### SERVE D MARC H 29 , 201 1 '•r-;TMENTO F 2:5 1 UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D . C . FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION , Complainant , V . FEDERA LEXPRESS , INC. , Respondent . FA A DOCKE T No . CP09NM001 0 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S No . FAA-2009-072 1 INITIA L DECISIO N O F ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDG E RICHAR D C . GOODWI N Found : 1 ) Responden t

violate d4 9 C.F.R . §§175.3 , an d§175.30(a)(2 ) an d 175.30(a)(3 ) a s charged ; 2 ) Responden t

i s hereb y assesse dacivi l penalt y o f $30,000 . 

### I . Backgroun d Complainant , Federa l Aviatio n Administration , ("Complainant, " "FAA, " o r"th e agency" ) allege s tha t o n o rabou t Augus t 22 , 2007 , agent s o f Respondent , Federa l Express , Inc. , ("Respondent " o r"Federa l Express") , a Par t 12 1 ai rcarrier , accepte d an d transporte d b yai rcertai n hazardou s material s i n violatio n o f requirement s o f th e Department' s Hazardou s Material s Regulation s ("HMRs") , 4 9 CF R §§171-178 . Federa l Expres s i s responsible , accordin g t o th e charges , fo racceptin g an d shippin g i n ai rtransportatio n tw o boxe s o f a certai n sanitizin g gel . Th e boxe s eac h containe d incorrect markings , th e agencyasserts , an d lacke d mandator yshippin g papers . I n it s Complaint , a s amended , o f Jul y17 , 2009 , th e agenc ycharge d Federa l Expres s wit h violatin g 4 9 C.F.R . §§175.3 , 175.30(a)(2 ) an d 175.30(a)(3) . Sectio n 175. 3 prohibit s a hazardou s materia l ("hazmat" ) tha t has not bee n properl yprepare d fo rshipmen t t o b e offered , accepted , o rtransporte d i n ai rtransportation . Sectio n 175.30(a)(2 ) doe s no t allo w a hazardou s materia l t o b e accepte d fo rai r transportatio n unles s th e aircraf t operato rensure s tha t th e hazmat i s describe d o n ashippin g pape ri n accordanc e wit h HM R requirements . Finally , §175.30(a)(3 )

prohibit s th e acceptanc e o f hazmat s i n ai rtransportatio n unles s th e aircraft operato r ensure s tha t suc h material s have bee n marke d an d labele d a s required . Pursuan t t o 4 9 U.S.C . §5123(a)(1) , th e agenc yasks fo ra tota l civi l penaltyo f $37,500 . Responden t acknowledge d th e fact s underlyin g th e charges . I n it s defense , i t attempte d t o minimiz e o rshift it s responsibility . I t als o too k issu e wit h th e propose d penalty . Federa l Expres s argue s tha t th e amoun t th e FA Asuggest s i s highe rtha n i s warrante d byth e nature an d exten t o f th e infractions , particularl ywhe n th e mistake s are weighe d agains t th e scop e o f th e carrier' s operations . Responden t conclude s tha t th e propose d penaltyi s "excessive " an d shoul d b e "substantiall yreduced " (Post Hearin g Brie f o f Respondent , p . 14) . Ahearin g wa s hel d o n Octobe r25 , 2010 , i n Portland , OR . I determine d tha t a wrifte n decisio n wa s reasonabl e an d appropriat e unde rth e circumstances . Th e partie s have eac h file d openin g briefs , an d Complainant , whic h ha s th e burde n o f proof , ha s als o file d a rebutta l brief.^ i fin d an d conclud e tha t Complainan t prove d th e violation s alleged . I furthe r hol d tha t th e fact s an d circumstance s o f thi s cas e warran t a n assessmen t agains t Responden t o f $30,000 . 

### II . Discussio n an dFinding s A s state d above , th e fact s underlyin g Complainant' s charge s wer e no t disputed . Responden t acknowledge d tha t i t accepte d an d place d i n ai r transportatio n a shipmen t o f tw o boxe s o f ha2iardou s material s whic h wer e deficien t unde rth e HMR s i n tw o respects : th e package s eac h lacke d a n "ORM- D Air " markin g typicall ynecessar

yi n thes e circumstances ? an d neithe rboxwa s accompanie d b ya shipper' s declaratio n (Tr . 134-35,170) . Thes e facts , I find , make ou t th e violation s charged . Th e testimon yo f FA

Aspecia l agen t Donal d Stiger , whic h I foun d credible , prove d th e violation s i n an yevent . Agen t S|i0W testifie d tha t o n Augus t 22 , 2007 , h e an d anothe ragen t wer e observin g off-loadin g <;^ration s i n Medford , O R durin g a ram p inspectio n o f Empire Airlines . Th e agent s determine d tha t Federa l Expres s ha d tendere d an d shippe d tw o fiber^oar d boxe s whic h were marke d o n bot h side s "Consume rCommodityORM-D. " ("ORM " i $ a n «^Jthprjzed markin g abbreviatio n standin g fo r"othe rregulate d material. " 4 9 C.F.R . §172.308(b) ; Tr . 145-46) . Neithe r boxha d th e marking s require d fo rthi s shipment . No rwa s eithe rpackag e accompanie d byhazardou s material s shippin g papers . AFedera l Expres s officia l at

