### 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 POWERCORPORATION FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0620 '(Civil Penalty Action)

INITIAL DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
Agilent Technologies Code ofFederal Regulations Federal Aviation Administration, Complainant Federal Aviation Regulation_ 'i· , t

..**i~.:...** 

### r.{:·l>: Federal Express Corporation Hazardous Materials Regulations MariaMunoz, Respondent's Office Manager National Exhibit National Power Corporation, Respondent Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ICAO Technical Instructions for the Transportation OfDangerous 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 offeredto Federal Express Corporation (hereinafter "FedEx"), eleven (11) shipments ofdangerous goods, specifically, untested prototype lithium ionbatteries for transportation by air. III. Procedural History The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") filed a Complaint onAugust 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. ; 

### Posthearing briefs were filed by bothparties. The matter is nowready 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 bythe Secretary
... to have knowingly committed an actwhich is a violation

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

2

### VI. Burden ofProof ' 

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

### 13.224). VII. Allegations A. FAA'srecitation offacts 1. 

### The FAA alleged that on or about May 17, 2010, 

### a FAA special agent conducted a hazardous material inspection ofthe 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 ofdangerous goods, specifically, untested prototype lithium ion batteries for transportation by air when National had availed itselfofthe ICAO Technical Instructions for the Transportatioil·ofDru1gerous Goods by Air (hereinafter "ICAO TI"), including all United States Variations thereto. 3. The eleven (11) 

### shipments each contained untested prototype lithium ionbatteries in violation of49 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 ionbatteries, UN3480, Class 9, Packing Group II. The specific shipments were set forth inthe Complaint. 5. National failed to comply with the hazardous materials regulations, inthat 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 ofthe shipment by air.

36. National's Hazardous material employee MariaMunoz performed hazardous material shipping functions when she had notreceived the required hazardous mateiials employee training. 7. National offeredthe shipments ofdangerous goods for transportation by air whenthe 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 notproperly train their hazmat employees in accordance with the requirements ofthe hazardous materials regulations. 9. National offeredthe shipments ofdangerous goods for transportation by airwhen it did not properly package the shipments. 10. National offered the hazardous materials for transportation in air commerce and the shipments did not contain emergencyresponse numbers that complied with the requirements ofthe Hazardous Materials Regulations (hereinafter "HMR"). 11. Byreason ofthe alleged facts and circumstances, the FAA alleged National violated ;•**ri·"~**..**..~, ,·~;.**  · the following Federal Aviati3 on 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 authorizedby applicable requirements of this subchapter or an exemption or special permit, approval, or registration issued under this subchapter or subchapter A ofthis 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 inparagraph (a) ofthis section is subjectto t.he requirements ofthe applicable international standard orregulation and must be offered for transportation or transported in conformance withthe applicable standard or regulation. The shipments above violated ICAO TI, Special Provision A88, in thatNational offered packages containing Prototype Lithium Batteries for transportation by air withoutproper Packing Group Ipackaging'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 conformto the following requirements ofthis subchapter, as applicable: (1) 

### The emergency response information requirements in subpart G ofpart 1 72 ofthis subchapter; (2) The training requirements in subpart H ofpart 172 ofthis subchapter, including function-specific training·in the use ofthe international transport standards and regulations authorized inparagraph (a) ofthis section, as applicable; d) 

### 49 C.FR. § 172.203(j), which states inrelevantpart that a statement indicating thatthe shipment is within the limitations prescribed for either passenger and cargo aircraft or cargo aircraft only mustbe 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 mustprovide an emergency response telephone number, including the area code, for use inthe event ofan emergency involving the hazardous material. Fortelephone numbers outsidethe United



