Michael L. Dworkin (CA Bar# 64047) 

MICHAEL L. DWORKIN and ASSOCIATES 

465 California Street, Suite 21 0 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: 415-421-2500 

FAX: 415-421-2560 

Email: law@avialex.com 

Counsel for MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC 

RECEIV 

HEARING 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: FAA Case No. 20llSW700189 

DMS No. FAA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC 

MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC'S 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

Judge: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, THE HONORABLE RICHARD C. 

GOODWIN, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, AND TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AND illS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 

Respondent, MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC, hereby requests that the 

Administrative Law Judge take Judicial Notice of the following: 

l. FAA Order 2150.3B, FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program, 

including but not limited to Appendix C and Figure C-1; 

2. Complainant's "Agency's Responses to Respondent's First Request for 

Production of Documents", in the instant matter, served on July 24, 

2012, including but not limited to responses to Requests to Produce 
Nos. 1.12, 1.13, 1.14 and 1.15, and attachments thereto. 

3. Order Assessing Civil Penalty, FAA Case No. 2012SW700081 

(Atlantic Southwest Airlines, Inc., $77,000.00); 

4. Order Assessing Civil Penalty, FAA Case No. 2011SW700155 

(Southwest Airlines Company, $32,000.00); 

5. Order Assessing Civil Penalty, FAA Case No.2011SW700182 

(Ethiopian Airlines, $160,000.00); 

6. Order Assessing Civil Penalty, FAA Case No. 2011 SW700093 

(Federal Express Corporation, $24,500.00); 

7. Order Assessing Civil Penalty, FAA Case No.2010SW700184 

(Southwest Airlines Company, $62,000.00); 

8. Order Assessing Civil Penalty, FAA Case No. 2010SW700147 

(Express Jet Airlines, Inc., $5,000.00); 

9. Order Assessing Civil Penalty, FAA Case No. 2008SW700060 

(American Airlines, Inc., $41,500.00); 

10. Order Assessing Civil Penalty, FAA Case No. 2008SW700060 

(American Airlines, Inc., $41 ,500.00); 

11. Order Assessing Civil Penalty, FAA Case No. 2008SW7001 02 

(American Airlines, Inc., $45,000.00); 

12. Order Assessing Civil Penalty, FAA Case No. 2008SW700123 

(American Airlines, Inc., $22,500.00); 

13. Order Assessing Civil Penalty, FAA Case No. 2010SW700146 

(Continental Airlines, Inc., $32,000.00); and 

2 

FAA Case No. 2011SW700189/FAA Docket No. FAA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 
14. Order Assessing Civil Penalty, FAA Case No. 2007SW700311 (World 

Airways, Inc., $25,000.00). 

The Court has authority to take judicial notice of the foregoing documents which: 

a. are generally known within the Court's jurisdiction (Federal Rule of 

Evidence ("FRE") Rule 201); 

b. can be accurately and readily verified from sources whose accuracy 

cannot reasonably be questioned (FRE Rule 20 I); 

c. Constitute admissions by a party-opponent, i.e., Complainant (FRE 

Rule 80l(d)); and 

d. Constitute public records and reports (FRE 803(8), 902(4) and (5) and 

1005). 

Copies of the relevant pages ofthose items listed in paragraphs I through 14 

above, are attached herewith . 

.. 

Dated this lith day of May, 2014 

Michael L. Dworkin 

Attorney for Respondent, 

MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC 

3 

FAA Case No. 2011SW700189/FAA Docket No. FAA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

> 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this _f!/!!'J.ay of May, 2014, a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing: 

MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

was served as follows: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-

320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

{Federal Express} 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

{Federal Express} 

James Archier, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASW-7 

260 I Meacham Boulevard, Suite 6E 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

{Federal Express} 

CAITLIN M. MILLER 

4 

FAA Case No. 2011SW700189/FAA Docket No. FAA-2013-0040 

MARTINA IRE AVIATION, LLC'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

National Policy 

SUBJ: FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program 

ORDER 

2150.38 I 

Effective Date: 

10/01/07 

This order contains policies, procedures, and guidelines for the Federal Aviation Administration's 

compliance and enforcement program. The order also articulates the FAA's philosophy for using 

various remedies, including education, corrective action, informal action, remedial training, 

administrative action, and legal enforcement action, to address noncompliance with statutory and 

regulatory requirements enforced by the FAA. It provides for the public a written statement of the 

Administrator's policy guidance for imposing sanctions for violations of such requirements. 

The order is used at all levels by agency personnel who are engaged in the investigation, reporting, 

and processing of enforcement actions. It applies to all offices with regulatory responsibilities. 

This revision of the order comprehensively updates policies, procedures, guidance, and assignments of 

responsibility. It reorganizes the order in a manner more useful for agency personnel and is available 

electronically to agency personnel and the public. The revision amends agency sanction guidance to 

conform to statutory changes resulting from Vision IOOCentury of Aviation Reauthorization Act and 

incorporates guidance into the agency's compliance and enforcement program order on policies and 

programs that have developed since the last comprehensive order revision in 1988. Those include 

policies relating to the FAA's exercise of its authority to administratively assess civil penalties and 

guidance on the agency's voluntary safety programs. 

A workgroup of agency personnel from the field and headquarters with extensive experience in 

statutory and regulatory enforcement reviewed the agency's policies and programs in this area to 

produce this comprehensive revision of the agency order on its compliance and enforcement program. 

Distribution: A-W-l;A-W (AT/PS/SM)-2;A-W (PP/AM/SF/ 

GCIFSIIA!VS)-3;A-XYZ (A T/AF/CS)-2;Z-X (AS/AM/GC/FS)-3; 

A-Y (AM/ARlGC)-3;A-Z (AM/AN/GC)-3;A-FAC/FACIFCS-O; 

A-F AF/FA T/FIA-O(L TD);ZFS-325 

RECEI 

MAY 1 ~~ 

HEA.AI 

Initiated By: AGC-300 
10/01/07 

1. Background. 

Appendix C. Sanction Guidance 

Hazardous Materials Enforcement 

2150.3B 

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

materials constitutes a threat to public safety in all forms of transportation. Congress addressed 

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

Congress determined that effective enforcement of the HMT A required more severe action, and 

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

101-615, 1990 U.S. Code Congress. & Admin. News 104 Stat. 4605. The primary effect of this 

1990 revision of the HMT A was to raise the maximum civil penalty for violation of any 

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

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

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

News 108 Stat. 759, codified at 49 U.S.C. §§ 5101-5127. In the 1994 recodification, Congress 

specifically stated that the recodification created no substantive change to the earlier form of the 

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

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

August I 0, 2005. That legislation, among other things, modified the limitations on civil 

penalties that may be assessed for violations of the hazardous materials statute and regulations. 

b. Civil Penalties. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 

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

I 04-134, April 26, 1996, provides a mechanism for adjustments for monetary civil penalties for 

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

compliance with the law. Under the statute, the adjusted civil penalty maximums cannot be 

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

13 of Title 14 of the CFR, subpart H. 

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

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

minimum civil penalty is now $250. There are two exceptions to those limits. A maximum civil 

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

injury to any person, or substantial destruction of property. The minimum civil penalty that may 

be assessed for a training violation is $450. 

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

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

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

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

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

and the HMR, with particular emphasis on shipment ofhazmat by air. 49 C.F.R. § 1.470). 

C-1 
10/01/07 2150.38 

d. Violation of the HMRs. The HMR set forth regulations for the transportation of hazmat. 

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

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

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

exercising reasonable care would have that knowledge. 49 U.S.C. § 5123(a)(l)(A). The civil 

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

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

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

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

prescribed criminal penalties for a willful violation of the Federal hazardous material 

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

laws and regulations and intent to violate them. 

e. Investigative and Enforcement Procedures. Part 13 of the Federal Aviation 

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

procedures applicable to enforcement of the HMR by the FAA. Hazmat violations occurring on 

or after August 2, 1990, may be dismissed by an administrative law judge (ALI) if a notice of 

proposed civil penalty has not been issued within 2 years of the violation, unless good cause for 

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

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

that is sufficiently deterrent but not excessive, in order to comply with the underlying purposes 

of the Federal hazardous material transportation law and HMR. In determining the sanction to 

be assessed, penalty criteria set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 5123 must be considered. These criteria are 

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

violator; the history of past violations (if any); the ability to pay; the effect on the ability to 

continue to do business; and other matters as justice requires. Some of these considerations 

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

Guidance Matrix. The statutory factors are further considered under the weighting analysis that 

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

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

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

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

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

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

property. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C-2 
10/01/07 2150.38 

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

the ranges should be explained in detail. 

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

requirements for air carriers and other aircraft operators, are contained in a separate matrix. 

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

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

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

air carrier violations. 

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

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

business concern under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA). For an extensive discussion of how to make that determination, see Part OneAbbreviations and Definitions, in Appendix B of this order. If investigating special agents are 

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

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

of investigation in Figure A-1 of Appendix A. Because violations of Title 49 of the U.S. Code 

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

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

the correct size limit for an alleged violator. 

a. Enforcement Policy under SBREFA. Chapter 7, Paragraph 10, of this order generally 

outlines the FAA's enforcement policy under SBREFA. In determining whether and how to 

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

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

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

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

that results when there has not been a good faith attempt to comply with the requirements, and a 

violation that poses a serious health, safety or environmental threat. With respect to air carriers 

and other aircraft operators, the FAA takes into consideration company size in determining the 

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

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

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

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

that it may submit complaints or comments regarding unfair FAA regulatory enforcement to the 

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

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

regional offices. 

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

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

hazmat statutes or HMR typically poses a serious health, safety, or environmental threat (and 

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

C-3 
10/01/07 2150.38 

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Use of the Sanction Gnidance. This guidance provides agency personnel with a systematic 

way to evaluate a case and arrive at an appropriate penalty, considering all the relevant statutory 

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

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

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

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

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

to a series of questions to determine the aggregate weight of the case. The aggregate weight of 

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

ranges of the Matrix. 

b. Determination of Sanction. It is important to note that determination of where the 

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

case is based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. Generally, if the answer to a 

particular question represents a more significant aspect of a case, greater consideration should be 

given to that answer. For example, violations involving an extremely dangerous substance, even 

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

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

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

determine the category of violator the person falls within (jor example, business entity that 

regularly offers, accepts, or transports hazmat) and the offense category (jor example, undeclared 

shipment within hazmat quantity limitations). The sanction ranges under the various violator 

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

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

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

determine which subcategories of offenses (jor example, shipping papers) are alleged to have 

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

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

for each relevant violation group is added together to reach the recommended sanction. 

