01/29/2013 15:51 7812387055 FAA NE REGIONAL CNSL 

U.S. Deportment 

of Transportotion 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

New England Region 

12 New England Executive Park 

Burlington. MA 01803 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

January 29, 2013 

FACSIMILE (202) 493-5142 & U.S. FIRST CLASS MAIL 

HeariJ.J.g Docket 

Federal A \dation Administration 

800 Independence A venue~ SW 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn.: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

In the Matter of Scott Tice 

Docket No. CP- /J:J S .Q.Of3-1JOtfOL 

Case No. 20 12NE700211 Hazardous Materials t ()t'Y\ 9 {) lo . c;tD 13-AUJ A--C,t>p- \7 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

. .,., 

rn 

OJ 

I 

·r:: 

lJ 

,()'l 

cr 

Enclosed are an original and one copy of the complaint in the above-referenced proceeding. 

The FAA requests that th~ hearing in this matter be held Boston, MA, and expects that the 

hearing will last one day. 

Please serve all documents in this matter on the undersigned FAA attom.ey at: 

Sincerely, 

Attorney 

Enclosures 

cc: Mr. Scott Tice 

Federal A vi.ati.on. Ad:r.n.inistTation 

Office of the Regional Counsel; ANE-7 

12 New England ·Executive Par.k 

Bur.lington, MA 01821 

ATIN: R. Bennett Sargent 

PAGE 02/07 
01/29/2013 15:51 7812387055 FAA NE REGIONAL CNSL 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINTSTRATTON FAA Case No. 2012NE70021 1 

Complainant, 

v. 

SCOTTTICE 

Respondent. 

JUDGE NOT ASSIGNED 

COMPLAINT 

FAA DocketNo. CP-

(Civil Penalty Action) 

Date: January 29 .• 2013 

PAGE 03/07 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) hereby files its complaint, under Rule 208 of 

the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 CFR § 13.208, and states the toll owing: 

I. 

Respondent Scott Tice, was advised through a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Pe11alty that 

the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty 1n the amount of $600. On January 23, 2013, 

Responder:tt submitted a Wl;tten request for a hearing. 

II. 

1. 011 or about September 11, 2012, Respondent was a ticketed passenger. on Cape Air flight 

60, a passenger-can-ying flight, departing from Rutland Southern Vermont Regional 

Airport in North Clarendon, Vermont. 

2. On or about Septembet 11) 2012, Respondent offered checked baggage for transportation 

in air commerce on Cape Air flight 60. 

3. Transportation Security Administration (TS.A) personnel at Rutland Southern Vermont 

Regional Airport initiated an inspection of the baggage and observed that it contained one 

(1) 8 ounce container ofMSR IsoPro Premium Blend fuel. 

4. The container of MSR IsoPro Premium Blend f1.1el was marked with the following 

wamings: 

* 
01/29/2013 15:51 7812387055 FAA NE REGIONAL CNSL PAGE 04/07 

a. DANGER; 

b. EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE; and 

c. CONTENTS UNDER PRESSURE. 

5. The above-referenced MSR IsoPro Premium. Blen.d fuel. is classified as hazardous 

rnate:r:i.al under section 172.101 of the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials 

Regulations (HMR) (49 C.F.R. Parts 171 et seq.). 

6. The proper shipping name for MSR IsoPro Premiun1. Blend fuel is Petroleum gases, 

liquefied. It is in a hazard class 2.1 (flammable gas), has an. assigned identification 

number ofUNt 075, and is forbidden for transportation on passenger-can:ying aircraft. 

7. At all tim.es mentioned herein, the above-refere11ced sh1ptnent was not acco.rnpan.i.ed by a 

Shipper's Cet1ification or Declaration for Dangerous Goods. 

8. Respondent offered the above-described shipment ofhazar.dous material for 

transportation by air when. the ro.ate:r:ial wa.s not properly classed, described, packaged, 

marked, labeled, or in the proper condition for shipme11t. 

9. Respo11dent offered the above-described shipment of hazardous material for 

11:ansportation by air. without adding the certification required by sectiOJ1S 172.204(a) or 

(c)(l) ofthe HMR (49 C.F.R. §§ 172.204(a) or (c)(l)). 

10. Respondent offered the above-described shipment of hazardous material to an aircraft 

operator for transportation by air and did not provide two (2) copies of the required 

shipper's certifi.cation. 

1 L Respondent offered the above-described shipment of hazardous material for 

transportation by air when the package containing the ha7...ardous material was not marked 

with the proper shipping name and identification numbers, preceded by "UN" or ''NA" as 

appropriate, of the hazardous material contained therein, and without the required 

markings being durable, in English and printed on or affixed to the surface of the 

package, or on a label, tag or sign 

12. Respondent offered the above-described shipment ofhazardous material for 

transportation by air without making er;nergency response information immediately 

available for use at all times the hazardous material was present. 