### 5States,-the international access code or the "+"(plus) sign, country code, and city code, as appropriate, mustbe included. The telephone number must be--(1) Monitored at all times the hazardous material is intransportation, 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 ofits hazmatempfoyees is trained in accordance with the requirements prescribed inthis subpart. g) 49 C.F.R. § 173.185(/), which states in relevant partthat a lithium cell or battery that does not comply with the provisions ofthis subchapter may be transported only under conditions approved by the Associate Administrator. As a consequence ofthe alleged violations, the FAArequested we enter an order assessingNational a civil penalty inthe amount of$66,000. B. National's recitation offacts 1. National denied that it knowingly shipped any goods in violation ofany statute or regulation. Further, a citationto ICAO 

### TI was not stated by the Complainant.

. I • . 2. National averred it could neither admit nor deny the allegation "
...shippingpapers for each of the 11 shipments certified. anddescribed the shipmentasLithium Ion Batteries, UN3480, Class 9, Packing Group II
... " because the "shippingpapers" 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 ofthe 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 admittedthat it did not have

## aspecial permission letter at the time the shipments identified were made. Itdenied 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 ofthe two (2) standards due to the ambiguity ofthe regulations. 6. National stated it could not admit nor deny the allegation ''failed to comply with the hazardous materials regulations, in thatNPC failed to make emergency response information, includingan emergency response telephone number, available for use atall times the dangerous goods werepresentduring the course of the shipment byair"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 MariaMunoz did notreceive hazardous material employee training. Further, National averredthe allegation did not identify any particular shipment or shipments wherein Maria Munozperformed hazardous material shipping functions 8. National denied it offeredthe shipments ofdangerous goods for transportation by air when the shipments listed did not contain a statement indicating thatthe shipment was within the limitations prescribed for either passenger and cargo aircraft or cargo aircraft only. 9. National averred itcould not admit nor deny the allegation it "
...offeredhazardous material for transportation in air commerce when they didnotproperly train their hazmat employees in accordance with the requirements of the hazardous materials regulations

... "becausethe "above described hazardous material" was not referenced to

7·,**~';** I· • where 

### it is above described. 

### Itfurther denied that it did not properly train its hazmat employees. 10. National averred it could not admit nor deny the allegation that it "
...offeredthe shipments of dangerous goods for transportation by air when itdidnotproperly package the shipments

... " since "shipments" and "dangerous goods" was not identified norreferenced. Further, National denied that it ever improperly packaged any shipment. 11. National averred it could not admit nor deny the allegation it "
...offeredthe abovedescribedhazardous materials for transportation in air commerce andthe shipments did notcontain an emergency response number that compliedwith the requirements of the {. i**~** dt; HMR
... "since "above-descdbedhazarClous 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 locationinwhatever HMRwas 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 orcalculated. VIII. Issues DidNational 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 itknowingly offered to FedEx, eleven (11) shipments ofdangerous goods, specifically, untested prototype lithium ionbatteries for transportationby air.

8Underthe facts and circumstances ofthis case, was a civil penalty of$66,000 appropriate. IX. Summary ofTestimony and Evidence**\'~·**...**~.;** >· All admitted testimonial and documentary evidence was reviewed and considered. Only briefhighlights are summarizedherein. 1. FAA's Case 

### Christopher Zawarus1 Christopher Zawarus (thereinafter "Zawarus") worked as a Hazardous Materials Manager for the FAA. He hadbeen withthe FAA since 2001. He conducted an inspection ofNational on May 17, 2010. During the inspection Zawarus went throughNational's shipping process, reviewed documentation, packaging and shipments oflithium ion batteries thatNational offered for transportation. He specifically looked atthe 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 oftraining records for the employee who was certifying the shipper's declarations for dangerous goods revealed that she had not completed a course ofstudy incertifying the documents. Additionally, Mr. Alpipirt,2 indicatedthat the telephone number used onthe 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 0873 3 was certifiedonJanuary 8, 12 2010, to contain lithium ion batteries UN number3480, Class IX hazardous**mat~f,ials** andpacking Group II. The Air