' Complainant' s Brief

wil l be designateda s "Compl . Bi"." , the Post-Hearin g Brie f o f Responden

t a s "Resp . Br." , an dComplainant' s Rebutta

l Brief as "Compl . Rebut. "th e Medford airpor t opene d th e boxes . Eac h containe d on e cas e (twenty-fou r bottles ) o f 354-millilite rplasti cbottle s o f Nexiu m Han d Sanitizin g Ge l ("Gel"). ^ Th e Ge l ha d begu n it s journe yi n Baltimore . I t ha d travele d t o Respondent' s Memphi s hu b an d the n wa s place d o n a fligh t t o Portland , OR . befor e th e FA A agent s observe d th e package s afte rth e fligh t touche d dow n i n Medford . Th e package s ha d bee n destine d fo ra custome ro f AstraZenec a Pharmaceutical s ("AstraZeneca") , th e origina l shipper , i n Jacksonville , O R (Tr . 27-33 , 46 , 50-51 , 77 ; Exhs . C-1 , C-3 , C-5) . Th e Ge l i s describe d genericall ya s a n antibacteria l han d gel . I t i s classifie d a s a hazardou s materia l o n accoun t o f it s alcoho l conten t (Exh . C-6) . Th e Gel' s Materia l SafetyDat a Shee t indicate s tha t i t contain s a s muc h a s 62 % ethy l alcoho l b yvolum e (Exh . C-6) . Its flashpoin t i s 74 ° Fahrenhei t (23 ° Celsius) . Agen t Stige r testifie d tha t thi s ite m i s properl yclasse d a s a Clas s 3 flammabl e liqui d (Tr . 34 , 71) . I t i s formall ycategorize d i n th e Hazardou s Material s Tabl e ("Table" ) a s a Flammabl e Materia l i n Packin g Grou p III . Its U N identificatio n numbe r(whic h wa s lacking ) i s U N 117 0 (Tr . 52-53 , 71 ; Exh . C-6 ; se e Tabl e followin g §172.101) . Agen t Stige rtestifie d tha t a n "ORM-D " markin g o n a boxmean s tha t th e materia l insid e i s hazardou s (Tr . 29) . A s s o marked , suc h good s ar e permitte d t o mov e b ygroun d (Tr . 78) . Bu t th e HMR s prohibi t suc h package s t o b e flow n aboar d aircraft unles s marke d "ORM-D-Air " (Tr . 29 , 64) . Thes e item s ha d been , o f course , travellin g byair . Anothe rdeficiencyagen t Stige rnote d i s tha t a hazmat packag e marke d ORM- D tha t i s offere d o rintende d fo rtransportatio n byai rmus t b e accompanie d bya shippin g pape r(4 9 C.F.R . §§172.200(a ) an d (b)) . Bu t ther e wer e n o suc h papers (Tr . 64) . I n thi s situation , th e pilo t ha d bee n unawar e tha t hazmat s wer e o n boar d hi s flight . Finally , agen t Stige rnote d tha t th e bottles , whic h ha d screw-typ e caps , ha d no t bee n securel yhel d wit h a positiv e mean s o f contro l a s §173.2 7 o f th e HMR s requires. ^ A s such , thi s shipmen t coul d no t hav e bee n reclassifie d a s a n ORM-D-Ai rshipmen t a t al l (Tr . 88-89) . I n vie wo f th e investigators ' findings , th e agenc ysen t Federa l Expres s a Lette ro f Investigatio n ("LOI" ) unde rdat e o f Augus t 27 , 200 7 (Exh . C-8 ; Tr . 56-57) . Th e carrie ranswere d tha t it s employe e responsibl e fo rloadin g th e package s int o th e strea m o f ai rtransportatio n "mistakenl ydi d no t notice " th e ORM- D marking s (Exh . C 9) . Senio rsafet ymanage rPatric k Oppenheime racknowledge d i n testimon ytha t th e ORM- D mar k

wa s a "re d fl£ig. " Th e erran t mar k shoul d hav e alerte d Federa l Expres s t o th e possibilityo f "improperl yoffered " packages , h e concede d (Tr . 130 - 32) . Respondent , then , faile d i n it s dutyt o investigat e - a dutywhich , i f fulfilled , woul d hav e alerte d i t t o th e infractions . Th e agenc yadditionall ynote d tha t th e fault y

