I. Glossary 

Agilent 

C.F.R. 

FAA 

FAR 

FedEx 

HMR 

Munoz 

N# 

National 

PHMSA 

ICAO TI 

u.s.c. 

Vrablik 

SERVED: July 24, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE ,.tyiJ\J'T.ER OF 

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION 

FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0620 

'(Civil Penalty Action) 

INITIAL DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

Agilent Technologies 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Federal Aviation Administration, Complainant 

Federal Aviation Regulation_ 

'i· , t .. i~.:... r.{:·l>: 

Federal Express Corporation 

Hazardous Materials Regulations 

Maria Munoz, Respondent's Office Manager 

National Exhibit 

National Power Corporation, Respondent 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

ICAO Technical Instructions for the Transportation 

Of Dangerous Goods by Air 

United States Code 

Thomas M. Vrablik 

1 

--.;l 
II. Introductory Comment 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") alleged that from on or about 

January 8, 2010 until March 25, 2010, National Power Corporation (hereinafter "National") 

knowingly offered to Federal Express Corporation (hereinafter "FedEx"), eleven (11) shipments 

of dangerous goods, specifically, untested prototype lithium ion batteries for transportation by 

air. 

III. Procedural History 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") filed a Complaint on August 8, 

2013. 

National Power Corporation (hereinafter "National") filed an Answer September 23, 

2013. 

IV. Hearing 

A hearing was held September 29, 2014 in Chicago, IL. 

The FAA was represented by Kate Barber, Esq., FAA Great Lakes Region, Des Plaines, 

Illinois. 

National was represented by Martin A. Blumenthal, Esq., Chicago, Illinois. t. ; 

Post hearing briefs were filed by both parties. 

The matter is now ready for decision. 

V. Jurisdiction 

The statute governing this case is the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 US. C. 

§§5101-5127 ("the Act"). In pertinent part the Act provides that "[a]ny person ... who is 

determined by the Secretary ... to have knowingly committed an act which is a violation ... of a 

regulation issued under this title, shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty." 

2 
VI. Burden of Proof 

' The FAA was the petitioning party with the initial burden ofproof (14 C.FR. § 13.224). 

VII. Allegations 

A. FAA's recitation of facts 

1. The FAA alleged that on or about May 17, 201 0, a FAA special agent conducted a 

hazardous material inspection of the National facility located in Chicago, Illinois. 

2. Incident to that inspection, the FAA agent discovered that from on or about January 8, 

2010 until March 25, 2010, National knowingly offered to FedEx, eleven (11) 

shipments of dangerous goods, specifically, untested prototype lithium ion batteries 

for transportation by air when National had availed itself of the ICAO Technical 

Instructions for the Transportatioil·of Dru1gerous Goods by Air (hereinafter "ICAO 

TI"), including all United States Variations thereto. 

3. The eleven (11) shipments each contained untested prototype lithium ion batteries in 

violation of 49 C.F.R. 173.185(/), which required special permission from the 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (hereinafter "PHMSA"). 

4. The shipping papers certified and described the shipments as lithium ion batteries, 

UN3480, Class 9, Packing Group II. The specific shipments were set forth in the 

Complaint. 

5. National failed to comply with the hazardous materials regulations, in that National 

failed to make emergency response information, including an emergency response 

telephone number, available~·for us~'af:alftimes the dangerous goods were present 

during the course of the shipment by air. 

3 
6. National's Hazardous material employee Maria Munoz performed hazardous material 

shipping functions when she had not received the required hazardous mateiials 

employee training. 

7. National offered the shipments of dangerous goods for transportation by air when the 

shipments listed did not contain statements indicating that the shipments were within 

the limitations prescribed fot;eithet..pa~s~hger and cargo aircraft or cargo aircraft only. 

8. National offered the hazardous materials for transportation in air commerce when 

they did not properly train their hazmat employees in accordance with the 

requirements of the hazardous materials regulations. 

9. National offered the shipments of dangerous goods for transportation by air when it 

did not properly package the shipments. 

10. National offered the hazardous materials for transportation in air commerce and the 

shipments did not contain emergency response numbers that complied with the 

requirements ofthe Hazardous Materials Regulations (hereinafter "HMR"). 

11. By reason ofthe alleged facts and circumstances, the FAA alleged National violated 

;• ri·"~ .. ..~, ,·~;. · 

the following Federal Aviati3on Reguh1tions (hereinafter "FAR"s): 

a) 49 C.FR. § 171.2(e), which states in relevant part that, no person may offer or 

accept a hazardous material for transportation in commerce unless the hazardous 

material is properly classed, described, packaged, marked, labeled, and in 

condition for shipment as required or authorized by applicable requirements of 

this subchapter or an exemption or special permit, approval, or registration issued 

under this subchapter or subchapter A of this chapter. 

4 

, 

J I'' ., , ~.: I 
b) 49 C.FR. § 171.22(b)(l), which states that a hazardous material that is offered for ' i· . 

transportation or transported in accordance with the international standards and 

regulations authorized in paragraph (a) of this section is subject to t.he 

requirements of the applicable international standard or regulation and must be 

offered for transportation or transported in conformance with the applicable 

standard or regulation. The shipments above violated ICAO TI, Special Provision 

A88, in that National offered packages containing Prototype Lithium Batteries for 

transportation by air without proper Packing Group I packaging's. 

c) 49 C. FR. § 171.22(g)(2), which states that a hazardous material that is offered for 

transportation or transported in the United States in accordance with this subpart 

) · ~h ··v·!'~'· 

must conform to the following requirements of this subchapter, as applicable: (1) 

The emergency response information requirements in subpart G of part 1 72 of this 

subchapter; (2) The training requirements in subpart H of part 172 of this 

subchapter, including function-specific training· in the use of the international 

transport standards and regulations authorized in paragraph (a) of this section, as 

applicable; 

d) 49 C.FR. § 172.203(j), which states in relevant part that a statement indicating 

that the shipment is within the limitations prescribed for either passenger and 

cargo aircraft or cargo aircraft only must be entered on the shipping paper. 

e) 49 C.FR. §172.604(a)(JO, which states in relevant part that a person who offers a . ·,-h b t·· 

1 • l,i "[ 

hazardous material for transportation must provide an emergency response 

telephone number, including the area code, for use in the event of an emergency 

involving the hazardous material. For telephone numbers outside the United 

5 
States,-the international access code or the "+"(plus) sign, country code, and city 

code, as appropriate, must be included. The telephone number must be--(1) 

Monitored at all times the hazardous material is in transportation, including 

storage incidental to transportation; 

f) 49 C.F.R. § 172. 702(a), which state~)n relevant part, a hazmat employer shall 

·, 

ensure that each of its hazmatempfoyees is trained in accordance with the 

requirements prescribed in this subpart. 

g) 49 C.F.R. § 173.185(/), which states in relevant part that a lithium cell or battery 

that does not comply with the provisions of this subchapter may be transported 

only under conditions approved by the Associate Administrator. 

