OG/24/2010 15:5 9 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS @1001/023 

UNITED STATES DEPAK FMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In the Matter of: TATE AND PARTNERS 

FAA Order No. 2010-7 

Docket No. CP04SO0014 

FDMS No. FAA-2004-17784' 

Served: June 15,2010 

DECISION AND ORDERS 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Richard C. Goodwin is.sued a written initial 

decision-^ on December 12, 2005, holding that Respondent Tate and Partners (Tate)'' 

violated the regulations alleged in the complaint when it shipped hazardous materials 

without shipping papers, labels, markings, proper packaging, employee training, and 

emergency response information.'' The ALJ assessed a civil penalty of $25,000. 

Materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket (except for materials filed in security case;;) art; also 

available for viewing at h/lp://wnrw.regularionn.trc^v. 

" The Administraior's civil penalty decisions, along with indexes oflhe decisions, the rules of" 

practice, and other information, arc available on the Internet ai ihe following address: 

http://\vww./ciagciv/about/qffjce org/headquarrers_oJJtces/agc/pol_adjudicaiion/AGC400/ 

Civil_Penalry. In addition, Thomson Rculers/West Publishing publishes Federal Aviation 

Decisions. Finally, the decisions arc available through LF.XIS (TRANS library) and WestLaw 

(FTRAN-FAA database). For additional information, see ihe Web site. 

• A copy of the ALJ's order is attached. 

Originally, the complaint also named Tale employee Lilit Karapetian as a respondent, but the 

FAA later amended the complaint to make late the only respondent. 

^ Specifically, ihe FAA alleged that Tate violated: 49 C.F.R. § 171.2(a) (offering hazardous 

material for transportation when not properly clas.<?ed, described, packaged, marked, labeled, and 

in condition for shipment); § 172.200(a) and § 172.202(a)(l)-(5) (offering hazardous material for 

transportation and failing to describe hazardous material on shipping papers); ij 172.204(a) <ir 

(c)(1) (offering hazardous material for transportation and failing to certify thai material was 

offered for transportation in accordance with regulations by printing a certification on the 

shipping paper); § 172.204(c)(2) (offering hazardous material to aircrafl. operator for 

transportation by air and failing to provide two copies of certification); § 172.204(c)(3) (offering 
OG/24/201 0 15:5 9 FAX 202493514 2 FAA * DMS 0002/023 

UNITED STAIES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

ID the Matter of: TATE AND PARTNERS 

FAA Order No. 

Docket No. CP04SO0014 

FDMS No. FAA-2004-17784' 

Served: 

DECISION AND ORDERS 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Richard C. Goodwin issued a written initial 

decision'' on December 12, 2005, holding that Respondent Tate and Partners (Tate)'' 

violated the regulations alleged in the complaint when it shipped hazardous materials 

without shipping papers, labels, markings, proper packaging, employee training, and 

emergency response information.' The ALJ assessed a civil penalty of $25,000. 

' Materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket (except for materials filed in security cases) are also 

available for viewing at hilp://-\vww.reeulaiions.gov. 

^ The Administrator's civil penalty decisions, along with indexes of the decisions, the rules of 

practice, anil other infonnation, are available on the Internet at ihc following address; 

http://yvww.facL gov/about/qffjcejorg/headguarterx offices/agc/pol_adjudicalion/A GC400/ 

CMl^Penalty. In addition, Thomson Rcutcrs/West Publishing publishes Federal Aviation 

Decisions. Finally, the decisions are available through LEXIS (TRANS library) and WestLaw 

(FTRAN-FAA database). For additional information, see the Web site. 

^ A copy of the ALJ's order is attached. 

'' Originally, the complaint also named Tate employee Lilit Karapetian as a respondent, but the 

FAA later amended the complaint to make Tate the only respondent. 

' Specifically, the FAA alleged that Tate violated: 49 C.F.R. § 171.2(a) (offering hazardous 

material for transportation when not properly classed, described, packaged, marked, labeled, and 

in condition for shipment); § 172.200(a) and § 172.202(a)(l )-(5) (offering hazardous material for 

transportation and failing to describe hazardous material on shipping papers); § 172.204(a) or 

(c)( 1) (offering hazardous material for transportation and failing to certify that material WEL-J 

offered for transportation in accordance with regulations by printing a certification on the 

shipping paper); § i 72.204(c)(2) (offering hazardous material to aircraft operator for 

transportation by air and failing to provide two copies of certification); § 172.204(c)(3) (offering 
OG/24/201 0 1G:0 0 FAX 202493514 2 FAA * DMS 0003/023 

Tate has appealed, arguing, among other things, that the civil penalty is "grossly 

excessive" in light of past cases. As explained herein, this decision assesses a $20,000 

civil penalty. 

1. Facts 

Tate, located in Santa Monica, California, is a four-person company that produces 

television commercials. (Tr. 90, 93, 122.) Tate hired a director to film a Molson beer 

commercial in Toronto, Canada. (Tr. 96-97.) In lum, the director hired a prop masier, 

Damon Cardwell. (Tr. 97.) Cardwell asked Tate to ship three boxes of materials to 

Toronto for his use at the shoot. 

Tale's production manager, Hugh Bacher, testified that the boxes were sealed 

when Cardwell brought hi in the boxes. (Tr. 102.) Bacher testified that he asked 

for air transportation hazardous material and failing to add to certification a statement that 

shipment was within limitations prescribed for passenger or cargo-only aircraft - whichever was 

applicable); § 172.300(a) and § 172.312(a)(2) (offering for transportation non-bulk packaging 

having inner packagings containing liquid hazardous material and failing legibly to mark outer 

package with orientation markings); § 172.301(a) (offering hazardous material for transportation 

in non-bulk packaging and failing to mark package with proper shipping name and identification 

number); § 172.400 and § 172.404(a) (offering package containing hazardous material for 

transportation when package contains hazardous materials having different hazard classes packed 

within same packaging, outside container, or overpack and failing to label packaging, outside 

container, or overpack as required for each class of hazardous material contained inside); 

§ 172.400(a) (offering hazardous material for transportation in a permitted package or 

containment device and failing to label package or containment device with labels specified for 

material); § 172.600(c) (offering hazardous material for transportation and failing to make 

emergency response information immediately available for use at all times hazardous material 

was present and failing to make such infonnation, including emergency response telephone 

number, immediately available to any government agency responding to incident involving 

hazardous material or conducting investigation that involves hazardous material); § 172.702(a) 

(offering hazardous material for transportation and failing to cn.sure that each hazmai employee 

was trained); § 173.1 (b) (offering hazardous material for transportation that was not prepared in 

accordance with hazardou.t materials regulations, and failing to in.struct each of its officers, 

agents, and employees having any responsibility for preparing hazardous materials for shipment 

as to applicable hazardous materials regulations); and § 173.201 (offering for transportation 

package containing liquid hazardous material in Packing Group I and failing to use non-bulk 

packaging and otherwise to conform to the packaging regulations for this material). 
OG/24/201 0 16:0 0 FAX 202493514 2 FAA •> DMS @j004/023 

Cardwell whether the shipment contained any hazardous materials,' and Cardwell replied 

that he had removed the hazardous materials from the boxes, (Tr. 110.) 