1Tr. 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. 9Waybill was signed by MariaMunoz (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 ofMunoz'straining records revealed thather hazardous materials training was DOT specific and did not include a course ofstudy in international standards for which the shipping paper was certified. Review ofthe packaging information revealedthat the lithium ion batteries were notUNtested. Therefore, National required authorization by the PHMSA, andthe batteries would be required to bet9ffered in Packing Group I packaging. 'l'' Instead, the shipment was offered in Packing Group II. During the course ofthe inspection, Zawarus was provided a fiberboard boxthat was rated to the packing Group II standard, which

was a combination packagingthat contained a metal inner can and a foam insertto hold the batteries inplace. Zawarus testified he was told that shipments oflithium ion batteries were untested prototype lithium ionbatteries being sent to customers for potential purchase. Zawarus testifieduntested lithium ion batteries required an authorization from PHMSA and hadhigher 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 atNational, which was only answered during operationhours, six a.m. to sixp.m. National was unable to provide an authorization from PHMSA for the shipment ofthose lithium ionbattery types and the packaging provided was not compliant withthe higher standard required for untested lithium ionbatteries.

. Zawarus testified during the investigationNational wrote the FAA indicating they offered

4FAA# C-2 10

.. VIi**,a1~**...**··.~-JC'~i.:**

### the shipments under reasonable good faith basis that the shipments were properly shipped. In response to the investigationNational**c)lange.<;\Jh~** 

### emergency response numberto a Chemtrec 24 hour number, admitted it was unaware ofthe need for the PHMSA authorization, immediately instructed its employees to discontinue air freight shipments ofuntested prototype lithium ion batteries pending a receipt ofspecial approval from PHMSA. Additionally, employees were provided specific training for compliance with 

### 49 C.F.R. National also providedbusiness information, and copies ofhazardous materials training records along with a course outline for thattraining. Lastly, National indicated they were going to dedicate a page ontheir website to the hazardous materials regulations to alert their customers in general marketplace ofthe regulations and methods for proper and compliant shipment. Zawarus was not accepted as an expert witness inhazardous materials, butwas allowed

.. ... '\:!' 

### to testify as to the risks associatedwith:'shippirlg ll.tilillin ion batteries. Zawarus testified lithium ion batteries are a Class IX hazardous material. They are assigned a minimumrisk level. Class IX is a miscellaneous hazardous materials classification. Untested lithium ion batteries are ofa higher riskbecause lithium ion batteries have shown intesting to be unpredictable. Zawarus testified about the methodology utilized to setthe penalty inthis 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 ofhis methodology for a penalty recommendation, he considered the nature and circumstances ofthe 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. 11The consignee for some ofthe lithium ion batteries was Agilent Technologies. The airport destination andthe address ofAgilent were both SantaRosa, CA., whichthe witness concededwas a domestic destination. Other shipments were sentto a Consignee inBritish Columbia. Eventhough a destination was domestic, National was required to betrained in international standards. All eleven (11) shipments were labeled UN3480, signed by Munoz, and

r';· ·:.(·, j·. the shipments contained untested lithium ionbatteries. Zawarus was provided no information that indicated the lithium ionbatteries were tested. Special approval would nothave been needed hadthese battery packs been tested, but Zawarus was provided no information thatthe batteries were tested. Zawarus did notbelieve the violations were deliberate. There were no aggravating factors to consider. Redirect7 The FAA expects all companies that deal inhazardous 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. Vrablik 8 Thomas M. Vrablik (hereinafter "Vrablik") was the Executive Vice President ofNational and had beenwith the company 25 years. Vrablik testified National designed battery packs used in all types ofequipment, 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
:.JGeophysical equipment, and otherhigh,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 ofthe component. National procured the battery cells, they did not manufacture them. National also procuredthe circuitry which was assembled into the battery pack. In sum, National procured lithium ion batteries along with active and passive safety components, then assembledthese components into various battery packages to create a final product. Configuration ofthebattery package depended onthe ultimate use oftheproduct. 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" inthe jargon onthe 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 wentthrough 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 of47 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. Itwas similar constructionto other models. Configuration ofthe battery packs varied depending onthe type ofequipmentinwhichit