As a consequence of the alleged violations, the FAA requested we enter an order 

assessing National a civil penalty in the amount of $66,000. 

B. National's recitation of facts 

1. National denied that it knowingly shipped any goods in violation of any statute or 

regulation. Further, a citation to ICAO TI was not stated by the Complainant. . I • . 

2. National averred it could neither admit nor deny the allegation " ... shipping papers for 

each of the 11 shipments certified. and described the shipment as Lithium Ion Batteries, 

UN3480, Class 9, Packing Group II ... " because the "shipping papers" were not identified 

nor attached as an exhibit to the complaint. 

3. National denied eleven (11) shipments were offere9 and transported by National in 

violation of the hazardous materials regulations or statutes. Further, National averred this 

· allegation should be stricken for vagueness since it did not specify how the shipments 

violated the hazardous materials regulations. 

\ .. 6 h 
) (. 

4. National admitted that it did not have a special permission letter at the time the 

shipments identified were made. It denied that the batteries were untested and 

averred it did not need a special permission letter. 

5. National denied that the shipments were improperly packaged. National averred it 

followed the stricter of the two (2) standards due to the ambiguity of the regulations. 

6. National stated it could not admit nor deny the allegation ''failed to comply with the 

hazardous materials regulations, in that NPC failed to make emergency response 

information, including an emergency response telephone number, available for use at all 

times the dangerous goods were present during the course of the shipment by air" herein 

since a particular shipment (or shipments) was not identified nor referenced. Further, 

·l • 

the term "dangerous goods" was not defined with specificity. 

7. National denied that Maria Munoz did not receive hazardous material employee 

training. Further, National averred the allegation did not identify any particular 

shipment or shipments wherein Maria Munoz performed hazardous material shipping 

functions 

8. National denied it offered the shipments of dangerous goods for transportation by air 

when the shipments listed did not contain a statement indicating that the shipment was 

within the limitations prescribed for either passenger and cargo aircraft or cargo aircraft 

only. 

9. National averred it could not admit nor deny the allegation it " ... offered hazardous 

material for transportation in air commerce when they did not properly train their 

hazmat employees in accordance with the requirements of the hazardous materials 

regulations ... "because the "above described hazardous material" was not referenced to 

7 
·, ~'; I· • 

where it is above described. It further denied that it did not properly train its hazmat 

employees. 

10. National averred it could not admit nor deny the allegation that it " ... offered the 

shipments of dangerous goods for transportation by air when it did not properly 

package the shipments ... " since "shipments" and "dangerous goods" was not 

identified nor referenced. Further, National denied that it ever improperly packaged 

any shipment. 

11. National averred it could not admit nor deny the allegation it " ... offered the abovedescribed hazardous materials for transportation in air commerce and the shipments did 

not contain an emergency response number that complied with the requirements of the {. i ~ dt; 

HMR ... "since "above-descdbed hazarClous materials" was not referenced. Further, 

"shipments" was not identified nor specifically referenced. "HMR" was not defined 

nor was there a citation as to any specific location in whatever HMR was or purported 

to be. 

12. National denied that a penalty of $66,000 was appropriate nor was there an 

explanation as to why it is appropriate and how it was determined or calculated. 

VIII. Issues 

Did National violate 49 US. C. §5123, 49 C.F.R. § 17I.2(e), 49 C.F.R. § 171.22(b)(1), 49 

C.F.R. § 171.22(g)(2), 49 C.F.R. § 172.203(j), 49 C.F.R. §172.604(a)(10, 49 C.F.R. § 

172. 702(a),and/or 49 C.F.R. § 173.185'(1), between:tbh or about January 8, 2010 until March 25, . : . j •'" 

2010, when it knowingly offered to FedEx, eleven (11) shipments of dangerous goods, 

specifically, untested prototype lithium ion batteries for transportation by air. 

8 
Under the facts and circumstances of this case, was a civil penalty of $66,000 

appropriate. 

IX. Summary of Testimony and Evidence \'~· ... ~.; >· 

All admitted testimonial and documentary evidence was reviewed and considered. Only 

brief highlights are summarized herein. 

1. FAA's Case 

Christopher Zawarus 1 

Christopher Zawarus (thereinafter "Zawarus") worked as a Hazardous Materials Manager 

for the FAA. He had been with the FAA since 2001. He conducted an inspection ofNational on 

May 17, 2010. During the inspection Zawarus went through National's shipping process, 

reviewed documentation, packaging and shipments of lithium ion batteries that National offered 

for transportation. He specifically looked at the shi!Jper's declarations for dangerous goods used :N 't 0 

j, . 1)\·. ,' \ ,. 

to declare shipments in commerce to determine co'mpliance with the hazardous materials 

regulations. 

Review of training records for the employee who was certifying the shipper's declarations 

for dangerous goods revealed that she had not completed a course of study in certifying the 

documents. Additionally, Mr. Alpipirt,2 indicated that the telephone number used on the 

shipping papers was the general office number for the facility which was only answered during 

operating hours, from six a.m. until six p.m. Zawarus testified HMRs required an emergency 

response telephone number that was monitored at all times while shipments are in commerce. 