^ Tr . 21-64 ; Exh . C-3 . Federa l Expres s suggestedtha

t the package s couldb e consideredas on e shipment , since the y wer e consignedt

o the sam e customer . I d

o not agree . Th e package s wer

e separat e andha d differen t tracking numbers . A s such , the y ar e properl y consideredto b e two shipments . Se e Tr . 40 , 93-94 . ^ Tr . 33 ; Exh . C-1 , p . 1 . 4 9 C.F.R . §173.27(d ) state s tha t "Stoppers , corks o

r othe r suc hfriction-type closure s mus t

be heldsecurely , tightl

y an deffectivel y i n plac e b y positive means . Eac

hscrew-typ e closur

e o n an y packaging must

b e secure dt o preven t closur e fromloosening du

e to vibration o

r substantia l change i n temperature. "i\^^;s^a3^tvitN^j-^-j-'._:i..-.,;ijvat,*iisbffi«L^ii!ti..^ .

markin g whic h Responden t criticize d a s insufficientl yprominen t wa s adjacen t t o th e ba rcode . Th e offendin g package s wer e scanne d byResponden t acceptors a t fou r location s - Baltimore , Memphis , Portland , OR , an d Medford , OR . I n thes e circumstances , Complainan t contends . Respondent' s personne l shoul d hav e caugh t th e mistake (Tr . 35 , 40-41 , 44-45) . I f Federa l Expres s shoul d hav e notice d th e incorrec t markings , the n i t possesse d th e constructiv e knowledg e necessar yfo ra findin g o f liability . Complainan t add s (Compl . Br. , p . 6) . Agains t thi s background , I find tha t Responden t possesse d th e require d constructiv e knowledg e fo ra finding o f HM R violations . I n it s defense . Federa l Expres s state d tha t th e origina l shipper , AstraZeneca , ha d no t offere d hazardou s material s t o i t byai rbefore . AstraZenec a ha d alway s offere d suc h shipment s b yground . A s such , th e carrie rargued . Respondent' s employee s wer e no t dispose d t o determin e th e nature o f th e packages ' content s (se e Resp . Br. , p . 2) . AstraZenec a additionall yfaile d i n it s ow n dutyt o infon n Federa l Express , eithe rorall yo ri n writing , tha t th e shipmen t wa s a dangerous good s ("DG" ) shipment. " Mr . Oppenheime rtestifie d tha t shippers "hav e a responsibilityt o notifyu s tha t the yare shippin g dangerou s goods... " (Tr . 125) . Finally , Respondent' s answe rt o th e LO I stresse d tha t th e ORM- D marking s wer e "minimal " i n size ; the ywer e visuall yinsufficien t t o aler t it s personnel . Th e carrie r adde d tha t i t ha s bee n activel yseekin g regulator ychange s (Exh . C-9 ; se e als o Tr . 148-49) . 

### III . Penalt y W e nowtur n t o th e issu e o f civi l penalty . A . Factor s Determinatio n o f a n appropriat e civi l penaltyinvolve s a numbe ro f factors . Th e decisionmake rmus t weig h "th e nature , circumstances , extent , an d gravit yo f th e violation[s], " and , wit h respec t t o th e violator , "th e degre e o f culpability , an yhistor yo f prio rviolations , [and ] th e abilityt o pay " a s WQi l a s "othe rmatters tha t justic e requires " (4 9 U.S.C . §5123(c) ; se e Tr . 62) . Th e principa l element s i n thi s analysi s ar e th e nature o f th e respondent' s conduct an d th e totalit yo f th e circumstances . Envirosolve , LLC , FA

AOrde rNo . 2006- 2 (Februar y7 , 2006) , p . 13 . Th e Administrato rha s provide d policyguidanc e fo ragenc yemployee s t o follo wwhe n recommendin g a n appropriat e oivl j penaltyi n hazardous-material s cases . The yare containe d i n it s publishe d PenaltyGuideline s ("th e guidelines") . Th e guidelines , foun d i n FA AOrde r2150.3A , asses s al l relevan t statutor ycriteria , includin g mitigatin g an d aggravatin g circumstances . Th e guideline s furthe rai d Complainant' s penaltydeterminatio n throug h a Sanctio n Guidanc e Matrix . Th e Matri xset s ou t specifi cpenaltyrange s fo reac h input , cross-referencin g suc h factor s

* Th e term"dangerou s goods, " a s use di n th e Internationa l Civi l Aviatio n Organizatio n (ICAO ) Technica l Instructions , i s interchangeabl e wit hth e ter m"hazardou s material, " a s define di n 4 9 C.F.R . §171.8 .a s th e nature o f th e responden t (fo rexample , whethe ri t i s a busines s whic h