However, the boxes did contain numerous hazardous materials - roughly 40 or 50 

different products^ (1 r. 64) - most of which were labeled "flammable" or "extremely 

flammable."' (Tr. 27.) Many aerosol cans were packed in the boxes, and one box 

contained a butane lighter as well as other hazardous materials. (Tr. 61.) According to 

* The director's line producer had warned Tate employees on the day of the shipment that the 

prop master would need his kits at the shoot and that the hazardous contents should be removed 

before Tate shipped them. (Tr. 98, 109-110.) 

^ The complaint alleged that the three boxes contained: two 11-ounce aerosol containers of 

Krylon Crystal Clear Acrylic Coating" labeled "Extremely Flammable" and "Contents Under 

Pressure"; one 16 Vi ounce aerosol container of 3M "Super 77 Spray Adhesive" labeled 

"Extremely Flammable" and "Contents under Pressure"; five 5-ounce aerosol conlainers of "Le 

Brumisateur livian Eau Mineral" labeled "Pressurized Container"; two 16-ounce containers of 

"Reagent Alcohol" affixed with flammable liquid label; one 25-ounce plastic container of "Last 

Rinse Sanitizcr" labeled "Corrosive to Eyes"; one 16-ounce glass container of "Aqua Gel" 

labeled to have a pH of 2; one 1 l-ounce aero.sol container of "Krylon Matte Finish Spray Coating 

1311" labeled "Extremely Flammable" and "Can Pressurized", two 8-ouncc aerosol containers of 

"Streaks 'N Tips" labeled "Flammable" and "Contents under Pressure"; one 7-ounce aerosol 

container of "Super 77 Spray Adhesive" labeled "Extremely Flammable and "Contents under 

Pressure"; two 38-gram metal cylinders of "COj Power Clean" labeled "Carbon Dioxide 

Gas/Non-Flammable Gas/UN 1013/ORM-D"; two "Magnum 44 Pennanent Markers" labeled 

"Combustible"; two "Marks-A-Lot Permanent Markers" labeled "Flammable"; one 4 Vi-ounce 

container of "Goof-Off labeled "Flammable"; one 2-ounce plastic container of "Zip Kicker 

Accelerator for Super Glue" labeled "Flammable"; one 3-ounce gla.ss container of "Weldwood 

Contact Cemenf labeled "Extremely Flammable"; one 100-milliliter aerosol container of "WD40" labeled "Flammable" and "Pressurized Container"; one 4-ounce metal tube of "Liquid Nails" 

labeled "F.xlremcly Flammable"; one butane lighter labeled "Butane Ga.<? Under Pressure" and 

"Extremely flammable"; four 12-ounce aerosol containers of "Krylon Interior/Exterior Paint" 

labeled "Extremely Flammable" and "Contents Under Pressure"; one 12-ounce aerosol container 

of "Krylon Sandable Primer" labeled "Extremely Flammable" and "Contents Under Pressure"; 

one 9-ounce aerosol container of "Studio Hair Color" labeled "Extremely Flammable"; one 16-

ounce metal container of "Bestine Solvent and Thinner" labeled "Extremely Flammable"; one 16-

ounce container of "Denatured Alcohol" labeled "Flammable" and "Poison"; one 8-ounce plastic 

container of "Goo Gone" labeled "Combustible"; and one 9 %-ounce aerosol container of "Spray 

Mount Arti.sl'.s Adhesive labeled "Extremely Flammable" and "Contents Under Pressure," 

' Extremely flammable hazardous materials have a lower flash point than flammable hazardous 

materials. (Tr. 29) 
t 

OG/24/201 0 1G:00 FAX 202493514 2 FAA ^ DMS 0005/023 

former FAA Special Agent Daniel Wahl.' who investigated this matter and testified at 

the hearing, if a butane lighter is not packaged properly, it is a forbidden item."' (M) 

On the day that Cardwell brought the boxes to Tate, he gave Bacher three lists; 

each list described the contents of one of the three boxes, (Tr. 98-99.) Bacher read the 

lists before he shipped the boxes, but he did not research the nature of any of the listed 

items (Tr. Ill ) and did not open the boxes. (Tr. 102.) Bacher prepared a UPS invoice 

for each box. Attached to each invoice was Cardwell's list of the contents of that 

particular box. (FAA Exhibit 6.) 

The prop master's lists did not include many of the hazardous materials. For 

example, Cardwell failed to Hst "WD-40," "Liquid Nails," "hael lighter," "Streaks ^*N 

Tips," denatured alcohol, and spray mount. (Compare FAA Exhibit 5 and FAA Exhibit 

6; Tr. 37-38.) While incomplete, the prop master's lists did include "Super Glue" vjhich 

is a nammflble material, and other items - i.e., "glue," "glue sticks," "glycerine," and 

"butyl" • that could have indicated that the boxes contained hazardous materials. (Tr. 34-

36.) As Wahl explained, certain glue, glue sticks, glycerine, and butyl products are 

hazardous materials, but others are not. " (Tr. 34-36.) For example, Elmer's Glue is not 

a hazardous material. (Tr. 36.) "Butyl," he explained, is "a cousin of alcohol," and the 

* At the lime of the hearing, Wahl worked at the Departnent of Homeland Security. (Tr. 22.) 

'" Under 49 C.F.R. § 173.21, "Forbidden materials and packages," the offering or transportation 

of packages containing a cigarette lighter or other similar device, with an ignition element and 

containing fiiel, is prohibited. 