Air Waybill 7982 8541 08733 was certifiedon January 8, 12 2010, to contain lithium ion 

batteries UN number 3480, Class IX hazardous mat~f,ials and packing Group II. The Air 

1 Tr. p. 16, 1. 19 top. 70, 1. 9- Direct testimony. 2 Owner of National. See Tr. p. 28, I. 7-8. 

'·,\', 

3 FAA# C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10 and C-11. 

9 
Waybill was signed by Maria Munoz (hereinafter "Munoz"), office manager, with a phone 

number of" 1-800-813-9468". The phone number was later determined to be the general office 

number for National. Review of Munoz's training records revealed that her hazardous materials 

training was DOT specific and did not include a course of study in international standards for 

which the shipping paper was certified. Review of the packaging information revealed that the 

lithium ion batteries were not UN tested. Therefore, National required authorization by the 

PHMSA, and the batteries would be required to be t9ffered in Packing Group I packaging. 'l'' 

Instead, the shipment was offered in Packing Group II. During the course of the inspection, 

Zawarus was provided a fiberboard box that was rated to the packing Group II standard, which 

was a combination packaging that contained a metal inner can and a foam insert to hold the 

batteries in place. Zawarus testified he was told that shipments of lithium ion batteries were 

untested prototype lithium ion batteries being sent to customers for potential purchase. Zawarus 

testified untested lithium ion batteries required an authorization from PHMSA and had higher 

packaging requirements. 

Zawarus testified about the remaining Air Waybills,4 dated January 8, 2010 through 

March 25, 2010. All the Air Waybills were certified by Munoz. Munoz's training failed to 

include the international standards for "Yhicl{ the ddcuments were certified. The emergency 

response telephone numbers provided, as previously indicated, was a number for the general 

office at National, which was only answered during operation hours, six a.m. to six p.m. 

National was unable to provide an authorization from PHMSA for the shipment of those lithium 

ion battery types and the packaging provided was not compliant with the higher standard 

required for untested lithium ion batteries. 

. Zawarus testified during the investigation National wrote the FAA indicating they offered 

4 FAA# C-2 

10 

.. VIi 

,a1~ ... ··.~-JC'~i.: 
the shipments under reasonable good faith basis that the shipments were properly shipped. In 

response to the investigation National c)lange.<;\Jh~ emergency response number to a Chemtrec 24 

hour number, admitted it was unaware of the need for the PHMSA authorization, immediately 

instructed its employees to discontinue air freight shipments of untested prototype lithium ion 

batteries pending a receipt of special approval from PHMSA. Additionally, employees were 

provided specific training for compliance with 49 C.F.R. National also provided business 

information, and copies of hazardous materials training records along with a course outline for 

that training. Lastly, National indicated they were going to dedicate a page on their website to 

the hazardous materials regulations to alert their customers in general marketplace of the 

regulations and methods for proper and compliant shipment. 

Zawarus was not accepted as an expert witness in hazardous materials, but was allowed 

.. ... '\:!' 

to testify as to the risks associated with:'shippirlg ll.tilillin ion batteries. Zawarus testified lithium 

ion batteries are a Class IX hazardous material. They are assigned a minimum risk level. Class 

IX is a miscellaneous hazardous materials classification. Untested lithium ion batteries are of a 

higher risk because lithium ion batteries have shown in testing to be unpredictable. 

Zawarus testified about the methodology utilized to set the penalty in this case, indicating 

the penalty could have been up to $32,500 per violation, with four (4) violations per shipment. 

Zawarus testified that as a part of his methodology for a penalty recommendation, he considered 

the nature and circumstances of the shipments, the extent in gravity related to the shipment, any 

mitigating or aggravating circumstances there, the company's ability to pay is taken into 

account. 5 

5 Tr. p. 68, I. 19 top. 69, I. 1. 

11 
The consignee for some ofthe lithium ion batteries was Agilent Technologies. The 

airport destination and the address of Agilent were both Santa Rosa, CA., which the witness 

conceded was a domestic destination. Other shipments were sent to a Consignee in British 

Columbia. Even though a destination was domestic, National was required to be trained in 

international standards. All eleven (11) shipments were labeled UN3480, signed by Munoz, and r';· 

·:.(·, j·. 

the shipments contained untested lithium ion batteries. Zawarus was provided no information 

that indicated the lithium ion batteries were tested. Special approval would not have been 

needed had these battery packs been tested, but Zawarus was provided no information that the 

batteries were tested. Zawarus did not believe the violations were deliberate. There were no 

aggravating factors to consider. 

Redirect7 

The FAA expects all companies that deal in hazardous materials have no violation 

history. 

Evidence 

The following FAA exhibits were ad111jtted: .. FAA# C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4,·C-5, C-6, C-7, C8, C-9, C-10, C-11 and C-12. 

2. National's Case 

Thomas M. Vrablik8 

Thomas M. Vrablik (hereinafter "Vrablik") was the Executive Vice President ofNational 

and had been with the company 25 years. Vrablik testified National designed battery packs used 

in all types of equipment, including medical equipment, military equipment, land surveying, 

6 Tr. p. 70, 1. 10 top. 92, 1. 10. 7 Tr. p. 92, l 11 top. 95, l. 11. 8 Tr. p. 99, 1. 10 top. 119, 1. 11. 

'· . ·~· 

12 

:.J 
Geophysical equipment, and other high, end ~xpen~iye equipment. Battery pack manufacturing 

involved rechargeable lithium ion cells, which were procured from suppliers, along with some 

active and passive safety components which were assembled in some way to get power in and 

out of the component. National procured the battery cells, they did not manufacture them. 

National also procured the circuitry which was assembled into the battery pack. In sum, 

National procured lithium ion batteries along with active and passive safety components, then 

assembled these components into various battery packages to create a final product. 

Configuration of the battery package depended on the ultimate use of the product. 

Vrablik described the assembly ofthe SM206.9 There were six (6) cells, eighteen (18) 

millimeters in diameter and sixty-five (65) millimeters long. They were called "18-650" in the 

jargon on the industry. So, there were six (6) 18-650 chargeable lithium ion cells coupled . . 

together with safety circuit and in this particular case, a fuel gauge. The SM206 battery pack 

went through UL's safety testing, UL2054 to be exact.. 