was going to be inserted. The SM201 was tested to UL 60950-1 and also to UN.38.3 Manual of Test and Criteria. Itdid not differ by more than 20 percent, either inthe anode, cathode or electro light amassed from the SM206. ' .:; ;. Itwas his understanding, that the two (2) battery packs were the sameperthe 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 ofthe hearing. 13as far as shipping requirements. The item National shippedto Agilent was a prototype for Agilent, but a finished product for National. National shipped it as a Group II Packing Instruction 965 because they believedthey were shipping a testedbattery pack. The same phone number did not appear onthe box labels as onthe 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 notbeen corrected. After the FAA investigation, National implemented corrective action. Employees involved in offering shipments were trained in DOThazmatthen received additional training in IAT A hazmat with regard to packaging instruction 965 and withregard to offering hazmat for shipment. National applied for the special approval letter from PHMSA, whichtook seven (7) months to receive. National ultimatelyreceived the PHMSA approval letter. Cross 10 The same batterypacks were shipped in each ofthe shipments identified herein. The SM206 was anuntested model. The lithium ion batteries themselves hadbeentested butwhen youputthem 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 positionthat

no testing was required. After the FAAinvestigation, 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 describedN# E-1 as a battery assembly withtwo (2) Sanyo 103450that 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 withtwo (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 productwas nottested. The product was shippedusingthe untested protocol standard in the regulations. Evidence National showedN#P-D 104 arid P-E andExhibits N# E-1 and N# E-2 as demonstrative exhibits. The exhibits were returned to the witness at the conclusion ofthe hearing because they

were potentially hazardous materials. 

### FAA Rebuttal Christopher Zawarus12 Thehazardous materials regulations required the emergency response telephone number to be onthe shipping paper so that 

### itwas available to the pilot in command during flight and also to emergency responders in the event ofan incident. They would notuse the shipping label that would be affixed to the package and aboard the aircraft where it was not accessible during flight. The FAAhad received no information indicating**th,~t** the battery assemblies inthe eleven (11) shipments were tested.

12 Tr. p. 134, I. 4 top. 138, I. 20. 15Rebuttal cross 13 Notknowing the configuration ofthebatteries, the FAA could not make a determination whether itwas the testreport applicable to the shipments in question. 3. Credibility determinations We find the testimony ofall witnesses to have beentruthful and credible. ;**~-·** X. BriefSummary The FAAprovided testimony and evidence, inthe form ofeleven (11) Air Waybills that eleven (11) corresponding shipments had been made by National between January 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010. The shipments were certifiedby Munoz. Munoz's training failed toinclude the international standards for whichthe documents were certified. The emergency response telephone numbers providedwere numbers for the general office atNational, which was only answered during operationhours, six a.m. to six p.m. National was unable to provide an authorization from PHMSAfor the shipment ofthose battery types andthe packaging provided

was not compliantwiththe higher standard required for untested lithium batteries. National concededMunoz did not have the propertraining at the time ofthe shipments. The emergency phone number was on the actual shipment, but was incorrect onthe Air Waybill. National obtained the authorization from PHMSA subsequent to the FAAinvestigation. XL Analysis ofEvidence and Testimony Agency's case

All the National Air Waybills between January 8, 2010 and March 25,2010 were certified byMunoz who did nothave training to the international standards for whichthe documents were certified. The emergency response telephone numbers provided were numbers for the general office at National, which was only answered during operationhours, six a.m. to

13 Tr. p. 138, I. 21 top. 140, I. 4.

### six p.m. National did nothave an authorization from PHMSA for the shipments ofthe battery assemblies andthe packaging provided was not compliant withthe higher standardrequired for untested lithium batteries. A 24-hour emergency was not present onthe Air Waybills, even though it appeared onthe 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 whichthe documents were certified. National admitted the emergency response telephone numbers provided were numbers for the general office atNational, 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 nothave an authorization from PHMSA for the shipments ofthe battery pack assemblies and the packaging provided was not compliant withthe higher standard required for untested lithium batteries. 

