### SERVE D FEBRUAR Y 23,201 0 U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N r^'/cj ^

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C
. I N TH E MATTE RO F REDO X TECH , LLC , Respondent. FA A DOCKE T NO
. CP09AL001 3 (Civi l Penalty Proceeding ) DM S NO
. FAA-2009-097 8
ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDGE' S ORDE RDENYIN G MOTIO N FO RJUDGMEN T O N TH E PLEADING S Th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA " o r "Complainant" ) ha s file damotio n for

decisio n unde r

§ 13.218(f)(5 ) o f

th e Rule s o f

Practic e an d Procedure , 1 4 C.F.R
. § 13.218(f)(5)
. Th e gravame n o f th e motio n i s tha t

th e Respondent' s answe r

ha s admitte dth e allegation s o f th e complain t

tha t relat e t o th e Respondent' s liability , leavin g for decisio n onl y th e issu e o f th e amoun t o f th e civi l penalt y tha t

shoul db e assessed
. I n thi s order , I den y th e motion
. O n Septembe r

5 , 2007 , Redo x Tech , LL C ("Redox " o r "Respondent" ) shippe db y Federa l Expres s ai r transportatio n ahydrauli c pum p with an internal combustio n engine , a n accompanyin g lead/aci dstorag e battery an da can . o f "Thrus t Quic k Startin g Fluid.'- ' Th e shipmen t originate di n Attleboro , Massachusett s an dwa s destine dfo r aconsigne e i n Anchorage , Alaska
. Accordin g t o th e complaint , whe n th e shipmen t arrive dat

it s destination , th e engin e promptl y started , indicatin g tha t th e shipmen t

include dsufficien t

fue l t o accomplis h tha t

purpose . O n Ma y 14 , 2008 , th e Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l for th e FAA' s Alaska n Regio n issuedaNotic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalt y t o th e Respondent , allegin g tha t th e shipmen t

ha dresulte di n 1 8 violation s o f th e Department' s Hazardou s Material s Regulation s ("HMR" ) b y shippin ghazardou s material s b y ai r without , inte r

alia , prope r

shippin g papers , labeling , information , certification , statement , markin g o r preparation
. Th e Responden t

timel y requeste dahearing , an dth e FA A file dacomplain t seekin g assessmen t

o f a n $84,00 0 civi l penalt y agains t th e Respondent
. O n Novembe r

24 , 2009 , Responden t

file dadocumen t

entitle d "Respons e t o Complaint, " i n whic h i t admitte d1 5 o f

th e 1 8 factual assertion s se t

ou t i n th e complaint
. Responden t denie dth e allegatio n tha t i t had"knowingly " offere danon-bul k shipmen t containin g hazardou s material s for

transportation
. Th e answe r als o state dtha t

th e Responden t lacke dsufficien t

informatio n t o admi t

o r den y th e allegatio n tha t

"[w]he n teste dafte r th e . . , shipmen t

[arrived]..
. an dwithou t th e additio n o f

any fuel , th e engin e quickl y starte dan dran normally. " Th e answe r als o admitte dtha t

neithe r th e fue l line s no r

th e fue l filter ha dbee n drained ; however , i t

denie dth e Complainant' s clai mtha t th e fiiel tan k

ha dno t bee n draine dan dth e fuel fille r cap wa s no t

tightl y secured
. Finally , th e answe r conteste dth e amoun t

o f th e civi l penalty th e FA A ha dsought
. O n Januar y 27 , 2010 , th e FA A filed amotio n fo r asummary decisio n o n al l issue s excep t

th e amoun t

o f th e civi l penalty
. I n it s motion , th e Complainan t

too k issu e with th e Respondent' s contentio n tha t i t di dno t posses s th e requisit e men s re at o commi t a"knowing " violatio n o f th e HMR
. "Responden t

admit s thes e facts, " th e motio n paper s said , "an dthes e fact s establis h th e knowledg e requiremen t o f 4 9 U.S.C
. § 5123(a)(1)
. Knowledg e o f th e regulation s i s irrelevant. " Th e motio n als o argue dtha t th e controvers y abou t startin g th e engin e i s no t materia l becaus e th e allegatio n abou t tha t subjec t merel y serve dt o sho w tha t ther e wa s fuel i n th e engine , thereb y demonstratin g tha t

no t al l o f th e fue l ha dbee n drained
. Finally , th e motio n paper s poin t

ou t tha t th e Responden t

ha dno t denie dtha t

i t ha dfaile dt o drai n th e fue

l fro mth e fuel line s an dth e fue l filter. Th e FAA' s motio n di dno t see k adecisio n o n th e matte r