Vrablik described the model SM201-6, assembled with six (6) 18-650 lithium ion 

rechargeable cells for a total of 47 watt hours, again assembled with a safety circuit, a common 

safety circuit to manage the pack and a fuel gauge all wrapped in UL2054VO plastic. It was 

similar construction to other models. 

Configuration of the battery packs varied depending on the type of equipment in which it 

was going to be inserted. The SM201 was tested to UL 60950-1 and also to UN.38.3 Manual of 

Test and Criteria. It did not differ by more than 20 percent, either in the anode, cathode or 

electro light amassed from the SM206. ' .:; ;. 

It was his understanding, that the two (2) battery packs were the same per the regulations 

9 The demonstrative exhibits were NOT retained by the court. They were proprietary, contained lithium batteries 

and would have presented a hazmat situation to the court. They exhibits were returned to the witness at the 

conclusion of the hearing. 

13 
as far as shipping requirements. The item National shipped to Agilent was a prototype for 

Agilent, but a finished product for National. National shipped it as a Group II Packing 

Instruction 965 because they believed they were shipping a tested battery pack. 

The same phone number did not appear on the box labels as on the Air Waybills. The 

boxes had the Chemtrec 24-hour number, the Air Waybill did not. The Air Waybill labels had 

previously been pre-printed and the error had not been corrected. 

After the FAA investigation, National implemented corrective action. Employees 

involved in offering shipments were trained in DOT hazmat then received additional training in 

IAT A hazmat with regard to packaging instruction 965 and with regard to offering hazmat for 

shipment. National applied for the special approval letter from PHMSA, which took seven (7) 

months to receive. National ultimately received the PHMSA approval letter. 

Cross10 

The same battery packs were shipped in each of the shipments identified herein. The 

SM206 was an untested model. The lithium ion batteries themselves had been tested but when 

you put them into the battery assembly package, the battery assembly package had not been 

tested to UN38.3. National's manufacturingproce~~cinvolved taking cells procured from other 

manufacturers, and assembling them into battery packages. The cells were purchased from other 

manufacturers. The component cells were not considered a battery. 

Rd. II 

e uect 

The SM201 received UN39.310 testing and passed. The SM206 was not different from 

the SM201 according to UN38.3 because there was no difference, National took the position that 

no testing was required. After the FAA investigation, National tested all the battery assembly 

10 Tr. p. 119, 1. 12 top. 126, 1. 16. 

II Tr. p. 126, 1. 17 top. 132, 1. 8. 

14 

',,, , .. l.: ··,r,. .. ·~··,' 
' 

packages. ~ .. ~· ; 

Vrablik described N# E-1 as a battery assembly with two (2) Sanyo 103450 that were ten 

(10) millimeters thick, six (6) millimeters wide, fifty (50) millimeters high. Two (2) ofthose 

cells were assembled into a battery package with safety circuitry. N# E-2 was a battery assembly 

with two (2) ofthe Sanyo 103450 lithium ion rechargeable batteries, again, assembled into a 

battery pack with a safety circuit. 

N# E-1 was the product shipped to the Canadian customer. N# E-1 was offered for 

shipment by National as Class 9 hazmat in Group II. At the time the product was not tested. The 

product was shipped using the untested protocol standard in the regulations. 

Evidence 

National showed N# P-D 104 arid P-E and Exhibits N# E-1 and N# E-2 as demonstrative 

exhibits. The exhibits were returned to the witness at the conclusion of the hearing because they 

were potentially hazardous materials. 

FAA Rebuttal 

Christopher Zawarus 12 

The hazardous materials regulations required the emergency response telephone number 

to be on the shipping paper so that it was available to the pilot in command during flight and also 

to emergency responders in the event of an incident. They would not use the shipping label that 

would be affixed to the package and aboard the aircraft where it was not accessible during flight. 

The FAA had received no information indicating th,~t the battery assemblies in the eleven (11) 

shipments were tested. 

12 Tr. p. 134, I. 4 top. 138, I. 20. 

15 
Rebuttal cross 13 

Not knowing the configuration ofthe batteries, the FAA could not make a determination 

whether it was the test report applicable to the shipments in question. 

3. Credibility determinations 

We find the testimony of all witnesses to have been truthful and credible. ; ~-· 

X. Brief Summary 

The FAA provided testimony and evidence, in the form of eleven (11) Air Waybills that 

eleven (11) corresponding shipments had been made by National between January 8, 2010 and 

March 25, 2010. The shipments were certified by Munoz. Munoz's training failed to include the 

international standards for which the documents were certified. The emergency response 

telephone numbers provided were numbers for the general office at National, which was only 

answered during operation hours, six a.m. to six p.m. National was unable to provide an 

authorization from PHMSA for the shipment of those battery types and the packaging provided 

was not compliant with the higher standard required for untested lithium batteries. 

National conceded Munoz did not have the proper training at the time of the shipments. 

The emergency phone number was on the actual shipment, but was incorrect on the Air Waybill. 

National obtained the authorization from PHMSA subsequent to the FAA investigation. 

XL Analysis of Evidence and Testimony 

Agency's case 

All the National Air Waybills between January 8, 2010 and March 25,2010 were 

certified by Munoz who did not have training to the international standards for which the 

documents were certified. The emergency response telephone numbers provided were numbers 

for the general office at National, which was only answered during operation hours, six a.m. to 

13 Tr. p. 138, I. 21 top. 140, I. 4. 
six p.m. National did not have an authorization from PHMSA for the shipments of the battery 

assemblies and the packaging provided was not compliant with the higher standard required for 

untested lithium batteries. A 24-hour emergency was not present on the Air Waybills, even 

though it appeared on the shipping packages. 

National's case 

National admitted the Air Waybills between January 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010 were 

certified by Munoz who did not have training to the international standards for which the 

documents were certified. National admitted the emergency response telephone numbers 

provided were numbers for the general office at National, which was only answered during 

operation hours, six a.m. to six p.m. A proper eme~gency number was contained on the shipping 

'( r 

package, but not on the Air Waybill. National admitted it did not have an authorization from 

PHMSA for the shipments of the battery pack assemblies and the packaging provided was not 

compliant with the higher standard required for untested lithium batteries. 