### XII. Law 

### 4 9 US. C. 

### §5123provides, inpertinentpart: (a) Penalty.--(1) A personthatknowingly violates this chapter or a regulation, order, special permit, or approval issuedunder this chapter is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty ofnot more than $75,000 for each violation. A person acts knowingly when- (A) the person has actual knowledge ofthe facts giving rise to the violation; or (B) 

### a reasonable person acting in the circumstances and exercising reasonable care would have that knowledge.**~~~,** 

### (2) Ifthe 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 ofthe civil penalty for such violation to not more than $175,000. (3) 

### Ifthe violation is related to training, a 

### person described in paragraph (1) shall be liable for a civil penalty ofat least $450. 17(4) A separate violation occurs for each day the violation, committedby a person thattransports or causes to be transported hazardous material, continues. (b) Hearing requirement.--The Secretarymay find that a person has violated this chapter or a regulationprescribed 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 sectionby giving the person written notice ofthe amount ofthe penalty. (c) Penalty considerations.--In determining the amount ofacivil 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 thatjustice 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 authorizedby · applicable requirements ofthis subchapter or an exemption or special permit, approval, orregistration issued under this subchapter or subchapter A ofthis chapter. 49 C.F.R. § 171.22(b)(l), provides: 

### )
. te. (b) Limitations onthe use ofinternational standards and regulations. A hazardous material that is offered for transportation or transported in accordance withthe international standards andregulations authorized inparagraph (a) ofthis 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 orregulation; 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 ortransported inthe United States in accordance withthis subpart must conform to the following requirements ofthis subchapter, as applicable: (1) The emergency response information requirements in subpart G ofpart 172 of this subchapter; 18

### (2) The training requirements in subpart H ofpart 172 ofthis subchapter, including function-specific training in the use ofthe international transport standards and regulations authorized in paragraph (a) ofthis section, as applicable; 

### 49 C.

### FR. § 172.203(/), provides: (f) 

### Transportation by

### air,. A statement indicating that the shipment is withinthe limitations prescribed for either passenger and cargo aircraft or cargo aircraft only mustbe 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 intransportation, including storage incidental to transportation; (2) The telephone number ofa person who is eitherknowledgeable ofthe hazardous material being shipped and has comprehensive emergency response and incident mitigation information for thatmaterial, orhas 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, orbeeper device) does not meet the**req1:1irem~nts** 

### ofparagraph (a) ofthis section; and (3) Entered on a shipping

### paper~**a~,**fcillows: (i) Immediately following the 'de.scription ofthe hazardous material required by subpart C ofthis part; or (ii) Entered once on the shipping paper inthe manner prescribed in paragraph (b) ofthis section in a prominent, readily identifiable, and clearly visible mannerthat allows the information to be easily and quickly found, such as by highlighting, use ofa 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 ofthe methods prescribed inthis paragraph only ifthe telephone number applies to each hazardous material entered on the shippingpaper, and ifit 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 ofits hazmat employees is trained in accordance with the requirements prescribed in this subpart.,,