" "Butyl" is defined in Webster's IL New Rjver.side University Dictionary as "[a] hydrocarbon 

radical, C4H?, with a structure of butane and valence 1." (Tr. 43.) "Glycerin" or "glycerol" is 

defined in that dictionary as "a syrupy sweet, colorless or yellowish liquid, CjHjO.!, derived from 

fats and oils as a by-product of the manufacture of soaps and fatty acids and used as a solvent, 

antifreeze and antifrost fluid, plasticizer and sweetener and in the production of dynamite, 

cosmetics, liquid soaps, inks, and lubricants." 
OG/24/2010 1G:00 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS ilOOG/023 

Hazardous Materials Table (set forth at 49 C.F.R. § 172.101), according to the special 

agent, lists many butyl products. (Tr. 41.) He explained that while the listed term 

"butyl" might have been meant to describe butyl alcohol, a hazardous material, it might 

also have been meant to indicate that the box contained butyl rubber, a nonhazardous 

material. (Tr. 35.) Hence, he stated, the prop manager's list did not provide sufficient 

identifying infomnation about the nature of the packed items described as "glue," "glue 

sticks," "glycercine" and "butyl," and he would need to look at those items to determine 

whether they were hazardous materials. (Tr. 24.) 

Tate's production manager shipped the boxes via UPS to Radkc Films in Toronto, 

Canada, on or about August 7, 2000. This was an undeclared, or "hidden," shipment 

becau.se the boxes did not indicate in any way that they contained hazardous materials. 

(Tr. 20.) UPS llcw the boxes to a UPS facility in Louisville, Kentucky, a stopping off 

point on the way to Canada, where it discovered that the shipment contained hazardous 

materials.'^ (Tr. 33,) After opening the boxes, UPS prepared a three-page list of the 

shipment's contents, which it provided to the FAA after contacting the FAA. (Tr. 21-22; 

FAA Exhibit 5.) The list compiled by UPS for the contents of each box included many 

more items than the prop master's lists. 

11. Case History 

The FAA filed a complaint seeking a $30,000 civil penalty for Tate's alleged 

violations of the hazardous materials regulations. In a letter to the ALJ, Tate, which was 

not represented by counsel at the time, stated that it did not deny that it had shipped the 

hazardous materials, but it argued that the proposed penalty was excessive. 

'^ The FAA special agent testified that the haz-ardous materials were discovered during "the 

course of a document search." (Tr. 20.) 
OG/24/201 0 1G:0 0 FAX 202493514 2 FAA -s- DMS 0007/023 

The FAA moved to deem the allegations admitted and to have a hcarhig on tllie 

sanction only. The ALJ denied the FAA's motion, stating that he did not want to 

"summarily preclude apro se respondent not familiar with the Rules from presenting 

evidence." Tate hired counsel, and the ALJ presided over a hearing. 

In his written decision, the AIJ found that the FAA showed by a preponderance 

of the evidence that Tate "knowingly" offered the shipment for air transport. (Initial 

Decision at 4.) To comrnit a violation under the Federal hazardous materials statute, 

49 U.S.C. § 5123(a), a person must act "knowingly." A person acts "knowingly" under 

Section 5123(a)(1) not just when he or she has actual knowledge of the facts giving rise 

to the violation, but also when a reasonable person in the circumstances using reasonable 

care would have that knowledge." 

According to the ALJ, Tate's production manager "was aware of the possibility 

that hazardous materials could be, and may have been, a pail of this shipment." (Initial 

Decision at 3.) As the ALJ noted, the line producer on the shoot told Bacher that .she had 

reminded the prop master not to include hazardous materials in the shipment and the prop 

master told Bacher that he had not included hazardous materials in the boxes. (Initial 

Decision at 3.) The ALJ foimd that Tate's production manager had reviewed the prop 

master's lists containing entries that should have prompted further inquiry, according to 

the testimony- "glue sticks," "butyl." "glues, "Super Glue," and "glycerine" (FAA. lixh. 

'^ 49 U.S.C. § 5123(a)(1) provides as follows: 

(a) PENALTY.—(1) A person that knowingly violates this chapter or a regulation 

prescribed or order issued under this chapter is liable to the United States Govemmenl for a civil 

penalty of at least $250 but not more than $2.5,000 for each violation. A person acts knowingly 

when— 

(A) the person has actual knowledge of the fads giving rise to the violation; or 

(B) a rea.s()nablc person acting in the circumstances and exercising reasonable care would 

have that knowledge. 
OG/24/201 0 1G:0 0 FAX 202493514 2 FAA •> DMS 12006/023 

6 at 2, 4, 6; Tr. 24, 34-36) and yet he failed to look inside the boxes. He held that 

Tale's production manager would have found the hazardou.<5 materials in the proper 

exercise of his duty. The ALJ, therefore, held that the production manager had 

knowledge oflhe hazardous materials under 49 U.S.C. § 5123(a)(1), and found that Tale 

was liable tlirough him because he was an employee acting witliin the scope of his 

employment. Thus, the ALJ concluded that Tate knowingly offered the shipment of 

hazardous materials to UPS because a reasonable person in the circumstances and 

exercising reasonable care would have known the contents of the shipment. (Initial 

Decision at 4.) 

The ALJ assessed a civil penalty of $25,000,''' He did not assess the FAA's 

proposed civil penalty of $30,000 because he found that the FAA failed to consider 

adequately thai Tate did not normally ship hazardous materials and was unfamiliar •with 

the regulations. (Initial Decision at 5.) 

IIL Discussion 

Fate argues on appeal that the civil penalty of $25,000 is "grossly 

disproportionate" to the penalties in previous hazardous materials cases and is 

"manifestly excessive" given thai "the violation occurred as a direct result of an 

affirmative misrepresentation by an independent contractor whom Tate had no rea.son to 

disbelieve." (Appeal Brief at 2.) 

A. Federal Hazardous Materials Stiitute 

The starting point in this analysis is the Federal hazardous materials statute. The 

statute provides that in determining the sanction, the relevant factors are: the nature, 

'* For a list of the regulations, xee footnote 5. 
OG/24/2010 1G:00 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 21009/023 

circumstances, extent and gravity oflhe violation; the degree of culpability of the 

violator; any history of past violations; the ability to pay; any effect on the ability to 

continue to do business; and other matters as justice requires. 49 U.S.C, § 5123(c). 

B. FAA Sanction Guidelines 

To implement the statute, the FAA issued penalty guidelines entitled, "Federal 

Aviation Administration Policy on Enforcement of the Hazardous Materials Regulations: 

Penalty Guidelines." 64 Fed. Reg. 19,443 (April 21, 1999). ITie guidelines in effect at 

the lime of the violations were set forth in FAA Order No. 2150.3A ("Comphance and 

Enforcement Program"), Change 26, Appendix 6." The purpose of the guidelines is to 

provide agency personnel with "a systematic way to evaluate a case and arrive at an 

appropriate penalty, considering all the relevant statutory criteria, including any 

mitigating and aggravating circumstances," as well as lo promote consistency so that 

"similar penalties are imposed in similar cases." FAA Order No. 2150,3A, App. 6, p. 3. 