XII. Law 

4 9 US. C. § 512 3 provides, in pertinent part: 

(a) Penalty.--(1) A person that knowingly violates this chapter or a regulation, order, 

special permit, or approval issued under this chapter is liable to the United States 

Government for a civil penalty of not more than $75,000 for each violation. A person acts 

knowingly when-

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

(B) a reasonable person acting in the circumstances and exercising reasonable 

care would have that knowledge. ~~~, 

(2) If the Secretary finds that a violation under paragraph (1) results in death, 

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

property, the Secretary may increase the amount of the civil penalty for such 

violation to not more than $175,000. 

(3) If the violation is related to training, a person described in paragraph (1) shall 

be liable for a civil penalty of at least $450. 

17 
( 4) A separate violation occurs for each day the violation, committed by a person 

that transports or causes to be transported hazardous material, continues. 

(b) Hearing requirement.--The Secretary may find that a person has violated this chapter 

or a regulation prescribed or order, special permit, or approval issued under this chapter 

only after notice and an opportunity for a hearing. The Secretary shall impose a penalty 

under this section by giving the person written notice of the amount of the penalty. 

(c) Penalty considerations.--In determining the amount ofa civil penalty under this 

section, the Secretary shall consider-

(1) the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity ofthe violation; 

(2) with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior 

violations, the ability to pay,· and any effect on the ability to continue to do 

business; and 

(3) other matters that justice requires. 

49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e), provides: 

(e) No person may offer or accept a hazardous material for transportation in 

commerce unless the hazardous mat~rial is properly classed, described, packaged, 

marked, labeled, and in condition for shipment as required or authorized by · 

applicable requirements of this subchapter or an exemption or special permit, 

approval, or registration issued under this subchapter or subchapter A of this 

chapter. 

49 C.F.R. § 171.22(b)(l), provides: ) . te. 

(b) Limitations on the use of international standards and regulations. A hazardous 

material that is offered for transportation or transported in accordance with the 

international standards and regulations authorized in paragraph (a) of this 

section-

( I) Is subject to the requirements ofthe applicable international standard or 

regulation and must be offered for transportation or transported in conformance 

with the applicable standard or regulation; and ... 

49 C.F.R. § 171.22(g)(2), provides: 

(g) Additional requirements for the use of international standards and 

regulations. All shipments offered for transportation or transported in the United 

States in accordance with this subpart must conform to the following 

requirements ofthis subchapter, as applicable: 

(1) The emergency response information requirements in subpart G of part 172 of 

this subchapter; 

18 
(2) The training requirements in subpart H of part 172 of this subchapter, 

including function-specific training in the use of the international transport 

standards and regulations authorized in paragraph (a) of this section, as 

applicable; 

49 C. FR. § 172.203(/), provides: 

(f) Transportation by air,. A statement indicating that the shipment is within the 

limitations prescribed for either passenger and cargo aircraft or cargo aircraft only 

must be entered on the shipping paper. 

49 C.FR. §172.604(a)(10, (sic) provides: 

(a) A person who offers a hazardous material for transportation must provide an 

emergency response telephone number, including the area code, for use in an 

emergency involving the hazardous material. For telephone numbers outside the 

United States, the international access code or the "+" (plus) sign, country code, 

and city code, as appropriate, that are needed to complete the call must be 

included. The telephone number must be-

(1) Monitored at all times the hazardous material is in transportation, including 

storage incidental to transportation; 

(2) The telephone number of a person who is either knowledgeable of the 

hazardous material being shipped and has comprehensive emergency response 

and incident mitigation information for that material, or has immediate access to a 

person who possesses such knowledge and information. A telephone number that 

requires a call back (such as an answering service, answering machine, or beeper 

device) does not meet the req1:1irem~nts of paragraph (a) of this section; and 

(3) Entered on a shipping paper~ a~, fcillows: 

(i) Immediately following the 'de.scription of the hazardous material required by 

subpart C of this part; or 

(ii) Entered once on the shipping paper in the manner prescribed in paragraph (b) 

of this section in a prominent, readily identifiable, and clearly visible manner that 

allows the information to be easily and quickly found, such as by highlighting, 

use of a larger font or a font that is a different color from other text and 

information, or otherwise setting the information apart to provide for quick and 

easy recognition. The offeror may use one of the methods prescribed in this 

paragraph only if the telephone number applies to each hazardous material 

entered on the shipping paper, and if it is indicated that the telephone number is 

for emergency response information (for example: "EMERGENCY CONTACT: 

* * *"). 

49 C. FR.§ 172. 702(a), provides: 

(a) A hazmat employer shall ensure that each of its hazmat employees is trained in 

accordance with the requirements prescribed in this subpart. 
,, 

49 C.F.R. § 173.185(/), provides: 

(f) Damaged, defective, or recalled cells or batteries. Lithium cells or batteries, 

that have been damaged or identified by the manufacturer as being defective for 

safety reasons, that have the potential of producing a dangerous evolution of heat, 

fire, or short circuit (e.g. those being returned to the manufacturer for safety 

reasons) may be transported by highway, rail or vessel only, and must be 

packaged as follows: 

(1) Each cell or battery must be placed in individual, non-metallic inner packaging 

that completely encloses the cell or battery; 

(2) The inner packaging must be surrounded by cushioning material that is noncombustible, non-conductive, and absorbent; and 

(3) Each inner packaging must be individually placed in one of the following 

packagings meeting the requirements of part 178, subparts L and M, of this 

subchapter at the Packing Group I l~vel: 

(i) Metal (4A, 4B, 4N), wooden (4Cl, 4C2, 4D, 4F), or solid plastic (4H2) box; 

(ii) Metal (1A2, 1B2, 1N2), plywood (I D), or plastic (1H2) drum; and 

( 4) The outer package must be marked with an indication that the package 

contains a "Damaged/defective lithium ion battery" and/or "Damaged/defective 

lithium metal battery" as appropriate. 