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

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

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

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

Corrective actions that justify reduction of the recommended penalty must exceed the minimum 

C-4 
10/01/07 2150.38 

legal requirements. The special agent also attempts to provide information concerning the 

alleged violator's size, financial condition, and ability to pay a recommended sanction. 

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

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

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

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

explained to, and discussed with, the investigating special agent. Final determination of the 

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

decisionmaking and approval of the investigating agent and the legal office. 

8. Federal Aviation Administration Hazardous Materials Sanction Guidance. This 

Sanction Guidance is divided into three sections: case analysis; utilization of the Sanction 

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

Matrix is contained in Figure C-1 and the Risk Categories are contained in Figure C-2. 

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

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

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

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

penalty. The questions review factors involving the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of 

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

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

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

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

(2) The agent answers each question in Section I and determines if a relative weight of 

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

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

situation. Question ( l)(a) addresses the nature of the hazardous material(s) involved, and the 

evidence will indicate the risk category and, therefore, the weight. The aggravating or mitigating 

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

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

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

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

of the questions will be no and the only relevant weighting factor in this section will be the risk 

category ofthe material identified in Question (I)( a). 

(3) In determining the final aggregate weight of the case, the responses to each of the 

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

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

certainty. Generally, if the answer to a question demonstrates that the factor at issue represents a 

more significant aspect of the case, greater consideration is given to that factor. The final 

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

C-5 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

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

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

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

Concerning the Shipment): 

(I) What material(s) was offered, transported, or accepted for air transportation? Figure 

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

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

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

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

• If the material(s) is in Category B, assign a Moderate weight. 

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

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

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

involved in the shipment, use the hazardous material in the highest risk category. 

(2) What quantity of the material(s) was offered, transported, or accepted for air 

transportation? 

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

amount? If yes, consider a Moderate or Ma.ximum weight depending on the degree to which the 

limitation was exceeded. 

Guidance Example: The quantity limitation for gasoline on a passenger plane is 5 liters per 

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

ma.ximum weight for this factor. 

• Did the package contain a forbidden material? !fyes, assign a Ma.ximum weight. 

• Were there multiple packages in the shipment? If yes, consider a Moderate or 

Ma.ximum weight, depending on the number of packages and total amount of hazardous material 

being transported in violation. 

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

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

Under the Sanction Guidance. this fact is considered an aggravating circumstance rather than a 

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

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

overall weight of the case is so high that a penalty beyond the ma.ximum point in the range is 

warranted. 

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

offeror over a period of several days, all of which involve violations of the HMR. These 

independent acts of offering usually are consolidated into one EIR and addressed in one notice 

C-6 
10/01/07 2150.38 

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

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

other evidence establishing it as a separate shipment, is ordinarily considered as a separate 

incident for purposes of applying the sanction guidance analysis. It is suggested that the 

separate shipments be treated as individual counts in the EIR and the notice of proposed civil 

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

(3) Did the shipment cause some damage or harm to persons or property or interfere with 

commerce? If yes, consider a Moderate or Maximum weight. 

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

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

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

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

important to note that death, serious illness, or severe injury to any person, or substantial 

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

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

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

of the violator. 

(I) Is the violator the manufacturer of the hazardous material? Tfyes, consider a 

Maximum weight. 

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

knowledge of the nature of the hazardous material it manufactures or uses; thus, a high degree 

of culpability will ordinarily be imputed to it. 

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

consider a Minimum or Moderate weight. 

Guidance Note: Facts supporting an affirmative answer to this question may be cause to 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hazardous material for transportation.) 

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

yes, consider a Minimum weight. 

C-7 
10/01/07 2150.38 

Guidance Note: Detrimental, reasonable reliance on another party may be a mitigating factor 

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

Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) would be mitigating. 

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

Moderate or Maximum weight. 

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

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

corporate structure of the violator and whether other business entities or names are or have 

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

violations should be considered. Ordinarily,findings of violation more than 5 years old carry 

less weight, unless a continuing pattern of violation exists. 

d. Other Factors. 

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

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

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

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

should be clearly identified and explained in the analysis portion of the EIR and carefully 

scrutinized by legal counsel. 

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

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

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

an increased risk. 

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

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

under the small quantity exception of 49 C.F.R. § /73.4 may present a mitigating factor if as a 

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

shipped as a consumer commodity can also be a mitigating factor. 

e. Determine the Final Aggregate Weight of the Case. 

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

case (Minimum, Moderate, and Maximum.). Questions receiving a no response will not be 

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

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

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

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

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

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

be explained in this regard. 

C-8 
10/01/07 2150.38 

Guidance Example: A case involving a hazardous material in the lowest risk category may be 

evaluated to have a maximum weight because of the large quantity shipped or the damage 

resulting from the shipment. 

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

(I) The sanction ranges under the offeror and offense categories of the Sanction 

Guidance Matrix reflect the relative culpability ofthe violator and the nature, circumstances, 

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

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

Further analysis of the statutory factors is required to determine the appropriate sanction within 

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

After determining the final aggregate weight of the case under subparagraphs 8.a.-e., that weight 

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

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

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

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

to reach the full sanction. 

(2) Instructions. 

• Identify the appropriate category for the type of entity and the nature of the 

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

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

violation group. 

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

assign a sanction amount within the minimum, moderate, or maximum portion of the sanction 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

downward departure from the specified Matrix ranges. This sanction guidance anticipates 

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

the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the incident are particularly severe or egregious, 

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

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

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

case may the civil penalty per violation exceed the maximum allowed by Jaw.) Conversely, the 

investigating agent may believe that mitigating factors justify a downward departure from the 

C-9 
10/01/07 2150.38 

Matrix range. Consultation with legal counsel is not necessary in the case of a reconunended 

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

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

is to provide a detailed explanation of the basis for the decision to go outside the ranges. 

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

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

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

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

part 175 violations. 

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

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

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

requires. Consideration of these factors may result in adjustment of the recommended civil 

penalty calculated in subparagraph 8.f. In situations where the agent or attorney is in possession 

of mitigating information, such an inability to pay the recommended civil penalty or corrective 

action taken, reduction of the recommended penalty may be appropriate. Mitigating information 

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

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

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

factors after the issuance of the notice of proposed civil penalty due to the absence of reliable 

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

Sanction Guidance recommends that the special agent make efforts to obtain reliable information 

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

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

may not always be possible for the special agent and/or attorney to obtain reliable financial 

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

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

respondent's ability to pay. 

• The investigating agent will attempt to include financial information as an exhibit 

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

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

information concerning the violator's corporate structure, business address, officers, number of 

employees, and gross revenues. 

• The investigating agent provides a statement or comment with respect to the 

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

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

statement should encompass areas like the number of employees, gross revenues, and nature of 

business of the violator. 

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

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

C-10 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

determine if more current information exists concerning the financial condition of a respondent 

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

preparation of the EIR. If there is a basis for determining that the recommended sanction is 

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

sanction is adjusted prior to issuance of the notice of proposed civil penalty. This is a 

preliminary consideration of a company's ability to pay. As such, pre-notice adjustment of a 

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

claims after issuance of the notice. 

(2) Corrective Action. 

• The most common other matter that the FAA takes into consideration is corrective 

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

legal requirements. The primary factors in determining the appropriate amount of penalty 

reduction are the extent and timing of the corrective action. In other words, mitigation is 

determined on the basis of how much corrective action was taken and how quickly the action 

was taken. Systemic change intended to prevent future violations should be given greater 

consideration. Similarly, corrective action that commences upon the violator's first learning of 

the violations ordinarily is given greater credit than corrective action that commences only after 

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

Mitigation of a recommended civil penalty based upon corrective action should be 

referenced in the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty so that the respondent is on notice that credit 

already has been given for such action. 

(2) Status of violator as a small business entity or concern. See subparagraphs S.a.-b. 

above. 

C-11 
10/01/07 

OFFENSE 

CATEGORIES 

I. Declared Shi(!ment 

I. Shipping Papers 

2. Labels 

3. Markings 

4. Packaging 

5. Training 

6. Ernerg. Response 

7. Release into Environ. 

8. Other 

II. Undeclared Shi(!ment 

Within Hazmat 

Quanti!Y, Limitations 

I. Shipping Papers 

2. Labels 

3. Markings 

4. Packaging 

5. Training 

6. Emerg. Response 

7. Release into Environ. 

8. Other 

III. Undeclared 

Shipment 

Hazmat Forbidden on3 

or exceeds gty limits forl 

Passenger Aircraft 

I. Shipping Papers 

2. Labels 

3. Markings 

4. Packaging 

5. Training 

6. Emerg. Response 

7. Release into Environ. 

8. Other 

IV. Undeclared 

Shipment 

Forbidden on: or 

exceeds g:D:: limits for 2 

All Aircraft 

I. Shipping Papers 

2. Labels 

3. Markings 

4. Packaging 

5. Training 

6. Emerg. Response 

7. Release into Environ. 

8. Other 

V. Intentional or 

MATRIX & DEFINITIONS 

(Figure C-1) 