C. Weighting Questions 

The FAA's penalty guidelines contain a series of questions to help evaluate a 

particular case. FAA Order No. 2150.3A, App. 6, p. 5. The questions review the 

statutory criteria, which, as discussed above, include the nature, circumstances, extent, 

and gravity of the violation, the violator's degree of culpability, any history of prior 

violations, the ability to pay, any effect on the ability to do business, and any other 

matters that justice may require. FAA Order No. 2150.3 A, App. 6, p. 2. The weight 

assigned a particular case depends on these statutory factors, as refiected in the penalty 

^' FAA Order No. 2150.3 A, Change 26, Appendix 6, may be found at: 

hup://www.airweb.faa.gov. Once at this Web site, click on "Orders/Notices." Enter "2150.3A," 

Click on "2I50.3A Compliance and Enforcement Program [Incorporated Changes 1 thru 28]." 

Finally, select "Order2150.3aPartl2.pdf" Appendix 6 starts on p. 121 of this 140-page PDF file. 
OG/24/2010 1G:0 1 FAX 2024335142 FAA . DMS 0010/02 3 

guidelines, with higher weights Justifying higher penalties. The guidelines provide 

recommended penalty ranges corresponding to the various weights in a penalty matrix 

thai also considers several other relevant factors. Below is a discussion of the questions 

pertinent to this case. 

1. fVhai material is at i.vsue? This question is pertinent because the more 

hazardous the shipped material is, the higher the civil penalty should be. TTic guidelines 

divide hazardous materials into various risk categories. Category A is the highest risk 

group, and is defined as "materials that, when released in the confines of an aircraft, can 

potentially have a catastrophic effect on an aircraft's ability to continue safe flight, 

resulting in a crash or emergency landing causing injury or death to passengers and 

flighicrcw, as well as persons on the ground." FAA Order No. 2150.3A, App. 6, page 18. 

Violations involving Category A materials warrant maximum weight, under the 

guidelines. Id. 

The guidelines state: "If there is more than one type of haz mat involved in the 

shipment, answer this question using the haz mat in the highest risk category." VAA 

Order No. 2150.3 A, App. 6, p. 6. The guidelines further provide that "a shipment of a 

single package containing several different hazardous materials [as in the instant case] 

may present an aggravating factor." FAA Order No. 2150.3A, App. 6, p. 9. 

There were many types of hazardous materials shipped in this case including 

some items that belonged in Category A. 

2. Were there multiple packages in the shipment? The guidance indicates that a 

moderate or maximum weight should be considered if the answer is yes, depending on 

the number of packages and total amount of hazardous material. Three boxes were 
yo/^'t/^ui u ib:t n i-AX 2024935142 PAA 

'^'^ * DMS @!011/023 

shipped. 

3. Did someone other than the violator prepare the shipment for transportation? 

According to the guidance, when someone other than the violator prepared the shipment, 

a minimum to moderate weight is considered. The prop master packed the boxes. 

4. Did the violator reasonably rely on incorrect information from another 

source? As explained in the guidance, "detrimental or reasonable reliance on another 

party may be a mitigating factor when considering the violator's degree of culpability." 

The prop master assured Bachman that ihc hazardous materials had been removed. 

Whether it was reasonable for Bachman to rely upon this representation is discussed in 

section D, entitled "Final Aggregate Weight," of this analysis. 

O. Final Aggregate Weight 

The guidelines require one to weigh the answers to the questions discussed above 

and then to determine the fmal aggregate weight of the case, whether minimum, 

moderate, or maximum. According to the guidelines: 

Generally, if the answer to a particular question demonstrates the factor at 

issue represents a more significant aspect of a case, greater consideration 

should be given to thai answer. For example, violations involving an 

extremely dangerous substance, even in minute quantities, might warrant a 

penalty at the maximum end of the range or even a penalty exceeding the 

matrix range.,.. It is possible that a single weighting factor may outweigh 

all others. 

FAA Order No. 2150.3A, App. 6, p. 9. 

Tate offered three boxes to UPS for shipment, and these three boxes 

contained many hazardous materials, mostly flammable and extremely flammable 

items, as well as a butane lighter. Consideration of these factors, in isolation, 

would result in the imposition of a maximum weight civil penalty. 

10 

OG/24/2010 1G:01 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 0012/023 

However, Caldwell - not a Tate employee ~ packed the boxes, and Caldwell 

prepared the incomplete lists containing inadequate descriptions of the contents. The lists 

did not include the most hazardous items. Some of the descriptions of items on the lists 

were ambiguous. For example, "glues" and "butyl" could have described prohibited 

hazardous items or could have described nonhazardous items that are permitted on board 

aircraft. Further, the evidence indicated that Bacher did ask whether the hazardous 

materials had been removed and was told by the prop master that Ihcy had been. Hence, 

while, as the ALJ found, Tate is liable for knowingly violating the regulations, Tate is not 

as culpable as it would have been if one of its employees had packed the many different 

hazardous items, including the lighter and the many products thai had warning labels on 

them. Thus, rather than assigning a maximum final aggregate weight for sanction 

purposes to these violations, a moderate aggregate weight would be more appropriate. 

E. Matrix 

The riexi step is to use the matrix in the guidelines. FAA Order No. 2150.3A, 

''^PP- 6, p- 9. l"he matrix contains sanction ranges for diilcrcnt types of violations by 

(a) an individual; (b) a business entity; (c) a business entity that uses or handles 

hazardous materials in the course of business; and (d) a business entity that regularly 

offers, accepts, or transports hazardous materials. Tate falls within the category of 

"Business Lntity." The sanction ranges for a "business entity" arc lower than the ranges 

for the other two business categories. 

The matrix indicates that $1,500 - $7,500 is the appropriate civil penalty range for 

11 
OG/24/2010 1G:01 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS 0013/02 3 

each category of offense'* by a business entity involving undeclared shipments within the 

quantity limitations." FAA Order No. 2150.3A, App. 6, p. 14. One can deduce that the 

moderate portion of the range would be $3,300 - $5,500 for each offense category. 