XIII. Findings of Fact 

A. As to 49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e): 

We find that the evidence and testimony, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, 

supports a finding that National violated 49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e), in that National offered eleven 

(11) shipments between January 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010, as set forth hereinabove, of 

hazardous material for transportation in commerce when the hazardous material was not 

properly classed, described, packaged_, marked, la)~~led, and in condition for shipment as 

'.\ .,Jle ' .. \ ' 

I 

required or authorized by applicable requirements of this subchapter or an exemption or 

special permit, approval, or registration issued under this subchapter or subchapter A of this 

chapter. 

B. As to 49 C.F.R. § 171.22(b)(l): 

We find that the evidence and testimony, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, 

supports a finding that National violated 49 C.F.R. § 171.22(b)(l), in that the eleven (11) 

20 
shipments between January 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010, set forth hereinabove, violated ICAO 

Technical Instructions, Special Provision A88, in that National offered packages containing 

Prototype Lithium Ion Batteries a for transportation by'air without proper Packing Group I 

packaging's. 

C. As to 49 C.F.R. § 171.22(g)(2): 

We find that the evidence and testimony, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, 

supports a finding that National violated 49 C. FR.§ 171.22(g)(2), in that the eleven (11) 

shipments between January 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010, set forth hereinabove, were offered for 

transportation or transported in the United States not in accordance with this subpart and did not 

conform to the following requirements ofthis subchapter, as applicable: 

(1) The eleven (11) shipments failed to contain the emergency response 

information requirements in subpart G of part 172 of this subchapter; 

. ·.. ~~~' ' 

(2) The eleven (11) shipfuent~ 'W'ere'~~·rtified by an employee who failed to have 

the training requirements in subpart H of part 172 of this subchapter, including functionspecific training in the use of the international transport standards and regulations 

authorized in paragraph (a) ofthis section, as applicable; 

D. As to 49 C.F.R. § 172.203(/): 

We find that the evidence and testimony, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, 

supports a finding that National violated 49 C.F.R. § 172.203(!), in that the eleven (11) 

shipments between January 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010, as set forth hereinabove, did not 

contain statements indicating that the shipments were within the limitations prescribed for either 

passenger and cargo aircraft or cargo aircraft only tp.e statements were not entered on the 

ji • '!-1.- 'cNi:·. 

shipping paper. 

21 
E. As to 49 C.F.R. §172.604(a)(JO, (sic): 

We find that the evidence and testimony, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, 

supports a finding that National violated 49 C.F.R. §172. 604(a)(1 0, (sic) in that National offered 

eleven (11) shipments between January 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010, as set forth hereinabove, of 

hazardous material for transportation for which it failed to provide emergency response 

telephone numbers, including the area code, for use in an emergency involving the hazardous 

material. Further, National offered the eleven (ll)shipments where the telephone numbers were 

t' '.•.'·· ... 'd: 

not monitored at all times while the hazardous mri:terial was in transportation, including storage 

incidental to transportation; and/or National offered the eleven (11) shipments where National 

failed to provide the telephone number of a person who was either knowledgeable of the 

hazardous material being shipped and/or had comprehensive emergency response and incident 

mitigation information for that material, and/or had immediate access to a person who possessed 

such knowledge and information. Further, the information was not properly entered on the 

shipping papers in the manner prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section in a prominent, readily 

identifiable, and clearly visible manner that allowed the information to be easily and quickly 

found, such as by highlighting, use of a larger font or a font that is a different color from other 

text and information, or otherwise setti~g the ~~fo,rrpation apart to provide for quick and easy 

recognition. 

F. As to 49 C.F.R. § 172. 702(a): 

We find that the evidence and testimony, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, 

supports a finding that National violated 49 C.F.R. § 172. 702(a) in that National offered eleven 

(11) shipments between January 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010, as set forth hereinabove, where 

22 
National failed to have a hazmat employer ensure that each of its hazrnat employees was trained 

in accordance with the requirements prescribed in this subpart. 

G. As to 49 C.F.R. § 173.185(/): 

We find that the evidence and testimony, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, 

supports a finding that the FAA did not made a prima facie case that National violated 49 C.F.R. 

§ 173.185(/) in that National offered eleven (11) shipments between January 8, 2010 and March 

25, 2010, as set forth hereinabove, in violation of any provision of 49 C.F.R. § 173.185(/). 

There was no evidence and/or testimony that any ofthe eleven (11) National shipments between 

January 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010, as set forth hereinabove, involved lithium ion cells or 

lithium ion batteries, that had been damaged or identified by the manufacturer as being defective 

for safety reas~ms; or that National otherwise violation any portion of 49 C.F.R. § 173.185(/). 

Accordingly, this violation will be dismissed. [emphasis added] ·. ., '•'I 

t· 

XIV. Conclusions 

A. We find that the evidence and testimony, by a preponderance ofthe evidence standard, 

do not support findings that National violated 49 C.F.R. § 173.185(/) for any ofthe 

eleven (11) shipments between January 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010, as set forth 

hereinabove. 

B. Taking the totality ofthe evidence and testimony as a whole we find FAA established a 

primafacie case supporting the violations in 49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e), 49 C.F.R. § 

171.22(b)(l), 49 C.F.R. § 171.22(g)(2), 49 C.F.R. § 172.203(/), 49 C.F.R. 

§172.604(a)(IO, (sic), and 49 C.F.R. § 172. 702(a), inclusive, for each ofthe eleven (11) 

shipments between January 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010. 

23 
XV. Penalty and Mitigation Considerations 

A. General considerations 

National admitted many of the allegations as set forth hereinabove. 

We found National did not violate 49 C.F.R. § 173.185(j) for any of the eleven (11) 

shipments between January 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010, as set forth hereinabove. 

We found violations of 49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e), 49 C.F.R. § 171.22(b)(J), 49 C.F.R. § 

171.22(g)(2), 49 C.F.R. § 172.203(j), 49 C.f:R. §172.604(a)(IO, (sic), and 49 C.F.R. § \ ''.,. •!U 

172. 702(a), inclusive, for each of the eleven (11) shipments between January 8, 2010 and 

March 25, 2010. 