C. Business Entity 

that uses or handles 

A. Individual* B. Business Entity hazmat in the 

course of business 

250-550 250-1.100 500-2,200 

250-550 250-1,100 500-2,200 

250-550 250-1,100 500-2,200 

250-550 250-1,100 500-2,200 

---------- 450-1,100 500-2,200 

250-550 250-1,100 500-2,200 

250-550 250-1,100 500-2,200 

250-550 250-1,100 500-2,200 

250-1,100 I ,500-8,200 2,500-11,000 

250-1,100 1,500-8,200 2,500-11,000 

250-1,100 I ,500-8,200 2,500-11,000 

250-1,100 I ,500-8,200 2,500-11,000 

------------- I ,500-8,200 2,500-11,000 

250-1,100 I ,500-8,200 2,500-11,000 

250-1,100 I ,500-8,200 2,500-11 ,000 

250-1,100 1,500-8,200 2,500-11,000 

500-5,500 5,000-16,200 7,500-22,000 

500-5,500 5,000-16,200 7,500-22,000 

500-5,500 5,000-16,200 7,500-22,000 

500-5,500 5,000-16,200 7,500-22,000 

---------- 5,000-16,200 7,500-22,000 

500-5,500 5,000-16,200 7,500-22,000 

500-5,500 5,000-16,200 7,500-22,000 

500-5,500 5,000-16,200 7,500-22,000 

500-32,500 7,500-32,500 I 0,000-32,500 

500-32,500 7,500-32,500 I 0,000-32,500 

500-32,500 7,500-32,500 10,000-32,500 

500-32,500 7,500-32,500 I 0,000-32,500 

---------- 7,500-32,500 I 0,000-32,500 

500-32,500 7,500-32,500 10,000-32,500 

500-32,500 7,500-32,500 10,000-32,500 

500-32,500 7,500-32,500 10,000-32,500 

CONSULT CONSULT CONSULT 

C-12 

2150.38 

D. Business Entity 

that regularly 

offers, accepts, or 

transports hazmat 

I ,000-5,500 

1,000-5,500 

I ,000-5,500 

1,000-5,500 

1,000-5,500 

1,000-5,500 

1,000-5,500 

I ,000-5,500 

5,000-13,000 

5,000-13,000 

5,000-13,000 

5,000-13,000 

5,000-13,000 

5,000-13,000 

5,000-13,000 

5,000-13,000 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

I 0,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

I 0,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

CONSULT 
10/01/07 2150.38 

Deliberate Violation: or LEGAL- Up to LEGAL- Up to LEGAL- Up to LEGAL- Up to 

other significant 50,000 per offense 50,000 per offense 50,000 per offense 50,000 per offense 

aggravation category may be category may be category may be category may be 

assessed assessed assessed assessed 

VI. Violation results in CONSULT CONSULT CONSULT CONSULT 

death1 serious illness2 LEGAL- Up to LEGAL- Up to LEGAL- Up to LEGAL- Up to 

severe inju!:,Y2 or I 00,000 per 100,000 per I 00,000 per offense 100,000 may be 

substantial destruction offense category offense category category may be assessed 

ofnronertv may be assessed may be assessed assessed 

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

crewmembers. The range for the total civil penalty to be assessed, absent mitigating or 

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

E. Group I & II F. Group III & IV 

AIR CARRIER AND OTHER AIRCRAFT Air Carriers and Air Carriers and 

OPERATOR VIOLATIONS Other Aircraft Other Aircraft 

Operators Operators 

Failure to comply with Parts 171, 172, or 173 Use main Matrix. Use main Matrix. 

reguirements of the HMR as an offeror of hazmat. 

Improper acceptance ofhazmat for air transportation. 

(i.e., quantity, labeling, marking, packaging, and 5,000-32,500 2,500-16,200 

shipping papers) 

See 49 C.F.R. 99175 .30(a)(l)- ( 4) 

Failure to inspect hazmat shipment properly. I 0,000-32,500 5,000-16,200 

See 49 C.F.R. §9175.30(b); (c), (d), (e) 

Improper storage/securing of hazmat aboard aircraft. I 0,000-32,500 5,000-16,200 

Failure to provide hazmat training, maintain records of I 0,000-32,500 5,000-16,200 

training, or meet minimum requirements for hazmat 

training ( 49 C.F .R.). 

Using untrained/improperly trained hazmat personnel, I 0,000-32,500 5,000-16,200 

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

Failure to notify FAA properly of incident/discrepancies 5,000-16,200 I ,000-5,500 

in hazmat shipment. 

Failure to provide notice to the pilot-in-command. 5,000-16,200 1,000-5,500 

Other Part 175 violations. 5,000-16,200 1,000-5,500 

Intentional, deliberate, or other significantly aggravated CONSULT CONSULT LEGAL 

violation. LEGAL- Up to - Up to 50,000 per 

50,000 per offense category 

offense category may be assessed 

mav be assessed 

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

substantial destruction of property. LEGAL- Up to - Up to I 00,000 per 

100,000 per offense category 

offense category may be assessed 

may be assessed 

C-13 
10/01/07 2150.38 

9. Definitions: Note that these definitions are only for the purpose of applying the sanction 

guidance in this appendix. 

a. Air Carrier and Other Aircraft Operator Groups (1, II, Ill, IV)- Air carriers and 

other aircraft operators are divided into two categories for purposes of determining an 

appropriate sanction. These categories track the air carrier groups established in Appendix B 

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

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

125 Operators, and part 91 Operators. 

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

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

included in Group I for hazmat sanction guidance purposes. 

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

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

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

sanction guidance purposes. 

(3) Group III is comprised of air carriers and other aircraft operators that do not meet the 

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

operators ofthe same size are included in Group III for hazmat sanction guidance purposes. 

( 4) Group IV is comprised of all other air carriers and commercial operators not meeting 

the criteria for Groups I, II, or Ill. Other aircraft operators of the same size are included in 

Group IV for hazmat sanction guidance purposes. 

b. Business Entity. A business, corporation, partnership, Sub-S Corporation, sole 

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

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

category. It includes a non-profit organization and all other entities defined under the HMR's 

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

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

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

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

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

sale or transportation of the hazmat is infrequent or limited. This category includes 

manufacturer or distributor ofhazmat and a freight forwarder. 

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

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

transportation on a regular basis, as described above. For example, a manufacturer of a nonhazmat product that uses hazmat in the manufacturing process could fall into this category. It 

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

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

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

C-14 
10/01/07 2150.38 

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

transportation and uses it in its business; thus, it is clearly on notice of the hazardous nature of 

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

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

least one of the following communicative indicia---markings, labels, and/or shipping papers that 

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

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

category. For purposes of this definition, a shipping paper is any document to which handlers 

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

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

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

shipment that would not meet this definition is one where the offeror states that the shipment 

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

of transportation. 

f. Hazmat- A hazardous material, as defined in 49 C.F .R. § 171.8, includes and is 

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

Organization (ICAO) Technical Instructions. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

shipping papers, into an overpack marked as printed material, has committed an intentional or 

deliberate violation. 

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

it is an undeclared shipment. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

172.101 Table. 

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

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

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

C-15 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

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

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

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

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

n. Undeclared Shipment Within Hazmat Quantity Limitations. 

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

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

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

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

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

transportation on passenger aircraft, as established in the 49 C.F .R. § 172.10 I Table. 

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

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

transportation on cargo aircraft, as established in the 49 C.F .R. § 172.10 I Table. 

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

Exceeds Quantity Limits for .. Aircraft, or Undeclared Shipment Hazmat For bidden 

on .. Aircraft, see above. 

C-16 
10/01/07 

CATEGORY "A" 

{Maximum Weight} 

RISK CATEGORIES 

(Figure C-2) 

2150.3B 

Category "A" materials are materials that when released in the confines of an aircraft can potentially have a catastrophic 

effect on an aircraft's ability to continue safe flight, resulting in a crash or emergency landing causing injury or death to 

passengers and flightcrew, as well as persons on the ground. 

Class 1 

Class 2 

Class 3 

Class 4 

Explosives: Division 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 

Compressed Gases All2.1, 2.2 with Subsidiary Risk 5.1 and All2.3 PIH Zones A-D 

Flammable Liquids PG I, II, and (PI H) 

Division 4.1 Flammable Solids PG I, & (Matches) 

Division 4.2 Spontaneously Combustible Materials PG I (Pyrophoric) 

Division 4.3 Dangerous When Wet PG I 

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

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

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

Class 7 Cargo Aircraft Only Quantities on Passenger Aircraft 

Class 8 Corrosive Material Liquid PG I and (PIH) 

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

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

CATEGORY "8" 

{Moderate Weight} 

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

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

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

Class 1 

Class 3 

Class 4 

Class 5 

Class 6 

Class 7 

Class 8 

Division 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, All Compatibility Groups 

PG Ill Flammable Liquids 

Division 4.1 Flammable Solids PG II, Ill 

Division 4.2 Spontaneously Combustible Materials PG II, Ill 

Division 4.3 Dangerous When Wet PG II, Ill 

Division 5.1 Oxidizing Liquids or Solids PG Ill 

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

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

Division 6.2 Infectious Substances 

Radioactive Materials, yellow label II, white Iabeii 

Liquids PG II, Ill Solids PG I, II, Ill 

Category "C" 

{Minimum Weight} 

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

Class 2 

Class 6 

Class 7 

Class 9 

2.2 Nonflammable Gas 

Division 6.1 Toxic/Poisonous Materials PG Ill 

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

Miscellaneous Dangerous Goods {ORM-D and Consumer Commodity} 

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

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

established regulations has posed a risk to aviation safety. 

C-17 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~~-» ~ t 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRA~T~I~O=N~--~~~--~ 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS T 1 D>"f·;vrpd 

In the Matter of: 

Martinaire Aviation, LLC 

Respondent 

JUDGE GOODWIN 

WASHINGTON, DC .u.~·,_~~' ~ 

JUtl 1 8 RECD J 

FAA DOCKET cro. FAA-2013-0040 J 

L---,.----- . ' ' 

FAA Case No 2011sid't:lf~,t~~~;-"n 

(Civil Pena -~:t ~~~J.on) 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0040 

AGENCY'S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENT'S FIRST REQUEST FOR 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

Pursuant to the provisions of 14 CFR § 13.220(d), Subpart GRules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, Judge Richard C. 

Goodwin's Procedural Order, dated February 5, 2013, Judge 

Richard C. Goodwin's Order Granting Joint Motion, dated February 

26, 2013 and Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the agency hereby responds to Respondent's request to produce as 

follows: 

Request to Produce 1.1.: Produce Complainant's case file bearing 

FAA Docket No. FAA-2013-0040, FAA Case No. 2011SW700189 in its 

entirety, including, but not limited to, items of proof, 

exhibits, correspondence, memoranda, and all other documents 

contained therein. 

Response to 1.1.: The releasable portions of the Enforcement 

Investigative Report were produced in Complainant's Motion for 

Protective Order dated, April 4, 2013, marked as Exhibit D. The 

cover page of Exhibit D is attached. 

Request to Produce 1.2.: Produce all documents pertaining to the 

allegations set forth in the Complaint in this matter. 

Response to 1.2: All documents pertaining to the allegations 

set forth in the Complaint were produced in Complainant's Motion 

for Protective Order dated, April 4, 2013, marked as Exhibit D. 

The cover page of Exhibit D is attached. 
Request to Produce 1.3.: Produce all documents which 

Complainant intends to utilize as exhibits at the hearing in 

this matter. 

Response to 1.3: The exhibits complainant intends to utilize at 

the hearing include the releasable portions of the Enforcement 

Investigative Report which were produced in Complainant's Motion 

for Protective Order dated, April 4, 2013, marked as Exhibit D. 

Complainant objects to all other documents made by this request 

because these documents are excluded by the Protective Order 

issued by Judge Goodwin on May 1, 2013. 

Request to Produce 1.4.: Produce all statements and documents 

pertaining to statements made to Complainant by MARTINAIRE 

concerning the matters alleged in the Complaint. 

