counsel to please the court my name is john brooke i'm an attorney for d c v imports l l c d c v imports is a fireworks importer and display company in central illinois d c v imports only imports and uses fireworks which are called special fireworks display fireworks similar to what goes off that navy pier those are the ones that are regulated by the a t f the c v has been a fairly explosive license holder since two thousand and four with no record of violations at that time but there were several inspections when the license was renewed and inspection in two thousand and three found violations of d c vs daily summary of magazine transactions was operated by mr vineyard's parents at one time and then his mother you may have involved he was a responsible person a license but as you look at the definition responsible person and the facts in the case mr vineyard was a site manager he was responsible for transporting fibers from point a to point b and also for shooting off the fireworks he was responsible for the daily summary amazing transactions that was in his job he did sign the notice of violations but all that does is give an issue of whether he received them or not to move to a traffic ticket that we can't consider evidence of the current violations in a vacuum it's against the backdrop of the predecessor  corporations repeated violations and licensors surrender and his involvement in that family corporations it's just rolled over into a new corporation actually this corporation was started and incorporated long before the violation and that  through administrative process and surrendered its license because daryn's mother niecy mary vineyard was having health problems but there wasn't a determination that there were violations or allegations that the a t f found that there were violations but there was no determination of that it's similar to some a being accused of a crime but no determination be made or that there were those violations were being contested by s n n until the health problems of ms been your occurred and then the property was transferred assets and the business was transferred over to the he to sunday aaron for his operation and that his first time really having to deal with the c v as all aspects of the fir c v takes over as the license holder and has all aspects of that the standard in this case of the standard have been put forward that we have an objection to is that knowledge plus violation equals a revocation or in this in this case a denial of the renewal of the license we believe that that's an incorrect standard because using that standard negligence could also be tantamount to being revo there are cases and the administrative law judge went through great pains to talk about baron's prior knowledge and the fact that he was a responsible person and under eighteen u s c eight forty s and  responsible person as an individual as a power to direct the management and policies of the applicant pertaining to explosive materials along with having because the standard is that the violations must be done willfully and there are cases which show that willful are willful is not equal to negligence that's true you think the negligence  of different types of items which go through a particular fireworks manufacturer these regulations were designed for the explosive industry but since firewood dealers have to have to keep track of their shelves from anywhere from two in shells all the way up to twelve inches plus or kaikai them plus or candles you have hundreds or you could have potentially hundreds of entries at the mate particularly during the fourth of july busy season and if you have a mistake of i took out two cases or i took out three case on put down to each and every day that would be a continued violation because that would just compound itself you could have a math error you could not carry the one when you were in the in the magazine those are negligence and that shouldn't be enough and congress didn't say that that should be enough for revocation of a license these are math errors and this occurs every day in the fire industry and it's not on an uncertain because these records are very expensive it does have to be maintained every day they also have to go through an annual inventory that have to try and reconcile or fireworks on an annual basis usually after the busy season when you have the majority of probably eighty percent of your of your income for the fourth of july season that becomes very difficult sometimes and human error occur you have lots of people magazine so willfulness is required under the statute and it's more than just negligence but in this particular case the a l j seem to center on the fact that derren vineyard had a lot of knowledge because he quote grew up in the business but the facts and evidence in the case clearly show that mr vineyard was just a site manager has set forth the twenty seven c f r five five five point one one because the regulations broaden the definition of responsible person there wasn't any evidence that garrett was responsible for these d s m teas on a daily basis and that therefore the fact that knowledge posed violations equals quantity of explosives in its inventory resulting in eight hundred seventy net pounds of unaccounted for explosive material a t f is not arguing here that the standard is knowledge plus violation the standard as the parties agree and as this court has said it is knowledge plus plain indifference to to known duties so the sole question in this case is whether a t f director properly concluded that there was a plain difference and here we have a number of undisputed facts demonstrating such plain indifference you have the choice to put any vineyards in charge of d c these records despite the fact that he had previously proven himself either unable or unwilling to adequately maintain the records you have a lack of supervision or remedial training in even your it himself said that he knew that he struggled knew that he could have asked a t f for help yet failed to do so because he did not enjoy maintaining the record he further delegated recordkeeping responsibilities to his cousin and trained her himself despite knowing in his own words that he was probably not the best person for that job ultimately he's paying attention to the records entirely and of course you had the magnitude of the violations that resulted so the decision on the director's decision makes very clear that there was a finding a plain indifference not merely a violation and knowledge of acquirements it may also be worth pointing out briefly that d c had no inventory on hand until it purchased s n and it would import the fireworks and then transfer them to as a man so while it did have  good inspections prior to having purchased the inventory there was essentially nothing to inspect the regulations at issue here require d c b to maintain explosives materials that comes into it position that it would be better to put baron who had no experience doing this to put him in charge of the d a s and t's rather than his brother vinit now the c v worked very hard to try and satisfy the requirement the a t f they change their record keeping the evidence shows that there was some discrepancy in how records would be maintained and whether certain items coming into the pac ause were to be regulate or kept in one way or another d c the was demonstrating all throughout the course of this that they that they weren't plainly indifferent they were working very hard to try and satisfy the regulations they were working very hard to try and make sure that the a t f was satisfied that they meet all their requirements no they didn't but that's not as a result the plane and difference it's a matter of their bookkeeping wasn't very good but it's negligence it's not plain indifference they understood what the rules were and they tried very hard to comply with those rules they made changes to satisfy the e t f they were always trying to work to get that done but yet it they still had the seventy three instances of the violations the eight hundred seventy pounds so these are daily magazine records in their daily records it just keeps continuing to multiply if you carry one violation to the next day the next day and you don't have the proper math done in the magazine itself so you could have multiple violations just from one simple error at the very beginning so it's the request of d c v that the direct decision the director be