The FAA argued that the penalty requested of$66,000 was derived from the Agency's 

guidelines and was reasonable under the circumstances and consistent with the Agency's 

policy. The FAA argued the proposed sanction fell within the penalty guidelines for the 

violations National committed. The FAA argued it considered all the factors laid out in FAA 

Order 2150.3B and National failed to identify any mitigating factors. The FAA responded to 

National's argument that they did not intend to violate the HMRs by arguing the violations did 

not require an intent be shown. The FAA argued National had actual knowledge of the facts 

giving rise to the violations. 14 i . ~;r\:.. j 

National argued the FAA presented testimony and evidence only as to the general 

factors considered in assessing a penalty.· Based on the evidence presented, National argued a 

third party could not possibly independently calculate the dollar figure for the penalty 

requested. National argued the FAA's witness admitted that his "determination" of the penalty 

of$66,000.00 was not only arbitrary but based solely on his own judgment. National argued 49 

US. C. § 5123(a) required a person act 'knowingly" and that the FAA's witness admitted that 

14 See "Agency's Response to Respondent's Post-Hearing Brief', January 15, 2015. 

24 
National Power did not have the requisite intent to violate the regulations. National argued 

National Power reasonably believed it '\Vas shipping the batteries in the proper manner and that 

its shipping employees were properly trained. National's witness testified that the Canadian 

shipments were shipped as untested prototypes per the regulations as Class IX Hazmat in Group 

II packaging. The other battery package shipments were all tested even though the SM 201 and 

SM 206 were in physically different configuration packages and their electrical parameters 

differed immaterially. National argued its use of the wrong telephone number on the shipping 

documents was not intentional. National Power had a contract in place with Chemtrec, a 

company that provided emergency information 24 hours a day. Chemtrec' s telephone number 

was correctly shown on the label on the boxes,. National argued due to a clerical error, 

National's telephone number was printed on the shipping documents instead of Chemtrec' s 24-

hour number. National Power corrected. this' immei&iately when the FAA pointed it out during 

the audit. 15 

There was no evidence of prior violations. 

Reviewing the totality of the evidence and testimony, National was cooperative and 

responsive to FAA concerns. 

Once notified ofthe discrepancies/violations, National took swift, comprehensive 

corrective action. During the investigation National changed the emergency response number 

to a 24 hour number, in response to the FAA findings (FAA# C-12, Tr. p. 56, 1. 2 top. 59, 1. 

15). Employees involved in offering shipments who were trained in DOT hazmat subsequently 

received additional training in IAT A hazmat with regard to packaging instruction 965 and with 

regard to offering hazmat for shipment.u Nati6~ar a~~lied for and ultimately received the 

necessary authorization letter from PHMSA (Tr. p 114, 1. 1 top. 116, 1. 6). National at all times . 

15 See "POST-HEARING BRIEF /CLOSING ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENT", 4 January 2015. 

25 
believed it was complying with the applicable regulations. 

There was no evidence of a systemic corporate culture guilty of regulatory disregard. 

While a penalty calculated in accordance with the FAA's policy guidance should stand, 

absent a showing of the National's inability to pay, the evidence and testimony did not support 

the penalty requested. While the FAA was entitled to substantial deference in establishing an 

appropriate civil penalty, we cannot ignore our role to evaluate the testimony and evidence. , . •.. · . . ·''I . ., . ~ ! 

Neither party presented any evidence·and/or testimony which provided us with any 

ability to determine whether National could or could not pay the penalty requested. The FAA, 

while proffering the methodology utilized to compute the penalty, provided no testimony 

and/or evidence demonstrating the penalty calculation. 

B. Sanctions guidance 

FAA Order 2150.3B Appendix C sets for the penalty policy of the FAA. 16 As a general 

matter, a sanction should be imposed that is a sufficient deterrent but not excessive, in order to 

comply with the underlying purposes of the Federal hazardous material transportation law and 

HMR. The FAA considers a variety of factors when determining an appropriate civil penalty, 

including: (1) the nature and circumstances of the y!olation; (2) the extent and gravity of the 

violation; (3) the person's degree of cul~abilit;; C~),ihe person's history of prior violations, if 

any; (5) the person's ability to pay the civil penalty; (6) the effect on the person's ability to stay 

in business; and (7) other matters as justice may require. 17 

Any determination of penalty should weigh whether the violation was inadvertent or 

deliberate, the private or public character ofthe violation, and the attitude of the violator. 

The agency should also consider the respondent's size, particularly in determining the 

16 Folsom's Air Service, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11,2008 WL 4948488 (November 6, 2008). 

17 Id. See also Eastern Air Center, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-3, 2008 WL 345386 (2008). 

26 
offender's ability to absorb the sanction, An appropriate civil penalty must reflect the totality 

of the circumstances surrounding the violations. Eastern Air Center, Inc., FAA Order No. 

2008-3 (January 28, 2008). Finally, the civil penalty should provide sufficient incentive to 

deter the respondent and similarly-situated entities from future violations. Folsom's Air 

Service, Inc., Id, p. 20. 

The FAA has the. burden of justifying the amount of civil penalty sought. The FAA's 

proposed sanction is no more than a proposal or a recommendation to the ALJ. The FAA 

must prove to the ALJ how it used the sanction guidance to arrive at its proposal. The FAA 

must also prove the existence of aggravating factors and must show how it used aggravating 

or mitigating factors to adjust the suggested ·sanction. Evidence of swift comprehensive 

corrective action must be considered ai~a mitf~dtin~!'factor. Significant weight has been given 

to National's efforts to ensure that a violation will not reoccur. 

FAA Order 2150.3B states: 

When a single instance of noncompliance results in multiple violations of 

general and specific regulations involving the same or similar conduct, the 

FAA ordinarily does not compound the sanction to reflect the amount of 

sanction recommended in the table for each regulatory violation .... 

IfF AA enforcement personnel were simply to add the recommended amounts of 

penalty for each flight or day that constitutes a separate violation, the resulting sanction 

amount could be disproportionately harsh for the misconduct involved, in an average case. 

C. Analysis 

National violated six (6) provisfons of,the:~yFR: 49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e), 49 C.F.R. § 

171.22(b)(1), 49 C.F.R. § 171.22(g)(2), 49 C.F.R. § 172.203(/), 49 C.F.R. §172.604(a)(10, 

(sic), and 49 CFR § 172. 702(a), inclusive, which generated multiple violations based on the 

eleven (11) shipments between January 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010. 

