" """'"EXHIBITS 

SMITH CABLE CP09AL0012 

2009-0976 

# Description 

0 Exhibit 

1 C-1 photos Cdleman canister and spray can - 1 pp 

2 C-2 photos Coleman canister and spray can - 1 pp 

3 C-3 photo Colemen canister - 1 pp 

4 C-4 photo spray can - 1 pp 

5 C-5 Air WayBiH dtd 20080910 - 1 pp 

6 Air Cargo Dangerous Goods Irr Rpt dtd - 1 pp 

7 Email dtd 2008091 Camp - 1 pp 

8 email dtd 20080915 Cook - 1 pp 

9 Ltr dtd 9/17/08 LOI Dietz - 1 pp 

10 Note Smith Cable 11/1/0? - 1 pp 

11 MFRSA Dietz sta- 1 pp 

12 Notes Aero Svc - 1 pp 

13 MFR SA Dietz sta - 1 pp 

14 MFRSA Dietz sta- 1 pp 

15 App C, Sanction Guidance -17 pp 

\/ 

FAA Exhibit List 

ID 

ID 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

IM 

IN 

X 

X 

X 

X 

NO 

X 

NO 

NO 

X 

X 

X 

NO 

X 

NO 

JN 

;•=?• - ^ Lj- J 

< 

CO 

28 

29 
U.S. I)in>AI<rMBNT OrTKANSPOUTATION 

I'KDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Si;Cl'RJTVA,HA/',ARIX)US MATI'.HIAI.S 

3~ 1 

Photograph shows the propane and spray paint ottered as cargo by SMITH CABLE SYSTEMS. 

Photograph taken on September 15, 2008, by Kyle Forbes, ASAA KTN, and e-mailed the same day. 

The propane and paint were disposed of by ASAA station personnel, KTN. 

The pictures were downloaded directly from e-mail. No alterations were made to the photographs other 

than copying ihem from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Office Word. 

Interviewed/Re viewed On 

By Special Agent Jeffrey Deitz 

FAA Form 1600-32-1 is-ae.) 

0 \ ^ ,01/ 

Cft)<l/^iO0)^ 

J 

At 

Fiie No. 

2008AL700081 

= 5 ^ 

y r£^ - O 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

(Public svallabllil/ lo bo 

dtlerminod under 5 U.S.C. 553) 
U.S. DllPARlMENT OV- TIlANSl'ORTATION 

FKDCRAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

SEi:i.JRITY & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

3 - 2 

Photograph \s a second view ofAhe hazardous materials. 

The propane and paint were disposed of by ASAA station personnel, KTN. 

The pictures were downloaded directly from e-mail. No alterations were made to the photographs other 

than copying them from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Office Word. 

Inteiviewed/Revrewed On 

Special Agent Jeffrey Deilz 

At 

By File No. 

2008AL700081 

FAA Form 1600-32-1 pi 

CPcA^imz 

^p 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

(Public availability to be 

determine under 5 U.S.C. 552^ 
U.S. DnCAKTMHNTOrTRANSPORIAllON 

FKDCRAL AVIATION ADMINrSTkA'l ION 

.SECURITY & HAZAkDOUS MATERIALS 

3-3 

Photograph shows a close up of one of the' Propane Cylinders. 

The propane and paint were disposed of by ASAA station personnel, KTN. 

The pictures were downloaded directly from Fujifilm Camera to this document. No alterations were made 

to the photographs other than copying them from I.,otus Notes to Microsoft Office Word. 

Inten/iewod/Reviewed On 

Special Agent Jeffrey Deitz By 

FAA Form 1600-32-1 oeej 

,\S) f/J^ 

~>yr'Pna Al fA )•? <J^ 

At 

File No. 

!008AL7000S1 

B^'c^ 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

(Public availability to be 

determined undar S U.S.C. 552) 
U.S. OEPARTMliNT OF IHANSVOKTATION 

FKI>ERAL AVIA HON ADMINISTRATION 

SECURITY & I lAZARDOl )S MATfiRlALS 

3 - 4 

Photograph shows a close up of the back of the spray paint. 

The propane and paint were disposed of by ASAA station personnel, KTN. 

The pictures were downloaded directly from Fujifilm Camera to this document. No alterations were made 

to the photographs other than copying them from Lotus Notes lo Microsoft Office Word. 

Interviewed/Reviewed On 

By Special Agent Jeffrey Deitz 

FAA Form 1600-32-1 (986) 

/-^Vt^ :r)0^ 

crc^Auioiz. 

At 

Frie No. 

2008AL70008 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

(Public ovallabilily to bo 

determined under 5 U.S.C. 552) 
:;tt-^-15-£ld08 08:38 FROM: 

027 KTN 7471 2632 ^ 

0:1907271^933 ' P.1^1 

< w 027-7471 2632 

Stilpptr** Noma and AddiBit 

SMITH CABLE SYSTEMS 

4351 E 145th Ave 

PO BOX 1T1665 Anchorage AK 

ANCHORAGE, AK 99515 

USA Tel: 

ShIppWi Account Mumbor 

27442117125 

Cuilc>mar> ID Numb v 

, 10896 

99511 

Condgnfla'a NnniB and AddiosB 

SMITH CABLE SYSTEMS 

4351 e 145th Ave 

PO po x 111565 Anchorage AK 99511 

ANCHORAGE, AK 99515 

USA TelConiisnsB'i Acoouni Numbtr 

27442117125 

NDl NogollBbts 

Afr Waybill 

UHjadBv 

ALASK A AtRLtNE S 

P.O . BO X 6l«a 0 SCATTLe , W A 9116 0 

aOO-22S-279 2 ALASKAfAilC0.CO M 

7EoTOu5" 

Tel: 

iMUlr ^ CvJiai't Apanl and Ctly 

X"g»nt'»lAfAC«i» " Account tit>r 

Alrpofi ol Daparlura (Addr. of.Plrc) Cerrlor) in d RMiueilBd Routing 

Kelchikan 

AccfiutUnD hfonniBon 

SMI-m CABLE SYSTEMS INC 

4351 E 145th Ave 

PO BOX 111 see Anchorage AK 88511 

ANCHORAGE, AK 99515 

USA 

Priority Cargo 

10896 

To By ^Ini CanJar 

ANC Alaska Airlines 

IT OviMiad Vilua For Ctntom 

NCV 

TToT 

FAI ^S 

YoTW Currtncy 

USD »X 

Wr/VAL "oiF57 

x l 

>BclBrMl Valua F v Ganrlaga 

NVO 

Alipon of Duilnitlo n 

Fairbanks 

FNghl/OBta 

AS 067/10 

llgtit/DAta 

AS. 196/10 

Amom i of Iniuranca 

XXX 

Handing ir\iorm*tion 

6C1 

No of 

Placai 

5roit Conmodli y 

Ttam No. 

CPvgaBb b 

Watghl 

Rata/ 

Char{)a ToUl 

falur a end QuB/^iry of Oooda 

find . DlTnanalona » Votuma) 

24 1,213.0 1.213.0 0.6B 624.84 TOOLS 

24 1,213.0 B24.84 

PRI 

Volume: 0.000 

Prepaid VValohl ChBrsa Collac l 

824.84 

Valuition Charga 

68.23 

TQIHI Olhar ChBr0»t Dua Ann ' 

38.57 

Total Other Chargsa Dua Carrlor 

266.86 

roU l ^apai J 

1,198.50 

Total Cottaci 

Othor Chargt i 

MYC 242.60 

s e c 24.26 

PUA 38.57 

Shippw cwtMa i Ihi l Ow panjcufan on t)io fu a tuffoT o n coniE l in d bu l (niofi r • • any pa n flf tha coMlonman t 

contain * dangarm a good*, auch pa n la pro|Mil y daacribai l b y fiamo an d la In ptoftt x condition tar carrtiga 

by ^«ccardtnsl0tha«ppllcafaIaDanB«nniaOBa<f i R*auI*Uona. (conHn l tvthalnspacUono f Ihlacaiqa . 

For: SMITH CABLE 

SYSTEMS INC 

SlanaUira of Ghlooor or hla Aaani 

!0: J p p*l S BKlpMEWt DqeSHQ T COKTWN 

''— " iANQEROiJB GOODS 

Us SHIPMENT GOES COMTAIN 

DANGEROUS GOODS 

10 Sep 2008 13:12 Ketchikan Alaska_Airlines _ 

'MMaajIatl On {6a\i) ' V l TRacat " Slgnntufw al liaulnn Cnntmo f '!• Aganl 

027-7471 2632 

A^ 

cro^A^coiz. 

£y. C'5 
ici-ctjao itf::Dr hKUn: TO:19072714933 P.1^1 

Air Cargo Dangerous Goods Irregularity Report 

INSTRUCTIONS: Phone or fax (his completed report to the FAA. Photographs may be taken to support 

the incident. (To report spills or leaks involving dangeruus guodx. use DOT Form 5800.1, which may be 

found in First Class. Go to: ASA Conferences/AS Environmental/S&E Forms. 

^Undeclared/Hidden 

Type of incident: • • Erroneously declared 

Q Insufficient/improper 

absorption materials 

Q Quantity exceeds allowed limits 

Q Improper inside containers 

Q Inside containers not oriented as shown on 

the packaging 

INITIAL INCIDENT INFORMATION: 

Datc/^rimc discovered: ^^^i > ^ ~ P f ^ .^_ _ 

Where and how discovered (e.g. X-ray. physical inspection, spill, etc): __ ^ 

Namc/phonc number of person reporting: ' 

Where are the dangerous goods now? n/ \ Z^)^^fi<-\- \3'^pQ,5^ A ( AfP^ ^ 

CARGO INFOUMAIION: 

Air Waybill number of itcm(s) comaining Dangerous Goods: 1 ^(^3 ^ 

^ 

Type of cargo involved (e.g. Goldstreak, Goldrush, Cargo, etc): 

.Jjkcao . 

PropeuShWingName: -Vibpgt^-g , Cu.tJp „ UN Number: i^'^ . 

Are there any [JcTaKiorfthe^tsidferfftheKipm^ ^ "P^No If yes, what kind?'^ ^ 

'I'oial number of pieces offered by shipper: 

Total number of pieces containing Dangerous Goods: 

^tE 

z. 

SHIIM'KU INFORMATION: ^ , , 

Name: ^Cr\\^i ^ W lo l g SV^.^^^ ^ 

Address: ^^T " G ) 4 & ^ ^ /V ^ 

City: ^Airy/horoae^ 

Telephone number Ho ^'ve ^ 

state: ^,^}i<:.^_ Z<p Code V^T^/v S 

rNCIDENT IJICSCRIPTION: 

Describe the dangerous goods ihal was found, including type, amount, brand name or 

manuraclurer. etc: -^fiv / "kjldeTed ^^^ Z ^'gL/yt/O 'SH/e. 

.^ki\f}V>^<^] rAng5> 'AH'k^ ^aroA^d an d 

_(2aAN."fc 4X>-^ S \o\^^ d . — .— 

ZK-21 (06/03t 

ASAtttM)4lO-2-3012 

-.^^' 

K ' ^ 

^^^\'/J 

cmAim^z 
"Stephen Camp" To Jeff Deitz/AAL/FAA@FAA 

<Stephen.Camp@AlaskaAlr.c 

om> ^^ 

09/15/2008 09:43 AM ^ ^ 

Subject regarding awb 7471-2632 

While piciting up a small beach barbeque, two Coleman camping propane bottles, 

both of which were halfway full fell out. Then Tim Cook screened 100% and 

found 

some spray paint as well. After removing Che restricted articles the cargo was 

sent on flight 69 that evening. 

V 

Hh Odoo 

'PCAUcoiz. 
-Tim Cook" 

<Tim.Cook@AlaskaAir.com> 

09/15/2008 09:58 AM 

To Jeff Deit2/AAL/FAA@FAA 

cc 

•bcc 

Subject AWB #7471-2632 

Hello, 

X was working the werehouse when the shipment with the air way bill of 

7471-2632 was droped off. 

I send the item's that needed to be screened to TSA as a known shipper. Them 

item's vjhere fine so i send it to the ramp to be loaded on aircraft. 

Later that day it was bumped from the aircraft due to room and was sent back 

Co 

the werehouse where a ramper spilled few peaces off the pallet where 2 

propane 

bottles fell out. 

Then after that i did a IDG'S screen and found a spray paint bottle full in 

the 

bottom of a action packer crate .. 

Any thing you need please email me of call me at work. 

Thank you 

Tim Cook 

T> 

cmmi^ 
3^ 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

ANCHORAGE AVIATION 

SECURITY and HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

222 West 7'^ Avenue #14 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587 

Tel: 907) 271-5003 

Fax: (907) 271 49^3 

CERTIFIED MAIL—RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Smith Cable Systems 

Attn: President/CEO 

PO Box 111565 

Anchorage, AK 99511 

7 1\:\: : r-.'-i. 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Letter of Investigation 

File Number: 2008AL700081 

On September 15, 2008, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Security and 

Hazardous Materials (ASH) branch office in Anchorage, Alaska was notified of undeclared 

hazardous materials discovered by Alaska Airlines (ASAA), at the Ketchikan airport (KTN). 