Response to 1.4: All statements and documents pertaining to 

statements made to Complainant by MARTINAIRE are contained in 

the releasable portions of the Enforcement Investigative Report 

which were produced in Complainant's Motion for Protective Order 

dated, April 4, 2013, marked as Exhibit D. The cover page of 

Exhibit D is attached. 

Request to Produce 1.5. Produce all statements and documents 

pertaining to statements made to Complainant by any employees or 

former employees of MARTINAIRE concerning the matters alleged in 

the Complaint. 

Response to 1.5: All statements and documents pertaining to 

statements made to Complainant by any employees or former 

employees of MARTINAIRE concerning the matters alleged in the 

Complaint are contained the releasable portions of the 

Enforcement Investigative Report which were produced in 

Complainant's Motion for Protective Order dated, April 4, 2013, 

marked as Exhibit D. The cover page of Exhibit D is attached. 

Request to Produce 1.6.: Produce all statements and documents 

pertaining to statements made to Complainant by any other 

person, firm, or corporation, concerning the matters alleged in 

Complaint. 

Response to 1.6: All statements and documents pertaining to 

statements made to Complainant by any other person, firm, or 

corporation, concerning the matters alleged in Complaint are 

contained in the releasable portions of the Enforcement 

Investigative Report which were produced in Complainant's Motion 

for Protective Order dated, April 4, 2013, marked as Exhibit D. 

2 
Complainant objects to all other documents made by this request 

because these documents are excluded by the Protective Order 

issued by Judge Goodwin on May 1, 2013. Complainant also 

objects on the grounds that this material includes work product 

because it was created in anticipation of litigation. 

Request to Produce 1.7.: Produce all resumes, curriculum vitae 

and any and all written qualifications of all persons whom 

Complainant expects to utilize as expert witnesses at the 

hearing in this matter. 

Response to 1.7: To date Complainant does not anticipate 

utilizing any expert witnesses. If this situation changes 

before trial, Complainant will provide the names of any expert 

witnesses it intends to utilize. 

Request to Produce 1.8.: Produce all documents pertaining to 

facts and opinions held by Complainant's experts acquired or 

developed in anticipation of litigation or for the hearing in 

this matter. 

Response to 1.8: 

expert witnesses. 

To date Complainant has not utilized any 

Request to Produce 1.9.: Produce all documents reviewed by 

Complainant's experts in connection with the anticipated 

litigation or hearing in this matter. 

Response to 1. 9 : 

expert witnesses. 

To date Complainant has not utilized any 

Request to Produce 1.10.: Produce all documents generated by 

Complainant's experts in connection with the anticipated 

litigation or hearing in this matter. 

Response to 1.10: 

expert witnesses. 

To date Complainant has not utilized any 

Request to Produce 1.11.: Produce all documents evidencing 

and/or pertaining to Complainant's computation of the proposed 

civil penalty in accordance with the Matrix set forth in FAA 

Order 2150.38, FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program, Appendix 

C, Sanction Guidance Hazardous Materials Enforcement, Figure C1. 

Response to 1.11: 

requested in this 

Complainant released the 

request to produce in the 

3 

information 

releasable portions 
of the Enforcement Investigative Report which was produced in 

Complainant's Motion for Protective Order dated, April 4, 2013, 

marked as Exhibit D. Complainant objects to all other documents 

made by this request because these documents are excluded by the 

Protective Order issued by Judge Goodwin on May 1, 2013. 

Request to Produce 1.12.: Produce all Orders Assessing Civil 

Penalty for the following HAZMAT cases: 2012SW700081; 

2011SW700155; 2011SW700182; 2011SW700093; 2010SW700184; and 

2010SW700147. 

Response to 1.12: Attached are the Order Assessing Civil 

Penalties. 

Request to Produce 1.13.: Produce all Orders Assessing Civil 

Penalty issued by the Complainant's Southwest Region relating to 

alleged violations of 49 CFR section 175.33(a) (1) by any person, 

firm, corporation or other entity within the preceding ten 

years. 

Response to 1.13: See attached documents. 

Request to Produce 1.14.: Produce all Orders Assessing Civil 

Penalty issued by the Complainant's Southwest Region relating to 

alleged violations of 49 CFR section 175.33(a) (1) (i) by any 

person, firm, corporation or other entity within the preceding 

ten years. 

Response to 1.14: See attached documents provided in response 

to 1.13. 

Request to Produce 1.15.: Produce all Orders Assessing Civil 

Penalty issued by the Complainant's Southwest Region relating to 

alleged violations of 49 CFR section 175.33(a) (7) by any person, 

firm, corporation or other entity within the preceding ten 

years. 

Response to 1.15: See attached documents provided in response 

to 1. 13. 

Request to Produce 1.16.: Produce all documents evidencing 

mitigating actions taken by Respondent as a result of the FAA's 

July 8, 2011 HAZMAT inspection at MARTINAIRE'S facilities at DFW 

Airport and its headquarters in Addison, Texas. 

4 
Response to 1.16: All documents evidencing mitigating actions 

taken by Respondent as a result of the FAA's July 8, 2011 HAZMAT 

inspection at MARTINAIRE'S facilities at DFW Airport and its 

headquarters in Addison, Texas are contained in the releasable 

portions of the Enforcement Investigative Report which were 

produced in Complainant's Motion for Protective Order dated, 

April 4, 2013, marked as Exhibit D. Complainant objects to this 

request because these documents are excluded by the Protective 

Order issued by Judge Goodwin on May 1, 2013. 

Request to Produce 1.17.: Produce all documents supporting 

Complainant's contention that Notifications of Pilot-in-Cormna_n_d 

(NOPC) are intended to be utilized to assist first responders in 

the event of an aircraft mishap. 

Response to 1.17: 49 CFR 175.33(c) (4) is attached. 

Respectfully submitted this 17m day of June 2013. 

ERIC E. ANDERSON 

Regional Counsel 

Southw 

5 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Re: Martinaire Aviation, LLC, FAA Case No. 2011SW700189 

I further certify that on this date, I have sent via 

Federal Express a true copy of the Agency's Responses to 

Respondent's First Request for Production of Documents, Agency's 

Responses to Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories, and 

Agency's Responses to Respondent's First Set of Request to Admit 

addressed as follows: 

Mr. Michael L. Dworkin and Associates 

Law Offices 

465 California Street, Suite 210 

San Francisco, California 94104-1808 

(Federal Express) 

Telephone: (415) 421-2500 

Facsimile: (415) 421-2560 

June 17, 2013 

6 
RESPONSE TO 1.12 
U.S. Deportment 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

July 24, 2012 

Southwest Region 

Arkansas, Louisiana. 

New Mexico, Oklahoma 

Texas 

Via Federal Express 

Mr. Gerald F. Murphy, Esq. 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Office of Regional Counsel, ASW-7 

2601 Meacham Blvd 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

(817) 222-5099 

(817) 222-594515092 FAX 

Re: FAA Case No. 2012SW700081 (Hazardous Material) 

ORDER ASSESSING CIVIL PENALTY 

On June 18, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration 

advised Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc., ("Atlantic") 

through a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that it proposed 

to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $88,000.00. 

In order to avoid further litigation, the parties held 

an informal conference on July 24, 2012. The parties agreed 

to settle this case for $77,000.00 and Atlantic has agreed to 

waive any further rights of appeal. This order constitutes a 

finding by the Federal Aviation Administration of the facts 

and regulatory violations contained herein. It is determined 

that: 

1. On or about February 16, 2012, Atlantic Southeast 

Airlines, Inc., ("Atlantic") offered FedEx Corporation a 

package containing hazardous material for transportation by 

air from Baton Rouge, Louisiana to Lenexa, Kansas. 

2. The shipment was offered via FedEx air bill number 

456321723798. 

3. On November 16, 2011, Atlantic offered FedEx Corporation 

a package containing hazardous material for transportation by 

air from Baton Rouge, Louisiana to Lenexa, Kansas. 

4. The shipment was offered via FedEx air bill number 

456321718994. 
5. On October 25, 2011, Atlantic offered FedEx Corporation a 

package containing hazardous material for transportation by 

air from Baton Rouge, Louisiana to Lenexa, Kansas. 

6. The shipment was offered via FedEx air bill number 

45632171704. 

7. On October 24, 2011, Atlantic offered FedEx Corporation a 

package containing hazardous material for transportation by 

air from Baton Rouge, Louisiana to Lenexa, Kansas. 

8. The shipment was offered via FedEx air bill number 

456321717601. 

9. Ms. Ronda Sparrow (Ntirugelegwa) prepared the shipper's 

declaration for dangerous goods on all the shipments 

described above. 

10. Each shipment consisted of an oxygen generator. 

11. The oxygen generators were packaged in 4G fiberboard 

boxes. 

12. The proper shipping name for an oxygen generator is 

Oxygen Generator, Chemical, 5.1, UN3356, PGII. 

13. Oxygen Generator, Chemical, 5.1, UN3356, PGII is 

classified as a hazardous material under the Department of 

Transportation Hazardous Material Regulations. 

14. On the dates referred to above, Atlantic offered an 

oxygen generator in packaging that failed to meet The Flame 

Penetration Resistance Test specified in Appendix E to part 

178. 

15. On the dates referred to above, Atlantic offered an 

oxygen generator in packaging that failed to meet The Thermal 

Resistance Test specified in Appendix D to part 178. 

16. On October 25, 2012, Atlantic reoffered a shipment 

containing an oxygen generator that was rejected by FedEx on 

October 24, 2012. 

17. When Atlantic reoffered the package on October 25, 2012, 

it attempted to conceal language on a box which stated "this 

package is not authorized for transportation aboard 

aircraft". 

2 
18. By reason of the above, Atlantic violated the following 

Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations) : 

a. Section l71.2(e) (49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e)), in that it 

offered hazardous material for transportation by air in 

commerce when the material was not properly classed, 

described, packaged, marked, labeled, and in a condition for 

shipment as required or authorized by applicable requirements 

of the hazardous material regulations. 

b. Section 173.168 (d) (1) (i) (ii) (49 C. F.R. § 

173.168. (d) (1) (i) (ii) in that it offered hazardous material 

for transportation in-air-commerce in packaging that failed 

to conform to the requirements of either: 

(i) Part 178, subparts Land M, of this subchapter at the 

Packing Group I or II performance level; or 

(ii) The performance criteria in Air Transport Association 

(ATA) Specification No. 300 for a Category I Shipping 

Container. 

c. Section 173.168(d) (2) (i) (49 C.P.R. § 173.168. (d) (2) (i)) 

in that it offered hazardous material for transportation in 

air commerce in packaging that failed to meet The Flame 

Penetration Resistance Test specified in Appendix E to part 

178. 

d. Section 173.168(d) (2) (ii) (49 C.P.R. § 

173.168. (d) (2) (ii)) in that it offered hazardous material for 

transportation in air commerce in packaging that failed to 

meet The Thermal Resistance Test specified in Appendix D to 

part 178. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 

5123(a), that Atlantic be and is hereby, assessed a civil 

penalty of $77,000.00. 