13. Respol.'Jdent offered the above-described shipment ofhazardous material for 

transportation by air when the shipment contained a material that is "Forbidden" for 

transportation aboar.d a passenger~carrying aircraft as indicated in Column 9a of the 

§172.1.01 table (49 C.F.R. § 172.101). 
01/29/2013 15:51 7812387055 FAA NE REGIONAL CNSL PAGE 05/07 

14. Based upon the foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the following 

Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (Title 49 ofthe Code of 

Federal. Regu.lations): 

a. Section 171.2(e) (49 C.F.R. § l.71..2(e)), in that Respondent offered.b.a7...ar.dous 

material for transportation in commerce when the material wa.s not properly 

classed, described, packaged, marked, labeled~ and in the condition for shipment 

required by the HMR (49 C.P.R. parts 171, et se_g.). 

b. Section 172.200(a) (49 C.F.R. §§ 172.200(a)), in that Respondent offered 

hazardous material for transportation. without properly describing the material on 

the shipping paper. 

c. Sections 172.204(a) or (c)(1) (49 C.F.R. §§ 172.204(a) or (c)(l)), in that 

Respondent offered hazardous material for transportation without printing the 

required certification on the shipping paper as stated in § l7;2.204(.a)( 1) or ( a)(2) 

(49 C.F.R. § 172.204(a)(l) or (a)(2)). · · 

d.. Section 172.204(c)(2) (49 C.F.R. § 172.204(c)(2)), in that Respondent offered 

hazardous materia~_to an aircraft operator for transportation by. air and did not 

provide two copies of the required shi.ppe:t:'s certification. · ' 

e. Sections 172.300(a) and 172.30l(a) (49 C.F.R. §§ 1.72.300(a) and 172.30l(a)), in 

that Respondent offered hazardous material for transportation when the package 

was not marked wi.tb. the proper shipping name and identification. number for its 

contents. 

f. Section 172.304(a)(l) (49 C.F.R. § 172.304(a)(l)), in that Respondent offered 

hazardous material for trao.spo:rtation when the required markings wer.e not 

durable, in English and printed on. or affixed to the surface of the package 9r on a 

label, tag or sign. 

g. Section 172.400(a) (49 C.F.R. § 172.400(a)): in that Respondent offered a 

package containing hazardous material for transportation by air whe;n the.pacl~age 

was not properly labeled as specified in Section 172.101 (49 C.F.R. § 172._101). 

h. Section 172.600(c)(1) (49 C.F.R. § 172.600(c)(l)), bJ. that Respondent offered a 

package containing hazardous material for transportation by air without making . 

emergency r.esponse information immediately available for use at all times the 

hazardous material was present. · 

1. Sectjon 173.l(b) (49 C.P.R. § 173 .l(b)), in that Respondent offered a shipment of 

hazardous materials for transportation by air without properly preparing the 

shipment. · · · 
01/29/2013 15:51 7812387055 FAA NE REGIONAL CNSL PAGE 05/07 

j. Section 173.27(b)(l) (49 C.F.R. § l73.27(b)(l)), in that Respondent offered a 

package containing a material that is ''Forbidden'' for transportation aboard a 

passenger-carrying aircraft as indicated in Column 9a of 1he § 172.101 table ( 49 

C.F.R. § 172.101). 

TIL 

15. Under. 49 U.S.C. §5123(a) of Chapter 51, Title 49 ofthe United States Code of 

Transp01tation, (49 U.S.C. § 5123(a)), Respondent is liable for a civil penalty of not less 

than $250 nor greater tha11 $55,000 for each violation ofthe regulations. By reason. oftbe 

foregoing facts and circumstances we propose to assess a. civil penalty for all of the 

violations noted in the total amount of $600. 

16. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of $600 is appropriate. 

WHEREFORE, Complainant tespect1ltlly requests that the Administrative Law Judge 

enter au order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $600. 

Respectfully submitted this 29th day of January 2013. 

CHRISTOPHER PORED A 

Regional Counsel 

R.BENNETTSARGENT 

Attomey 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Reg1onal Counsel 

12 New England Executive Park, ANE-7 

Burlington, MA 01803 
01/29/2013 15:51 7812387055 FAA NE REGIONAL CNSL 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that the foregoing complajnt has been sent via Certified Mail-Return Receipt 

Requested and First Class Mail this date to: 

Respondent 

Mr. Scott Tice 

21125 Tim.be:r.laud Road 

Barronett, WI 54813-9540 

PAGE 07/07 

Also, I certify that the foregoing complaint ha'5 been sent via Facsimile and by U.S. First 

Class Mail this date to: 

Hearing Docl{et 

Hearing Docket (original and one copy) 

Federal Aviation Admi.nist-ration. 

800 Independence A venue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

. Fax: (202) 493-5142 

DONNA 

:~~ SORENSEN January 29, 2013 

Pr.ogram Analyst