"regularly " offers hazmats ) an d th e relativ e ris k o f har m pose d byth e good s involved . Complainant' s sanctio n determinatio n nevertheles s doe s not reflect merel ya fixed mathematica l computation . Th e tabl e i s intende d t o indicat e th e Administrator' s "genera l views " abou t th e civi l penaltyrange s appropriat e fo rdifferen t type s o f violations . Folsom' s Ai rService , Inc. , FA AOrde rNo . 2008-1 1 (Novembe r6 , 2008) , 200 8 W L 4948488 , p . 13 . No rare th e guideline s binding . Eac h situation , bein g dependen t o n s o man yvariables , i s unique . "Evaluatio n o f th e case, " th e FA Aha s emphasized , "i s base d o n th e totalit yo f th e fact s an d circumstances." ^ A n administrativ e la

wjudg e ("ALJ" ) i s no t require d t o follo wth e guidelines . Th e guideline s are intende d fo ragenc ypersonnel , an d ALJ s are no t agenc y personnel . Folsom's , supra , p . 14 . ALJ s make decision s independently , an d th e AL J determine s (subject t o agenc yreview ) whethe ra civi l penaltyi s t o b e assessed , an d i f so , i n wha t amount . Th e Guideline s nonetheles s mus t b e respecte d a s a n expressio n o f agenc

ysanctio n policy . The yrepresen t a n effor t t o produc e consisten t result s i n simila rcases . Th e Administrato rha s asserte d th e powe rt o impos e th e agency' s sanctio n polic yo n appea l i f a n AL J assesse s a civi l penaltytha t i s no t consisten t wit h th e Guidelines . Warbelow' s Ai rVentures , Inc. , FA AOrde rNo . 2000- 3 (Februar

y3 , 2000) , p . 20 ; Northwes t Airlines , FA AOrde rNo . 1990-3 7 (Novembe r7 , 1990) , pp . 8-10 . Additiona l factor s infor m th e determinatio n o f a n appropriat e civi l penalty . Ai r carriers are hel d t o a hig h dutyo f care . Indeed , the yare obligate d t o perfor m thei r service s wit h "th e highes t possibl e standar d o f care. " See , e.g. , Folsom's , supra , p . 16 . Thi s degre e o f care devolve s fro m carriers ' responsibilityt o assure , t o th e maximu m exten t possible , th e safetyan d well-bein g o f thei rpassengers , crew , an d others involve d i n transportatio n byair . Hazardou s material s require particula rattentio n becaus e the yare dangerou s b ythei rver

ynature . Th e ris k

o f har m mus t b e kep t t o a n absolut e minimu m i n vie w o f th e possibl e grav e consequence s o f error . Carriers o f dangerou s good s suc h a s Federa l Expres s are expecte d t o confor m t o th e highes t standard s o f car e and , concomitantly , mus t answe ri n appropriat e measur e i f the yfal l short . B . Complainant' s Positio n Complainan t ha s aske d fo ra lev yo f $37,500 . I t bears th e burde n o f provin g th e appropriatenes s o f thi s amoun t bya preponderanc e o f th e evidence . Phillip s Buildin g Supply , FA

AOrde rNo . 2000-2 0 (Augus t 11 , 2000) , p . 8 .

' FA A Policy o n Enforcemen

t o f the Hazardou s Material s Regulations : Penalt y Guidelines , 6

4 Fed.Reg . 19443 , 19444 , 1999 W

L22661 0 (F.R. ) (April 21 , 1999) , als o publishedo n April 14 , 1999 , as Change 26 , Appendi x 6 , to FA A Orde r 2150.3A . FA

A Orde r 2150.3 A ma

y be foun da t www.airweb.faa.gov an

dwa s submittedi

n pertinen t par t i n thi s proceeding a s Exhibit C-10 . B y Orde r 2150.3B , effectiv

e Octobe r 1,2007 , th

e agenc y issuedne

w sanction guideline s superseding th e old . Since the action s involvedi n thi s matte

r occurredprior

to the effectiv

e date , Orde

r 2150.3 A remain s applicable . See 7 2 Fed.Reg . 5585 3 (Octobe r 1 , 2007) .Complainan t argue s tha t th e substance s involve d i n thi s cas e coul d hav e

prove n dangerous . Th e agency' s penalt yguideline s plac e thi s typ e o f flammabl e liqui d i n packin g grou p II I i n th e medium-lri| k categor yo f th e penaltymatrix , whic h i s know n a s Categor

y"B. " Categor

yB mateifiil s are material s tha t "mayno t pos e a n immediat e threa t t o th e safetyo f a flight, histqs n caus e deat h o rinjur yt o person s du e t o unintende d release s i n aircraft cabi n areas , an d potentia l damag e t o aircraft structure s ove ra longe rperio d o f time,... " TTie yar e give n moderat e weigh t fo r assessmen t purpose s (6 4 Fed.Reg . 19443 , 1944 9 (Apri l 21 , 1999) ; Exh . C-10 , p . 7 ; Tr . 60-62) . Respondent' s markin g an d notificatio n violation s create d a seriou s risk o f peril , th e agenc

ysays . Th e rules ' prohibitio n o f ai rcarriag e represent s a determinatio n tha t thes e products , a s shipped , wer e to o dangerou s fo rai rtravel . Th e agenc

yals o determine d fo rassessmen t purpose s tha t Federa l Expres s wa s i n th e categor