Atlantic is hereby ordered to pay, immediately, the 

assessed amount by mailing or delivering a certified check, 

money order, or company check in the amount of $77,000.00 

payable to the "Federal Aviation Administration" addressed 

to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

DOT/FAA MMAC AMZ-350 

PO BOX 25770 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125-5082 

ATTN: Sonny Rogers 

3 
As an alternative method of payment, civil penalties may be 

paid with a credit card at the following website: 

http://www.pay.gov 

The amount of civil penalty assessed in this order 

constitutes a debt owed to the United States. Atlantic has 

now exhausted its right to seek review of the validity or 

amount of this debt. If this debt is not paid in full within 

30 days of Atlantic's receipt of this letter, the debt is 

delinquent. 

For delinquent debts, federal regulation (49 C.F.R. § 

89.23) requires us to charge interest, from the date of this 

Order, at a fixed annual rate of 1.0%, along with an 

administrative charge of $12 per month, representing our 

costs of administrative collection. Furthermore, if the full 

amount assessed is not paid in full within 120 days of 

Atlantic's receipt of this letter, we are required to assess 

an additional penalty at an annual rate of 2.00%, accruing 

from the date of delinquency. 

Delinquent debts may be reported to consumer reporting 

agencies or commercial credit bureaus, which could adversely 

affect Atlantic's credit rating. Nonpayment of this debt may 

ultimately result in a referral to a collection agency, or 

the United States Department of Justice for enforced 

collection. 

Upon our receipt of Atlantic's payment in the amount of 

$77,000.00 Atlantic may consider this matter closed. 

ERIC E. ANDERSON 

Acting Regional Counsel 

' SouthwesJ Region . 

··:~> i~'ZlL !tAc/£cc/) 

·/James 

./ (817) 

/"/" (817) 

Archier, Attorney 

222-5074 (Phone) 

222-5945/5092 (Fax) 

· .. / cc: FAA/MMAC Accounts Receivable 

4 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that this order has been sent on July 24, 2012 by 

Federal Express to: 

Mr. Gerald F. Murphy, Esq. 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

// 7 

By: -.~ ie/!.L.r' a>tc_/f:_t~5' Jjmes Archier 

oFederal Aviation Administration 

// Office of the Regional Counsel 

//. Southwest Region 

./...... 2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Fort Worth, Texas 76137 

(817) 222-5074 

5 

Dated: July 24, 2012 
u.s Dsr~ .. _Jif~n:::n: 

of I ror:s~.; ·=:·rt otcm 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

202_2 

Via Federal Express 

SouUJ·.,vest Reg;on 

Arkansas, Louisiana, 

t,J21-v r'vkxico. Oklahoma 

Texas 

Mr. Jeffrev P. llovota 

At torne:.,' 

General Counsel Departrnent 

South>:lesr 1\irlines 

?_Q_ Box 36611, HDQ-4GC 

2702 Love ~ield Drive 

Dallas, Texas 75235-1611 

Office of Regiona! Counsel, P..SW-7 

2601 Meacham Blvd. 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

(817) 222-5099 

(817) 222-59"5/5092 FA>: 

'?2: Southwest Airlines Company, FAA Case No. 2011SW700155 

ORDER ASSESSING CIVIL PENALTY 

Oc February ]7, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administ~ation 

a_.j_vised Sc:uth\-Iest Airlines t-hrough an /'.,_mended Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty thac it proposed to assess a civil penalty in the 

amount of $42,500. 

In crder to avoid further litigation, the parties agreed to 

sectle t}Iis case for $32,000 and Southwes~ Airlines has agreed 

~o \~aive any further rights of appeal. This orde~ constitGtes a 

finding by the Federal .l',viatior. Administration of the facts and 

regulatory violations contained herein. It is determined that: 

1. On or about May 25, 2011, Southwest Airlines accepted 

hazardous material from a ticketed passenger for air 

transportation ir1 commerce from Orlando, Florida to Hc.uston, 

Tex~s on Southwest Airlines flight 1104. 

L. The shipment consisted of a battery powered wheel cl1air. 

7he battery powered wheel chair operated with two attached 

spillable batteries. 

3. The battery-powered wheel chair was transported on its side. 

·±. ~he lnprope~ lcadi~q ca~sEd the release of batter~' fluid i~ 
6. Eat~e~y-Pa~ered Vetticle, hazar6 c~ass 9, UN3171 is 

classi_fied as a h~zardo~s n~ate~ial under the Department 

Trar·:srjorta~ion Hazardo~s Material Regul2tio~s (49 C.F.R. 

=_7L.lC,l). 

cf 

~t ~11 relevant times, Southwest Airlines failed to condu~t 

a ~sual ir1spection including removal of tte batteries of the 

batcery-powered wheel chair. 

S. At all relevant times, Southwest 

the batteries of the battery-powered 

batteries in an upward position. 

Airlines failed to store 

wheel chair with spillab:e 

9. By reason of the ~bove, Southwest Airlines violated the 

following Departmer1t of Transportation Hazardous Materials 

Requla~i0ns (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations): 

a. Section 171.2 (f) (49 C.F.R. § 171.2 (f)), i.n that Southv1est 

Airlines accepted hazardous material for transportation in air 

commerce <.-Jithout exercising reasonable care by performing an 

inspection of the hazardous material. 

b. Sectioc 175.10(a) (16) (49 C.F.R. § 175.10. (a) (16)), in that 

Southwest Airlines accepted hazardous material for 

transportation in air commerce ~·Ji thou t conducting a visual 

~nspection including removing the batteries of a wheelchair. 

c. Section 175.88(b) (49 C.E'.R. § 175.83.(b))), in that 

Southwest Airlines accepted hazardous material for 

transportation in air commerce of a package without orientation 

markings containing liquid hazardous materials without storing 

and loading the top closures in an upward position. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 49 D.S.C. § 

5123(a), that Southwest Airlines be and is hereby, assessed a 

civil penalty of $32,000.00. 

South~;vest ~-irlines is hereby ordered to pay, imrr.ediately, 

the assessed amount by mailing or delivering a certified check, 

money order, or company check in the amount of $32,000.00 

payable to the ''Federal Aviation Administration'' addressed to: 

2 
Federal Aviation Administration 

DOT/FAA MMAC AMZ-350 

PO BOX 25770 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125-5082 

ATTN: Sonny Rogers 

As an ~lternative method of paymertt, civil pen<ies may be pai6 

~ith a credit card a~ the fol]_owi~g website: http://ww~1.pay.gov 

The 3~ount of civil penalty assessed in this order cons~itutes a 

debt owed tc ~he United Staces. Southwest Airlines has now 

ezhausted its ric;rht to seek review of the validity or amount of 

this debt. If this debt is not paid in full within 30 days or 

SGJthwest Airlines' receipr of this letter, the debt is 

delinquent. 

For delinquent debts, federal regulation (49 C.F.R. § 

89.23) requires us to charge interest, from the date of this 

Order, at a fixed annual rate of 1.0%, along with an 

administrative charge of $12 per month, representing our costs 

of administrative collection. Furthermore, if the full amount 

assessed is not paid in full within 120 days of Southwest 

Airlines' receipt of this letter, we are required to assess an 

addirional penalty at an annual rate of 2.00%, accruing from the 

dare of delinquency. 

Delinquent debts may be reported to consumer reporting 

agencies or cocnmercial credit bureaus, 1-1hich could adversely 

affect Southwest Airlines' credit rating. Nonpayment of this 

debt may ulti~ately result in a referral to a collection agency, 

or the United States Department of Justice for enforced 

collection. 

3 
E",=c E:, PJ.:DC:E20l' 

Acting Regiona~ Counsel 

S;:_,uth 1:;est Eegion 

(/ 

~cc: FAA/MMAC Accounts Receivable 

4 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

r::'.c::rtify ~ha·: Lhis order r:as be-2n sect o~ J·,Jne =-_g, 2012 by 

Federal Exprsss ro: 

~r. Jef~~ey P. l1ovct~ 

1\ttorne:-:/ 

Ge~teral Counsel Department 

Southwest Airlines 

?.0. Box 36611, HDQ-4GC 

2702 Love Field Drive 

Dallas, Texas- 75235-16±1 

ederal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

So·.JthvJest Regier. 

2601 Meacham Blvd., 

?ort Worth, Texas 76l93-0007 

(817) 222-5074 

Dated: June 19, 2012 

5 
Federal Aviation 

Administration 

JaCU2Ij/ 24, 2012 

Via Federal Express 

SouU1':18Sl Region 

Arkar1sas, Louisi3na, 

New klexico, Oklahoma 

Texas 

~r. Michael R. Atadika 

Atadika & A~adika 

Altorneys ar1d Counselors at Law 

Linsoln Sui2_ding 

CCI East 42'" Street 

New York, New York 10165 

Office of Regional Counsel, ~~SW-7 

2601 f\..·1eacharn Bhrd 

Fort \.1\lorth, TX 76137 

(817) 222-5099 

(817) 222-5945/5092 FAX 

Fe: Ethiopian Airlines, FAA Case No. 2011SW700182 

ORDER ASSESSING CIVIL PENALTY 

On Nove•nber 10, 2011, the Federal Aviation F,dministration 

advised Etl1iopian Airlines through a Notice of Proposed Civil 

?enalty that ic proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount 

of $195,000. On January 24, 2012, the Federal Aviation 

Administration advised Ethiopian Airlines through a Final Notice 

cf ~reposed Civil Penalty that it proposed to assess a civil 

penalty in the amount of $195,000. 

In order avoid further litigation, the parties have agreed 

to settle this case for $160,000 and Ethiopian Airlines has 

agreed to waive any further rights of appeal. This order 

constitutes a finding by the Federal Aviation Administration of 

the facts and regulatory violations contained herein. It is 

jetermined that: 

l. On or about June 14, 2011, Ethiopian Airlines knowingly 

offered hazardous material to DHL Express for transportation by 

air from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to Dallas, Texas. 