Tate's offenses involved the lack of: (1) shipping papers; (2) labels; 

(3) markings; (4) proper packaging; (5) employee training; and (6) emergency response 

information. Applying a moderate final aggregate weight, an appropriate civil penalty for 

the six violations under the matrix guidance would be between $19,800 and $33,000. In 

light of the fact that Talc did not pack the boxes, tliat the packing lists were incomplete 

and the ambiguity of the descriptions ofthc listed items that the inspector said could have 

been hazardous, a sanction at the lower end of the moderate range is appropriate. A 

$20,000 civil penalty is sufficient in hght of all of the factors involved in this case.'" 

Tate argues that its lack of hazardous materials experience should result in a 

lower penalty. " The $20,000 civil penalty adequately takes Tate's lack of experience 

" The guidance sets forth eight offense categoric;: (1) "Shipping Papers;" (2) "Labels;" 

(3) "Markings;" (4) "Packaging;" (5) "Training;" (6) "Emerg. Response"; (7) "Release into 

Environ.;" and (8) "Other." 

" The FAA believed that because there wiis a forbidden material (the butane lighter) in the 

shipment, the offenses fell in the category of "Undeclared .ihipmenis forbidden on or exceeding 

quantity limitations for all aircraft." But the FAA has stated that for purposes of determining the 

civil penalty to propose in this case, it decided lo use the comparatively less serious category of 

"Undeclared shipment within quantity limitations," which carries lower penaliic.<!, because of the 

small size of Tate's company. (Reply Brief at 14.) Ihe Administrator will not second-guess this 

exercise of prosecutorial discrelion in die respondent's favor. 

" The cases relied on by Tate are not sulticiently analogous so as to provide persuasive guidance 

on the amount of the penalty in this case. It is very difficult to compare one case to another for 

the purpose of determining whether the assessed penalty is impermissibly disproportionate. Not 

only are such comparisons difficult because of factual differences, a certain amount of disparity is 

the inevitable result of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See infra at p. 14. 

" Also, the ALJ took this factor Tate's lack of experience with hazardous materials into account 

in arriving at the $25,000 civil penalty. He rejected the $30,000 civil penalty sought by the FAA 

and assessed a $25,000 civil penalty instead because, in his view, the FAA did not consider 

12 
OG/24/2010 16:0 1 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 0014/02 3 

into account because it is based upon the matrix sanction ranges appropriate for a 

business entity, rather than the higher sanction ranges for violations by a business that 

uses or handles hazardous materials in ihc course of business^" or a business that 

regularly offers, accepts of transports hazardotus materials.^' 

Tate argues that the civil penalty should be lowered due to its history of no 

violations. As many past cases have stated, "[a] violation-free history is considered the 

norm and does not lead to a reduction in an otherwise appropriate civil penalty." See, 

^•S-, ICI, FAA Order No. 1992-77 at 20 (December 22, 1992). If Tale had committed 

violations previously, tlie civil penalty would have been higher. 

Tate argues that it has taken "aggressive" steps to revise its policies and educate 

its worklbrcc. While .swift corrective action can be a mitigating factor, depending on the 

circumstances, Tate's office manager testified that the company's hazardous materials 

policy after the incident (Tate Exhibit 8) was essentially the same as before the incident. 

(Tr. 118.) Tate's office manager further testified that although she has no hazardous 

materials training, she wrote the policy guidelines. Further, she testified, Tate simply 

gave the guidelines to its employees and freelance producers, but did not require them to 

sign anything to indicate that they had read and understood the guidelines. (Tr. 122-23.) 

•Jhese steps are not "aggressive," and FAA Special Agent Hanson testified that they 

adequately that Tate normally did not ship hazardous materials and was unfamiliar with the 

hazardous materials regulations, 

^^ Under the matrix, the sanction range for each offense category involving an undeclared 

shipment within the FIMR's quantity limitalions by a business entity that uses or handles 

hazardous materials in the course of business is $2,500 to 10,000. 

" Under the malrix, the sanction range for each offense category involving an undeclared 

shipment within the HMR's quantity limitalion.s by a business entity that regularly offers, 

accepts, or transports hazardous materials is $10,000 to 27,500. 

13 
OG/24/2010 16:0 1 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS 0015/02 3 

would not prevent a Similar incident in the future. (Tr. 125.) Tate has pointed to nothing 

in the record that would cast doubt on the ALJ's finding that Tate's new policy guidelines 

have little value because tliey do not mandate training and lack an enforcement 

mechanism. For these reasons, the ALJ did not err in finding that Tate's revised 

guidelines were not a mitigating factor. 

F. Precedent 

Tate argues ihat the sanction is grossly excessive when compared with past 

hazardous materials cases. Past cases have stated that "it is oltcn difficult to compare 

sanctions across cases because there are so many variables involved in each case." AJika 

Aviation. Inc.. FAA Order No. 1999-14 at 12 n.20 (December 22,1999), quoting Pacific 

Aviation hitcrnational. FAA Order No. 1997-8 at 7 (Fcbniary 20, 1997). 

As time has passed, however, it has become apparent that comparing sanctions 

across cases is not just difficult, but it is tmworkable. There are simply too many 

variables in each case. No two cases are alike when it comes to all the relevant statutory 

factors to consider, wliich include: 

the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity ofthc violation; the violator's 

degree of culpability; any history of prior violations; the ability to pay; any effect 

on the ability to do business; and any other matters that justice may require.''' 

There is a catchall phrase at the end oflhe cited passage which is: "and any other matters 

that justice may require." It includes corrective acfion under the sanction guidance and 

case law. Also falling within the catchall is the maximum sanction amount in effect at 

the time. Congress sometimes raises the maximum civil penalty for certain violations. 

Thus, the maximum civil penalty in one case may be $10,000, and the one under 

^'^ See supra at p. 7. 

14 
06/24/201 0 1G:01 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 0O1G/O2 3 

consideration may be $25,000. 

For these reasons, absent extraordinary circumstances, reliance on past sanctions 

will not be grounds for reducing sanctions that fall within the parameters set by the 

sanction guidance. Thus, Tate's argument based on past cases that the sanction is too 

high, in this case in which Tate was assessed a sanction below that in the sanction 

guidance, fails. 

IV. CoDclusioD 

Tate's appeal is granted in part. A $20,000 civil penalty is assessed.^^ 

L ^ . RANDOLPH BABBITT 

ADMINISTRATOR 

Federal Aviation Administration 

^^ This decision shall be considered an order assessing civil penally unless Respondent file.i a 

petition for review within 60 days of service of this decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Di.'Jtrict of Columbia Circuit or the U.S. court of appeals for the circuit in which the 

respondent resides or has its principal place of business. 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.16(d)(4), 13.233([j)(2), 

13-235. See 71 Fed. Reg. 70460 (December 5, 2006) (regarding petitions for review of final 

agency decisions in civil penalty cases). 

