UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASIDNGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

EXTREME ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC. 

FDMS NO. FAA-2015-1322 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

RECEIVED 

HEARING DOCKET 

AGENCY'S MOTION TO DEEM ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED 

AND FOR A DECISION REGARDING THE VIOLATIONS 

The Complainant moves for an Order deeming admitted each allegation in Sections I and II 

of the complaint. The basis for this motion is that Respondent failed to answer the complaint 

within 3 0 days 1 of the date on which it was served. In accordance with § 13 .209( f) of the Rules 

of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 C.F.R. part 13, subpart G, unless Respondent 

demonstrates that there is good cause for this failure, it constitutes an admission of the truth of 

each allegation contained in the complaint. This motion is based on the following facts: 

1. Complainant served the complaint on Respondent by certified mail, return receipt 

requested, on June 9, 2015? 

2. Included at the end of the complaint is a notice informing Respondent of the requirement 

to submit an answer within 30 days of service and the fact the failure to do so, without good 

cause, constitutes an admission of the truth of each allegation in the complaint. 

3. Respondent received the complaint on June 19, 2015? 

4. In its letter to Respondent dated June 9, 2015, (Exhibit B) Complainant specifically 

advises Respondent that notwithstanding any previous denials, it must still submit an answer to 

the complaint. 

5. To date Respondent has not submitted an aiJswer. 

1 Because the complaint was served by mail, Respondent had an additional five days. 14 C.P.R. § 13 .211( e). 

2 See Exhibit A, which is a copy of Complainant's flle copy of the PS Forms 3800 aod 3811 aod frrst page of the 

June 9, 2015 letter sent to Respondent along with Respondent's copy of the cover letter aod complaint sent to the 

Hearing Docket. 3 See Exhibit B, which is a complete copy of Complainant's June 9, 2015 letter to Respondent (without the 

enclosures, which were the cover letter to the Hearing Docket aod complaint). 

1 
Because the complaint was served by mail on June 9, 2015, Respondent had until July 14, 

2015, to submit an answer. Respondent is already 58 days late, and this period is still growing. 

Unless Respondent can demonstrate good cause for the entire period of this failure,§ 13.209(f) 

requires that each allegation in the complaint be deemed admitted. Absent such a showing of 

good cause, Complainant is entitled to what it now seeks-an Order deeming admitted each 

allegation in Sections I and II of the complaint. In the Matter of Air Florida Express, Inc., FAA 

Order No. 2002-9 (April15, 2002); In the Matter of Ronald Burger, FAA Order No. 2002-8 

(April15, 2002). 

Based on an order deeming admitted each allegation in Sections I and II of the complaint, 

Complainant further moves for a decision with respect to the violations alleged in paragraph 

III. I. The basis for this motion is that with the allegations in Sections I and II of the complaint 

deemed admitted, there is no genuine issue as to a material fact, and the Complainant is entitled 

as a matter oflaw to an Order finding that Respondent violated the regulations as alleged in 

paragraph III.l ofthe complaint.4 

Respectfully submitted this lOth day of September 2015. 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

for Enforcement 

By: 

Enforcement Division, Western Team 

222 W 7th Avenue Box 14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

email: glenn.brown@faa.gov 

telephone: (907) 271-5271 (direct) 

(907)271-2800 (fax) 

4 If the allegations in Sections I and II of the complaint are deemed admitted and this motion for decision regarding 

the violations is granted, the only remaining issue will be the amount of the civil penalty. 

2 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Re: Extreme Energy Solutions, Inc. 

FDMS No. FAA-2015-1322 

I hereby certify that on this date I have served a copy of the Agency's Motions to Deem 

Allegations Admitted and for a Decision Regarding the Violations by postage-prepaid, certified 

mail, return receipt requested and facsimile transmission to the following: 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310 

Washington, DC 20590 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

Mr. Samuel K. Burlurn, President/CEO 

Extreme Energy Solutions, Inc. 

150 Main Street 

Ogdensburg, NJ 07439 

Fax: 973-209-4796 

I further certify that on this date I have served the original and one copy of the Agency's Motions 

to Deem Facts Admitted and for a Decision Regarding the Violations by postage-prepaid, 

certified mail, return receipt requested and facsimile, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO 

Fax: (202) 493-5020 

DATED:~- /0 .:ltJ;s-- / 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, AAL-7 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587 

3 
U. S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Case No. 2015NM730008 

:JUN. -9 2015 

Alaskan Region 

Otlice of the Regional Counsel 

222 W. 7th Avenue #14 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587 

Phone: (907} 271-5271 

Fax: (907} 271-2800 

Email: glenn.brown@faa!.!ov 

FIRST CLASS MAIL and CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Samuel K. Burlum, President/CEO 

Extreme Energy Solutions, Inc. 

150 Main Street 

Ogdensburg, NJ 07439 

Dear Mr. Burlum: 

This responds to your four undated letters sent to us on June I, 2015. They are in response to 

Notice oflnformal Conference, which we served on April29, 2015, and our Final Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty, which we served on May 22,2015. 

We initiated this case when we served a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty dated February 19, 

2015. In it we allege that on October 23,2014, Extreme Energy Solutions (EES) offered a 

AAL-7 

package to United Parcel Service for transportation by air from New Jersey to Shanghai, China_~'ctfrumi'G'm;;;;;;:-­

and that the package contained a hidden shipment of twelve canisters of a flammable aerosol. F, 

D 

l~!JWBSJOpU:J) "' 1;:---' 

G(j pO)::.ijJ)~C/1.1 0 

Hii!WQS!OpU::J) Cl 

)~;lJJfl\<:lU O 

D 

D 

rr 

~ 

.. ·.·.- w . ru 

.,... ' ,, . rr 

ru 

rr 

rr 

the numerous violations of the Hazardous Materials Regulations arising out of this incident, we Fmm;;;;;---

propose to assess a $19,400 civil penalty. 