Specifically, ASAA reported to this office that on September 10, 2008, your company offered a 

24 piece shipment to ASAA for air transportation as cargo from KTN to Fairbanks, AK on air 

waybill # 7471-2632. During the handling process, two 16.4 ounce/465 gram cylinders of 

Coleman Propane (Petroleum gases, liquefied, class 2.1, UN1075) were discovered. This led to 

further inspection/screening where one 12 oz can of Premium D6cor spray paint (Aerosols, 

flammable, class 2.1, UN1950) was discovered. Liquefied petroleum gases are forbidden for 

transportation on a passenger carrying aircraft. 

The Federal Aviation Administration is conducting an investigation into this matter and 

preliminary evidence indicates thai you may have violated the Federal Hazardous Materials 

Regulations, 49 Code of Federal Regulations. 

We wish to offer you the opportunity to furnish explanatory information reflecting extenuating or 

mitigating circumstances regarding these alleged violations. Your written reply will be needed 

within ten (10) working days of receipt of this letter to resolve this matter promptly. If no 

response is received, this case will be processed without the benefit of your reply. 

Please include in your response, the hazmat training.records for anyone involved with this 

shipment. 

Sincerely, 

/ 

/JeWfeVL. Dt\^ ' 

Hazardous Matehals Specialist 

Hazardous Materials Branch 

Anchorage Office 

/T/^ 

:^ , ^ 

.V 

CPO^ALOOIZ 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION AUMIINISTRATION 

SECI;RIT Y & HAZARIXIUS MATERIALS 

AGENT STATEMENT: Jeffrey L. Deitz, Special Agent (SA), Federal Aviation Administration, Office 

of Security and Hazardous Materials, 222 West 7^*^ Avenue #14, Anchorage, Alaska, 99523, Telephone 

(907)271-5003. ' 

On September 15, 2008, this office received notification from Alaska Airlines (ASAA) Cargo 

Facility located in Ketchikan, AK. The notification stated that on September 10, 2008, SMITH 

CABLE SYSTEMS offered undeclared hazardous materials for air transportation from KTN to FAI 

as part of a 24 piece cargo shipment. . 

ASAA reported that in this shipment offered on ASAA Air Waybill U 7471 2632, was found to 

contain two 16.4 ounce cylinders of Coleman Propane fuel (Petroleum gases, liquefied, class 2;1, 

UN 1075) and one 12 ounce can of Premium Decor spray paint (Aerosols, flammable, class 2.1, 

UNI950). 

ASAA in KTN provided photographs, a DG irregularity report and a copy of the Air Waybill. The 

photographs were taken on September 15, 2008, by Kyle Forbes, ASAA KTN, and e-mailed the 

same day. 

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) were obtained for both the Coleman Propane and Premium 

decor spray paint. 

On September 17, 2008, a Letter of Investigation was dispatched to SMITH CABLE SYSTEMS . 

concerning my investigation. 

On October 1, 2008, I received a telephone call from Ron Smith, President of SMITH CABLE 

SYSTEMS. He wanted to acknowledge the receipt of the LOI and said that he did not know 

anything about the shipment but would gel back to me. 

On October 27, 2008, not having received anything from Ron Smith, I telephoned him. He 

apologized for not getting back to me and said that an internal investigation conducted by him 

confirmed that they had shipped the hazardous materials in question. He promised to send a written 

account to me. As of this date nothing has been received. 

Jeffrey L. Deilz, Special Agent 

Hazardous Materials Specialist 

-2-

.-a\ ^ ^ ^ 

b^-

S 

Interviewed/Reviewed On At 

By Special Agent Jeffrey Deitz File No. 

2008AL70008 

FAA Form 1600-32-1 o-ao) / ^ 

CVMAi.m/7 £/•€ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

(Public availability to bo 

duterminad under 5 U.S.C. 552) 
1*' 1 1 

k^C€M? ^•i^-t^^ //v/ ^^c^^ h ^ ^ f-^ 

pl^S: 

& tt.^'C-^O^^^'^'^^ 

/•c^*^.: 
RECORD OF INTERVIEW: Jessica Freeman, Freight Driver, Aero Services, 

Ketchikan, AK (907)247-5701 

On September 14, 2009, the undersigned telephonically intei^iewed Jessica Freeman 

regarding the circumstances sunounding the pick up of freight from Smith Cable, and 

subsequent offering of the freight to ASAA in Ketchikan on September 10, 2008, in 

which undeclared hazardous materials were discovered. Prior to the interview Freeman 

was informed that the purpose of the interview was for the investigation of a regulatory 

violation. Freeman agreed to be interviewed and related the following: 

Freeman stated that she does not remember this particular shipment. She stated 

that it was not unusual to break down a pallet for loading in her truck and repalletizing the load at ASAA. Freeman also stated that it was not unusual for her 

to have more than one shipment in the truck at a time. 

Freeman said that because of liability reasons she would always keep the 

shipments physically separate. Because the company held her personally 

responsible and liable, she would ensure that if more than one shipment was 

present in the truck that they would not mix. 

Freeman stated that she has picked up freight for over a year and never had a 

mistake or complaint. 

Jeffrey L. Deitz, Special Agent 

Hazardous Materials Specialist 
9 

AGENT STATEMENT: Jeffrey L. Deitz, Special Agent (SA), Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Security and Hazardous Materials, 222 West 7^*^ Avenue #14, 

Anchorage, Alaska. 99523, Telephone (907) 271-5003. 

After receiving a copy of the letter submitted to Glenn Brown by Marston & Gole, 

I pulled the case file and went over the contents. 

In the Affidavit of Todd Linne, Linne states that he and his coworker never 

loaded any propane cylinders nor an aerosol can of paint. 

In the ASAA Irregularity Report it states that the propane was discovered inside a 

small Stove, and when the rest of thipment was searched the paint was found. All 

hazmat was hidden and not visible to those loading it. 

In my notes I found a statement from ASAA employee, Stephan Camp. In this 

Statement Camp states that while picking up a small beach barbeque, two 

Coleman camping propane bottles fell out. He had Tim Cook screen the rest of 

the shipment where the paint was discovered. Again the hazmat is said to be 

hidden from view. 

I also found in my notes, reference to a telephone conversation that I had with 

Ron Smith, President of Smith Cable Systems, where he stated that his internal 

investigation showed that they did ship the items and that they had a grill. This 

conversation took place on September 27, 2008 at 1135 hours. 

Jeffrey L Deitz, Special Agent 

Hazardous Materials Specialist 

'/•:• ' 

y 

^x.. 

fAAOmG £^,crt 

ymtmi'^ 
10/01/07 2150.38 

Appendix C. Sanction Guidance 

Hazardous Materials Enforcement 

1. Background. 

a. Legislation. Congress dclemiincd that the unregulated transportation of hazardous 

materials conslilulcs a threat to public safely in all fomis of transportation. Congress addressed 

that threat in 1974 by enacting thcHazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA). By 1990, 

Congress determined that effective.enforcement of the HMTA required more severe action, and 

enacted the Hazardous Materials Transportation Unifonii Safety Act of 1990, Public Law No. 

U)N615, 1990 U.S. Code Congress. & Admin. News 104 Slat. 4605. The primary effect of this 

1990 revision of the HMTA was to raise the maximum civil penalty for violation,of any 

regulation enacted under the HMTA to $25,000; and, for the first time, to require a $250 

minimum penally for any .such violation. The HMTA was recodified in 1994 and is now referred 

to as the "Federal hazardous material transportation law^" 1994 U.S. Code Congress. &Admin. 

News 108 Stat. 759, codilied al 49 U:S.C. §§-5101-5127. In the.1994 recodification. Congress 

specillcally stated-that-the recodification created no substantive change'to the eartier form ofthe 

statute. In 2005, the Congress enacted and the President signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA - LU), Public Law 109-59, 

August 10,2005. That legislation, among other things, modified the limitations on civil • •• 

penalties Ihatmay be assessed for violationsof the hazardous materials statute and regulations. 

b. CiviLPcriaitics:- The FcderalCivil Penalties Inflation Adjuslment-Aet of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2461 (note),- as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 

104-134, April 26, 1996, provides a mechanism for adjustments for monetary civil penalties for 

inflation in order to maintain the deterrent effect of monetary civil penalties and promote 

compliance with the law. Under the statute, the adjusted civil penalty maximums camiot be 

applied unless they are implemented-by regulation. The adjusted civil penalties are listed in part 

13 ofTitle 14 ofthe GFR, subpart H. ; 

Pursuant to.SAFETEA- LU, the,.maximum civil penalty that may be assessed for a violation 

ofthe Federal hazardous material law or a hazardous material regulation is now $50,000; the 

mininium civil penalty is now $250. There are two exceptions lo those limits. A maximum civil 

penalty of $100,000 may.be assessed if the violation results in death, serious illness' or severe 

injury to any person, or substantial destruction of property. The minimum civil penally thai may 

be assessed for a training violation is $450. 

c. Enforcement Responsibility.-; Within the Department of Transportation,-the Pipeline & 

Hazardous Materials Safety Programs-Administration (PHMSA), created by the Norman Y. 

Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act in 2004, adopts the Hazardous 

Materials Regulations (HMR), which govem the transportation of hazardous materials (hazmat). 

The FAA, under delegated authority, enforces the Federal hazardous material transportation law 

and the HMR, with particular emphasis on shipment of hazmat by air. 49C.F.R. § L47(j). 

<^C\ C-1 EXHIBIT 

-• ^ PAGE 

CPM4/(»IZ 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

d. Violation of the HMRs. The ITMR set forth regulations for the transportation of hazmal. 

A knowing violation ofthe statute or of (he HMR can support the assessment of a civil penalty 

between $250 and $100,000. A person acts knowingly when the person has actual knowledge of 

the facts giving rise to the violation; or a reasonable person acting in the circumstances and .^ 

exercising reasonable care would have that knowledge. 49 U.S.C. ij 5i23(a)(l)(A). The civil 

penalties authorized under the statute apply to each violation of any regulation set forth in the 

HMR; they also apply to the violation of an order, special permit, or approval issued by the 

Department. Moreover; under the statute, each continuing violation of the HMR can constitute a . 

separate violation for each day a violation continues. In section 5124 ofthe statute, Congress 

prescribed cnminal penalties for a willful violation ofthe Federal hazardous material 

transportation law or the HMR; willful violations require evidence of both Iciiowledge ofthe 

laws and regulations and intent to violate them. 

c. Investigative and Enforcement Procedures, Part 13 ofthe FederalAvialion 

Regulations - Investigative and Enforcement Procedures (14 C.F.R. part 13) governs the 

procedures applicable to enforcement ofthe HMR by theFAA. Hazmat violations occurring on 

or after August 2, 1990, maybe dismissed by an administrative law judge (ALJ) if a notice of 

proposed civil penalty has not been issued within 2 years ofthe violation,unlessgood cause for 

delay has been shown. 14 C.F.R. § 13.208(d). 

2. Consideration of Statutory Criteria. As a general maUer, a sanction^should be imposed 

that is sufficiently detenent but not excessive, in order to comply with the underiying puqioses 

ofthe Federal hazardous material transportation law and HMR. In deiemiining the sanction to 

be assessed, penalty, criteria set forth in 49 U.S.C.-§ 5123'musl-beconsidered.'These criteria are 

the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity ofthe violation; the degree of culpability ofthe 

violator; the history ofpast violations (if any); the ability lo pay; the effect on the ability to 

continue lo do business; and other matters as justice requires: Some of these considerations 

already are factored to some extent into the categories in the Hazardous Material Sanction 

Guidance Matrix. The stamtory factors are further considered under the weightmg analysis thai 

is performed to indicate the amount ofthe civil penalty within the appropriate range, i.e.. at the 

minimum, moderate, or maximum portion ofthe sanction range. The Matrix recognizes that an 

even higher penalty could be warranted for a significantly aggravated case, consistent with ihc 

increased maximum penalty of $50,000 imposed by SAFETEA-LU. In addition, the Matrix 

reOects the potential $100,000 penalty, also imposed by SAFETEA-LU, for a violation that 

results in death, serious illness, or severe injury to any person, or substantial destruction of 

property. • . • , 

3. Consistency of Penalty Sanctions. The Hazardous Materials Sanction Guidance is designed 

to promote better consistency so that similar penahies are imposed in similar cases. The 

specified Matrix ranges (e.g., $250-$550,;or $15,000-$32,500) are intended to reflect the namre, 

circumstances,'extenl, and gravity of the case as compared with other types of cases. Each case, 

however, must be evaluated on its own facts. A sanction may differ from the specified Matrix 

ranges when the facts and circumstances of a case support either a greater or lesser penalty. 

When a special agent believes thai a penalty should exceed the specified Matrix ranges, the agent 

should consult with legal counsel before further processing of the Enforcement Investigative 

Report (EIR). This consultation is not necessary in the case of a recommended penally that is 

v. 1 EXHIBIT 

PAGE..2_OFJ„'5L 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

less than that provided in the Matrix. In eilhcr situation, the basis for the decision to go outside 

the ranges should be explained in detail. 