yo f th e larges t ai rcarriers (a s rrieasure d byannua l operatin g revenue) , an d therefor e woul d b e considere d a "Oroui p 1 " carrier . Finally , Complainan t accounte d fo ra mitigafin g factor : a n entit ydthe rtha n th e violato rprepare d th e shipmen t (Tr . 63 , 67 , 97-98 ; Exh . 10 , p . 6) . Th e agenc

yals o looke d at Respondent' s violatio n history . Betwee n 200 4 an d 2007 , Federa l Expres s wa s assesse d civi l penaltie s o n five occasion s an d underwen t eightee n administrativ e actions . Th e fines tha t th e agenc ylevie d range d fro m $3,00 0 t o $12,00 0 (Exh . C-11 ; Tr . 64-66) . Th e agenc

yconclude s tha t it s propose d assessmen t o f $37,50 0 i s appropriat e an d reasonable , an d eve n low . I n .suppor t o f it s conclusion , i t state d tha t i t considere d fo rsanctio n purpose s tha t eac h papkag e Responden t tendere d constitute d on e violation . Thu s th e FA AcountiS^ d jus t tw o violation s i n tota l ~ althoug h i t ha d prove n thre e violation s pe rpackage , o rsi xaltogethe r(Tr . 67-68) . Additionally , i n th e en d th e agenc ydi d no t facto ri n th e carrier' s violatio n history , althoug h i t migh t have (Tr . 69) . I t explaine d tha t it s proposa l wa s i n th e middl e o f th e lowes t an d highes t recommende d sanatio n fo rtw o §175.30(a ) violations . Th e rang e suggeste d byth e Sanctio n Guidanc e Tabl e fo ron e §175.30(a ) violatio n committe d b

ya Grou p 1 carrier , suc h a s Federa l Express , i s $5,00 0 t o $27,50 0 (Exh . C-10 , p . 6) . Th e rang e fo rtw o violations , then , i s $10,00 0 t o $55,000 . Assessin g fo ra tota l o f si xviolation s produce s a rang e o f $30,00 0 t o $165,000 . Th e agency' s propose d assessmen t o f $37,500 , i t point s out , i s betwee n eithe ro f thos e ranges. ^ I t argue s tha t thi s amoun t easil yCQI^IC ^ have bee n greater . Takin g al l factor s i n consideration , includin g cQrrectlyf.i^ptio n undertake n b yRespondient , Complainan t assert s tha t $37,50 0 i s a n appfpj^at e assessment . Afine i n 9 lesse r amoun t woul d not constitut e a sufficien t deterren t t o a carrie ro f Respondent' s size , i t contend s (Compl . Br. , p . 13) . C . Respondent' s Positio n I n it s defense . Responden t stresse d tha t th e numbe ro f violation s wa s smal l whe n measure d agains t th e scop e o f it s operation . Federa l Express , byan y * Tr . 67-69 . Respondent' s witnes s als o statedtha t the agency' s proposedpenalt y of $37,500 i s exactl

y betwee n $10,000 an

d$55,000 . Tr . 69 . Thi s i s incorrect . Th e midwa y poin t i s $32,500 .measure , i s a larg e enterprise . I t i s a globa l business . Senio rsafetymanage r

Patric k Oppenheime rtestifie d tha t th e carrie rhandle s abou t 30,00 0 dangerous good s package s ever

yday(Tr . 115) . Mr . Oppenheime rtestifie d i n detai l abou t Respondent' s dangerous-good s operation . I t i s a n extensiv e infrastructur e carefull yattune d t o th e carrier' s responsibilitie s a s a majo rhandle ran d transporte ro f suc h goods . Th e carrie rplace s at leas t tw o dangerous-good s specialist s at ever yacceptanc e location . Someon e i s o n cal l 2 4 hours a dayt o answe rhazma t question s an d t o respon d t o problem s whic h maycom e up . Further , anyon e involve d i n Federa l Express ' chai n o f transpor t mus t underg o initia l an d recurren t trainin g i n orde rt o becom e an d sta yfamilia rwit h regulators ' detaile d an d comple xrequirements . Periodi calert s updat e employee s o n newdevelopment s (se e generall yTr . 104-26) . Mr . Oppenheime rals o pointe d ou t tha t Responden t too k correctiv e actio n afte rth e discover

yo f it s mistakes . I t counsele d involve d employee s an d re educate d thos e an d others . I t notifie d th e origina l shipper , AstraZeneca , an d refuse d t o tak e an yD G shipment s fro m tha t compan yunti l i t ha d provide d proo f o f trainin g (Tr . 84-85 , 144 ; Exh . C-9) . An d Responden t assert s tha t AstraZeneca , th e origina l shipper , share s i n th e blame . I t wa s AstraZenec a whic h applie d th e ba rcod e stickers ; place d th e package s o n th e pallet ; an d place d th e palle t o n th e traile rfo rshippin g (Tr . 143) . AstraZenec a faile d t o notif yResponden t i n an ymanne r- whethe ri n writin g o rorall y