15 
06/24/2010 16:02 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 0017/02 3 

5nn 5' » SERVED DEC I 2 2805 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOl^j:I 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS V-' 

WASFUNGTON, V C. 

i^.» 

X I ••"• 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION. 

Complainant, 

V. 

TATE AND PARTNERS,' 

Respondent. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP04SO0014 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. FAA-2004-17764 "" ! >c 

INITIAL DECISION 

OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RICHARD C. GOODWIN 

Found: 1) Kespondent violated the sections of 49 CJJ t listed in the pamgnp h WOTT; and 

2) Respondent Is Uabie to and is hereby assessed a clvH penalty of S25,000. 

J. Backgronnd 

Tate and Partners (hereinafter "Tate" or "Respondent") has stipulated that on 

August 7, 2000, it offered an undeclared shipment of three boxes of hazardous 

materials to United Parcel Service ("UPS") for transportation by air.^ In this action 

the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "Complainant." "FAA." or "the 

agency") charges that Tate "knowingly" offered the shipment to UPS in violation of 

the following twenty-one sections or subsections of the Hazardous Materials 

Regulations ("HT^/IRs"), 49 CFR §§171 etseq., 171.2(a). 172.200(a), 172.202(a)(1-5), 

172.204(a), 172.204(c)(1-3). 172.300(a), 172.301(a), 172.312(a)(2). 172.400, 

172.400(a), 172.404(a), 172.600(c), 172.702(a), 173.1(b), and 173.201. T^^e 

provisions involve mainly labeling, packaging, and training requirements. 

' The matter was originBlly captioned "Lilit Karapedan Tate and Paiinars," but Respondent's first amended 

complaint, daied January 18.2005. rftmowd "Lilit Karapedan" and 1 adopted Ae current caption. 

* Respondent's Trial Briet filed May 13. 2005 (hereinafter "Trial Brief), PP- 2-4; Tr. 6, lO-H, 50. 

"Undeclared" means ihat the shipment contained DO YrHming or notice of the hazardous nature of its contents, 

Midtawn Neon Sign Corporation. FAA Order No. 96-26 (August 13,1996), p. 2. 

^ The parties stipulated specifically that the shiprocnt contained hazardous matoriBls and/or dangerous goods and 

(a) was i»ot accompanied by a Shipper's CeniScation or Declaration of Dangerous Goods or any other shipping 

papen required by law or regulation for the shipment of dangerous goods; (b) did not possess the outer container 

markings and labelin| required by law or regulation for the shipment of dangerous goods; (c) was mol contained 

in authorized combination packaging required by law or legularion ILr the shipment of dangerous j^s ; and (d) 

was not accompanied by that emergency response infonnaiiDn requir J by law or regulation for the shipment of 

dangerous goods. Trial Brief, pp. 3-4, Tr. 11. 
Oe/24/201 0 16:0 2 FAX 2024935142 FAA •> DMS 0018/02 3 

Tate denies legal responsibility for the shipment. Even if the violations 

occurred, it states, they were committed "unknowingly" (Trial Brief, p. 2). Thus the 

Issue is joined. 

FAA seeks a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. §5123(a) and 49 CFR §107,329 of 

$30,000. Reeportdent counters that even if it is found liable, the proposed fine is 

disproportionate to the transgression (Tr. 78). 

A hearing was held or. May 16, 2005, in Gardena. CA. I detenrtined that a 

written decision was reasonable and most appropriate under the circumstances (Tr. 

16), The parties submitted briefs and the case is now ready for decision. 

We hold Tate in violation of the cited HMRs and set a civil penalty of $25,000. 

II, Facts and ConclugJons 

Tate, a corporation based in Santa Monica, CA, is a four-person commercial 

production company; that is, it makes television commercials for advertising agencies 

(Tr. 93-94,114). Sometime prior to August 7, 2000, it was hired to shoot a Molson 

beer commercial in Toronto (Tr. 96). Tate did not have a director on staff, so it hired 

one for the shoot - a practice common in the Industry. The director, in turn, hired a 

prc)p manager, Damon Cardwell (Tr. 96-97). A prop manager, or propmaster, 

supplies props for a set (Tr. 95). 

Cardwell, like Tate, is based in the Los Angeles area (Tr. 117). He asked Tate 

to ship to Toronto three boxes of materials he needed for the shoot Cardwell 

assured Tate production manager Hugh Bacher, who processed the shipment, that 

any hazardous materials had been removed firom the shipment and that none of the 

boxes contained anything unsuitable for transportation by air(Tr. 98, 110, 120-21; 

RX-7). Cardwell's statement proved incorrect 

On or about August 7, 2000, Bacher tendered the boxes to UPS,* None 

contained any indication that hazardous materials were inside. But UPS employees 

at its sort facility in Louisville, KY learned of the contents (Tr, 33). They found 

hazardous materials in each box, uncovering dozens of hazardous items altogether.^ 

The carrier notified FAA special agent Daniel Wahl (Tr. 20). UPS unpacked the 

boxes and provided a handwritten list of the dangerous goods to agent Wahl (Tr. 20-

22, 33, 40; GX-5). 

* Tr. 99-100. Bacher sigoed the name of Lilit Karapetian to each box as the offeror. Tr. 99»1 DO; ses GX-6, pp. 1, 

3, and 5. Karapedan (now Lilit Shaghoian) was the Tate employee who normally shipped items oc. the 

company's behalf and was programmed as Respondent's default contact. Tr. 83, 85,87-89, 91. 100. Ms. 

ICaropctian heisclfwas unavailable at the time, being out of the country. Tr. SO-83. 

' Ih e list of the shipment's hazardous i/iaterials, set out in Paragraph 6 of the agency's Complaint, is reproduced 

in the Appendix lo this Initial Decision (hereinafter "l.D.")-
OG/24/2010 1G:02 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS 0019/02 3 

• ! 

I Liability attaches under the penalty statute, 49 U.S.C. §6123(a)(1), to a person 

I (including a partnership or corporation) who "knowingly violates' an HMR. A person 

I acts knowingly when: 

I (A) th e person has actua l knowledge of th e 

j facts givin g ris e t o th e violation ; or 

I (B) a reasonabl e person actin g i n th e 

circumstance s and exercisin g reasonabl e 

car e would have tha t knowledge. 