4. Part 175 Violations.-. Violations of part 175 ofthe HMR, which establish particular 

requirements for air earners and other aircraft operators, are contained in a separate matrix. "^ 

However, such operators often offer hazardous materials for air transportation, as well as accept 

and transport them. For this reason, such operators may be liable for violations both as a 

business entity within the Hazardous Materials Sanction Guidance Matrix, as well as tor specific 

air caiTier violations. . . . . 

5. Violation Committed by Small Business Entity. To meet statistics-gathering requirements, 

the investigating special agent must determine whether the alleged violator qualifies as a small 

business concern under the Small BusinessRegulatory Enforcement Fairness Act^of 1996 

(SBREFA). For an extensive discussion of how. lo make thai delemiination; see Part One -

Abbrevialions and Definitions, in Appendix B of this order. If investigating special agents are 

unable to obtain independently information to determine whether an alleged violator is a small 

business concern, they request such infonnation in the letter of investigation.. See sample letter 

of investigation in Figure A-1 of Appendix A.< Because-violations ofTitle 49 ofthe U.SrCode 

and the HMR may be committed by entities in addition to those normally regulated by the FAA, 

the investigating agent may need to refer to the SBA's complete table of size standards to find 

the coiTCCt size limit for an alleged violator. • - . , 

! 

a. Enforcement Policy under SBREKA. Chaptcr-7, Paragraph 10, of this order generally 

outlines the FAA's,enforcement policy under SBREFA.- In detemiining whether and how tO: 

provide for,the reduction or waiver of civil penalties for statutory onrcgulatory violations by 

small entities, the FAA's policy may contain certain conditions. Those conditions may allow for 

excluding from such a reduction or waiver: a small entity that has been subject to multiple/ 

enforcement actions by the agency, a violation involving willful or criminal conduct, a violation 

that results whenthercthas not been a goodTaith attempt to comply.wilh the requirements, and a 

violationithat poses a serious health, safety'or-enviroruiiental threat. With respect to air carriers 

and.othcr aircraft operators,-the FAA takes into consideration company size in delennining the 

appropriate amount of civil penalty. See the Matrix, Figure C-1, below.. 

b. Information Sheet for Complaints by Small Business Concerns. Each FAA employee 

who,conducts an inspection of a small business.concern that is regulated by the FAA provides 

the small business concern with an information sheet. The information sheet informs that entity 

that it may submit complaints or comments re'garding'unfair FAA regulatory enforcement to the 

National.Ombudsman. FAA special agents may. obtain a copy ofthe information sheet for 

hazardous materials inspections and additional guidance for distributing it from the ASH 

regional offices. 

c. Reduction or Waiver of Penalty. The FAA does not reduce or waive the penally of an 

alleged violator solely because it is a small business entity. This is because a violation ofthe 

hazmat statutes orHMR typically poses a serious health, safely, or environmental threat (and ' 

may involve one of the other reasons for exclusion). Accordingly, the FAA will usually reduce 

^ ( 

PAGE _3—OJ^-Z-I^ 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

or waive a penalty only if the small business entity provides evidence to demonstrate its inability 

lo pay or that the proposed penalty would prevent the entity from continuing in business. 

d. Enforcement Actions Otbcr than Civil Penalties. The FAA may, in limited 

circumstances, announce policies to provide for hazmat enforcement actions less onerous than 

civil penalties, that is, administrative actions. Such policies may apply lo small business entities 

or lo others, and will be announced as Compliance and Enforcement Bulletins in this order. 

6. Use ofthe Sanction Guidance. This guidance provides agency personnel with a systematic 

way to evaluate a case and anive at an appropriate penalty, considering all the relevant slalutor>' 

criteria including mitigating and aggravating circumstances, if any. Stalutoiy considerations 

have been factored into the various ranges within the Sanction Guidance Matrix. Delemiination 

of where a sanction lies within these ranges is aided by a series of weighting questions that probe 

the various aggravating and mitigating factors that may exist in a case. 

a. Weight Analysis. First, the weighting analysis is performed. Agency personnel respond 

lo a series of questions to delenninc ihcaggregate weight ofthe case. The aggregate weight of 

the case helps determine the sanction amount for each violation group within the established 

ranges^of the Matrix. . • j * 

b. Determination of Sanction. It is important lo note that delemiination of where the 

.sanction lies within the Matrix is not the result of a mathematical computation. Evaluation ofthe 

case is based on the totality ofthe facts and circumstances; Generally, if the answer to a 

particular question leprcscnts a more significant aspect of a case,-greater consideration .should be 

given tothat answer. For example, violations involving an extremely dangerous substance,'even 

in minute quantities,- might warrant a penalty at the maximum end ofthe range or even a penalty 

exceeding the Matrix ranges (if not already al the statutory maximum).' ) 

c. Determination of Category. Under the Sanction Guidance Matrix, agency personnel 

dctcmiine the category of violator the person falls within {for example, business entity that 

regularly offers, accepts, or transports hazmal) and the offense category {for example, undeclared 

shipment within hazmat quantity limilations). Thesanclion ranges under the various violator 

categories take into account the relative culpability ofthe violator. Similarly, the offense 

categories address the nature; circumstances; and gravity of the particular offense. After 

determining the appropriate categories and intersecting box ofthe Matrix, agency personnel then 

detemiine which subcategories of offenses {for example; shipping papers) are alleged to have 

been violated. Based on the weighting.analysis perfomied in subparagraphs 8.a.-e., an 

appropriate penalty is assigned for each of the.applicable violation groups. The penalty amount 

for each relevant violation group is added-togclher to reach the reconmiended sanction: 

d. Other Relevant Sanction Factors. Under subparagraph 8.g., the special agent then 

considers other relevant factors, including evidence of corrective action. A recommended 

sanction may be reduced prior to the issuance of a notice of proposed civil penalty when there is 

adequate reliable infonnation concerning the corrective actions taken by a respondent. 

Corrective actions that justify reduction ofthe recoimnended penalty must exceed the minimum 

^ ^ 4 f-XHiea^Xfiil^! 

?^|J , ~ ?AGE_^_orjA 
10/01/07 2150.38 

legal requirements. The special agent also attempts to provide infonnation eonceniing Ihe 

alleged violator's size, financial condition, and ability lo pay a reconmiended sanction. 

7. FAA Legal Counsel Review. When an EIR.is forwarded lo legal counsel for enforcement 

action, counsel will give appropriate consideration to the recommended sanction. FAA legal 

counsel will also review the factors, analysis, and detemiinations under the Hazardous Materials 

Sanction Guidance. .The basis for deviating from the recommended sanction, if any, should be 

explained lo, and discussed-with, the investigating special agent. Final deteniiination ofthe • 

sanction amount proposed in the notice of proposed civil penalty is ordinarily a product of joint 

decisioimiaking and approval ofthe investigating agent and the legal office. • 

8. Federal Aviation Administrntion Hazardous Materials Sanction Cuidjancc. This 

Sanction Guidance is divided into tluee sections: case analysis; utilization of die Sanction 

Guidance Matrix (Matrix); and consideration of other slatutoiy factors. The Sanction Guidance 

Matrix is contained in Figure C^l and the Risk Categories are contained in Figure C-2. 

a. Case Analysis (Evaluation of Statutory Assessment Factors). . 

(1) This section contains a series of questions to assist a special agent in evaluating a 

ease and recommending a sanction. It also assists an attorney in evaluating a case file prior to 

initiation, and after additional infomiation is received in response to a notice of proposed civil 

penalty, The questions review factorsjnvolving.lhc nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of 

the violation, the violator's degree of culpability,.and the violator's history of prior violations. 

Some of these factors are already considered to some extent within the various categories ofthe 

Sanction Guidance Matrix. The questions in this section provide additional consideration ofthe 

statutory factors and examine the.existence of aggravating and tnitigating factors in a case. 

(2) The agcnl answei-s each question in Section I and detcmiines if a relative weight of 

minimum, moderate, or maximum should be assigned based on the response to the question. 

With the exception of Question (J)(a), not all questions will necessarily apply.to a given fact 

situation. Question (l)(o) addresses the nature ofthe hazardous niaterial(s) involved, and the 

evidence will indicate the risk caliegory and, therefore, the weight. The aggravating orjnitigating 

factors addressed in tlie other questions only,apply to'the case when the question receives a yes 

resporise. Questions receiving a no response do not affect the.weighting ofthe case and are not 

considered. For example, that the violation did not result in injury or damage is not a mitigating 

factor, and should not result in penalty mitigation. In many instances, the answers to most or all 

ofthe questions will be no and the pnly relevant weighting factor in this'section wiJI be the risk 

category of the material identified in ^HCj'f//o/; f'y^fW). . . , . . 

(3) in determining the final aggregate weight ofthe case, the responses to each ofthe 

questions do not have to be equally considered. Determination of whether the overall ease 

should have a minimum, moderate, or maximum weight cannot be determined with mathematical 

certainly. Generally, if the answer to a question demonstrates that,the factor,atissue represents a 

more significant aspect ofthe ease, greater consideration is given to that factor. The final 

aggregate weight is based on the totality of the facts and circumstances ofthe case. Once 

^'-•^ ' ^'^ £XHlB!T_jC|5^ 

"-^ PAGE .S^Q?Jj h 
10/01/07 2150.3 8 

determined, the final aggregate weight is then utilized to amvc at the recommended sanction for 

each applicable violation group on the Sanction Guidance Matrix {See, Figure C-1). . 

b. The Nature, Circumstances, Extent, and Gravity ofthe Violation (Factors 

Concerning the Shipment): 

(1) What niaterial(s) was offered, transported, or accepted for air tran.sportalion? Figure 

C-2 divides hazardous materials of particular classes, divisions, and packing groups into three 

risk categories: Category A, Category B. and Category G. Find the material offered, transported, 

or accepted, in Figure C-2 and answer the questions below. 

• If the material(s) is in Category A, assign a Maximum weight. 

• If the n'iaterial(s) is in Cdtdgory B, assign a Moderate weight. • •<. .-

• If the'iiiaterial(.s) is in Category C, assign a Minimum weight. 

Guidance Note: The categories in Figure C-2 represent the inherent risk of danger to air 

transportation posed by the material. If there is more than one type of hazardous material 

involved in the shipment, u.sc the hazardous ihaterialiii the highest risk category. 

(2) What quantity ofthe matcrial(s) was offered, transported, or accepted for air 

transportation? • . • • 

• Did tlie packagc(s) exceed the authorized quantity limitations by a significant 

amount? • \fyes, consider a Moderate or Maximum weight depending'on ihedegrce to which the 

limitation was exceeded. 

Guidance Example: The (fuantity limitation for gasoline on a'passenger plane is 5 liters per 

package. If a violator offers 30 liters in a single package on a passenger plane, assign a 

maxitnttm weigh'tfor this factor. 

• Did the package contain a tbrbidden material? \fyes, assign a Maximum weight. 

• Were there multiple packages in the shipment? Ifyc.v, consider a Moderate or 

Maximum weight, depending on the number of packages and total amount of hazardous material 

being transported in Violation. 

Guidance Note: A package means a packaging plias its contents. There may be multiple 

packages in one shipment or overpack. Multiple packages often represent multiple violations. 

Under the Sanction Guidance, this fact is considered au aggravating circumstance rather than a 

direct multiplier ofthe sanction for each violation. Each case, however, must be evaluated on its 

particular facts. A very large number of packages may result in such an egregious case that the 

overall weight of the case is so high that a penalty beyond the maxiihum point in the range is 

wai'ranted. ; • .• .. t 

An investigation will occasionally reveal sufficient evidence of several shipments from the same 

offeror over a period of several days, all 'of which involve violations ofthe HMR. these 

independent acts of offering usudllyare consolidated into on'e EIR and addressed in one notice 

, ^10 ^-^ B.HieiTlCj5_ 

• V1 <^ PAGE (pZo^J^_ 
10/01/07 2150.3 8 

of proposed civil penalty. However, for purposes of determining the appropriate sanction, each 

separate shipment with separate air waybill or .shipping papers, separate destination, and/or 

other evidence establishing it as a separate shipment, is ordinarily co?isidcred as a separate 

incident for purpo.ses of applying the .sanction guidance analysis. If is suggested that the 

.separate shipments he treated as individual counts in the EIR and the notice ofproposedcivil 

penalty, with each count having its own sancticni derived from application of this guidance. 

(3) Did the shipment cause some damage or liami lo persons or property or interfere with 

commerce? ]('yes, consider a Moderate or Maximttm wciii^ht. 

Guidance Note: The fact that no damage occurred as a result ofthe shipment is not a mitigating 

factor. However, damage or harm may aggravate the nattwe, circumstances, extent, and gravity 

ofthe violation. Depending on the degree of damage caused by the shipment,and/or the 

existence of other aggravating factors, departure from the ranges may be Justified. It is 

important to note that death, serious illness, or severe in/'uiy to any person, (n- substantial 

destruction of property, warrants additional consideration of aggravation ofthe total penalty. 

c. Violator's Degree of Culpability. The Matrix, Figure C-1, considers the relative 

culpability ofthe violator.-This section of the analysis further evaluates the degree of culpability 

of the violator. 