- tha t th e shipment s at issu e containe d dangerou s goods . Federa l Expres s (a s seen ) als o asserte d tha t th e ORM- D labe l wa s insufficien t i n siz e (I.D. , p . 4 ; se e als o Resp . Br. , p . 4) . Althoug h th e boxe s ha d bee n scanne d at fou rlocations , machin e scannin g ha d bee n availabl e - makin g Complainant' s poin t abou t th e proximityo f th e "ORM-D " labe l t o th e ba rcod e o f les s significance. ^ Responden t als o note d tha t neithe ro f th e boxe s leake d o rcause d an yhar m (Tr . 79 ; Resp . Br. , p . 11) . Th e packagin g ha d remaine d intact (Tr . 79) . Finally , th e carrie rpointe d ou t tha t th e Gel , fa rfro m bein g a specialize d o runusua l product , i s a consume rite m whic h typicall ycoul d b e purchase d off th e shel f a t a grocer ystor e (Tr . 79-80) . Th e implicatio n apparentl yi s tha t th e product coul d hav e bee n shippe d a s a consume rcommodity , a categor ywhic h i n a prope rcas e warrant s penalty mitigatio n unde rComplainant' s standard s (se e Resp . Br. , p . 10) . D . Decisio n I have decide d t o asses s a tota l civi l penaltyo f $30,000 . I find an d conclud e tha t thi s amoun t reflect s th e totalit yo f th e circumstance s surroundin g th e offendin g shipment s an d appropriatel yachieve s Departmen t policies . An ypackag e containin g hazardou s material s whic h fail s t o confor m t o th e HMR s introduce s a n unacceptabl e elemen t int o th e strea m o f ai rcommerce . I n thi s

' Tr . 76 . Th

e witnes s nonetheles s acknowledgedtha t the package s ha

dbee n scannedb

y handi n Portland o n a t leas t tw o occasions . Tr . 132 .«Xi«ssai->:<s.«:." ci ,

cas e th e flammable items , bythei rver ynature , riske d particula rperi l t o th e flight. Th e violation s presente d a significan t threat t t o th e safetyo f ai rtransportation . Thes e fact s an d circumstance s warran t a n appropriat e fine. Anothe rconsideratio n i n determinin g th e penaltyamoun t i s Respondent' s size . Th e agency' s polic yi s t o plac e " a relativel yequivalen t deterren t effect o n eac h ai rcarrier." ^

A s such , "[wjhe n th e violato ri s a larg e compan yrathe rtha n a smal l company, " th e Administrato rha s sdkj , "^th e ^i&rtatt yma ynee d t o b e correspondingl y large rt o achiev e th e sam e deterren t effect. " Toyot a Moto rSales , USA , Inc. , FA A Orde rNo . 94-2 8 (Septembe r30,1994) , p . 11 . Federa l Express , a s a carrie ri n th e larges t categor

ybyan ymeasure , mus t b e subject t o a fine containin g a deterren t facto rappropriat e t o it s size . Th e penaltyShoul d represen t somethin g greate ri n effect tha n simpl ya cos t o f doin g business . Respondent' s contentio n i n mitigatio n tha t it s violation s ar e relativel ysmal l i n numbe rwhe n measure d agains t th e scop e € f th e carrier' s operafions , an d tha t suc h circumstanc e warrant s a commensuratel ysmal l punishment , i s rejected . I t simpl yi s no t a relevan t consideration . Th e carrier' s obligatio n t o confom n t o th e law s governin g th e handlin g an d transportatio n o f dangerou s good s i s th e sam e a s an y othe rentity . Th e larg e numbe ro f hazardou s material s carrie d byFedera l Expres s carrie s wit h i t a concomitan t responsibility . Whe n i t fail s i n tha t duty , i t mus t answe r appropriately . Th e volum e o f it s operation s simpl yi s besid e th e point . I als o giv e n o weigh t t o Respondent' s argumen t tha t n o lea k o rothe r potentiall ytroublesom e resul t flowed fro m B s failur e t o properi ymar k th e packages . Thes e are fortuitou s circumstance s whic h d o ho t warran t mitigation . Indeed , har m resultin g fro m an yo f th e shipment s woul d Itav e constitute d a n aggravatin g facto r (Exh . C-10 , p . 3 (6 4 Fed.Reg . 19443,1944 5 (Apri l 21,1999)) ; se e als o Tr . 94-96) . No rd o I thin k

tha t th e carrier' s correctlv a actio n warrant s a reductio n i n a n otherwis e reasonabl e civi l penalty . Respondent' s actions , whil e commendable , are no t th e kin d o f systemi cchang e tha t th e Administrato rrequire s i n orde rt o lowe ra n otherwis e reasonabl e assessment . See , e.g. , Sdven' s Pain t & Wallpape rCo. , FA A Orde rNo . 2001- 6 (Ma