27 
Zawarus testified that he considered the nature and circumstances of the shipments, 

the extent in gravity related to the shipment, any mitigating or aggravating circumstances 

there, the company's ability to pay is taken into account. 18 Nonetheless, Zawarus failed to 

testify with specificity about the analysis, e.g., size of the company, employees, National's 

ability to pay, which table was applica~le, et~-1- H~,f.ailed to testify which mitigating and/or . ... • ..I~ •. ' 

aggravating circumstances were taken into account. 

The FAA must prove the existence of aggravating factors and must show how it used 

aggravating or mitigating factors to adjust the suggested sanction. Evidence of swift 

comprehensive corrective action must be considered as a mitigating factor. 

The FAA failed to produce any testimony and/or evidence of how it calculated the 

proposed penalty of $66,000. The FAA alleged National violated seven (7) provisions ofthe 

CFRs in eleven (11) flights, for a total of seventy-seven (77) alleged violations. Dividing 

$66,000 by the seventy-seven (77) alleged violations results in a figure of $85i9 per 

violation. We are left to speculate how the figures of $857.00 and/or $66,000 were 

determined. 

We find there were six (6) single instances of noncompliance with the CFRs proven 

which resulted in multiple violations of general and specific regulations involving the same or 

similar conduct. The FAA ordinarily does not compound the sanction to reflect the amount of 

sanction recommended in the table for each regulatory violation. 

The improper shipment of lithium ion batteries can lead to catastrophic consequences. 

Lack of knowledge and/or lack of intent are not defenses. Taking the totality of the facts and 

circumstances into account, we conclude a fine of $2,000 for each of the six ( 6) violations is 

18 Tr. p. 68, 1. 19 top. 69, 1. 1. 

19 $857.142857, rounded to $857.00 
appropriate. 

XVI. Findings of Fact 

A. All the witnesses for both parties were credible. 

B. National was subject to 49 US. C. 49 US. C. §§5101-5127. 

C. Neither party presented any evidence and/or testimony about National's finances and/or 

ability or inability to pay. ,, , ·:, · 

D. National violated six (6) provisions of the CFRs, specifically: 49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e), 49 

C.F.R. § 171.22(b)(1), 49 C.F.R. § 171.22(g)(2), 49 C.F.R. § 172.203(/), 49 C.F.R. 

§172. 604(a)(l 0, (sic), and 49 C.F.R. § 172. 702(a), inclusive which generated multiple 

violations involving eleven (11) shipments between January 8, 2010 and March 25,2010, 

a total of sixty-six (66) violations. 

E. The evidentiary facts, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, do not support 

findings that National violated 49 C.F.R. § 173.185(/) for any ofthe eleven (11) 

shipments between January 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010, as set forth hereinabove. 

F. National took swift and comprehensive corrective action during and immediately after 

the FAA audit. 

G. There was no history of prior violations evidencing a systemic corporate culture guilty of 

regulatory disregard. · 

H. National admitted to some ofthe violations. 

I. The violations were inadvertent and N ~tiO'n~l believed, incorrectly, they were in full 

compliance with the regulations. 

J. The sixty-six (66) numerous inadvertent, multiple violations resulted from six (6) acts or 

omissions. 

K. National demonstrated a good cooperative attitude dealing with the FAA. 

L. The FAA failed to prove the existence of aggravating factors other than the citation of six 

(6) violations in eleven (11) shipments for the same conduct. 

M. The FAA failed to demonstrate how it used the sanction guidance to arrive at its proposed 

penalty. 

N. The FAA failed to demonstrate how its proposed civility penalty was appropriate to the 

alleged violations. 

29 

:·. '. 
.-::. 

0. The FAA failed to give adequate weight to matters in mitigation ofthe penalty requested. 

P. The violations were serious and could have had serious consequences. Given the totality 

of the evidence and testimony, matters in both aggravation and mitigation, we find a 

penalty of$2,000 for each ofthe six (6) violations for a total fine of$12,000 is more 

commensurate with the totality of the circumstances, including the nature, extent and 

gravity of the violation, degree of culpability, history of prior violations, financial 

situation, and other matters as justice may require, including aggravating and mitigating 

factors. 

Q. We find the FAA failed to carry its burden of proof with respect to the amount of 

penalty requested. 

WHEREFORE, evidence and testimony having been heard and considered it be and is 

hereby ORDERED as follows: 20 

1. We find the FAA did not made a priina facie case with respect to the violations of 

49 C.F.R. § 173.185(/) and those violations be and is hereby DISMISSED. 

2. We find the FAA proved National violated provisions of 49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e), 49 

C.F.R. § 171.22(b)(1), 49 C.F.R. § 171.22(g)(2), 49 C.F.R. § 172.203(/), 49 

C.F.R. §172.604(a)(10, (sic), and 49 C.F.R. § 172. 702(a), and be and is hereby 

assessed a civil penalty of $2,000.00 for each of the six (6) violations for a total of 

$12,000.00. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

20 This decision may be appealed to the Administrator ofthe FAA. The notice of appeal must conform to sections 

13.21 O, 13.211( e) and 13.233 of the Rules of Practice, which require that a notice of appeal 1) be filed not later than 

10 days (plus an additional five days if mailed) from the service date of this decision, and 2) be perfected with a 

written brief or memorandum not later than 50 days (plus an additional five, if mailed) from the service date of this 

decision. The notice of appeal and brief or memorandum must either be a) mailed to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, or b) delivered personally or via expedited courier service to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

D.C. 20591, Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. A copy of the notice of appeal and brief or memorandum also 

must be sent to agency counsel. Service upon the presiding judge is optional. 

30 
SERVICE LIST- BY lJ.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

Kate Barber, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

Great Lakes Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue, AGL-7 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

TEL: 847-294-7862 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

ONE COPY 

Martin A. Blumenthal, Respondent's Counsel 

Attorney 

One Northfield Plaza, Suite300 

Northfield, IL 60093 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 · 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0620 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.