

DMS No. FA A.2010-0629 

MILAN INSTITUTE OF 

COSMETOLOGY'S ANSWER TO 

COMPLAINT 

ANSWER 

The Respondent, Milan Institute of Cosmetology ("MIC" or the ^'School") an.swers the Complaint 

of the Federal Aviation Administration herein in accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 13.209 and respectfully 

states as follows: 

I. 

MIC admits that on July 12, 2010, MIC was advised through a Final Notice of Propo.sed Civil 

Penalty that FAA proposed to assess a civil penally in ihc amount of $49,200. On July 26, 2010, 

Respondent provided a written request for a hearing in this, matter. 

U. 

1. In response to paragraph 1 of the complaint, MIC denies the averments of paragraph 1. 

MIC admits that on January 14, 2010 that it offered a fiberboard box containing Rusk 

Shining, a styling agent used in connection with the School's cosmetology programs for 

shipment to United Parcel Service C*UPS"). With regard to the averment that the 

fiberboard box was "iion-specification", the Complainant staiiis a legal conclusion to 

which no answer is required. Futther, the School respectfully denies that it "knowingly" 

or intentionally offered a shipmeni lo IIPS containing hazardous materials for 

transportation by air. 

2. MIC admits the averments in paragraph 2. 

3. MIC admits the avennents in p.'iragraph 3, 

4. MIC is without .specific informalion lo adinll or deny the averments of paragraph 4. 

5. MIC admits the averments of paragraph 5-
09/10/2010 17:01 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 1^003/006 

6. MIC is without specific information to admit or deny the averments of paragraph 6. 

7. MIC is without specific information to admil or deny the averments of paragraph 7, 

8- MIC is without specific information to admit or deny the iivermenis of paragraph 8. In 

addition, paragraph 8 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response i.s required. 

9. MIC is without specific information to admit or deny the averments of paragraph 9. In 

addition, paragraph 9 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. 

10. MIC admits that the fiberboard box offered for Next Day Air shipment to UPS did not 

contain shipping papers displaying the information listed in subparagraphs 10(a) through 

10(0 of the complaint. 

11. MIC admits that the fiberboard box offered for Next Day Air shipment to UPS did not 

contain shipping papers displaying the certification described in subparagraphs 11(a) 

through 11(c) of the complaint. 

12. MIC is without, specific informalion to admit or deny the averments of paragraph 12. 

13. MIC denies the averments in paragraph 13. MIC, upon belief and information provided 

contact information to UPS in connection with the shipment ihat it believed would be 

sufficient in the event of an emergency involving the shipment. 

14. MIC denies the averments in paragraph 14. MIC, upon belief and information provided 

contact information lo UPS in connection with the shipment that it believed would be 

.•iufficicnr in the event of an emergency involving the shipment. 

15. MIC is without specific information to admit or deny (he averments of paragraph 15. 

16. MIC is without specific information to admit or deny the averments of paragraph 16. 

ill. 

17. The averments of paragraph 17 call for « legal conclusion for which no response is 

required. 

18. The averments of paragraph 18 call for a legal conclusion for which no response is 

required. 

19. The averments of paragraph 19 call for a legal conclusion for which no respon.se is 

required. 
09/10/2010 17:01 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS lg|004/006 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

First Affirmative Defense 

The fiberboard box containing Rusk Shining, which the School offered to UPS for Next Day Air 

Shipment falls under the exceptions for limited quantities of flammable liquids under 49 C.F.R. § 

173.150(b) and the Consumer commodity exception under 49 C.F.R. § 173.150(c). Therefore, the 

School's shipment qualified for exemptions to certain labeling, specification packaging, and shipping 

paper requirements under the Hazardous Materials Regulations ("HMR"). The alleged regulatory 

violations of paragraph 17 of the complain! do not apply in ihcir entirety to the School's shipment. 

Second Affirmative Defense 

Assuming, arguendo, that there was any violation of any FAA regulation applied to the shipment 

as alleged in the complaint, the School did not knowingly or intentionally attempt to violate any said FAA 

regulation. 

Third Affirmative Defense 

The School upon being contacted by both representatives of UPS and FAA has cooperated fully 

with all requests for information of both UPS and FAA. Furtlier, the School has fiilly cooperated with 

FAA'b investigation into the alleged shipmeni. The School's President, alarmed by the allegations raised 

in the FAA Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, ordered an internal investigation into the events that gave 

rise to the FAA's investigation and the compliant. Upon review of the incident, the School determined 

thai a MIC employee, an Tnvcniory Specialis( ai The School's .San Anionio campus, had attempted to 

send the shipment of Rusk Shining to the School's Reno, Nevada campus in response to a request from 

the Inventory Specialist at the Reno campus. MIC ultimately concluded after interviewing the employees 

involved and through review of the School's records that the attempted shipment represented a one-time 

occurrence, and that there was no pattern or practice of inter-campus shipments of flammable materials 

via air freight, or ocherwi.se, at MIC. To the School's knowledge and belief, it has never before been cited 

for any violation of FAA regulations or violations of any kind under the HMR. 

FAA's allegations broughi the School's duty lo safeguard the public with regard to the shipment 

of beauty products into clear focus. Without admitting any infraction of any FAA regulation as alleged in 

the compliant, MIC has voluntarily reviewed its existing policies and implemented additional procedures 

governing the School's inventory of beauty products used in connection with its educational programs. 

Additionally, the School has implemented policies that govern the tran.sfer of inventory between 

campuses, which are directed at preventing any future shipmeni of a hazardous material without the prior 

review and approval of the School's Director of Inventory Specialists. The School has explained its new 

policies and provided training on them to all of its Inventory Specialists. The School remains open to any 

further rccommcndaiions that FAA may have in the area of policies and procedures and training related to 

ihe sliipmcm of hazardous materials. 
^On^^^^^F n 2024935142 FAA + DMS @1 005/006 

The School also notes, u> its knowledge and belief, Ihat no damage or injuries resulted from the 

attempted shipment of Rusk Shining. 

In light of the facts and circumstances set forth above, the penally sought by FAA in the 

complaint is excessive and/or unreasonable. There should be no penalty assessed herein, bui if any 

penalty is asses.scd it should be for no more than the minimum amount authorized by law. 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

MIC respectfully requests the following relief-. 

1. That the complaint be dismissed, and the petitioner take nothing; or in the alternative, 

2. That ihc alleged penalty be reduced to the minimum amount allowed by law for one 

alleged violation, or by such amount as permitted in the intere.sr of justice. 

MILAN INSTITUTE OF COSMETOLOGY 

By Counsel 

^d±. 

/I'l^iA ^ -ZT" 

Stephen T. Chema 11, Esq. 

Peter S. Leyton. Esq. 

Ritzen: & Leyton, PC 

11350 Random Hills Road, Suite 400 

Fairfax, VA 22030 

703-934-2660 (p) 

703-934-9840 (0 
09/10/2010 17:01 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS gjooe/oos 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the forgoing Milan Institute of Cosmetology's Answer to 

Complaint has been mailed by Federal Express, Priority Overnight Delivery to the following: 

Original & One Copy 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2 WJOOO 

Wilbur Wright Building 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

One Copy 

Andrea Michelle Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Admini.stration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL; 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

fe//^- T (Jiu^u.^ IT 

Stephen T. Chema IT, Esq. 

Attorney for Respondent 

Rif.ien & Lcylon. PC 

11350 Random Hills Rd., 

Suite 400 

Fairfax, VA 22030 

TEL; 703-934-2660 

FAX: 703-934-9840 

Dated: jLp'-'^^^'^M.Js. / , 2- ^ / O