y16 , 2001) , p . 6 . Additionally , th e fac t tha t th e origina l shipper , AstraZeneca , faile d t o notifyth e carrie ro f th e presenc e o f dangerou s good s doe s no t warran t mitigation . Federa l Exprei ^ ha d a separat e dutyt o inspect th e package s tha t i t ha d accepte d fo rai rtranspor t - ^ a dutytha t coul d not b e share d o r delegated . 4 9 C.F . R . §175.30 ; se e Compl : Rebut. , p . 2 . Th e fac t tha t AstraZenec a ma yals o bea rresponsibilityfo rth e infraction s simpl yi s no t relevan t t o th e determinatio n i n th e instan t matter . Federa l Expres s wa s independentl yan d full y responsibl e unde rth e HMR s fo rpennittin g thes e package s t o ente rth e strea m o f ai r transportation . Finally , civi l penaltie s levie d i n othe rcase s ma yb e a relevan t consideration . Comparison s mus t b e hedged , however . A s th e Administrato rha s noted , "I t i s ofte n

' FA A Orde r No . 2150.3A , Appendi

x 1 , p . 103 , quote di

n Folsom' s Ai

r Service , Inc. , FA

A Orde r No . 2008 - 1 1 (Novembe

r 6,2008) , p . 13 . Whil

e the agency' s expression was , strictl y speaking , directe dtowar

dthe Federa l Aviation Regulation s ("FARs") , the sam e policy comidi^ation s behin dth e expression mak

e i t equall y appHcabl

e t o the HMRs .difficul t t o compar e sanction s acros s case s becaus e ther e are s o man yvariable s

involve d i n eac h case. " Alik a Aviation , Inc. , FA AOrde rNo . 1999-1 4 (Decembe r22 , 1999) , p . 12 , n . 2 0 quote d i n Folsom' s Ai rService , Inc. , FA AOrde rNo . 2008-1 1 (Novembe r6 , 2008) , p . 21 . Addifionally , bas e penaltyamount s have bee n raise d periodicall yove rth e years , an d hav e bee n adjuste d upward fro m tim e t o tim e t o accoun t fo rinflation . Th e maximu m civi l penaltyfo ra singl e violatio n o f 4 9 U.S.C . §5123(a) , th e penaltystatut e unde rwhic h Complainan t brough t thi s case , wa s raise d fro m $25,00 0 t o $30,00 0 i n 2002 , an d the n t o $50,00 0 fo rviolation s occurrin g afte r Augus t 10 , 2005 . Se e 1 4 C.F.R . §13.30 5 (showin g change s i n minimu m an d maximu m penaltyamounts) . I t i s usefu l t o note , nonetheless , th e decisio n i n th e note d cases . Like th e presen t matter , the yinvolve d tw o nonconformin g units . Th e Responden t i n Toyot a Moto rSales , USA , Inc. , wa s fined $50,00 0 fo ra n undeclare d shipmen t o f tw o "wet " automobil e batteries . FA AOrde rNo . 94-2 8 (Septembe r30 , 1994) . Th e responden t i n Midtow n Neo n Sig n Corporation , FA AOrde rNo . 1996-2 6 (Augus t 13 , 1996 ) wa s fined $25,00 0 fo ra n undeclare d (an d leaking ) shipmen t o f tw o 1-gallo n can s o f paint . I have considere d al l othe rargument s advance d b ybot h parties . Thos e no t discusse d are rejecte d a s withou t merit . I n weighin g th e al l th e fact s an d circumstances , I find an d conclud e tha t a civi l penaltyassessmen t o f $30,00 0 i s warranted . Thi s amoun t appropriatel yreflect s th e natur e o f th e risk

t o ai rtransportatio n safetycreate d byFedera l Express , whil e givin g appropriat e weigh t t o othe rsalien t factors . Th e carrie rallowe d int o th e strea m o f ai rcommerc e flammable liquid s considere d s o perilou s tha t the ywer e prohibite d fro m travelin g byai r(se e Tr . 97-98) . I t shoul d have notice d th e erran t marking s bu t di d not . Th e carrie rviolate d thre e HMRs . Th e ris k

o f har m tha t Responden t brough t t o ai rtransportatio n wa s signiflcant . I n mitigation , i t i s note d tha t i t wa s a differen t entity , th e origina l shipper , whic h prepare d th e shipmen t an d performe d th e initia l loading . Responden t als o ha d not bee n notifie d o f th e shipment' s hazardou s nature - a circumstanc e which , whil e no t excusin g it s performance , i s a n appropriat e mitigatin g factor . Th e assessmen t als o i s designe d t o achiev e deterrenc e i n vie wo f bot h th e standard o f car e unde rwhic h Responden t operate s an d it s size . Ai rcarrier s are hel d t o th e highes t dutyo f car e whe n handlin g dangerou s goods , an d th e fine mus t b e designe d t o caus e Federa l Express , whic h carrie s a grea t amoun t o f hazmat s (i f not a greate ramoun t tha n an yothe rcarrier ) t o sufficientl yappreciat e tha t fact . I n sum , I find tha t th e civi l penaltyi n th e amoun t o f $30,00 0 wil l achiev e th e statutor ypurpos e o f promotin g complianc e wit h th e HMR s an d deterrin g Responden t an d entitie s i n a simila rposition . I t appropriatel yaccount s fo rth e factor s th e statut e an d agencypolic