o f th e amoun t o f th e appropriat e civi l penalty
. Th e FA A di dno t

submi t an y documentar y evidenc e i n support o f it s motion
. Apparently , th e motio n i s base dwholl y o n th e content s o f th e complain t an dth e Respondent' s answer. Thre e day s after

th e motio n wa s filed, th e Responden t filedan amende danswer. I t

als o submitte darepl y t o th e motio n a s an addendu mt oit s amende danswe r an di n th e for

mo f aseparat e lette r

addresse dt o me. ' Th e amende danswe r

withdre w th e Respondent' s adinissio n tha t th e engine' s fue l line s an dfuel filter

ha dno t bee n draine dbefor e th e shipmen t too k place
. Th e Responden t

no w take s th e positio n tha t i n applyin g avacuu mt o drai n th e fliel tank , it s employe e mos t hav e als o remove dal l th e fuel fromth e > filter an dfuel lines
. I n th e addendu mt o it s amende danswer , th e Responden t

note dtha t

i t frequentl y shippe dhazardou s material s an dha s traine dit s personne l at

it s headquarter s i n Cary , Nort h Carolin at o d o s o properly
. I t

als o allege dtha t

i t ha dtake n correctiv e actio n t o mak e sur e tha t violation s o f

th e HM Rdi dno t

recur . I n addition , th e Responden t sai di t di d no t hav e th e wherewitha l t o pa y th e amoun t tha t th e FA A ha s sought
. Th e Responden t

di dno t submi t an y documentatio n i n support o f it s factual claims
. Sinc e neithe r

o f th e partie s ha s submitte dmaterial s outsid e th e pleadings , th e Complainant' s motio n stand s a s amotio n for judgmen t

o n th e pleadings
. I t

i s well-settle dtha t

th e criteri afor

decidin g amotio n fo

r judgmen t o n th e pleading s ar e identica l t o thos e applicabl e t o amotio n fo r summary judgment
. See , e^
. Reeve s v . Sanderso n Plumbin g Products
. 53 0 U.S
. 13 3 (2000)
. "Judgmen t o n th e pleading s i s appropriat e wher e ther e ar e n o materia l fact s i n disput e an dth e movin g part y i s entitle dt o judgmen t a s a matte r o f law. " Canno n v . City o f Wes t Pal mBeach , 25 0 F.3 d1299 , 130 1 n 1 ^ Cir
. 20 0 n . citin g Mergen s v . Drevfoos
. 16 6 F.3 d1114 , 1116-1 7 (11 ^ Cir
. 1999)
.

• Unde r § 13.21 4 o f

th e Rule s o f

Practice , 1 4 C.F.R
. § 13.214 , Responden t

wa s entitle dt o amen dit s answe r i n respons e t o th e Complainant' s motio n for judgment. ^ Th e amendmen t raise dsevera l dispute dan dmateria l issue s o f fac t tha t canno t b e resolve do n th e basi s o f th e paper s submitte db y th e parties
. Fo r example , th e HM Rrequir e tha t interna l combustio n engine s mus t b e prepare dfor

shipmen t b y ai r transportatio n i n accordanc e with § 173.22 0 o f th e HMR
. Unde r

tha t section , th e HM Rrequirement s appl y whe n -

' Th e Responden

t i s not represente dby counsel
. It s pleading s wer e signedby its Presiden

t an dManagin g Partne r as it s representative
. ^ § 13.214(b)(1 ) provide s tha t apart y ma y amen da n answe r a s of righ t no t late r tha n 1 5 day s befor

e th e schedule ddat e o f ahearing
. Th

e Respondent' s amendmen

t t o its answe

r i s undatedbu

t was receivedo

n Februar y 2,2010
. As of

tha t date , th e hearing was scheduledt o commence o

n Marc h 11,2010 , mor

e tha n 1 5 day s later
. (I

t ha s sinc e been postponedt o Marc h 25,2010. )Th e engin e o r fuel tan k contain s aliqui dfuel
. A n engin e may b e considere da s no t

containin g fue

l whe n th e fuel tank , engin e components , an dfue

l line s hav e bee n completel y drained , sufficientl y cleane do f

residue , an dpurge do f

vapor s t o remov e an y potentia l hazar dan dth e engin e whe n hel di n an y orientatio n wil l no t releas e an y liqui dfuel
. Dependin g o n whethe r

o r no t th e interna l combustio n engin e i s installe di n avehicl e o r

equipment , different

standard s o f

preparatio n apply
. Unde r § 173.220(b)(1) , i f

th e engin e i s installe do n avehicl e o r equipment , "[a ] fuel tan k

containin g aflammable liqui dmus t b e draine dan dsecurel y closed , excep t

tha t u p t o 50 0 m

L (1 7 ounces ) o f

residua l fuel may remai n i n th e tank , engin e components , o r fuel line s provide dthe y ar e securel y close d t o preven t leakag e o f