(1) Is the violator the manufacturer of the hazardous material? If ve.v, considera 

Maximum weight. 

Guidance Note: A manufacturer of a hazardous material is expected to have complete 

hiowledge ofthe nature ofthe hazardous material it manufactures or uses: thus, a high degree 

of culpability.will ordinarily he imputed to it. 

(2) Did someone other than the violator prepare the shipment for transportation? Ifyes, 

.consider a Minimum or Moderate weight. 

Guidance N(}te: Facts .supporting an affirmative answer to this question may be cause to 

mitigate culpability and/or pursue a separate enforcement action against other responsible 

parties who handled the shipment. A shipper that reships materials received from another 

person in the same packaging is independently responsible for ensuring the shipment complies 

with the HMR. Nevertheless, the reshipper is generally considered to have a lesser degree of 

culpability for compliance ofthe package as received. However, if the reshipper unpacks and/or 

repackages the shipment, the reshipper remains as culpable as the original shipper and 

generally is not accorded mitigation under this weighting factor. (For purposes of this section, a 

"reshipper " refers to a person, other than the original offeror, who offers a shipment of 

hazardous material for transportation.) 

(3) Did the violator reasonably rely on incorrect infonnation from another source? If 

yes, consider a Minimum weight. 

^ ! C-7 ^1 'S L-^.Mit311. 05 

FAGE_J^OF_/=.^ 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

Guidance Note: Detrimental, rea.sonable reliance on another part}' tnay be a mitigating factor 

when considering the violator's degree of culpability. Ftn- example, reliance on an inaccurate 

Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) would be mitigating. 

(4) Does the violator have a history of previous HMR violations? Ifyes, consider a 

Moderate or Maximum weight. 

Guidance Note: To establish a violation history, a prior violation must be an actual finding of 

violation pursuant to a legal enforcement action. Special agents shimld attempt to determine the 

corporate .structure ofthe violator and whether other business entities or names are or have 

been used by the entity in order to obtain a complete violation history. The number and age of 

violations should he considered. Ordinarily, findings of violation more than 5 yan s old carry 

less weight, unless a continuing pattern of violation exists. ,.,, ,... 

d. Othe r Factors. 

(1) Each case must be evaluated on its particular facts. ,As such; many cases may present 

unique scenarios and aggravating or mitigating factors that are not routinely seen. If an 

aggravating or mitigating circumstance exists that is not adequately addressed elsewhere in the 

sanction guidance, it may be included and assigned a weight under this section. The factor 

should be clearty identified and explained in the analysis portion ofthe EIR and carefully 

sciTitinized by legal counsel. 

Guidance Note: For example, a shipment of a single package containing several different 

hazardous materials may pre.setit an aggravating factor. The degree of .seriousness of this factor 

will increase if the hazardous materials are incompatible with each other and. therefore, create 

an increased risk. 

Mitigating factors may also exist that have not been adecptately considered. For example, a 

shipment containing a de minimis quantity of material or an amount that would have quidified 

under the small quantity exception of 49 C.F.R. § 173.4. may present a mitigating factor if as a 

result there was a reduced risk to .safety in transportation. That the material could have been 

shipped as a con.sumer commodity can also be a mitigating factor. 

e. Determine the Final Aggregate Weight of the Case. 

(1) All the responses/weights are evaluated to determine a final aggregate weight for the 

case {Minimum, Moderate, an d Maximum.). Questions receiving a no response will not be 

included in this evaluation. Todetermine the final aggregate weight, the agent or attorney must 

exercise his or her discreUon in light of the statutory factors and knowledge of the particular 

facts ofthe case. The facts of the particular case will dictate the relative importance of each of 

the weighting factors in reaching the final aggregate weight. The final aggregate weight should 

be decided as a result of careful analysis, not a mathematical averaging. It is possible that a 

single weighting factor may outweigh all others. The agent or attorney's analysis should always 

be explained in this regard. 

^ r \ . C-8 tX-iiSil ^ 

• •5 ' "*... PAGE_o—or^Lr:. 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

Guidance Example: A case involving a hazardtnis material in the lowest risk category may he 

evabutted lo have a maximum, weight because of the large quantity shipped or the damage 

resulting fromthc shipment. 

f. utilize the Matrix (Figure C-1). 

(1) The sanction ranges under the offeror and offense categories ofthe Sanction 

Guidance Matrix reflect:tlie relative culpability of ihe.violator and the nature, circumstances, 

extent, and gravity of cases for the majority of violations. Consideration ofthese particular 

stalutoiy factors under the Federal hazardous material transportation law is built into the Matrix. 

Further analysis ofthe statutory factors is required to detemiine the appropriate sanction within 

the ranges established under die Matrix. This analysis is perfonned in subparagraphs 8.a.-e. 

After detennining the final aggregate weight ofthe case under subparagraphs 8.a.-e., that weight 

is applied to the appropriate Matrix range to identify the recommended sanction amount for each 

ofthe relevant violation groups and for the ease as a whole. Although the notice of proposed 

civil penalty may. cite numerous violations of a particular part or.subpart ofthe HMR, unless 

upward departure is justified, a single penalty amount for each violation group is ordinarily used 

to reach the full sanction. • . . . 

(2) Instructions. 

- • Identify the appropriate category for the type of entity'and the nature ofthe 

offense involved in the case. Refer lo the Definitions Section that follows the Matrix in Figure 

C-1 for guidance. Go to the intersecting box and identify the. applicable sanction range for each 

violation group... • - . . 

•'. Apply the conclusion reached in the subparagraphs 8.a.-e. weighting analysis lo 

assign a sanetiohamount within the minimum, moderate, or maximum portion ofthe sanction' 

range for each relevant violation group. The recommended civil penalty at this stage is the sum 

of the sanctions for each of the applicable violation groups. A sanction should not be assessed 

for a violation group if there have been no violations of that part or subpart ofthe HMR. The 

sanction amount for each violation group need not be identical but ordinarily is within the 

portion of the particular sanction range that represents the overall'weight ofthe case. 

(3) Departure fromlhe Matrix ranges. The ranges,of penalties specified in the Matrix 

(e.g., $250-$550) are intended to cover the majority of eases involving violations ofthe HMR. 

The facts and circumstances of a particular case, however, may justify either an upward or 

downward departure from thespecified-Matrix ranges.,- This sanction guidance.anticipates 

departure from.the specified Matrix ranges when justified. , A case involving violations in which 

the namre, circumstances, extent, and gravity ofthe incident are particularly severe or egregious, 

may justify upward departure, from.the specified ranges.; If the investigating agent believes, 

based upon the facts of a case, that a penalty should exceed the specified Matrix ranges; the 

agent should consult with legal counsel before further processing ofthe EIR. (However, in no 

case may the;civil,penalty per violation exceed the maximum allowed by law:) Conversely, the 

investigating agerit may believe.that mitigating factors justify a downward departure-from the 

^1 

^ ^ ^\ "AGt;_9„ofL[: ^ 
10/01/07 - 2150.38 

Matrix range. Consultation with legal counsel is not neoes.saiy in die case of a reconmiended 

penalty that is less than that provided in the Matrix. (However, in no case may the civil penalty 

per violation be less than the minimum allowed by law.) In either situation, however, the agent 

is lo provide a detailed explanation ofthe basis for die decision to go outside the ranges. 

(4) Violations of part 175 regulations, which establish particular requirements for air 

carriers and other aircraft oj>erators, are contained in a separate matrix. However, such operators 

often offer hazmat for air transportation as well as accept and transport it. As such, the operator 

may be liable for violations as a business entity within the main Matrix as well as for the specific 

part 175 violations. 

g. -Impact of Other Statutory Factors. The Federal hazardous material transportation law 

also requires consideration of a violator's ability to pay a civil penalty, the impact of the civil 

penalty on the violator's ability to continue to do business, and other maUers that justice 

requires: Consideration of ihese factors may result in adjustment ofthe recommended civil 

penalty calculated in subparagraph.8.f In siUiations where the agent or altoniey is in possession 

of miligaling infonnation, such an inability to pay the recommended civil penally or coneetive 

action taken, reduction ofthe reconmiended penalty may be appropriate. Mitigating infonnation 

should be sufficiently reliable, uncontroverted, and documented in order to support reduction of 

the recommended civil penalty prior to issuing the notice of proposed civil penally. 

(1) Ability to pay or continue in business. Historically, the FAA has considered these 

factors after die issuanoe ofthe notice of proposed civil penalty due to the absence of reliable 

financial infonnation on which to base,a reduction prior to the issuance of a notice. This 

Sanction Guidance recommends that the special.agent make efforts lo obtain reliable infonnation 

regarding the violator's size and financial condifion for review prior to the issuance of a notice. 

This infoniialion will be transmitted to the legal office for consideration. It is recognized that it 

may not always be,possible for the.special agent and/or altoniey lo obtain reliable financial 

information on a particular respondent, that financial circumstances change, and that infomiation 

may be provided after the issuance ofthe notice that may wanant further consideration of a 

respondent's ability to pay. 

.• The invesUgating agent will attempt to include financial infonnation as an exhibit 

in the EIR. It is anticipated that this infomiation, if available, will be obtained from reliable 

financial data bases. Financial documentation should include, but need not be limited to, 

information eonceniingthe violator's corporate structure, business address, officers; number of 

employees, and gross revenues. .. . 

• The investigating agent provides a statement or conmient withrespect to the 

financial infomiation obtained but ordinarily does not evaluate the financial condition of a 

respondent with respect lo its ability to pay a proposed civil penalty. The investigating agent's 

statement,should encompass.areas like the number of employees; gross revenues, and naUire of 

business of the violator. • ... . 

• FAA legal counsel reviews the financial infomiation provided in the EIR and 

evaluates its sufficiency and relevance to the reconunended civil penalty. Legal counsel may 

?*.r\ C-10 •-- Cl6.__ 
10/01/07 2150.38 

detemiine if more cunent infomiation exists concerning the financial condition of a respondent 

and if that infoimafion substantially differs from the information available at the time of 

preparation ofthe EIR. If there is a basis for determining that the recommended sancUon is 

inappropriate based upon the financial infonnation provided in the EIR, the recommended 

sanction is adjusted prior to issuance ofthe noUce of proposed civil penalty. This is a 

prcliniinaryconsideralion of a company's ability lo pay. As such, pre-notice adjustment of a 

recommended civil penalty does not preclude further consideration of a respondent's financial 

claims after issuance ofthe notice. 

(2) Coneetive Action. 

• The most common other matter that the FAA takes into consideration is'cori'cctive 

action. Corrective action that results in mitigation is remedial action that exceeds.the minimum 

legal requirements. The primary factors in detennining the appropriate amount of penally 

reduction are Ihe extent and timing ofthe corrective action. In other words, mitigation is 

detemiined on the basis of how much corteclive action was taken and how quickly the action 

was taken. Systemic change intended lo prevent fuUire violations should be given greater 

consideration. Similariy, corrective action that commences upon the violator'sfii'st learning of 

the violations oidinarily is given greater credit than coneetive action that conmiences only after 

the violator receives the letter of investigation or the notice of proposed civil penalty. 

Mitigation of a reconunended civil penally based upon coneetive action should be 

referenced in the Notice of Proposed Civil Penally so dial the respondenl is on notice that credit 

already has been given for such action. 

(2) Status of violator as a small business ci}tit}> or ecmcern. See subparagraphs 5.a.-b. 

above. .. . 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

MATRIX & DEFlNmONS 

(Figure C-1) 

OFFENSE 

CATEGORIES 

I. Declared Shipment 

1. Shipping l'.ipcrs 

2. Eubels 

3. Miiikings 

4. Packaging 

5. 'I'niining 

6. Eiricrg. Response 

7. Release into Environ. 

8. Other . 

11. Undeclared ShipmeiU 

Within Hazmat 

Ouantitv Limitations 

1. Shipping Piipeis 

2. Labels' 

3. Markings 

4. Packaging 

5. Tiaining 

6. , Einerg. Response . 

7. Release into Environ. 

8. Other 

III . Undeclared 

Shionicnt ' 

Ha/mut Forbidden on. 

or exceeds atv limits Tor. 

Fasseniier Aircraft 

] . Shipping Papers 

2. Labels 

3. Markings 

4. Packaging 

5. • Training 

6. Emerg. Response 

7. Release into Environ. 

8. Other 

IV. Undeclared 

Shioment 

Forbidden on. or 

exceeds at\' limits for. 

Al l Aircraft 

1. Shipping Papers 

2. Labels 

3. Markings 

4. Packaging 

5. Training 

6. Emerg. Response 

7. Release into Environ. 

8. Other 

V. Intentional or 

A. IndividuaM' 

z.-^o-sso 

250-550 

250-550 

250-550 

250-550 

250-550 

250-550 

250-1,100 

250^1,100 

250-1.100 

250-1.100 

250-1,100 

250-l,ibb 

250-1,100 

500-5,500 

500-5,500 

500-5,500 

500-5,500 

500-5,500 

500-5,500 

500-5,500 

500-32,500 

500-32.500 

500-32,500 

500-32,500 

500-32,500 

500-32,500 

500-32.500 

CONSULT 

B. Business Entily 

250-1,100 

250-1,100 

250-1,100 

250-1,100 , 

4.50-1,100 

250-1,100 

250-1,100 

250-1.100 

1,500-8,200 

1,500-8,200 

1,500-8,200 

1,500-8,200 

1,500-8.200 

1,500:8,200 . 