ydirect s i n fixin g th e assessment .1 0 Responden t Federa l Expres s Corporatio n i s hereb yassesse d a civi l penalty o f $30,00 0 fo rviolation s o f th e HMR s 4 9 C.F.R . §§175.3 , 175.30(a)(2 ) an d 175.30(a)(3) , a s state d i n thi s Initia l Decision, '

Sdwi n administrativ e La w Judge " Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t !

' Thi s decision ma

y be appeale

dt o the Administrato

r of the FAA . Th

e notic e o f appea l mus t confor mt o section s 13.210,13.211(e ) an d13.23 3 o f th e Rule s o £Practice , whic

hrequir e tha t anotic e of

i4}pea l 1 ) be file dnot late r tha n 1 0 day s (plu s a

n additiona

l fiv e day s If mSfuled ) fi^mflie servic e dat

e o f thi s decision , an d2 ) b e perfecte

dwit hawritte n briefe r memorandiu

n hiOtlat ^ tha n 5 0 day s (plu s a

n additiona

l five, i f mailed) fromthe service dat e o f thi s decision . Th

e notic e of i^>pea l an dbrie f o r memorandu

mmus t eithe r b e a) mailedto the Federa

l Aviatio n Administratipn , 8Q

0 Jods^i^enc e Avenue , S.W. , Washington , D C 20591 , Attn : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 , Wilbu

r Wri^ t Budding—Suit

e 2W1000 , o

r b ) delivered personall y o r vi aexpeditedcourie

r service t o the Federa

l Avi|tip n Administration , 600 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

i 2WI005 . Wffiihington

, D.C . 20591 , Attn : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 . A cop

y o f the notic e o

f appea l ahdbtie f or memorandu

mals o must

b e sen t t o agenc y counsel . Servic e upo

n the presiding judg e i s optional .FA A Docke t No . CP09NM001 0 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP 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-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Courtne y E . Felts , Respondent' s Counse l Stafi f Attorney , Federa l Express , Inc . 362 0 Hack s Cros s Roa d Buildin g B , 3'' ' Floo r Memphis , T N 38125-880 0 TEL : 901-434-863 2 FAX : 901-434-828 3 Lawrenc e W . Bierlein , Respondent' s Counse l 110 1 30 * Street , NW , Suit e 50 0 Washington , D C 2000 7 TEL : 202-625-835 5 FAX : 202-625-436 3 Scot t R . Morris , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Northwes t

Mountai n Region , ANM- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 160 1 Lin dAvenue , S.W . Renton , W A 9805 7 TEL : 425-227-141 7 FAX : 425-227-100 7 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-213 9 Legal Assistan t

202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service wa s by U.S . Mail . For servic e i n person o

r b y expeditedcourier , us e th e follovsan g address : Hearing Docket, Federa

l Aviation Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S . W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildm g - Roo m2014 , Washington , DC 20591 , Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 .FA A Docke t No . CP09NM001 0 (Civil Penalt

y Action) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ONECOPY Federa l Aviation Administration 80 0 Independence Avenue , S.W . Washington , D

C 2059 1 Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building - Suit

e 2W1000 ' ONECOPY Courtne y E . Felts , Respondent' s Counsel Staf f Attorney , Federa

l Express , Inc . 362 0 Hack s Cros s Roa

d Buildin g B , 3^' ' Floo

r Memphis , T

N 38125-8800 TEL : 901-434-863 2 FAX : 901-434-828 3 Lavwenc e W . Bierlein , Respondent' s Counsel 110 1 30 * Street , NW , Suit

e 500 Washington , D

C 20007 TEL : 202-625-835 5 FAX : 202-625-436 3 Scot t R . Morris , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Northwes t

Mountai n Region , ANM- 7 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 160 1 Lin dAvenue , S.W . Renton , W A 9805 7 TEL : 425-227-141 7 FAX : 425-227-100 7 Th e Honorable Richar

dC . Goodwin , Administrative La w Judg e Offic e of Hearings , M-2

0 U.S . Departmen

t o f Transportation 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Building Groun

dFloor , Roo

mEl2-32 0 Washington , D

C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso

r 202-366-213 9 Lega l Assistan t 202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U . S , Mail, Fo

r servic e i n pa^ p o r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Hearin g Docket , Federa l Aviatio n Admiiustration,,6T

O Ic^S^pwwieoc

e Avenue , S . W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Buildin g - Roo m2014, Washington

, D C 20591 , Attention : ttearan| tfoSce t Clerk , AGC-430.