.:__.. The 

I:Jith an 

shipment consisted of a passenger 

undeclared oxygen generator. 

service unit assembly 

3. The passenger service unit assembly with an undeclared 

oxygen generator was contained inside of one wooden box with 

me-cal framing. 
·i. ;.;'J i_t]enti.fi cc_tion rc:.~rY:iL,JS ·~i2:' labsls ·,1ers C.L: the e:zterior of 

Oxyqen Ge~:eratcr, Cheoical is classified as 

rt~3~er~al under the Department of Transportation 

H3Ucr"-al Regulations (49 C.F.R. § 172.101). 

a ha.zardous 

Hazardous 

o. Tt0 pror,er shipping name for an unspent oxygen generator is 

''Oxygen generator, chemical''. It ~s in DOT Hazard Division 5.1. 

It r~as an identification nurnber of UN3356, and is in packing 

group II. Its prope:c labels are OXIDIZER and CARGO AIRCRAFT 

ONLY. 

7. Ethiopia Airlines sent the shipment from Addis Ababa; 

Ethiopia to Dallas, Texas via DHL Express air waybill number 

1304455353. 

8. The consignee was Boeing Dallas Service Center, 2750 Regent 

Blvd., DFW Airport, Texas 75261. 

9. At aJ] times mentioned herein, the shipment was not 

accompanied by hazardous materials shipping papers. 

JO. At all times mentioned herein, the shipment was not packaged 

in specification packaging, did not contain markings or labels 

to identify the contents or handling precautions. Further, 

there was no evidence that the packaging had been approved for 

transporting an oxygen generator. 

ll. At all times mentioned herein, the shipment was not properly 

marked 'Jit:h the appropriate approval authorization number on the 

outside of the package. 

12. The Ethiopian Airline's HAZKl\T employee who offered the 

shipment for transportation by air was not provided with the 

training required by subpart H of Part 172 of the hazardous 

ma;:erial regulations. 

13. At all ;:imes mentioned herein, the shipment was not properly 

classed, described, packaged, marked, labeled, and in a 

condition for shipment as required or authorized by applicable 

requirements of the hazardous material regulations or an 

e:zen·,ption or special permit, approval, or registration issued 

under the hazardo11S mate~ial regulations. 

14. At all times mentioned herein, Ethiopian Airlines offered an 

oxygen generator for shiprr.ent b~/ air and failed to: (1) ensure 

2 
with t~e conditions of the 

~pprov~l; (2) ~~ir.t~in a co9y of tl1e apprcval at each facilit~· 

where the chc~ical ~~yge~ generator ~s packaged; and (3) mark 

._r-, 0 EcpprO'~faJ number on t~1e C'~lt_side of the package. 

15. E:thiopian Air~i~es offe~ed hazardous material for shipment 

by air and fai~ed to i~clude in t~c shipping papers an emergency 

response telephone rumbe~ or the ide~tj_ty of the person (by name 

c;r contract nur:~.ber) ~;"Tho has a cor:tractual agreement HitJ1 the 

service provider, as prescribed in subpart G of Part 172. 

16. Ethiopian Airlines offered the above-described shipment of 

hazardous material for transportation by air Hhen the shipping 

papers did not include: 

(a) the identification number prescribed for the material; 

(b) the proper shipping name prescribed for the material; 

(c) the hazard class or division number prescribed for the 

material; 

(d) the packing group, in Roman numerals, prescribed for 

the material; 

and; 

(e) the total net mass per package or gross mass per 

package; 

(f) total quantity of hazardous material; 

(g) the number and type of packages comprising 

the shipment of hazardous materials; 

17. Ethiopian Airlines offered hazardous material for 

transportation by air and failed to provide a statement on the 

shipping paper that the shipment was within the limitations 

prescribed for either passenger and cargo aircraft or cargo 

aircra£~ only. 

l6. Ethiopian Airlines offered hazardous material for 

transportation by air and failed to certify by printed 

sertification, in the man~er allowed by 49 C.F.R. §§ 

172.204(a) (1) or 172.204(a) (2) or§ l72.204(c) (1) that the 

~a~erial was offered for transportation in accordance with the 

hazardous material regulations. 

3 
t_ 2:::"3-nsporta t:_j_ or: alr and failed to provi6e two copies of the 

certificatioG showing ti1~t the materials were in accordance with 

the certiLcaticc sec forth i't § 172.204 (a) (1), (2) or § 

1)2. 204 (c) (1) o' the hac.a:cdous material regulations. 

20. E~!"-tiopian T:cirlines offered hazardous material for 

transportation by air and failed to add to the certification 

r2q~irEd ln this sectio~ t~e following statement: ''I declare 

tt3t all of the applicable air transport requirements have been 

met." 

21. Ethiopian Airl.ines offered hazardous material for 

transportation by air and failed to obtain the certifications 

required by (a) or (c) of this section which require legibly 

signed certification by a principal, officer, partner, or 

ernplOj'ee of the shipper or his agent. 

22. Ethiopi2n Airlines offered hazardous material for 

transportation by air failed to mark the package with the proper 

shipping name and identification number (preceded by "UN", "NA" 

or ''ID," as appropriate) for the material as shown in the§ 

172.101 Table. 

23. Ethiopian Airlines offered hazardous material for shipment 

by air and failed to label the package or containment device 

with the label specified in Section 172.101 Table and Subpart E 

of the hazardous material regulations. 

24. Ethiopian Airlines offered hazardous material for shipment 

by air which was authorized on cargo aircraft only failed to 

label the package with a CAEGO IUECEAFT ONLY label specified in 

section 172.488 of subpart E (Labeling) of the HME. 

25. Ethiopian Airlines offered hazardous material for shipment 

by air and failed to make emergency response information 

immediately available for use at all times the hazardous 

material was prese~t. 

Lb. Ethiopian Airlines offered hazardous material for shipment 

by air offered hazardous material for transportation by air and 

failed to make emergency response information, including 

emergency response telephone number, required by this subpart 

immediately available to any person who, as a representative of 

a Federal, State, or local government agency, responds to an 

4 
~r1c~d~n~ ~vaJ~i~g a ~~=~rdc~3 b~~er~a~, or is conductinq an 

inves~iqation whic~ ir~v~lves 6 hazardous n1aterial. 

27. ht all tises ~c~L~cned tte~ein, Ethiopian Airlines offered 

the above-described shipment of hazardous materials fo~ 

transportation by air, without providing an emergency response 

i~formation confo~~ing to Subpart G, 24-hour emergency telephone 

nurrtber and er:te::=-qerlcy response inforrr.a.tion complying ~·Jith section 

172. 61J2 (a) (1)- ("!). 

28. Ethiopian Airlines offered hazardous material for 

rransportarion by air and failed to provide emergency response 

infcrmati_on i;;,,-nediatc::l~y' available for use avJay from the package 

containing the hazardous material. 

29. Ethiopian Airlines offered hazardous material for 

transportation by air when emerger1cy response information was 

not presented on a shipping paper, in a document other than the 

shipping paper, related to the information on a shipping paper, 

a written notification to pilot in command, or a dangerous cargo 

manjfest, in a separate document. 

30. Ethiopian Airlines failed to provide an emergency response 

telephone number (including area code) for use in the event of 

an emergency involving hazardous material that is monitored at 

all times that the material is in transportation, including 

storage incidental ro transportation. 

31. Ethiopian Airlines offered hazardous material for 

transportation by air and failed to provide an emergency 

response telephone number of a person knowledgeable of the 

hazardous material being shipped and who has comprehensive 

emergency response and incident mitigation information for that 

material, or has immediate access to a person possessing such 

knowledge and information. 

32. Ethiopian Airlines offered hazardous material for 

transportation by air and failed to provide an emergency 

response telephone nur,.ber, for use in the event of an emergency 

involving the hazardous material, and entered on a shipping 

paper immediately following the description of the hazardous 

material required by subpart C of this part, or entered once on 

the shipping paper .in a clearly visible location. 

33. Ethiopian Airlines offered hazardous material for 

transprntation by air and failed to train each HAZt'!AT employee. 

5 
~4. E~~JOplan Airlir1es o~~ered t1azardous material for 

tc:~--~spor~ation l=<l a.ir snd faiJ sd to class .3.nd describe the 

hazardous material ~.n acccrdar1,:2 with parts 172 and 173 of 

Sebpart B, ?reparation r~ Eazardous Materials for 

Transportatiort. 

~_:::,. B~· r_-ec:=:::::Jr: af r;-L2 foreqoinq fc.cts anci circumstance:::, 

Et~iopian_Airlines violated the following sections of the 

Depa~tment 8f Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 

C.F.R. ~ 171 et.seq. 

a. Section 171.2(e) (49 C.F.R. § 17l.2(e)), in that it 

offered hazardous material for transportation in commerce when 

the rnaterial was nor properly classed, described, packaged, 

marked, labeled, and in a condition for shipment as required or 

authorized by applicable requirements of the hazardous material 

~egula~ions or an exernption or special permit, approval, or 

registration issued under the hazardous material regulations. 

b. Section 172.102(c) (1), (49 C.F.R. § 172.102(c)) 

Special Provision 60, which states each person who offers a 

chemical oxygen generator for transportation after September 30, 

1997, shall: (1) ensure that it is offered in conformance with 

the conditions of the approval; (2) maintain a copy of the 

approval at each faciliry where the chemical oxygen generator is 

pacKag~:=d; and (3) mark the approval number on the outside of the 

package. 

c. Section l72.200(a), (49 C.F.R. § 172.200(a)) which 

requ1res that each person who offers a hazardous material for 

transportation shall describe the hazardous material on shipping 

papers in the manner required by Subpart C of Part 172 of the 

HMR (Shipping Papers). 

d. 

requires 

Section 172.20l(d), 

that each person who 

(49 C.F.R. § 172.201(d)) which 

offers hazardous material for 

transportation must include in shipping papers an emergency 

response telephone number and if utilizing an emergency response 

informat.ion telephone number service provider, identify the 

person (by name or contract number) who has a contractual 

agreement with the service provider, as prescribed in subpart G 

of Part 172. 

e. Section 172.202(2) (1.), ((49 C.F.R. § 172.202(a) (1)) in 

that it offered hazardous material for transportation in air 

commerce ~'"'hen the required hazardous material description on the 

shipping papers did not include the identification number 

6 
p:::=-esc::ci.t)ed for ~~lc:::: rr.a-cerl_~- cs ::::.hC)';-.Tn in '=:oluEm 4 of the § 

l72 .l:Jl Tacle. 