1,500-8,200 

1,500-8,200 

5,000-16,200 

5,000-16,200 

5,000-16,200 

5,000-16,200 

5,000-16,200 

5,000-16,200 

5,000-16,200 

5,000-16,200 

7,500-32,500 

7,500-32,500 

7,500-32,500 

7,500-32,500 

7,500-32,500 

7,500-32,500 

7,500-32,500 

7.500-32,500 

CONSULT 

C. Business Entity 

tlial uses or handles 

lia/.inal in the 

course of business 

500-2,200 

500-2,200 

500-2,200 

500:2,200 

500-2,200 

500-2,200 • 

500-2,200 

500-2,200 

2,500-11,000 

2,500-11,000 

2,500-11,000 

2.500-11,000 

2,500-11,000 

2,500-11,000 

2,500-11,000 

2:500-11,000 

7,500-22,000 

7,500-22,000 

7,500-22,000 

7,500-22.000 

7,500-22,000 

7,500-22,000 

7,500-22,000 

7,500-22,000 

10,000-32.500 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32.500 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

CONSULT 

•v 

D. Business Entity 

thai rcgulaiiy 

offers, accepts, or 

transports hazmat 

1,000-5,500 

! ,000-5,500 

1,000-5,500 

1,000-5,500 

1,000-5,500 

"l'6i3b-5;500 ~ *• 

1,000-5,500 

1,000-5,500 

5,000-13,000 

5,000-13,000 

5,000-13,000 

5,000-13.000 

.5,000-13,000 

5,000.-13,000 

5,000-13,000 

5.000-13,000" 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

10.000-32,500 

10.000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

15.000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

CONSULT 

c-12 

ppct.j^ . 
10/01/07 2150.38 

Deliberate Violation, or 

other si{>nincanl 

a<>{>rnva(inn 

V I . Violation results in 

death, serious illness. 

severe iniurv. or 

substatitial ilestriiction ' 

of DroDcrty 

LEGAL - Uplo 

50,000 per olTcnse 

category may be 

assessed 

CONSULT 

LEGAL-U p to 

100,000 per 

offense category 

may be assessed 

LEGAL - Up to 

5(1,000 jierolTense 

category may be 

as.sessed 

CONSULT 

LEGAL - Up to 

100.000 per 

offense categoi'y 

may be assessed 

LEGAL - Uplo 

50,000 per offepi.-^e 

category may be 

assessed 

CONSULT 

LEGAL - Uplo 

100,000 per offense 

category may be 

assessed 

LEGAL-U p to 

50.000 per offense 

categoiy may be 

assessed 

CONSULT 

LEGAL-U p to 

100,000 may be 

assessed 

h. ^Sanctions applicable to air carrier and commercial operator passengers and 

crcwniembcrs. The range for the total civil penalty lo be assessed, absent mifigating or 

aggravating factors, is $250 (the statutory minimum) to $1,000. 

AIR CARRIER AND OTHER AIRCRAFT 

OPERATOR VIOLATIONS 

Failure lo comply with Parts 171,172, or 173 

requirements ofthe HMR as.an offeror of hazmal. 

Improper"^acceptance of Hazriiat for air transportation. 

(i.e.; quantity, labeling; marking, packaging, and 

shipping piipcrs) ' 

See49 C.F.R. §§ 1.75.30(a)(1)-(4) 

FaiJiire to irispcct hazrriat shipment property. 

See 49 C.F.R." §§l'75.3d(b),(c),*(d),'(c) 

Improper storage/securing of hazmat aboard aircraft. 

Failure to provide hazmat training, maintain records of 

training, or meet miriiiiium i-equifcmenls foi" hazmat • 

training (49 C.F.R.)! 

Using untraine^/impropeily trained hazinat persomiel, 

failure to retain hazmat training records (49 C.F.R.) 

Failure to notify FAA property of incident/discrepancies 

in hazmat shipment. 

Failure to provide notice to the pilot-in-cohmiand. 

Other Part 175 violations.. 

Intentional, deliberate, or other significantly aggravated 

violation. 

Violation results in death, serious illness, severe injury, or 

substantial destmction of property. 

E. CroupI&M 

Air Carriers and 

Other Aircraft 

Operators 

Use main Matrix. 

5,000:32,500 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

5,000-16,200 

5,000-16,200 . 

5,000-16,200 . 

CONSULT. 

LEGAL - Up to 

50,000 per. , •. 

offense category 

may be assessed 

CONSULT. 

LEGAL: Up.to 

100,000 per^ 

offense category 

may be assessed 

-^t^^,-^ 

F. Group 111 & IV 

Air Carriers and 

Other Aircraft 

Operators 

Use main Matrix. 

2,500-16,200 

5,000-16,200 

5,000-16,200 

5,000-16,200 

5,000-16,200 

1,000-5,500 

1,000.-5,500 

.1,000-5,500 

.CONSULT LEGAL 

- Up.to.50,000 per 

offense category 

may be assessed 

CONSULT LEGAL 

- Up to 100,000 per 

offense category . 

may be assessed 

^ . J 

V* Vl 

^ 

••^^ ' 

C-13 

V^ \ 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

9. Defiuitions: Note that these definitions are only for the puipose of applying the sanction 

guidance in this appendix. 

a. Air Carrier and Other Aircraft Operator Groups (I, II, 111, IV) - Air earners and v 

other aircrafi operators are divided into two categories for puiposcs of determining an 

appropriate .sancfion. These categories track Uie air carrier groups established in Appendix B 

this order. For purposes of hazmat sanction guidance, the FAA also includes other aircraft 

operators operating in commerce that arc of similar size, e.g.. part 129 Foreign Air Carriers, part 

125 Operators, and part 91 Operators. 

(1) Group I is comprised of air carriers with annual operating revenue of $100,000,000 

or more. Other aircraft operators with annual operating revenue of $100,000,000 or more are 

included in Group I-for hazinat sanction guidance purposes. 

(2) Group II is comprised of air caniers and other commercial operators that have an 

amiual operating revenue of less than $100,000,000, and have 50 or more pijols and operate 25 

or more aircraft. Other aircraft operators ofthe same size are included in Group II for hazmat 

sanction guidance puiposes. 

(3) Group 111 is comprised of air carriers and other aircraft operaloi's that do not nicct the 

criteria for Group II, Ihal is, they have only 6 lo 49 pilots, or only 6 to 24 aircrafi. Other aircraft 

operators ofthe same size arc included in Group III for hazmal sanction guidance purposes. 

(4) Group IV is comprised of all olher air carriers and comniercjal operators not meeting 

the criteria for Groups 1, II, or III. Other aircrafi operators ofthe same size are included in 

Group IV for hazmat sanction guidance purposes. 

b. Busiiicss Entity. A business, corporation, partnei-ship, Sub-S Coriioraliqn, sole 

proprietor, association, or any type of commercial entily. An individual who offers a hazmat 

shipment in air transportation in the course of his or her seli-owned business falls into this 

category. It includes a non-profit organization and allolher entities defined uiidci- the HMR's 

definition of person (49 C.F.R. § 171.8), with the exception of an individual (as defined below). 

{ •••. 

c. Business Entity that Regularly Offers, Accepts, or Transports Hazardous Materials 

in the Course of Its Business. A business entitythat offers hazmat with some anticipated 

frequency, of purports to do so, regularly offers hazmat. For example, a catalogue company that 

offers hazardous material to its customers would fall into this category, even though its actual 

sale or transportation ofthe hazmat is infrequent or limited. This category includes 

manufacmrer or distributor ofhazmat and a freight forwarder. 

d. Business Entity that Uses, Handles Hazmat in the Course of Its Business. This 

category encompasses the business.dial utilizes hazmat in its business but does not offer it for 

transportation on a regular basis, as described above. For example, a riianufacturer of a hdnhazmat product that uses hazmat'in the manufacUiring process could fall into this category. It 

must be established that the company ordinarily does not offer the hazmat it utilizes for 

transportation, and the shipment in this instance represents an isolated incident. This type of 

business is held to a higher standard than the business entity that has no regular involvement 

C-14 

r\ 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

widi hazmat. The described business entity receives the subject hazardous material in 

transporlaUon and u.'^cs it in its business; thus, it is clearly on notice ofthe hazardous nature of 

the material and the regulatory requirements to which the hazmal is subject. 

e. Declared Shipment. For purposes of this sanction guidance, a declared shipment has at 

least one of the following conmiunicativc indicia—markings, labels, and/or shipping papers that 

meet the communicative requirements ofthe HMR. A package that has shipping papers that 

declare the contents as hazardous material, but is otheiAvise not marked or labeled, falls into this 

category. For puiposes of diis definition,' a shipping paper is any documcnLto which handlers 

refer in the nomial course of transportation and that complies with one or more ofthe 

communicative requirements in the HMR for shipping papers. Siniilarty,a properly marked and 

labeled package that lacks shipping papers also falls inlo this category. An example of a 

shipment tluit would not meet this definition isone where the offeror states that the shipment 

contains hazmat, but only in paperwork to which the handlers do not refer in the normal course 

of transportation. • ' 

f;--Hazmat- A hazardous material,'as defined in 49 C.F:R. § 171.S, includes and is 

interchangeable with the term dangerous goods, as used in the Intenialiohal Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Technical Instructions. 

g. Individual - A human who offers a shipment of hazardous material in his or her personal 

capacity, without any business puipose and not as part of a commercial enterprise. 

h. Intentional or Deliberate Violation - A violation falls into this category when the 

offeror, acceptor, air carrier, or aircraft operator has knowledge ofthe requirements of the HMR, 

and willfully circumvents or attempts to circumvent those requirements. For example, an offeror 

who places a property marked and labeled hazmat shipment along with properly completed 

shipping papers, into an oveipack marked as printed material, has conunitted an intentional or 

deliberate violation. 

i. Undeclared Shipment - If a shipment docs not meet the definition of declared shipment, 

it is an undeclared shipment. 

j . Undeclared Shipment Hazmat Exceeds Quantity Limits for All Aircraft - An 

undeclared shipment that is offered for transportation on or transported on any aircraft and the 

quantity of hazardous material exceeds the limit, per package, for transportation on cargo 

aircraft, as established in the 49 C.F.R. § 172.101 Table. 

k. Undeclared Shipment Hazmat Exceeds Quantity Limits for Passenger Aircraft - An 

undeclared shipment that is offered for transportation on or transported on a passenger aircraft, 

and the quantity of hazardous material exceeds the limitafion, per package, for transportation on 

passenger aircraft (bul not for transportation on cargo aircraft), as established in the 49 C.F.R. § 

172.101 Table. 

I. Undeclared Shipment Hazmat Forbidden on All Aircraft - An undeclared shipment 

that is offered for transportation on or transported on any aircraft and the hazardous material is 

forbidden in air transportation on cargo aircraft, as established in the 49 C.F.R. t; 172.101 Table. 

'5K) C-15 

15^0 J ^ 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

ni. Undeclared Shipment Hazmat Forbidden on Passenger Aircraft - An undeclared 

shipment that is offeved for transportation on or liausported on a passenger aircrafi, and the 

hazardous material is forbidden in air transportation on passenger aircraft (but not in air ^v 

transportation on cargo aircrafi), as established in the 49 C.F.R. § 172.101 Table. 

n. Undeclared Shipment Within Ha/mat Quantity Limitations. 

(1) If Ihe undeclared shipment is offered for transportation on or transported on a passenger 

aircraft, the quantity of hazardous material must bc.wilhin the limitafion, per package, for 

transportation on passenger aircraft, as eslablishcd in-.the 49 C.F.R. § 1-72,101 Table. 

(2) If the undeclared shipment is offered for transportation on a cargo aircraft,-but not 

transported, the quantity of hazardous material must be within the limitation, per package, for 

transportation on passenger aircrafi, as established in the 49 C.F.R. § 172.101 Tabic. 

(3) If the undeclared shipment is offered for transportation on and transported on a cargo 

aircraft, the quantity of hazardous material must be within the limitafion, per package, for 

transportation on cargo aircraft, as established in the 49 C.F.R. § 172.101 Table. 

All other undeclared shipments fit within the definitions for Undeclared Shipment Hazmat 

Exceeds Quantity Limits for...Aircraft, or Undeclared Shipment Hazmat Forbidden 

on...Aircraft, see above. 

•:. , ^^ C-16 -...^y^-^ XJ5 S' 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

RISK CATEGORIES 

(Figure C-2) 

CATEGORY "A" 

{Maximum Weight} 

Category "A" materials are materials tliat 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 fiightcrew, as well as persons on the ground. 