M 

The circumstances demonstrate, I find, that Tate should have known that the 

boxes contained hazardous materials. Thus Respondent is liable under 

§5123(a)(1)(B), 

When the propmaster, Carelwell. tendered the three boxes for shipping to Tate 

production manager Bacher, he gave Bacher three handwritten lists representing the 

Items purportedly inside each of the boxes (Tr. 99,100, 111; GX-6, pp, 2, 4. and 6). 

Most of the Items on each list were innocuous. But some shouki have raised 

suspicion about their nature and suitability for shipping. The names or descriptions of 

these items should have alerted a person exercising reasonable care to their possibly 

hazardous character. Among the latter were 'glue sticks" (GX-6. p. 2; Tr. 24. 34), 

"butyl," "glues.' "Super Glue" (GX-6, p. 4; Tr. 24, 35), arid "glycerine" (GX-6. p. 6; Tr. 

24, 36). Super Glue, a brand of glue. Is in fact considered a hazardous material (Tr. 

24," 36). The other descriptions are general categories under which certain items 

constitute hazanJous materials and others do not (se© Tr. 34-36). Some types of 

butyl, for example, are listed as hazandous substances In the HMRs (Tr, 24, 41). The 

salient point is that the lists should have put a reasonable person on notice of the 

possibility of the presence of hazardous materials. 

Bacher reviewed the lists.' He did not know what could or could not be 

shipped or whether any of the items constrtuted hazardous materials (Tr, 98,102). 

He had had no training in hazanJous materials shipping (Tr. 110-11). Bacher felled to 

look inside any of the boxes. Although they were sealed, the evidence shows that he 

made no request or effort to open them (Tr. 100-02,111). Yet he was aware of the 

possibility that hazardous materials could be, and may have been, a part of this 

shipment The line producer on the shoot told Bacher that she had reminded 

Cardwell, the propmaster, to remove hazardous materials prior to tendering the 

boxes to Bacher (Tr, 98, 109-110). The topic of hazmats also came up in 

conversation between Bacher and Cardwell, as we have noted (I.D., p. 2). Against 

this background, the five items noted on the lists shouW have prompted a reasonable 

individual to make further inquiry (Tr. 24, 34-35). The law charges Bacher in this 

situation with the duty of reasonable inquiry and, further, with the knowledge that 

reasoriable inquiry would have produced. 

* Tr. 101. These lists are different and less comprehensive than the dangeroui-goods lists prepared by UPS and 

tomed over to agent Wahl, Tr. 36-38,40, 
OG/24/2010 1G:02 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS @l020/023 

We hold that Bacher, in the proper exercise of his duty, would have teamed of 

the existence of the hazardous materials later found in the shipment Thus he is 

charged with that knowledge. And Tate is liable through Bacher. Bacher, of course, 

was a Tate employee. There is no questfon that he was acting within the scope of 

his employment (Tr. 94). Employers are responsible for hazardous-materials 

violations committed by their empk>yees. RiverdalB Mills Corporstion, FAA Order No 

2003-10 (September 12, 2003). 

I find and conclude that Complainant showed by a preponderance of the 

evidence that Tate "knowingly offered' the shipment in question because in the 

exercise of reasonable care it would have known of tiie contents of the shipment. 

See Interstate Chsmical Company, Inc., FAA Order No, 2002-29 (December 6, 

2002), p. 14. Constructive knowledge of the acts constituting violations is all that is 

required for liability under the Hazardous Materials Uniform Safety Act. Scott H. 

SmalHng, FAA Order No. 94-31 (October 5, 1994), p. 7, n. 8. Tate thus is liable for 

the violations set out in the Complaint^ 

IIL Penally 

I will assess a civil penalty against Tate and Partners of $25,000. 

Complainant asks for a civil penalty of $30,000. It bears the burden of proving 

the appropriateness of this amount by a preponderance of the evidence. Phillips 

Building Supply, FAA Order No. 2000-20 (August 11, 2000). p. 8. 

In detemiining the amount of the penalty, the decisionmaker must consider 

"the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation," and, with respect to 

the violator, "the degree of culpability, any history of prior violations, the ability to pay, 

and any effect on the ability to continue to do business;* and "other matters that 

justice requires" (49 U.S.C §5123(c)). 

Special Agent Donald Hanson testified that the FAA's recommendation was 

grounded on the number of products uncovered and their compatibility with each 

other and with other products (Tr. 65). As the Appendix shows, the shipment 

contained a long list of undeclared items. Shipping any undeclared dangerous good 

unacceptably compromises the safety of flight The Administrator has emphasized 

that "undeclared shipments of hazardous materials pose a special risk" (see, e.g., 

Interstate Chemical Company, Inc., FAA Order No. 2002-29 (December 6, 2002), p. 

16), Safety issues for all those who may be affected by such items - handlers, 

passengers, and crew - are particularly acute since hazardous materials by their very 

nature carry significant risks of danger. Some of the materials in this shipment were 

labeled flammable, and even "extremely flammable' (Tr. 28, 29; see, e.g., Exh. GX-7, 

' Complainant also ai^ued that Tate is liable on the giouod that Cardwell was fiinctionally its employee or agent 

in connection •with the shoot. Post-Hearing Brief of Closing Argument, pp. 7-8, Respondent countered that 

Cardwell was an independent contractor. Tr 76; Respondent's Pojt-Hcaring Closing Argument and Brief, p. 2. 

In view of my decision, I do not reach this issue. 

I have considered all o*er arguments and reject them as without merit 
OG/24/2010 1G;02 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 1021/02 3 

pp. 18, 19). Agent Hanson added that unmarked, unlabeled boxes such as tliese are 

generally loaded next to other passenger and cargo items. A fire or explosion in the 

midst of several different types of shipments increases the likelihood of catastrophe 

(Tr. 55). These circumstances warrant a substantial fine. 

Mitigation, however, is suggested by the fact that Tate neither is in the 

business of handling hazardous materials nor does it normally ship them incident to 

its business. Tate indeed ships - but items in furtherance of Its commercial 

production activities, such as tapes, video, and related documents (Tr. 104, 116; RX7). It had never shipped a kit like this before (Tr. 105, 116). Indeed, it never intended 

to ship these items (Tr. 126). Goods terKlered in furtherance of a shoot, moreover, 

normally are shipped by the client or are obtained in hand at the production locale 

(which in this case was Toronto) (RX-7; Tr. 117, 120), Unfamiliarity with the HMRs 

which is reasonable under the circumstances may be considered in determining a 

civil penalty assessment. 7"C/ Corporation, FAA Oreler No. 92-77 (December 22. 