Secc:c_on 172.202(a) (2), (49 C.F.P. § 172.202(a) (2)) ln 

that l~ offered hazardous material for transportation in air 

com-'uerce \·..rhe:; -the required hazardous material description on the 

shi~ping papers did not include the proper shipping ~arne 

prescribed for the rnater~al in Column 2 of the § 172.101 Table. 

r;. Section 172.202(a) (3), (49 C.F.P. § 172.202(a) (3)) in 

that it offered hazardous material for transportation in air 

comroerce when the required shipping papers did not include the 

hazard class or division number prescribed for the material, as 

shown in Column (3) in ~the Eazardous Haterials Table, referenced 

in section 172.101. 

h. Section 172.202(a) (4) (49 C.F.P. § l72.202(a) (4)) in 

that it offered hazardous material for transportation in air 

commerce c·:hen the required shipping papers did not include the 

Packing Group, in Roman numerals, prescribed for the material in 

Column 5 of the§ 172.101 Table. 

l. Section 172.202(a) (6) (49 C.F.R. § 172.202(a) (6)) in 

that it offered hazardous material for transportation in air 

commerce and failed to describe on the shipping papers the total 

net mass per package, unless a gross mass is indicated in 

Columns (91\) or (98) of the§ 172.101 Table in which case the 

total gross mass per package must be shown; or for class 7 

materials, the quantity of radioactive material must be shown by 

activity. 

j. Section 172.202(a) (7) (49 C.F.P. § 172.202(a) (7)) in 

that it offered hazardous material for transportation in air 

commerce and failed to describe on the shipping papers the 

number and type of packages by description of the package. 

ce. Section l72.203(f), (49 C.F.P. § l72.203(f)) cvhich 

states that a statement indicating that the shipment was within 

the li1nitations prescribed for either passenger and cargo 

aircraft or cargo aircraft only must be entered on the shipping 

papers. 

l. Section 172.204 (a) (49 C.F.P. § 172.204 (a)) in that it 

offered hazardous material for transportation by air and failed 

to certify by printed certification, in the manner allowed by 49 

C.F.? .. §§ 172.204(a) (l) or 172.204(a) (2) or§ 172.204(c) (1) that 

7 
~tle ~~terial ~·las offered ~o~ tr6~spo~talion ln accordance with 

~he hazardous r~aterial reg~lations. 

tTL. Sr::c:t.ion 172.2Ci!l(c) (2) (L~9 C.F.?'-. § 172.204(c) (2) ln 

~hat J.L offered t1azardous material ~or transportation by air 

,,.:he:r:_ it:: failed to ~o::::ovi.de "L'VJO copi_es of t[1e certific.:::.tion 

shc~ing t~at the m~~erials were ir1 accordance with the 

cecccie:ication sot forth ire 'i :L72.204(a) (1) (2) or§ l72.204(c) (U 

of the hazardous ma~erials regulations. 

n. Section 172.204(c) (3), (49 C.F.R. § l72.204(c) (3) ln 

that r~ offered hazardous material for transportation by air 

when it failed to add to tl1e certification required in this 

section the -follo'vVin-g- --s~atement: "I- declare that all of the 

applicable air transport requirements have been met." 

o. Section 172.204(d), (49 C.F.R. § 172.204(d)) in that 

it offered hazardous material for transportation by air and 

failed to obtain tl1e certifications required by (a) or (c) of 

this section which require legibly signed certification by a 

principal, officer, partner, or employee of the shipper or his 

agent. 

p. Section 172.300 (49 C.F.R. § 172.300), which requires 

that each person offering a hazardous material for 

transportation to properly mark each package, freight container, 

and cransport vehicle containing the hazardous material in the 

manner required by the hazardous material regulations. 

q. Section l72.30l(a) (49 C.F.R. § 172.301(a)) in that it 

offered a hazardous material for transportation in air commerce 

in non-bulk packaging and failed to mark the package with the 

proper shipping name and identification number (preceded by 

''UN'', ''NA'' or ''ID," as appropriate) for the material as shown ln 

~he § 172.101 Table. 

r. Seccio;-: l72.400(a) (49 C.?.R. § 172.400(a)) in that it 

offered hazardous material requiring labeling under the 

hazardous material regulations for transportation in air 

commerce and failed to label the package or containment device 

with the label specified in Section 172.101 Table and Subpart E 

of the hazardous material regulations 

s. Section 172.402(c), which states that each person who 

cf~crs for transportation or transports by aircraft a package 

containing a hazardous material which is authorized on cargo 

aircraft on'_y shall '-abel tho package with a CARGO AIRCRAFT ONLY 

8 
-~D~l sp~2ified in section 172.~88 of subuart E (Labeling) of 

'::-he EUI?c . 

. 5ccctiorc 172.600 (4J C.F.B.. § 172.600)), \·Jhich requires 

t~~t each perso2 offerirg a hazardous material for 

~ranspcrtaticn to provide ar1d ~aincain emergency response 

ir~or:naticn during transportation and at the facility where 

hazardous materials a~e loaded for transportation, stored 

incidental to transpoLtation or otherwise handled during any 

ptase of transportation. 

u. Section 172.600(c) (:)) (49 C.F.B.. § 172.600(c) (1)) ln 

that it offered hazardous material for transportation by air and 

failed to make emergency response inforli1ation immedia-te-Ly 

available for use at all times the hazardous material was 

~Jresen t. 

v. Section l72.600(c) (2)) (49 C.F.B.. § 172.600(c) (2)) in 

that it offered hazardous material for transportation by air and 

failed to make emergency response information, including 

emergency response telephone number, required by this subpart 

immediately available to any person who, as a representative of 

a Federal, State, or local government agency, responds to an 

incident involving a t1azardous material, or is conducting an 

ir!ve3tigation which involves a l1azardous material. 

w. Section 172.602(a), in that it offered hazardous 

material for transportation by air and failed to make the 

following information available: (1) the basic description and 

technical name of the hazardous material as required by 

subsections 172.202 and 172.203(k), the ICAO Technical 

Instructions, the IMDG Code, or the TOG Regulations, as 

appropriate; (2) immediate hazards to health; (3) risks of fire 

or explosion; ( 4) imrr:edia te precautions to be taken in the event 

of an accident or ii--:cident; (5) immediate methods for handling 

fires; (6) initial methods for handling spills or leaks in the 

absence of fire; and (7) preliminary first aid measures. 

x. Section l72.602(b) (2)) (49 C.F.R. § 172.602(b) (2)) in 

that it offered hazardous material for transportation by air and 

failed to provide an emergency response information irmnediately 

available for use away from the package containing the hazardous 

maC:erial. 

y. Section l72.602(b) (3) (i)) (49 C.F.R. § 172.602(b) (3) (i) 

ln that it offered hazardous material fer shipment by air when 

emergency response information was not presented on a shipping 

9 
Fap~~, i~ ~ document other than the shipping paper, related to 

~h~ inforrna~ion cr1 a shlpplng paper, a written notification to 

p~ ~-c~t .i.n ccJm~.-Tand., (Jr a clan:::rerous cargo :r:anifest, in a sepa:-ate 

:::1:=; c :J nE~ n t . 

z. ciectior; l72.6C4 (a) (l) I (49 C.F.R. § 172.604 (e) (l) I in 

tha~ it offered hazardous material for shipment by aj_r and 

failed to provide an emergency response telephone number 

(ir1cluding aree code) for use in the event of an emergency 

involving hazardous material that is monitored at all times that 

the material is in ~ransportation, including storage incidental 

to transportation. 

aa. Section l72.604(a) (2)) (49 C.F.R. § 172.604(a) (21) 1n 

that it offered hazardous material for transportation by air and 

failed to provide an emergency response telephone number of a 

person knowledgeable of the hazardous material being shipped and 

who has comprehensive emergency response and incident mitigation 

C.nformation for that material, or has immediate access to a 

person possess1ng such knowledge and information. 

bb. Section 172.604(a) (3)) (49 C.F.R. § l72.604(a) (3)) in 

that it offered hazardous material for transportation by air and 

failed to provide an emergency response telephone number, for 

use in the event of an emergency involving the hazardous 

material, and entered on a shipping paper immediately following 

the description of the hazardous material required by subpart C 

of this part, or entered once on the shipping paper in a clearly 

visible location. 

cc. Section 172.702(a)) (49 C.F.R. § 172.702(a)) in that it 

offered hazardous material for transportation by air and failed 

to trein the HAZMAT employee who offered the shipment. 

dd. Section 173.l(b) (19 C.F.E. § l73.l(b), 1-1hich 

prohibits the shipment of hazardous material by air that was not 

packed in packaging specified in Part 173. 

ee. Section l73.22(a) (1)) (49 C.F.R. § l73.22(a) (l)) in 

that it offered hazardous material for shipment by air and 

failed to class and describe the hazardous material in 

accordance with parts 172 and 173 of Subpart B, Preparation of 

Hazardous Materials for Transportation. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 

5123(e), that Ethiopian Airlines be and is hereby, assessed a 

civil penalty of $160,000.00. 

10 
i~thiopi3-n LG,i;_-lir:es is hereby or:iereci to pa:y, im_Ttediately, 

lllE assessed amount by mailing or delivering a certified check, 

~TtC)llE'f orcier, o.r co:r,IJany c_:heck in the amount of $160,000. 00 

pa~·an~e to tte ''Federal Aviation Administration'' addressed to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

DOT/FAA MMAC AMZ-350 

PO BOX 25770 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125-5082 

ATTN: Sonny Rogers 

~iS an alternarive method of payment, civil penalties may be paid 

with a credit card at the following website: http://www.pay.gov 

The amount of civil penalty assessed in this order constitutes a 

debt owed to the United States. Ethiopian Airlines has now 

exhausted its right to seek review of the validity or amount of 

this debt. If this debt is not paid in full within 30 days of 

Ethiopian Airlines' receipt of this letter, the debt is 

d~linquent. 

For delinquent debts, federal regulation (49 C.F.R. § 

89.23) requires us to charge interest, from the date of this 

Order, at a fixed annual rate of 1.0%, along with an 

administrative charge of $12 per month, representing our costs 

of administrative collection. Furthermore, if the full amount 

assessed is not paid in full within 120 days of Ethiopian 

Airlines' receipt of this letter, we are required to assess an 

additional penalty at an annual rate of 2.50%, accruing from the 

dare of delinquency. 

Delinquent debts may be reported to consumer reporting 

agencies or commercial credit bureaus, which could adversely 

affect Ethiopian Airlines' credit rating. Nonpayment of this 

debt may ultimately result in a referral to a collection agency, 

or the United States Department of Justice for enforced 

collection. 

1 1 
Up8n our recei of Ethicni~r1 AirliGes' payment in the 

;s.:--:;OlHJ-c :Jf $160,000.00 E~thic~pian L~i.r:i_ines may consider this 

:r1att:.er closed. 