Class 1 Explosives: Division 1.1,1.2,1.3, 

Class 2 Compressed Gases All 2.1, 2.2 with Subsidiary Risk 5.1 and All 2.3 PIH Zones A-D 

Class 3 Flammable Liquids PG I, II, and (PIH) 

Class 4 Division 4.1 Flammable Solids PG I, & (Matches) 

Division 4.2 Spontaneously Combustible Materials PG I (Pyrophoric) 

Division 4.3 Dangerous When Wet PG I 

Class 5 Division 5.1 Oxidizing Liquids and Solids PG I, II, e.g., "Chemical Oxygen Generators" 

Division 5.2 Organic Peroxides PG 11 (Type A,B,C,D) 

Class 6 Division 6.1 Toxic/Poisonous Materials PG I (PIH) 

Class 7 Cargo Aircraft Only Quantities on Passenger Aircraft 

Class 8 Corrosive Material Liquid PG I and (PIH) 

Forbidden Materials (See 49 C.F.R. § 173.21 & ICAO Technical Instructions) 

Forbidden Hazmat listed in Dangerous Goods Table 49 C.F.R. § 172.101 

CATEGORY "B" 

{Moderate Weight} 

The materials listed in Category "B " are materials that may not pose an immediate threat to the safety of a flight, but can 

cause death or injury to persons due to unintended releases In aircraft cabin areas, and potential damage to aircraft 

structures over a longer period of time due to undiscovered releases on aircraft structural components. 

Class 1 Division 1.4,1.5,1.6, All Compatibility Groups 

Class 3 PG III Flammable Liquids 

Class 4 Division 4.1 Flammable Solids PG II, III 

Division 4.2 Spontaneously Combustible Materials PG W, 111 

Division 4.3 Dangerous When Wot PG II, III 

Class 5 Division 5.1 Oxidizing Liquids or Solids PG III 

Division 5.2 Organic Peroxides (Type E,F,G) 

Class 6 Division 6.1 Toxic/Poisonous Materials PG I, II ( NON- PIH ) 

Division 6.2 Infectious Substances 

Class 7 Radioactive Materials, yellow label II, white label I 

Class 8 Liquids PG II, III Solids PG I, II, III 

Category "C" 

{Minimum Weight} 

The materials listed in Category "C " are materials that present the least amount of risk to the transportation system. 

Class 2 2.2 Nonflammable Gas 

Class 6 Division 6.1 Toxic/Poisonous Materials PG III 

Class 7 All other RAM (LSA, LTD QTY, Instruments, and Articles) 

Class 9 Miscellaneous Dangerous Goods {ORM-D and Consumer Commodity} 

NOTE: This guidance Is not Intended to replace the experienced judgment of a special agent who is convinced, based on 

the evidence and facts of a case, that the failure of an air carrier, shipper, freight forwarder, or passenger to follow 

established regulations has posed a risk to aviation safety. 
EXHIBITS 

SMITH CABLE CP09AL0012 

j 2009-0976-RESPONDENT 

# Description ID IN 

A email dtd 20080908 Annie; Itinerary #1373086 dtd 20080918 - 2 pp x 

B Air Waybill dtd 20080910 - 1 pp x 

C Aff Linne dtd 20090609 - 3 pp V x 

D photos -4 pp ^ 

E AS Air Cargo DG Irregularity Rpt - 1 pp x 

F email Cook dtd 20080915-2 pp x 

G Notes - 6 pp X 

H FAA's response to discovery - 9 pp x 

I Calendar for Sep 2008 x x 

J 
From: annta [annfe@catv.comJ 

Sant: Tuesday, September 09.2008 11:57 AM 

To: 'Iinne04@netzero,nef 

Cc; 'Shannon' 

Subject: Freight from Ketchikan 

We ore scheduled with Aepj out of Ketchikan, 247-5701 to pick up 3 pollets of tools; luggage 

and what not tomorrow morning, September 10 at around 8am. I t will be shipped via fiold 

Streak, airway bill # 74712632 and should.arrive in Fairbanks by Thursday ot the latest. 

The 4 wheeler and gas drill will be put with the truck/trailer to be shipped via the Alaska 

Marine Highway on Monday, September 15^ to avoid prablems with the hazmat paperwork at 

the airport. We will need to arrange how to get these items to Fairbanks once they arrive in 

Whittier on September 18 . I have attached the ferry confirmation again to this e-mail so 

that we can make arrangements for someone in Ketchikan to help us put it onto the ferry for 

us. Once it leave Ketchikan we don't hove to change it out until it reaches Whittier (same 

boat all the way thru). 

AK.4a ^ A/tt54 ^ 

907-Z77-8180 

^Tr 

10/1/2008 

:5^^bEFENb»Nt3 

CfO-=1f\LOOOIl 

_?6^-j^?!(CASENUMBER)•^^>;!^U 
o-:r-\j-j'c<j\}o rni I .u I MM ftftftam/iiiLriD tflA No. yu/'iODtJiJH 

Spfitamber 5, 2C0810:07aHi STATE OF ALASKA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP0RTATI0T7 AND PUBLIC FACILITIES 

ALASKA MARINE HIQHWAY SYSTEM 6858 GLACIER HWY 

PO BOX 112505, JUNEAO, AK 99811-2505 

Pag*: 1 of 1 

ww;-7.ferryala8)ca*coin 

Itineraiy NiJinJier: 1373086 

Telephone : (907) 465-3941 

(800) 642-0066 

FAX: (907) 465-B824 

SMITH CABLE SYSTEMS 

P0 60X11l69d 

ANCHORAGE AK 99611 

CR# 604553 

Attn: Annie fax 907-274-1892 

9/4 Credit card proceesed/PTA tickets Kstchikan.(ac) 

Than:? you for booking. Please review status end items for accuracy. Thi3 is a 

confirmation of your reservation only. It does not reflect payments. If you 

are sending payment, please do not pay for WAITLISTED itemsV«ssft^ From Departure To ^irj-.ya]. 

M/v Kennicott KETCHIKA N l5S«poe 02:30pm WHITTIE R " lesepos 06:30am 

CONFIRMED 32' LONG VEHICLE 

Adjustiaenta: Unacconvpanied AK 

Total $2,016.00 (t3S Funds 

Total does not include WAITLISTED items. 

Your Itinerary number is 1373086. 

V 

?2016.00 

SEP-05"e00S 10:36flM From: 90746568^4 IQiSMlTH CABLE SYSTEMS Pa9e:001 R=100^ 
SEP-lS-e009 08:38 FRCM: TQ:19072714933 P. I'-L 

027 KTN 7471 2632 027-7471 2632 

Wmf a Aceou u niMntMr 

27442117126 

Snipfw ^ Hun * snd Mttvi a 

SMITH CABLE SYSTEMS 

4351 E 145m Avo "^""WiiS ^ 

PO BOX 1 ri665 Anchorage AK 99611 

ANCHORAGE. AK 99515 

USA Tel: 

Con^iiriM' i Nu M »n i Adin n 

SMITH CABLE SYSTEMS 

4351 E 145th Ave 

PO po x 111565 Anchorage AK 99511 

ANCHORAGE, AK 99515 

USA Ten 

27442117125 

AlrWaybllf 

9.O . BO K tDta o Se*TTLC , W A Vtli a 

•OO-lXS-irtf } ALASKACAftCO.CO N 

AlfonoUiy 

l«>t*ia C«ntof^ A9W1I w d Of f 

TgnTTDETrCoSr AtfounlNa ; 

Mpof l ql 0^»i« M (AM . ofPlrtt Cantar) VKT Raqtmla d nwtJr ^ 

Ketchikan 

ANC Alaska AirJinas 

Tel: 

SMPTH CABLE SYSTEMS INC 

43S1E146lhAvs 

PO BOX 111568 AnchoragsAK 00511 

ANCHORAGE, AK 88515 

USA 

Priority Cargo 

10896 

TTJTBT 

F AI 

Uport (tf pMtklBlkll 

Fairbanks 

VS 

AS 067/10 

ITa/Br Cwimcv 

USD 

AS 195/10 

WTOT 

AirmiUt f bBurvE i 

XXX 

^>*V0 

Dadan d Vatua h r Culam ' 

NCV 

HanjOno bifcrmMlon 

BC 

NOB' 

Placai 

Q 0 a 

tonNv. 

Oiarpaabla (Ufa / 

Cnvga T s U (Ind. DhiMialvH or Uokma) 

24 1,213.0 1.213.0 0.6B 824,B4 TOOLS 

24 1,213.0 a24.B4 

PR!" 

Volume : Q.OQO 

Pnpi W VMghiaiMt * C«llac l 

B24.84 

Vakil^cnChag a 

68.23 

ODwrChwa M 

MYC 242.60 

s e c 24.26 

PUA 38.57 

r o w OnarChtrg M Dua Aevri 

38.57 

V a M Olh w Chw| M D M Oairtat 

266.88 

Fetal n»pa u 

1.198.50 

Btmak n af BNaaw «r h% A«ant 

"raWCata i 

St^ip v cafllt f I M I n pariW n « i 0 « tan hwn f t » nffw i and hi ) roMta r u a«7 p ^ « l (t o rniilBnoMM 

• •nWp»dw<tOTyaij>,»iiahyaitlap>upiH>4aaerthadhy«wTw«n<lalwF»parctiiiilltlMih>g«ntiB i 

by riraMcrAillaltoappUnMaDmsarauaaQodiPtagulitlom. taa(iHf)llathBknpNtlM«IIMaBa««« . 

For SMITH CABLE 

SYSTEMS INC 

1 ^ 1X19 StaWEM T DQMMa r COMTAM 

|<— ^lAwaeHoua oooM 

10 Sep 2008 13:12 Ketchikan WaskaAiiilnes 

ISfDEFENESANl^r^^ 027-7471 2632 

:EXIiilBITVNO:;:i0ilij| ^, V 

kDMITTED::E]t-:^;;^^P 

Ifcr.-Bi-UCASE NLiMBER^'l-wiiiil 
AFFtDAVIT OF TODD LINNE 

STATE OF MISSOURI ) 

) ss 

COUNTY OF iiEyr\ s ) 

Todd Linne. being first duly sworn, deposes and says: 

1. In the summer of 2008» I was employed by Smith Cable Systems, Inc. 

("Smith Cable "). Smith Cable contracted to perform work in Ketchikan, Alaska, that 

summer. I have worked for Smith Gable for f years. During that time, I was made 

aware of and familiar with rules and regulations applicable to the transportation of 

hazardous materials on aircraft ("Hazmat"). 

2. At the beginning of September 2008^ our job was finishing up and we 

began the process of packing up our equipment and shipping it to either Fairbanks (where 

our next job was) or Anchorage (where our home base was). Our company was sending 

some items via air cargo to Fairbanks and some things via the maritime highway. 1 

assisted in the demobilization of the company's equipment and its preparation for 

shipment to various destinations. 

3. On September 10, 2008^ my co-worker Tom plO. / & K and I were advised 

to gel a pallet of items ready to be shipped air cargo. We spent nearly two hours in the 

morning working in the rain preparing materials for shipment from Ketchikan to 

Fairbanks. We knew this material was going to be shipped air cargo, and we knew it 

could not contain hazardous materials without certain required notification. We placed 

Affidavit of Todd Lionc Page I of 3 

i^j:;;C)EpNI3pipJi::^ 

>•• 'i'^'rtCAS LVi:(CASE.NyMBER)>;5 E NUMHERl'-:?-?^ . -I 
all the items on the pallet and secured them in preparation for the pick up. 1 would not 

have placed propane canisters or spray cans on this pallet because I knew that this paltet, 

was being transferred for air cargo to Fairbanks, and these are hazardous substances that 

must be reported. 

4. An employee of Aerl, a local company which picks up and delivers items 

for air cargo, arrived around 9:00 am with a box truck to pick up the shipment. The 

employee had no way to pick up the pallet load and place it in the back ofthe truck. We 

expected him to have a forklift or similar tool to load the pallet into the back of his truck. 

Because we did not have a forklift, we had to unload the entire pallet and load all the 

items by hand into the back of the truck. We did not place propane cylinders into the 

back of the truck, nor did we place any aerosol spray cans in the bed. The employee 

assisted us in placing the items in the back of his truck. 

5. We never saw the load of items again. I do not know how they got ftx)m 

the back ofthe truck onto a pallet in the Alaska Air Cargo building, I understood that the 

Aerl employee was responsible for placing the items on the pallet at the building. 

6. I have no idea how an aerosol paint can or gas cylinder got into the 

materials that were shipped to Fairbanks for Smith Cable Systems. Tom and I handled 

everything that was supposed to be shipped, and the paim can and gas cylinders were not 

part of Smith Cable Systems' shipment. 

Affidavit of Todd Linne Page 2 of 3 
7. We did not use any aerosol spray paint on our job and I am not aware of 

our company buying or using such a product on this job* 

rLcrAA CK. L Kjy^>j^<^-si_ 

TODD LINE 

i i ^ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 5 day of June, 2009. 