In a letter a<lj........:::..::::====::.:...:.7--!:----"""';.-j summarize 1. Art1c1e AddresS'!d to: 

requested 

you to let us 

We called 

phone .inf<mri 

18, 2015. 

Snmud K Burlum. 

Extreme Energy Sohllih'"• 

150 Maiu Strcrl 

Ogdensburg, i\.J 07~39 

. Is delivery address different trom item 

If YES, errter delivery address below-: 

3. Servlce Type if Certified Mail 

0 Registered 

lnsuted Mall 

0 Express Mall 

0 Retum Receipt for Merchandise 

D 

FAA Form 1360·14.1 2· ArtlcleNumt 7006 0810 DODO 6321 6266 

• 

:_ _l~~ro~ns~fu~r~~~'7=====~~==~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~G~,I~IB~~;;~~~ · R · t 102595.nz.l,H540 PS Form 3811, August 2001 Dome:;,ilc Return ,!':~~o1p 
U.S. Department 

ofTr.msportation 

Federal Avintion 

Adminb;tration 

Case No. 2015NM730008 

JU~ -9 2015 

Alaskan Region 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

222 \V. 7th Avenue #14 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587 

Phone: (907) 271-5271 

Fa." (907) 271-2800 

Email: glcnn.brown@faa.!!ov 

FIRST CLASS MAIL and CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Samuel K. Burlum, President/CEO 

Extreme Energy Solutions, Inc. 

150 Main Street 

Ogdensburg, NJ 07439 

Dear Mr. Burlum: 

This responds to your four undated letters sent to us on June 1, 2015. They are in response to our 

Notice oflnformal Conference, which we served on April29, 2015, and our Final Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty, which we served on May 22, 2015. 

We initiated this case when we served a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty dated February 19, 

2015. In it we allege that on October 23,2014, Extreme Energy Solutions (EES) offered a 

package to United Parcel Service for transportation by air from New Jersey to Shanghai, China, 

and that the package contained a hidden shipment of twelve canisters of a flammable aerosol. For 

the munerous violations of the Hazardous Materials Regulations arising out of this incident, we 

propose to assess a $19,400 civil penalty. 

You responded on behalf ofEES with a letter dated March 17, 2015. In it you deny a number of 

the allegations and raise various defenses. You offer to settle with a $1000 civil penalty, request a 

telephonic informal conference with an FAA attorney, and state your desire for a formal hearing 

if we are not able to reach a reasonable resolution of the case. 

In a letter dated April29, 2015, we responded to your March 17, 2015 letter. In ourletter.we 

summarize the allegations an events to date, reject your settlement offer, and inform you the 

requested informal conference is set for May 14,2015, at 2:00p.m. Eastern Time. We also invite 

you to let us know if another date and time would work better so that we could reschedule it. 

We called you at the number you provided at the designated time. The person who answered the 

phone informed us that you were out of the office until the following Monday, which was May 

18,2015. After I explained the reason for the call, she indicated she would let you know that we 
had called. I then asked her to let you know that if you still wanted an informal conference, to 

call me early the following week. She indicated at that point that she would send you an email 

with this information. 

Postal Service on-line tracking records indicate that the Notice of Infom1al Conference was 

available for pick-np beginning at 8:50a.m. on May 5, 2015, and was fmal.ly claimed at 12:03 

p.m. on May 18,2015. 

Although you had my email address, phone number, and mailing address, you did not contact me 

during the week of May 18,2015. Consequently, we concluded you no longer wished to have an 

informal conference, and on May 22,2015, we served our Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty 

in this matter. 

In your four responses on behalfofEES, you deny the allegations, contend EES's right to an 

informal conference has been violated, offer to settle with a civil penalty of $5850, and request a 

formal hearing. You also indicate you submitted these documents to the FAA's hearing docket 

clerk in Washington, DC. 

Because you submitted a written request for a hearing to the hearing docket clerk, the regulations 

require that we file a complaint. We are herewith doing so. The copy we are serving on EES is 

enclosed. 

Please note that despite the previous denials, the applicable regulation, 14 C.F.R. § 13.209, 

requires that EES submit an answer to the complaint in which it specifically admits, denies, or 

states it is without sufficient information to admit or deny each numbered paragraph in the 

complaint. A general denial of the complaint is deemed a failure to file an answer, which, unless 

there is good cause for it, is deemed an admission of each allegation. EES's ans\ver must be 

served within 30 days of the date on which we serve the complaint, which in this case is the date 

of this letter. 

Regarding the req nested informal conference, the regulatory requirement is that we provide an 

opporlunity for such a conference. This we did. As noted above, the notice regarding it was 

available for EES to pick-up beginning on May 5'h. This was a reasonable time for EES to have 

claimed the letter and request a different time. Further, when we did call on May 141

h, we were 

told you would be advised that day via email, and the notice and our cover letter were picked up 

on May 181

h Yet it wasn't unti!June I, 2015, and after you had received our final notice that you 

contacted us. 

We, nevertheless, remain willing to discuss the case with you in an effort to reach a settlement. 

Please give me some dates and times that will work for EES, and we will endeavor to schedule a 

call at a mutually convenient time. Here in Alaska we are four hours behind Eastern Time, so 

sometime between I :00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time is the most likely time for it. 
Such settlement discussions do not serve to delay the procedural requirements set forth in 14 

C.F.R. part 13, subpart G. EES must still submit its answer and comply with any deadlines that 

may be imposed by the assigned administrative law judge. 

Call or email me if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Glenn 

JJL'~ H. Brown 

Senior Attorney 

Enclosure