49 C.F.R. § 173.185(/), provides: 

### (f) Damaged, defective, orrecalled cells or batteries. Lithium cells orbatteries, that have been damaged or identified by the manufacturer as being defective for safety reasons, that have the potential ofproducing a dangerous evolution ofheat, 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 mustbe packaged as follows: (1) Each cell orbattery mustbe placed in individual, non-metallic innerpackaging that completely encloses the cell or battery; (2)The innerpackaging must be surrounded by cushioning material that is noncombustible, non-conductive, and absorbent; and (3) Each inner packaging mustbe individuallyplaced in one ofthe following packagings meeting the requirements ofpart 178, subparts L and M, ofthis 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 (ID), or plastic (1H2) drum; and (4) The outer package mustbe 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 ofFact A. As to 49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e): We find thatthe evidence and testimony, by a preponderance ofthe evidence standard, supports a finding thatNational violated 49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e), in thatNational offered eleven (11) shipments betweenJanuary 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010, as set forth hereinabove, of hazardous material for transportation in commercewhenthe 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 ofthis subchapter or an exemption or special permit, approval, or registration issued under this subchapter or subchapter A ofthis chapter.

B. As to 49 C.F.R. § 171.22(b)(l): We find that the evidence and testimony, by a preponderance ofthe evidence standard, supports 

### a finding that National violated 49 C.F.R. § 171.22(b)(l), inthat the eleven (11) 20shipments 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 thatthe evidence and testimony, by a preponderance ofthe evidence standard, supports a finding thatNational 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 withthis subpart and did not conform to the following requirements ofthis subchapter, as applicable: (1) The eleven (11) shipments failed to containthe emergency response information requirements in subpart G ofpart 172 ofthis subchapter;

. ·..**~~~'** ' (2) The eleven (11)

### shipfuent~**'W'ere'~~·rtified** by an employee who failed to have the training requirements in subpart H ofpart 172 ofthis subchapter, including functionspecific training inthe use ofthe international transport standards and regulations authorized in paragraph (a) ofthis section, as applicable; D. As to 49 C.F.R. § 172.203(/): We find thatthe evidence and testimony, by a preponderance ofthe evidence standard, supports a finding thatNational violated 49 C.F.R. 

### § 172.203(!), inthat 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 withinthe limitations prescribed for either passenger and cargo aircraft or cargo aircraft only tp.e statements were not entered onthe ji • '!-1.- 

### 'cNi:·. shipping paper.

21E. As to 49 C.F.R. §172.604(a)(JO, (sic): We find that the evidence and testimony, by a preponderance ofthe evidence standard, supports a finding thatNational violated 49 C.F.R. §172.604(a)(10, (sic) inthatNational offered eleven (11) shipments between January 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010, as setforth 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: notmonitored at all times while the hazardous mri:terial was in transportation, including storage incidental to transportation; and/orNational offered the eleven (11) shipments where National failed to provide the telephone number ofa person who was eitherknowledgeable ofthe 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 notproperly entered onthe shipping papers inthe manner prescribed in paragraph (b) ofthis section in a prominent, readily identifiable, and clearly visible manner that allowed the informationto be easily and quickly found, such as byhighlighting, use ofa 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 thatthe evidence and testimony, by a preponderance ofthe evidence standard, supports a finding thatNational violated 49 C.F.R. § 172. 702(a) inthatNational offered eleven (11) shipments between January 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010, as set forth hereinabove, where

22National failed to have a hazmat employer ensure that each ofits 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 ofthe evidence standard, supports a finding that the FAA did not made a

### prima facie case thatNational violated 

### 49 C.F.R. § 173.185(/) inthatNational offered eleven (11) shipments between January 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010, as set forth hereinabove, inviolation ofany 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 ionbatteries, thathad been damaged or identified by the manufacturer as being defective for safety**reas~ms;** orthatNational 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 thatthe evidence and testimony, by a preponderance ofthe evidence standard, do not support findings thatNational 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. Takingthe 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.