Notary Public in and for Missouri 

My commission expires: \\'^Sl O 

AMANDA F, WADE 

Notaiy Public - Notaiy Seal 

State of Missouri 

Commissioned lor Texas County 

My Commisskin Expires: November 25,2010 

Commission Number 06392756 

Affidavit of Todd Linne Page 3 of3 
U.S. DliPAKrMliNTUFIRAN.St'ORI'ATlON 

FRDEKAL AVIATION Al>Ml!NISTRAT[ON 

SECURITY & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

3 - 1 

Photograph shows the propane and spray paim offered as cargo by SMITH CABLE SYSTEMS. 

Photograph taken on September 15, 2008, by Kyle Forbes, ASAA KTN, and e-mailed the same day. 

The propane and paint were disposed of by ASAA station personnel, KTN. 

The pictures were downloaded directly from e-mail. No alterations were made to the photographs other 

than copying them from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Otfice Word. 

Intervlflwed/Reviewed On 

By 

Special Agent Jeffrey Deitz 

FAA Form 1600-32-1 o-es) 

i^^ DEEENDANTC;^: 

EXHIBITiNO::::M2l±E 

r ,' -^HCASE NUMBER)'-.:' 'C'r 

At 

File No. 

2008AL700045 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

(Publlt tvmirabtmy to bm 

(f«(anirffiad ufttf«rfi U.S.C. SSi) 
U.S. DHPAK'lMtNT o r TRANSPORTATfON 

rEDERAt AViATION A1>MINISTRAT10N 

SKCUdiry & MAZARIXH/.S MATERIALS 

Photograph is a second view ofthe hazardous materials. 

The propane and paint were disposed of by ASAA station personnel, KTN. 

The pictures were downloaded directly from e-mail. No alterations were made to the photographs other 

than copying them from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Office Word. 

Interviewed/Rovlewfld On At 

ey 

Special Agent Jeffrey Deitz 4$ 

FAA Form 1600-32-1 (o-oo) 

V 

File No. 

2008AL700045 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

(Public •YaflaMliy to b9 

dMtrmlntl undar 5 US.C. BSy 
U.S. DFPARl MENT Ol- TRANSI*ORTATION 

FEDKIIAL AVIAIION ADMiNISTRAHON 

SHCURiTV* HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

3 - 3 

Photograph shows a close up of one ofthe Propane Cylinders. 

The propane and paint were disposed of by ASAA station personnel, KTN. 

The pictures were downloaded directly from Fujifilm Camera to this document. No alterations were made 

to the photographs other than copying them from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Office Word. 

Interviewed/Reviewed On At 

By Special Agent Jeffrey Deitz 

FAA Forni 1600-32-1 (ft.ao) # ^ 

FiiB No. . 

2O08AL700O81 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

(PubUe mvtUtbUttr » bw 

detvnnlntil undw 8 U.S.C. Kl) 
U.S. DEPARIMRNT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISrillA IION 

sKcuRrnr &. HAZARDOUS MA H'RIALS 

3 - 4 

Photograph shows a close up ofthe back ofthe spray paint. 

The propane and paint were disposed of by ASAA station personnel, KTN. 

The pictures were downloaded directly from Fujifilm Camera to this document. No alterations were made 

to the photographs other than copying them from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Office Word. 

Interviewed/Reviewed On At 

By Special Agent Jeffrey Deitz File No. 

2008AL700081 

FAA Fomi 1600-32-1 (»4ai 

l ^ 

^ Ai"^ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

(Public wOtbillty to b* 

d»frminM imOf 5 U.S.C. SSii 
SEP-10-2Q0e 18:5? FROM: 70:19072714933 P.l'-l 

Air Cargo Dangerous Goods Irregularity Report 

INSTRUCTIONS: Phone or fax this completed report to the FAA. Photographs may be taken to support -*. 

(he incident. (To report spills or leaks involving dangerous goods, use DOT Form 5300.1, which may be 

found in First Class. Co lo: ASA Conferences/AS Environmenlal/S&E Forms. 

"pt Undeclared/Hidden 

Type of incident". 'Q Erroneously declared 

Q Insufficient/imp roper 

absorption materials 

Q Quantity exceeds allowed limits 

Q ImpropcT inside containers 

Q Inside containers not orienled as shown on 

the packaging 

INITIAL INCIDENT INFORMATION: 

DatciTimc discovc 

Where and how discovered (e.g. X-ray. physical inspection, ^iplll. cic): 

NaiTic/phone number ofperson reporting: 

Where are Ihe dangerous goods now? n/ \ Z^p^p^V- I^;fe>p/1.,'; ^ (, ^ y4f^^^^ 

1 Z^i^3'^ 

CARGO INFOUMATION: 

Air Waybill numberofttemCs) containing Dangerous Goods: __ 

Type of cargo involved (e.g. Goldstreak, Goldrush. Cargo, etc): "^ y^\C7y"|'T^ 

Arc there any nCTabelloli'thSitsideVfthel^^ ^rf^lo If yes, what kind?/^ ^ 

Proper Sh*rpriingNarne^ "j j UN Number z.m 

Total number ofpieces offered by shipper; 'Z'M^ 

Total number of pieces containing Dangerous Goods: ."Z* 

SHIPPEU INFORMATION: 

Name: 

Address-, 

Cny. ^AfXlhorp^L ^ ; state: .^Oi^v - ^'P CodT^QS/v S 

Telephone number 1^C$i " 0\W6r ^ ^ 

INCIDENT DKSCHJPTION: 

Describe the dangerous goods that was found, including type, amount, brand name or 

manufacturer, etc: ^fil ^ ^k^CT^d <:i/yVxJl OdU^ SW^-

PXAN V I^A_-^^^ ^^^CKjUnc 

y 

ZK-31(06A)3) 

ASAC0-O410-2-M12 K;:);;DEFENDANTK 

:EXHIBlTNO?!ii^l^ 

' '^l^ifCASE'NUMBER):^;:-: 
"Tim Coolc" 

<Tim .Cook@ AlaskaAir. com> 

09/15/2008 09:58 AM 

To Jeff Deit2/AAUFAA@FAA 

cc 

bcc 

Subject AWB #7471-2632 . 

Hello, 

I was working the werehouse when the shipment wH;h the air way bill of 

7471-2G32 was droped off. 

I send the item's that needed to be screened to TSA as a known shipper. Them 

item's where fine so i send it to the ramp to be loaded on aircraft. 

Later that day it was bumped from the aircraft due to room and was sent back 

to ' 

the werehouse where a ramper spilled few peaces off the pallet where 2 

propane 

bottles fell out. 

Then after that i did a 100% screen and found a spray paint bottle full in 

the 

bottom of a action packer crate .. 

Any thing you need please email me of call me at work. 

Thank you 

Tim Cook 

r \ ^ 

f DEFENDANT 1 
"Stephen Camp" 

<Stephen.CQmp(g)Ata5kaAlr.c 

om> 

09/15/2008 09:43 AM 

To Jeff Deitz/AAUFAA@FAA 

cc 

bcc 

Subject regarding awb 7471-2632 

While picking up a'small beach barbeque, two Coleman camping propane bottles, 

both of which were halfway full fell out. Then Tim Cook screened 100% and 

found 

some spray paint as well. After removing the restricted articles the cargo was 

sent on flight 69 that evening. 

f 

fhh 060O) 

/LK^ 
k-e ^ ^.-i,^, ^ ^--Int/- t^4 ^ l ^ ^ ^, ^ 

^ysr ^ ^.^^ ^ 

o 

[EXHlBIT^NQ^^^^'^^^'f 

U^A"^;.!'(CASE'NUM0efl)i'V.^Dj 
RECORD OF INTERVIEW; Jessica Freeman, Freight Driver, Aero Services, 

Ketchikan, AK (907) 247-5701 

On September 14, 2009, the undersigned telephonically interviewed Jessica Freeman 

regarding the circumstances surrounding the pick up of freight from Smith Cable, and 

subsequent offering ofthe freight to ASAA in Ketchikan on September 10, 2008, in 

which undeclared hazardous materials were discovered. Prior to the interview Freeman 

was informed that the purpose ofthe interview was for the investigation of a regulatory 

violation. Freeman agreed to be interviewed and related the following: 

Freeman stated that she does not remember this particular shipment. She stated 

that it was not unusual to break down a pallet for loading in her truck and repalletizing the load at ASAA. Freeman also stated that it was not unusual for her 

to have more than one shipment in the truck at a time. 

Freeman said that because of liability reasons she would always keep the 

shipments physically separate. Because the company held her personally 

responsible and liable, she would ensure that if more than one shipment was 

present in the tmck that they would not mix. 

Freeman stated that she has picked up freight for over a year and never had a 

mistake or complaint. 

Jeffrey'L. Deitti, Special Agent 

Hazardous Materials Specialist 

\ ^ 

^ 

fAA OOOO^ 
z/^'^" /f^A 

J^Xt '^^ ^' (^V^ ajij 2^?-57^ ^ ^ ^^""^'^ ''^' ^ t.-. 

W ^ ^ 

(n; 

fAA000D6 

rA 

\P 
9 

AGENT STATEMENT: Jeffrey L, Deitz, Special Agent (SA), Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Security and Hazardous Materials, 222 West 7"^ Avenue #14, 

Anchorage, Alaska, 99523, Telephone (907)271-5003. 

'*. 

After receiving a copy ofthe letter submitted to Glenn Brown by Marston & Cole, 

I pulled the case file and went over the contents. 

In the Affidavit of Todd Linne, Linne states that he and his coworker never 

loaded any propane cylinders nor an aerosol can of paint. 

In the ASAA Dregularity Report it states that the propane was discovered inside a 

small stove, and when the rest of thipment was searched the paint was found. All 

hazmat was hidden and not visible to those loading it. 

In my notes I found a statement from ASAA employee, Stephan Camp. In this 

statement Camp states that while picking up a small beach barbeque, two 

Coleman camping propane bottles fell out. He had Tim Cook screen the rest of 

the shipment where the paint was discovered. Again the hazmat is said to be 

hidden from view. 

I also found in my notes, reference to a telephone conversation that I had with 

Ron Smith, President of Smith Cable Systems, where he stated that his internal 

investigation showed that they did ship the items and that they had a grill. This 

conversation took place on September 27, 2008 at 1135 hours. 

^'Jdt^ey L Dei^s, Special Agent 

/ Hazardous Materials Specialist 

fAA0C00i> 
I 

U.S. DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION ' 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

. SECURITY & HAZAKDOUS MATERIALS 

AGENT STATEMENT: Jeffrey L. Deitz, Special Agent (SA), Federal Aviation Administration, Office 

of Security and Hazardous Materials, 222 West 7'^ Avenue #14, Anchorage, Alaska, 99523, Telephone 

(907)271-5003. 

On September 15, 2008, this office received notification from Alaska Airlines (ASAA) Cargo 

Facility located in Ketchikan, AK. The notification stated that on September 10, 2008, SMITH 

CABLE SYSTEMS offered undeclared hazardous materials for air transportation from KTN to FAI 

as part of a 24 piece cargo shipment. 

ASAA reported that in this shipment offered on ASAA Air Waybill # 7471 2632, was found to 

contain two 16.4 ounce cylinders of Coleman Propane fuel (Petroleum gases, liquefied, class 2.1, 

UN 1075) and one 12 ounce can of Premium D6cor spray paint (Aerosols, flammable, class 2.1, 

UNI 950). 

ASAA in KTN provided photographs, a DG irregularity report and a copy ofthe Air Waybill. The 

photographs were taken on September 15, 2008, by Kyle Forbes, ASAA KTN, and e-mailed to me 

the same day. 

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) were obtained for both the Coleman Propane and Premium 

d6cor spray paint. 

On September 17, 2008, a Letter of Investigation was dispatched to SMITH CABLE SYSTEMS 

concerning my investigation. 

On October 1, 2008,1 received a telephone call from Ron Smith, President of SMITH CABLE 

SYSTEMS. He wanted to acknowledge the receipt ofthe LOI and said that he did not know 

anything about the shipment but would get back to mc. 

On October 27, 2008, not having received anything from Ron Smith, I telephoned him. He 

apologized for not getting back to me and said that an internal investigation conducted by him 

confirmed that they had shipped the hazardous materials in question. He promised to send a written 

account to me. As of November 5, 2008, nothing has been received. 

•V. 

/JeTflrey L?t)eitz, Special Agent 

Hazardous Materials Specialist / 

interviewed/Ravlawed On .. At 

3y Special Agent Jeffrey Deitz ' ^.^^ 2008AL700081 

FAA Form 1600-32-1 (B-M) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

fPi/bf/c mvtIUIilllty to bm 

dUtntOitti und t 5 U.S.C 552} 
U.S. Department ANCHORAGE AVIATION 

of Transportation SECURITY and HAZARDOUS 

^ AUTERIALS 

222 West 7* Avenue #14 

Federal Aviation Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587 

Administration ^^t W7> 2715003 

Fax: (9071271-4933 

CERTIFIED MAIL—RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Smith Cable Systems 

Attn: President/CEO , ,r.,q 

PO Box 111565 vshH i- / '-' -

Anchorage, AK 99511 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Letter of investigation 

File Number: 2008AL700081 

On September 15, 2008, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Security and 

Hazardous Materials (ASH) branch office in Anchorage, Alaska was notified of undeclared 

hazardous materials discovered by Alaska Airlines (ASAA), at the Ketchikan airport (KTN). 