fuel durin g transportation. " O n th e othe r hand , § 173.220(f ) state s tha t

i f th e engin e i s uninstalled , "al l fuel..
. remainin g i n th e engin e mus t

b e draine da s fa

r a s practicable , an dal l disconnecte dfluid pipe s mus t

b e seale dwith leak-proo f cap s tha t ar e positivel y retained. " Notably , eac h preparatio n requirement include s aleve l o f

toleranc e for residua l fuel
. I n it s complaint , th e FA A allege dtha t th e "fue l tank , engin e components , an dfuel line s ha dno t bee n completel y draine dan dsecurel y close dt o preven t

leakag e o f

fuel
. Bu t th e Complainant' s motio n paper s offere dn o proo f

a s t o th e amoun t

o f fue l remainin g i n th e tan k

o r th e res t o f th e engine
. Instead , th e complain t alleges , an dth e motio n repeats , tha t th e engin e starte dupo n arrival , thu s suggestin g tha t asubstantia l amoun t

o f fue l existe di n th e components . Th e Complainan t say s tha t fro mthi s on e shoul d infer tha t th e Responden t

violate dth e HM Rb y failin g t o prepar e th e shipmen t properly
. Thes e are , however , simpl y alawyer' s arguments , an di t i s well-settle dtha t

alawyer' s argument s ar e no t evidence
. Th e Respondent' s answe r admitte dtha t

i t offere dth e engine , storag e batte r an dThrus t

Quic k Startin g Fluid , al l hazardou s materials , for ai r transportatio n knowin g wha t the y were . Th e answe r

als o admitte dtha t

th e Responden t

di dno t provid e th e carrie r

with th e paperwor k

o r othe r informatio n neede dt o disclos e tha t i t wa s shippin g hazardou s material s an d t o provid e guidanc e abou t th e handlin g o f

suc h material s i n th e even t o r a n acciden t o r othe r emergency . Hence , th e Complainan t i s clearl y correc t

i n arguin g tha t

i f th e Responden t

violate dth e HMR , i t

di dno t "knowingly " withi n th e meanin g o f

th e statute , 4 9 U.S.C
. § 5123(a)(1)
. A s amatte r o flaw , th e questio n whethe r th e Respondent' s employee s kne w tha t th e shipmen t wa s subjec t

t o th e HM Ra

t th e tim e the y tendere di t t o th e carrie r

i s irrelevant ; i t

i s equall y irrelevan t

whethe r thos e employee s kne w the y wer e violatin g th e la w at

tha t time
. Se e Riverdal e Mill s Corp. , FA A Orde r No
. 2003-1 0 at

5 (Sept
. 12 , 2003)
. O n thi s issue , th e FA A prevails
. Bu t tha t leav e u s with ahos t

o f othe r issues , whic h ca n b e resolve d onl y after ahearin g at

whic h al l o f

th e fact s can b e explored
. Chie f amon g the mi s t o determin e ho w much , i f any , fuel remaine di n th e engin e a t th e tim e i t wa s shipped
. I n addition , i n th e even t th e Responden t

i s deeme dt o b e liable , ahearin g wil l b e require dt o determin e th e amoun t o f th e appropriat e civi l penalty
. I n thes e circumstances , nothin g wouldb e serve d b y grantin g asmal l par t

o f th e Complainant' s motion
. Sinc e ahearin g o n th e merit s i s required , th e interest s o f th e parties , an djustice , wouldb e bette r serve db y gettin g o n with it
. Th e Complainant' s motio n fo r judgmen t

o n th e pleading s i s denied
. I T I S S O ORDERED
.

Isaa c D
. Benki n Administrativ e law Judg eFA A Docke t No
. CP09AL001 3 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y
Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC^3 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Dr
. Joh n Haselo w Redo x Tech , LL C Responden t 20 0 Quad e Driv e Cary , N C 2751 3 TEL : 919-678-014 0 FAX : 911-678-015 0 Hov^^ar dL
. Martin , Jr. , Complainant' s Counse l Regional Counsel , Alaska n Regio n Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , AAL- 7 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 22 2 Wes t 7 * Avenue , Bo x 1 4 Anchorage , A K

99513-758 7 TEL : 907-271-527 1 FAX : 907-271-280 0 Th e Honorabl e Isaa c D
. Benkin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 New Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mE12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorne y 202-366-213 9 Legal Assistan t

202-366-213 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service wa

s b y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e i n person o r by expeditedcourier , us e the followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk , AGC-430
.