23XV. Penalty and Mitigation Considerations A. General considerations National admitted many ofthe allegations as set forth hereinabove. We found National did not violate 

### 49 C.F.R. § 173.185(j) for any ofthe 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 ofthe 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 consistentwith 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 FAAresponded to National's argumentthat they did notintend to violate the HMRs by arguing the violations did not require an intentbe shown. The FAA arguedNational had actual knowledge ofthe facts giving rise to the violations. 14 i
.**~;r\:..** j National argued the FAApresented testimony and evidence only as to the general factors considered in assessing a penalty.·Based onthe evidence presented, National argued a third party could notpossibly 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 butbased solely on his ownjudgment. 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 properlytrained. National's witness testified thatthe Canadian shipments were shipped as untested prototypes perthe regulations as Class IX Hazmat in Group II packaging. The other battery package shipments were all tested even thoughthe SM 201 and SM 206 were inphysically different configuration packages and their electrical parameters differed immaterially. National argued its use ofthe wrong telephone number onthe shipping documents was not intentional. National Powerhad a contract in place with Chemtrec, a company thatprovided emergency information 24 hours a day. Chemtrec' s telephone number

was correctly shown onthe label onthe boxes,. National argued due to a clerical error, National's telephone number was printed on the shipping documents instead ofChemtrec' s 24- hour number. National Power corrected.this' immei&iately when the FAA pointed it out during the audit. 15 

### There was no evidence ofprior violations. Reviewing the totality ofthe evidence and testimony, National was cooperative and responsive to FAA concerns. Once notified ofthe discrepancies/violations, National took swift, comprehensive corrective action. Duringthe investigationNational changed the emergency response number to a 24 hour number, inresponse 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 DOThazmat subsequently received additional training in IATA 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. 1top. 116, 

### 1. 6). National at all times

.
15 See "POST-HEARINGBRIEF/CLOSING ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENT", 4 

### January 2015. 

### 25

### believed it was complying with the applicable regulations. There was no evidence ofa systemic corporate culture guilty ofregulatory disregard. While a penalty calculated in accordance with the FAA's policy guidance should stand, absent a showing ofthe 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/ortestimony whichprovidedus with any ability to determine whetherNational 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 ofthe FAA. 16 

### As a general matter, a sanction should be imposed that is a sufficient deterrent butnot excessive, in order to comply withthe underlying purposes ofthe Federal hazardous material transportation law and HMR. The FAA considers a variety offactors when determining an appropriate civil penalty, including: (1) the nature and circumstances ofthe y!olation; (2) the extent and gravity ofthe violation; (3) the person's degree of

# cul~abilit;;**C~),ihe** person'shistory ofprior violations, if any; (5) the person's ability to pay the civil penalty; (6) the effect onthe person's ability to stay inbusiness; and (7) other matters asjustice may require. 17 

### Any determination ofpenalty should weigh whether the violation was inadvertent or deliberate, the private or public character oftheviolation, and the attitude ofthe violator. The agency should also consider the respondent's size, particularly in determining the

16 Folsom'sAirService, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11,2008 WL 4948488 (November 6, 2008). 17 Id. See also EasternAir 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 ofthe circumstances surrounding the violations. EasternAir Center, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 2008-3 (January 28, 2008). Finally, the civil penalty shouldprovide sufficient incentive to deter the respondent and similarly-situated entities from future violations. Folsom'sAir Service, Inc., Id, p. 20. The FAAhas the. burden of justifying the amount ofcivil penalty sought. The FAA's proposed sanction is no more than a proposal or a recommendation to the ALJ. The FAA mustprove to the ALJ how it used the sanction guidance to arrive at its proposal. The FAA must also prove the existence ofaggravating factors and mustshowhow itused aggravating

or mitigating factors to adjust the suggested·sanction. Evidence ofswift comprehensive corrective action mustbe considered

### ai~a**mitf~dtin~!'factor.** Significantweighthas been given to National's efforts to ensure that a violation will not reoccur. FAA Order 2150.3B states: When a single instance ofnoncompliance results in multiple violations of general and specific regulations involving the same or similar conduct, the FAAordinarily does not compoundthe sanctionto reflect the amount of sanction recommended inthe table for each regulatory violation

.... IfF AA enforcement personnel were simply to addthe 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 onthe eleven (11) shipments between January 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010. 27

