AprilS, 2013 

Hearing Docket 

Roy J. Transit 

Attorney at Law 

P.O. BOX 1578 

Royal Oak, Ml48068-1578 

586-491-6822 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk- AGC 430 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW. 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

RE: Docket No: FAA-2013-0047 

Case No. 2012NE700128 

In the Matter of: Facility Solutions, Inc. 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

Dear Hearing Docket Clerk: 

RECEIVED 

APR- 9 2ti3 

HEARING DOCKET 

Please find enclosed for filing in the above referenced matter the Respondent's Answer to 

the Complaint, and appearing on the last two pages my Proof of Service of the Answer. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

cc. Judge J. E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearing, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Brian K. Khan 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

2300 East Devon Ave., AGL-7H 

Des Plains, lilinois 60018 

Facility Solutions, Inc. 
RECEIVED 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APR_ g 2813 OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

In the Matter of: 

Facility Solutions, Inc. 

Respondent 

WASHINGTON, DC HeARING DOCKET 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0047 

Case No. 2012NE700128 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

--------------------------------------------~' Roy J. Transit 

roytransit @corneas!. net 

Attorney for Respondent: Facility Solutions, Inc. 

P.O. BOX 1578 

Royal Oak, MI 48068-1578 

586-491-6822 

Fax: 248-564-0940 

Brian K. Khan 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

2300 East Devon Ave., AGL-7H 

Des Plains, Illinois 60018 

847-294-7652 

Fax: 847-294-7498 _____________________________________________________ .! 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT 

Now comes Facility Solutions, Inc., by and through their attorney, Roy J. Transit and 

makes the following response to the Complaint Dated 3/14/2013 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), and states as follows in regards to each of the paragraphs set forth in the 

Complaint: 

Section I 

The Respondent admits the allegations of this paragraph. 
Section II 

I. Respondent denies this paragraph for the reason that the passenger, Jeffrey Dwyer was 

not acting on behalf of the Respondent, Facility Solutions, Inc. 

2. Respondent denies this paragraph for the reason that the passenger, Jeffrey Dwyer was 

not acting on behalf of the Respondent, Facility Solutions, Inc., and as to what baggage 

was check, the Respondent has no way of knowing, and therefore denies the paragraph 

and leaves the Petitioner to their proofs 

3. Respondent is without sufficient information or personal knowledge to admit or deny this 

claim and therefore leaves the Petitioner (FAA) to their proofs. 

4. Respondent is without sufficient information or personal knowledge to admit or deny this 

claim and therefore leaves the Petitioner (FAA) to their proofs. 

5. Respondent is without sufficient information or personal knowledge to admit or deny this 

claim and therefore leaves the Petitioner (FAA) to their proofs. 

6. Respondent is without sufficient infonnation or personal knowledge to admit or deny this 

claim and therefore leaves the Petitioner (FAA) to their proofs. 

7. Denied. 

8. Denied. 

9. Denied. 

10. Denied. 

II. Denied. 

12. Denied. 

13. Denied. 
14. Denied. 

Section III 

Facility Solutions denies that it acted in violation of the Department of Transportation 

Hazardous Material Regulations in that the passenger Jeffery Dwyer, was the ticketed 

passenger and was not acting in the course or scope of his employment if the said violations 

occurred, and in response to each of the subparagraphs the Respondent states as follows: 

a. Denied. 

b. Denied. 

c. Denied. 

d. Denied. 

e. Denied. 

f. Denied. 

g. Denied. 

h. Denied. 

1. Denied. 

J. Denied. 

k. Denied. 

1. Denied. 

m. Denied. 

Section IV 

I. That the Respondent did not violate the provisions of 49 CFR 171, 172 or 173 and as 

such should not be subject to any civil fine under the circumstances. Further, the FAA 

has whole ignored the responsible party, Jeffery Dywer, and has not made him 
accountable in any way for the alleged violations of the CFR and seeks to impose 

liability on a non-responsible party. 

2. If the Respondent is found to be responsible for one or any violations of the CFR then 

the proposed civil penalty is outrageous and extreme in consideration of the fact that 

this is a first offense, the cargo was found before shipment and the Jeffery Dwyer was 

acting outside the course and scope of his employment with the Respondent. 

Wherefore, the Respondent respectfnll y requests that the court make a finding that 

Facility Solutions is not in violation of the Department of Transportation Hazardous Material 

Regulations, or in the alternative, assess the minimum civil penalty allowed for each violation. 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

A copy of this: Respondent's Answer to the Complaint was served upon, 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

By Federal Express Courier, and upon the following: 

Judge J. E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearing, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 
Brian K. Khan 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

2300 East Devon Ave., AGL-7H 

Des Plains, Illinois 60018 

On April 8, 2013, by US Mail, postage prepaid, by the undersigned. 

Dated: April 8, 2013