Specifically, ASAA reported to this office that on September 10, 2008, your company offered a 

24 piece shipment to ASAA for air transportation as cargo from KTN to Fairbanks, AK on air 

waybill # 7471 2632. During the handling process, two 16.4 ounce/465 gram cylinders of 

Coleman Propane (Petroleum gases, liquefied, class 2.1, UN1075) were discovered. This led to 

further inspection/screening where one 12 02 can of Premium D6cor spray paint (Aerosols, 

flammable, class 2.1, UN1950)was discovered. Liquefied petroleum gases are forbidden for 

transportation on a passenger carrying aircraft. 

The Federal Aviation Administration is conducting an Investigation into this matter and 

preliminary evidence indicates that you may have violated the Federal Hazardous Materials 

Regulations, 49 Code of Federal Regulations. 

We wish to offer you the opportunity to furnish explanatory infonnation reflecting extenuating or 

mitigating circumstances regarding these alleged violations. Your written reply will be needed 

within ten (10) working days of receipt of this letter to resolve this matter promptly. If no 

response is received, this case will be processed without the benefit of your reply. 

Please include in your response, the hazmat training records for anyone involved with this 

shipment. 

Sincerely, 

laterials Specialist 

Hazardous Materials Branch 

Anchorage Office 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SMITH CABLE SYSTEMS, INC.f^ [I © [1 I] |7 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09AL0012 11 | | JUN - 7 2010 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

MARSTON & COLE, PC 

DMS NO. FAA-2009-0976 

FAA'S RESPONSE TO SMITH CABLE'S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUEST 

Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), through counsel, hereby 

responds to the various discovery requests contained in Respondent's Discovery Requests to 

Administrator served on the FAA by respondent Smith Cable Systems, Inc. ("Smith Cable"). 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTtON NO. 2: Please produce a copy of any recorded witness 

interviews. 

FAA'S RESPONSE: The FAA has no recordings of any interviews of witnesses in this 

matter. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 2: Please produce a copy of any notes taken during any 

witness interviews. 

FAA'S RESPONSE: On January 13, 2009, the FAA provided the releasable portion of 

its enforcement investigative report ("EIR") to Smith Cable. In addition to the notes contained in 

that report, the FAA herewith produces the following: 

FAAOOOOl Email from Stephen Camp of Alaska Airlines to Jeff Deitz 

F AA00002 Email from Tim Cook of Alaska Airiines to Jeff Deitz 

FAA00003 Jeff Deitz's notes of interview with Jessica Freeman of Aero Services 

. C ^ 

:^:f?DEFENDANT . 

|EXH!BITVNO;;|Ei^' 

i>a^MiOTD?[D^^:iS's 

••-.^•a'i(CASE NUMBER):;ia%"| 
FAA00004 Record of Interview of Jessica Freeman by Jeff Deitz 

FAA00005 JefTDeitz's notes of interview with Ron Smith of Smith Cable 

FAA00006 JeffDeitz's Agent Statement 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce a copy of all notes taken by Jeffrey 

Deitz during this investigation. 

FAA'S RESPONSE: On January 13, 2009, tlie FAA provided the releasable portion of 

its enforcement investigative report to Smith Cable. Beyond the material provided from the EIR 

and in response to Request for Production No. 2 above, the FAA has no notes taken by FAA 

Special Agent Jeffrey Deitz in its custody or control that are responsive to this request. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce a copy of all notes taken by any other 

FAA investigator involved in this investigation. 

. FAA'S RESPONSE: On January 13, 2009, the FAA provided the releasable portion of . 

its enforcement investigative report to Smith Cable. Beyond the material provided from the EIR, 

the FAA has no notes taken by any of its investigators in its custody or control that are 

responsive to this request. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Please admit that a Smith Cable employee did not 

prepare the Alaska Air Cargo Air Waybill Number 027-7471 2632. 

FAA'S RESPONSE: Denied. Because the waybill 

a) idenfifies the shipper as "Smith Cable Systems"; 

b) indicates a shipper's address that, on information and belief, is an address which Smith 

Cable uses for its business; 

c) indicates an Alaska Air Cargo shipper's account number that, on information and belief, 

is an account number used by Smith Cable; 

Smith Cable Systems. Inc. -2- DMS No. FAA-2009-0976 
d) indicates an Alaska Air Cargo customer's ID number that, on information and belief, is 

an ID number used by Smith Cable; 

e) identifies the consignee as "Smith Cable Systems"; 

f) indicates a consignee's address that, on information and belief, is an address which Smi'th 

Cable uses for its business; 

g) indicates an Alaska Air Cargo consignee's account number that, on infonnation and 

belief, is an account number used by Smith Cable; 

h) reads, in the "Accounting Information" portion ofthe waybill, "SMITH CABLE 

SYSTEMS INC."; 

i) indicates, in the "Accounting Information" portion ofthe waybill, an address and 

customer's ID number that, on information and belief, are both used by Smith Cable; 

j) indicates, in the shipper's certification portion ofthe waybill, that the shipper's 

certification was executed for "SMITH CABLE SYSTEMS INC"; and 

k) indicates, in the shipper's certification portion ofthe waybill, that the waybill was signed 

by the "Shipper or his Agent", 

the FAA does not admit that a Smith Cable employee did not prepare the waybill. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Please admit that a Smith Cable employee did not sign 

the Alaska Air Cargo Air Waybill Number 027-7471 2632. 

FAA'S RESPONSE: Denied. Although the lone signature on the waybill is presently 

illegible to the FAA, the waybill itself recites that it was signed by the "Shipper or his agent", 

allowing for the possibility that it was signed by an employee of the shipper, Smith Cable. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please list all facts that support your contention that Aerl company 

was authorized to act as an agent for Smith Cable. 

. FAA'S RESPONSE: Smith Cable provided an Affidavit of Todd Linne dated June 5, 

2009 to FAA. In that affidavit, Mr. Linne relates that, in September 2008 while working for 

Smith Cable in Ketchikan, he helped Smith Cable prepare a pallet of items to be shipped air 

cargo from Ketchikan to Fairbanks. Specifically, Mr. Linne relates that on September 10, 2008, "sA (V 

d / 

Smith Cable Systems. Inc. -3- DMS No. FAA-2009-0976 
he personally prepared the items for the air cargo shipment from Ketchikan to Fairbanks and 

gave them to "Aerl", which he in bis affidavit describes as "a local company which picks up and 

delivers items for air cargo". Mr. Linne specifically describes how he assisted in "placing the 

items in the back of [the 'AerP company employee's] truck." 

The waybill described in the FAA's response to Request for Admission No. 1 above is 

dated September 10,2008, originated in Ketchikan, identifies Fairbanks as the airport of 

destination, and identifies Smith Cable in numerous spots as both the shipper and the consignee. 

Although the FAA has not alleged that another company served as Smith Cable's agent in 

dispatching the shipment at issue in this matter, these facts amply support a conclusion that 

Smith Cable did in fact authorize Aero Services to act as Smith Cable's agent. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. S: Please produce any documents which support the 

proposition that Aerl company was authorized to act as an agent for Smith Cable.. 

FAA'S RESPONSE: All documents known to the FAA that are responsive to this 

request are already in Smith Cable's possession, including the waybill described in the FAA's 

response to Re<iuest for Admission No. 1 above and the Affidavit of Todd Linne described in the 

FAA's response to Interrogatory No. 1 above. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Please admit that the hazardous materials in question 

were placed on the pallet by either employees for Aerl company or Alaska Air Cargo employees 

or both. 

FAA'S RESPONSE: Denied. In the Affidavit of Todd Linne described in the FAA's 

response to Interrogatory No. 1 above, Mr. Linne (1) identifies himself as a Smith Cable \ 

Smith Cable Systems. Inc. -4- DMS No. FAA-2009-0976 

(k 
employee, (2) describes how, on September 10, 2008, he, as part of his work duties, personally 

worked to "get a pallet of items ready to be shipped air cargo . .. from Ketchikan to Fairbanks", 

and (3) describes how he "placed all the items on the pallet and secured them in preparation for 

the pick up." That the shipment was discovered later in the day to include hazardous materials 

supports the conclusion that one or more Smith Cable employees placed hazardous materials on 

the pallet. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Please admit that Smith Cable employees were not 

present when the hazardous materials were placed on the pallet. 

FAA'S RESPONSE: Denied. See the FAA's Response to Request for Admission No. 

3. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please set forth all facts known to you that support your contention 

that Smith Cable "knowingly "placed hazardous materials in air cargo. 

FAA'S RESPONSE: The FAA has alleged that Smith Cable "knowingly offered to 

Alaska Airlines a shipment containing hazardous material for transportation by air . . .." ' 

Complaint at 1. Under49 U.S.C. § 5123(a)(1), aperson knowingly violates 49 C.F.R. Chapter 1, 

Subchapter C if he or she has actual knowledge ofthe facts giving rise to the violation or if a 

reasonable person, acting in the circumstances and exercising reasonable care, would have that 

knowledge. 

The FAA has not, as this interrogatory posits, contended that Smith Cable knowingly 

placed hazardous materials in air cargo. Rather, the FAA contends that Smith Cable knowingly \ \ f \ 

Smith Cable Systems. Inc. -5- DMS No. FAA-2009-0976 
offered a shipment for transportation by air and that the shipment contained hazardous materials. 

See Riverdale Mills Con).. FAA Order No. 2003-10 at 5 (Sept. 12, 2003). 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Please admit that you do not know whether the 

hazardous materials were present at the time Smith Cable's cargo was picked up by an employee 

of Aerl company. 

FAA'S RESPONSE: Denied. The FAA contends that Smith Cable knowingly offered a 

shipment for transportation by air and that the shipment contained hazardous materials. In the 

Affidavit of Todd Linne described in the FAA's response to Interrogatory No. 1 above, Mr. 

Linne alleges that an employee of "Aerl", likely Aero Services, transported the Smith Cable 

shipment to Alaska Airlines. Mr. Linne says the shipment did not include any propane cylinders 

or aerosols. 

However, the FAA interviewed Jessica Freeman, an employee of Aero Services, who 

said that Aero Services employs specific procedures to keep shipments intact from receipt to 

delivery so that items are neither added nor removed. Moreover, Smith Cable President Ron 

Smith told Jeffrey Deitz that Smith Cable's equipment in Ketchikan, which Mr. Linne was to 

demobilize and remm to Fairbanks, included a grill. Combine that with the discovery by Alaska 

Airlines* personnel ofthe hazardous materials within the Smith Cable shipment, the self-serving 

statements of Smith Cable's employee are insufficient to overcome the conclusion that the 

hazardous materials were present at the time Smith Cable's shipment was picked up by Aero 

Services. 

^ . A 

V^ 

Smith Cable Systems. Inc. -6- DMS No. FAA-2009-0976 
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Please admit that you did not seize or keep any ofthe 

hazardous materials property. 

FAA'S RESPONSE: The FAA admits that it did not seize any ofthe items it alleges 

Smith Cable shipped in this matter. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7; Please admit that you did not seize or keep the small 

beach barbecue. 

FAA'S RESPONSE: The FAA admits that it did not seize any ofthe items it alleges 

Smith Cable shipped in this matter. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Please admit that you did not seize or keep the camp 

stove. 

. FAA'S RESPONSE: The FAA admits that it did not seize any ofthe items it alleges 

Smith Cable shipped in this matter. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Please admit that there were no markings on the items 

in question identifying who owned them. 

FAA'S RESPONSE: The FAA has not alleged that Smith Cable owned the hazardous 

materials at issue in this matter. Rather, the FAA has alleged that Smith Cable offered them for 

transportation by air. The FAA does not know whether there were ownership-related markings 

on the propane cylinders or aerosol can and therefore denies same. 

Smith Cable Systems. Inc. -7- DMS No. FAA'2009-0976 
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: If your response to any of the foregoing requests for admission is 

anything but a full admission, please state all factual information supporting your denial and 

whether a reasonable inquiry has been made by you to ascertain the facts regarding each 

request you denied. 

FAA'S RESPONSE: The FAA's response to each Request for Admission includes all 

factual informafion requested and was made after a reasonable inquiry to ascertain the facts 

regarding each request. 

DATED this / day of June, 2010. 

HOWARD L. MARTIN, JR. 

Regional Counsel 

Smith Cable Systems. Inc. -8- DMS No. FAA-2009-0976 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Re: Smith Cable Systems, Inc. 

FAA Docket No. CP09AL0012 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0976 

1 HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date I have served the original ofthe foregoing with 

attachments by postage-prepaid U.S. mail addressed to: 

Brent R. Cole 

Marston & Cole, P.C. 

821 N Street, Suite 208 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

DATED: {7c.^l . ^^^Qj O 

Federal Aviation Administration? 

Office of Regional Counsel 

222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, AAL-7 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

V vf 

^ \ ' 0' 

Smith Cable Systems. Inc. -9- DMS No. FAA-2009-0976