1992), pp. 18. 20. The factors described lead me to conclude that Tate's unfamiliarity 

with the HMRs was reasonable. Complainant in its penalty suggestion, I find, failed 

to give this factor due consideration. I also find that no other mitigating factors are 

present' 

In weighing all relevant issues I find and conclude that a civil penalty 

assessment of $25,000 Is warranted. It fairiy accounts for the totality of the 

circumstances of the case In the context of the statutory factors (see I.D., p. 4). The 

fine has appropriate "bite" as well; I conclude that it will suitably promote the agency's 

policies of compliance and deterrence. 

Tate and Partners is hereby assessed a civil penalty of $25,000 for violations 

of the following HMRs: §§171.2(a), 172.200(a), 172.202(a)(1-5), 172.204(a), 

172.204(c)(1-3), 172.300(a), 172.301(a), 172.312(a)(2), 172.400, 172.400(a), 

172.404(a). 172.600(c), 172.702(a), 173.1(b), and 173.201..'. 

Richa nd C. 5oodv/in ^\.l j 

Administrative Law Judge 

Attachments - Appendix 

Service List 

' Talc profibred written shipping guidelines it has generated for freelancers and its own employees. Tr. 11 ft, 122-

23; RX-8. I agree with special agent Hanson, however, that the guidelines, which do not mandate training and 

have no enforcement mechanism, are weak and cany little value. See Tr. 125-27, Therefore I do not consider the 

guidelines a mitigating factor. 

Any appeal from the Initial Decision to the Administrator must be in accotdonce with section 13.233 of the 

Rules of Practice, which requires 1) that a notice of appeal be filed no later than 10 days (plus an additional 5 for 

mailing) iroro the date of this order and 2) that the appeal be perfected with a written brief or memorandum not 

later than 50 days (plus 5 for mailing) from the date of this order. Each is to be seoT to the Appellate Docket 

Clerk, Room 924-A, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, Wa-^ington, DC 20591, and 

to ugcncy counsel. Service upon the presiding judge is optional. 
OG/24/2010 1G:0 3 FAX 2024935U2 ^^^ 

^ QMS l^u-i^/^--

Appendix 

Paragr^h 6 of Section II of the Complaint lists the following hazardous materials and/or dangerous 

goods found in the three boxes ofthc shipment under review: 

• One (]) eleven-ounce aerosol container of "Kiylon Crystal Clear Acrylic Coating 1303" 

labeled "Extremely Flanunable" and "Contents Under Pressure," 

• One (1) 16 '/2-DTjnce aerosol container of 3M "Staper 77 Spray Adhesive" labeled 

"Extremely Flammable" and "Contents Under Pressure," 

• Four (4) five-ounce aerosol containers of "Le Brunusateur Evian Eau Mineral" labeled 

"Pressurized Container." 

• One (1) sixteen-ounce plastic container of "Reagent Alcohol" affixed with a flammable 

liquid label. 

• One (1) l-wenty-five-oimce plastic container of "Last Rinse Sanitizer" labeled "Corrosive 

to Eyes." 

• One (1) sixteen-ounce glass container of "Aqua Gel" labeled to have a Ph of 2. 

• One (1) eleven-ounce aerosol container of "Kiylon Matte Finish Spray Coating 1311" 

labeled "Extremely Flammable" and "Can Pressurized." 

» One (1) eight-ounce aerosol containers of "Streaks 'N Tips" labeled "Flammable" and 

Contents Under Pressure." 

• One (1) seven-ounce aerosol container of "Super 77 Spray Adhesive" labeled "Extremely 

Flaminable" and "Contents Under Pressure." 

• One (1) five-ounce aerosol container of "Le Brumisateur Evian Eau Mineral" labeled 

"Pressurized Container." 

• Two (2) thirty-eight-gram metal cylinders of "C02 Power Clean" labeled "Carbon Dioxide 

Gas / Non-Flammable Gas / UN 1013 / ORM-D." One of the containers was attached to a 

spray nozzle and the other was packaged in a single fold fiberboard container, 

' Two (2) "Magnum 44 Permanent Markers" labeled "Combustible." 

• Two (2) "Marks-A-Lot Permanent Markers" labeled "Flammable," 

• One (1)4 l4-ounce metal container of "Goof Off labeled "Flammable." 
OB 

^ DMS '^"" ' 

/24/201 0 1B:0 3 FAX 2024935U2 ^AA 

• One (1) two-ounce plastic container of "Zip Kicker Accelerator for Super Glue" labeled 

"Flammable." 

• One (1) three-ounce glass container of "Weldwood Contact Cement" labeled "Extremely 

Flammable". 

• One (1) 100-millilliter aerosol container of "WD-40" labeled "Flammable" and 

"Pressurized Container". 

• One (1) four-ounce metal tube of "Liquid Nails" labeled "Extremely Flammable". 

• One (1) butane lighter labeled "Butane Gas Under Pressure" and "Extremely Flammable". 

• Four (4) twelve-ounce aerosol containers of "Krylon Interior/Exterior Pamt" labeled 

"Extremely Flammable" and Contents Under Pressure." 

• One (1) twelve-ounce aerosol container of "Krylon Sandable Primer" labeled "Extremely 

Flammable" and "Contents Under Pressure." 

• One (1) eleven-ounce aerosol container of "Krylon Crystal Clear Acrylic Coating" labeled 

"Extremely Flammable" and "Contents Under Pressure," 

• One (I) nine-ounce aerosol container of "Studio Hair Color" labeled "Extremely 

Flammable." 

• One (1) eight-ounce aerosol container of "Streaks 'N Tips" labeled "Flammable" and 

"Contente Under Pressure." 

• One (1) sixteen-ounce metal container of "Bestine Solvent and Thinner" labeled 

"Extremely Flammable," 

» One (1) sixteen-ounce metal container of "Denatured Alcohol" labeled "Flammable" and 

"Poison." 

• One (1) eight-ounce plastic container of "Goo Gone" labeled "Combustible," 

• One (1) sixteen-ounce plastic container of "Reagent Alcohol" affixed with a flammable 

liquid label. 

• One (1) 9 Va-ounce aerosol container of "Spray Moxmt Artist*s Adhesive" labeled 

"Extremely Flammable" and Contents Under Pressure."