### Zawarus testified thathe considered the nature and circumstances ofthe shipments, the extentin gravityrelated 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 ofthe 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 ofaggravating factors and must show how it used aggravating or mitigating factors to adjust the suggested sanction. Evidence ofswift comprehensive corrective action mustbe considered as a mitigating factor. The FAA failed to produce any testimony and/or evidence ofhow it calculated the proposed penalty of

### $66,000. The FAA alleged National violated seven 

### (7) provisions ofthe CFRs 

### ineleven (11) flights, for a total ofseventy-seven 

### (77) alleged violations. Dividing 

### $66,000 by the seventy-seven 

### (77) alleged violations results in a figure of

### $85i9 

### per violation. We are leftto speculate how the figures of

### $857.00 and/or 

### $66,000 were determined. We find there were six (6) single instances ofnoncompliance with the CFRs 

### proven which resulted in multiple violations ofgeneral and specific regulations involving the same or similar conduct. The FAA ordinarily does not compoundthe sanctionto reflect the amount of sanctionrecommended inthe table for eachregulatory violation. The improper shipment oflithium ion batteries can lead to catastrophic consequences. Lack ofknowledge and/or lack ofintent are not defenses. Taking the totality ofthe facts and circumstances into account, we conclude a fine of

### $2,000 for each ofthe six (

### 6) violations is

18 Tr. p. 68, 1. 19 top. 69, 1. 1. 19 $857.142857, rounded to $857.00appropriate. XVI. Findings ofFact A. All the witnesses for bothparties were credible. B. National was subject to 49 US.

### C. 49 US.

### C. §§5101-5127. 

### C. Neither party presented any evidence and/or testimony aboutNational's finances and/or ability or inability to pay. ,, , ·:, · D. National violated six (6) provisions ofthe 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)(l0, (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 ofsixty-six (66) violations. E. The evidentiary facts, by a preponderance ofthe evidence standard, do not support findings thatNational violated 49 C.F.R. § 173.185(/) for any ofthe eleven (11) shipments between January 8, 2010 and March 25, 2010, as setforth hereinabove. F. National took swift and comprehensive corrective action during and immediately after the FAA audit. G. There was no history ofprior violations evidencing a systemic corporate culture guilty of regulatory disregard. · H. National admitted to some oftheviolations. I. The violations were inadvertentand N

## ~tiO'n~lbelieved, incorrectly, they were in full compliance withthe 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 withthe FAA. 

### L. The FAA failed to prove the existence ofaggravating factors other thanthe citation ofsix (6) violations in eleven (11) shipments for the same conduct. M. TheFAAfailed to demonstrate how it used the sanction guidance to arrive atits 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 weightto matters in mitigation ofthepenalty requested. P. The violations were serious and could have had serious consequences. Given the totality ofthe evidence and testimony, matters inboth 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 withthe totality ofthe circumstances, including the nature, extent and gravity ofthe violation, degree ofculpability, history ofpriorviolations, financial situation, and other matters asjustice may require, including aggravating and mitigating factors. Q. We find the FAAfailed to carry its burden ofproofwithrespect to the amount of penalty requested. WHEREFORE, evidence and testimony having beenheard and considered itbe and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 20 1. We find the FAA did not made apriina 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 FAAproved National violated provisions of49 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 ofthe 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 ofappeal must conform to sections 13.21O, 13.211(e) and 13.233 ofthe Rules ofPractice, which require thata notice ofappeal 1) be filed notlaterthan 10 days (plus an additional five days ifmailed) from the service date ofthis decision, and 2) be perfected with a written briefor memorandum not later than 50 days (plus an additional five, ifmailed) from the service date ofthis decision. The notice ofappeal and briefor 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-Suite2W1000, 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 ofthe notice ofappeal and brieformemorandum also must be sent to agency counsel. Service upon the presidingjudge 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 2Wl000 1



### 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 ofHearings, M-20 · U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant 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.