D?.'J I[; s:JtTlJSLL 

Reg-=_::=;nal Cour1sel 

Sou Lh'v.Jes-t-" Region 

) /' / ' 

3'/'~· ~/ ~0,~D:l {{·t~ ~e/ ( 

/ Jant~s Archle~, Attorney 

(8,1'1) 222-5074 (Phone) 

(817) 222-5945/5092 (Fax) 

/ 

/ 

cc: FAA/MMAC Accounts Receivable 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that this order has been sent on January 24, 2012 by 

Federal Express to: 

By: 

Mr. Michael R. Atadika 

Atadika & Atadika 

Attorneys and Counselors at Law 

Lincoln Building 

60 East 42"d Street 

New York, New York 10165 

- .. ;ttl /~ Arch i-e'--r----1,-L..-""'---"'-..__-'-

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Soutf'~',.,<'est Region 

2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0007 

(817) 222-507': 

l2 

Dated: January 24, 2012 
U.S. Deportment 

u' Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Southwest Region 

Arkansas, Louisiana, 

New Mexico, Oklahoma 

Texas 

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Cynthia A. Chandler-Snell, Esq. 

Senior Attomey 

Regulatory Affairs 

Legal Department 

Federal Express Corporation 

3620 Hacks Cross Road 

Building B, 3'd Floor 

Memphis, TN 38125 

Re: EIR 2011SW700093 (HazMat) 

Office of Regional Counsel 

2601 Meacham Blvd 

Fort Worth. TX 76137 

(817) 222-5099 

(817) 222-5945/5092 FAX 

ORDER ASSESSING CIVIL PENALTY 

On or about July 15, 2011, Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) was advised through a 

Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed 

to assess a civil penalty in the amount of$32,500. On October 12, 2011 an infonnal 

conference was held between FedEx and the FAA following which the parties ultimately 

agreed to settle the agency's hazardous materials enforcement matter for the sum of 

$24,500. 

THEREFORE, it has been determined that: 

1. Federal Express Corporation (FedEx), a U.S. all-cargo carrier, holds Air Carrier 

Operating Certificate No. FDEA140A with operation specifications authorizing it to 

operate in air transportation under Part 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

2. On or about Feb mary 1, 2011, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Special Agent 

conducted an inspection at FedEx's facility located at 1500 Westpark Drive, Little Rock, 

Arkansas. 

3. During review ofFedEx's shippers' declaration retention file, the Special Agent 

discovered that FedEx accepted shipments of hazardous materials from Environmental 

Services Company, Inc. for transportation in air commerce when the shipments were not 

prepared for shipment in accordance with the Department of Transportation Hazardous 

Materials Regulations (HMR) as follows: 

(2, . vv-
a. On or about October 18, 2010, FedEx accepted a shipment of Potassium 

penmmganatc under assigned Air Waybill 7963451671 05. Potassium 

pem1anganate is in Hazard Class 5.1 (Oxidizer) and has an assigned 

identification number UN1490. However, the shipping paper improperly 

identified the material hazard class as 8 (Conosive material). 

2 

b. On or about October 18, 2010, Fed Ex accepted a shipment of Nitric Acid (other 

than red fuming, 5% concentration) under assigned Air Waybill 794012892455. 

Nitric acid is in Hazard Class 8 (Conosive material) and has an assigned 

identification number UN2031. The quantity ofthc material shown on the 

shipping papers was 2.5 L. The shipping papers improperly showed the quantity 

ofthe material to be within the limit allowed for transportation aboard passenger 

aircraft, i.e., 1 L, when, in fact, the quantity of the material exceeded the limit 

allowed for transportation on passenger aircraft. 

c. On or about October 18,2010, FeclEx accepted a shipment of Nitric Acid (other 

than red fuming, 5% concentration) under assigned Air Waybill 796345436939. 

Nitric acid is in Hazard Class 8 (Corrosive material) and has an assigned 

identification number UN2031. The quantity of the material shown on the 

shipping papers was 2.5 L. The shipping papers improperly showed the quantity 

of the material to be within the limit allowed for transp01tation aboard passenger 

aircraft, i.e., 1 L, when, in fact, the quantity of the matetial exceeded the limit 

allowed for transportation on passenger aircraft. 

d. On or about October 18,2010, FedEx accepted a shipment of Nitric Acid (other 

than red fuming, 5% concentration) w1der assigned Air Waybill 794012818136. 

Nitric acid is in Hazard Class 8 (Corrosive material) and has an assigned 

identification number UN2031. The quantity of the material shown on the 

shipping papers was 2.5 L. The shipping papers improperly showed the quantity 

ofthe material to be within the limit allowed for transportation aboard passenger 

aircraft, i.e., I L, when, in fact, the quantity of the material exceeded the limit 

allowed for transportation on passenger aircraft. 

e. On or about October 18, 2010, FedEx accepted a shipment of Nitric Acid (other 

than red fuming, 5% concentration) tmder assigned Air Waybill 794012759383. 

Nitric acid is in Hazard Class 8 (CoiTosive material) and has an assigned 

identification number UN2031. The quantity of the material shown on the 

shipping papers was 2.5 L. The shipping papers improperly showed the quantity 

of the matetial to be within the limit allowed for transp01tation aboard passenger 

aircraft, i.e., 1 L, when, in fact, the quantity of the material exceeded the limit 

allowed for transportation on passenger aircraft. 

f. On or about October 25, 2010, FedEx accepted a shipment of Flammable liquid, 

toxic, n.o.s. (Acetone/Toluene) under assigned Air Waybill 796375297331. 

Flammable liquid, toxic, n.o.s. has an assigned identification number UN1992. 
The shipping papers improperly identified the number as 1993 and improperly 

omitted "UN" before the number. 

3 

g. On or about October 25,2010, FedEx accepted a shipment of Flammable liquid, 

toxic, n.o.s. (Acetone/Toluene) under assigned Air Waybill 7963 75297331. 

Flammable liquid, toxic, n.o.s. has an assigned identification numberUNl992. 

Flammable liquid, toxic, n.o.s. is in Hazard Class 3 (Flammable and combustible 

liquid) and the shipping paper identified the material as being in Packing Group 

II. The shipping paper improperly failed to include the required toxic subsidiary 

class or division number (6.1) in parentheses following the primary hazard class 

number. 

h. On or about October 25, 2010, FedEx accepted a shipment of Flammable liquid, 

toxic, n.o.s. (Acetone/Dichloromethane) under assigned Air Waybill 

7963 75182575. Flammable liquid, toxic, n.o.s. as an assigned identification 

number UN1992. The shipping papers improperly identified the number as 1993 

and improperly omitted "UN" before the numbers. 

1. On or about October 25, 2010, FedEx accepted a shipment of Flammable liquid, 

toxic, n.o.s. (Acetone/Dichloromethane) under assigned Air Waybill 

796375182575. Flammable liquid, toxic, n.o.s. has an assigned identification 

number UN1992. Flammable liquid, toxic, n.o.s. is in Hazard Class 3 

(Flammable and combustible liquid) and the shipping paper identified the 

material as being in Packing Group II. The shipping paper improperly failed to 

include the required toxic subsidiary class or division number (6.1) in 

parentheses following the primary hazard class number. 

By reason of the foregoing, FedEx violated the following Department of Transportation 

Hazardous Materials Regulations: 

a. Section 175.3 [49 C.F.R. § 175.3] in that it accepted hazardous materials for 

transpot1ation aboard an aircraft when that material had not been prepared for 

shipment in accordance with the HMR. 

b. Section 175.30(a)(l) [49 C.F.R. § 175.30(a)(l )] in that it accepted hazardous 

material for transportation aboard an aircraft and failed to ensure that the 

materials were authorized and within the quantity limitations specified for 

caniage aboard an aircraft according to§ 172.101 of the HMR. 

c. Sectionl75.30(a)(2) [ 49 C.F.R. § 175.30(a)(2)] in that it accepted hazardous 

mate1ial for transportation aboard an aircraft and failed to ensure that the material 

was described on a shipping paper in accordance with part 172 ofthe HMR. 
4 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 5l23(a) of the federal 

hazardous materials transportation law, (49 U.S.C. § 5123(a)), that Fed Ex be, and hereby is, 

assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $24,500. 

Fed Ex is directed to pay the assessed amount by mailing or delivering a certified check, 

money order, or company check in the amount of$24,500 payable to the "Federal Aviation 

Administration" addressed to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Mr. Sonny Rogers, 

FAA/MMAC/AR, AMZ-350-SW 

P.O. Box 25770 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125-4915 

Please be sure to indicate the Case Number on the front of your check. 

We also accept payment by VISA or MasterCard. If you choose to make payment using the 

charge card method, check the appropriate box on the attached reply form and include the 

cardholder's name and credit card number. In the altemative, you may pay your civil 

penalty with a credit card over the Intemet. To pay electronically, visit the web site at 

https://www.pay.gov. For questions regarding electronic payments please contact FAA 

Account Receivable office at 1-405-954-4 719 

The amount of civil penalty assessed in this Order constitutes a debt owed to the United 

States. If this debt is not paid within 30 days of Fed Ex's receipt of this letter, the debt is 

delinquent. 

For delinquent debts, federal regulation (49 C.F.R. § 89.23) requires us to charge interest, 

from the date of this Order, at a fixed aruma! rate of 1.0%, along with an administrative 

charge of $12 per month, representing our costs of administrative collection. Furthermore, 

if the full amount assessed is not paid in full within 120 days of receipt of this letter, we are 

required to assess an additional penalty at an annual rate of 2.50%, accrning from the date 

of delinquency. 

DAVID L. DONNELL 

Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

By 

ric E. Anderson 

Attorney 

817.222.5078 

817.222.5092 (FAX) 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that this Order Assessing Civil Penalty has been sent this date via certified mail, 

return receipt requested, to: 

Marquitt, obinson 

Paralegal Specialist 

December 5, 20 II 

Mr. Cynthia A. Chandler-Snell, Esq. 

Senior Attorney 

Regulatory Affairs 

Legal Affairs 

Federal Express Corporation 

3620 Hacks Cross Road 

Building B, 3rd Floor 

Memphis, TN 38125 
U ,S, Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

June 15, 2011 

Via Federal Express 

Southwest Region 

Arkansas, Louisiana, 

New Mexico, Oklahoma 

Texas 

Mr. Barry Brown 

Associate General Counsel 

Operations & Environment 

Southwest Airlines 

P.O. Box 36611 

2702 Love Field Drive 

Dallas, Texas 75235-1611 

Office of Regional Counsel, ASW~7 

2601 Meacham Blvd. 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

(817) 222-5099 

(817) 222-594515092 FAX 

Re: Southwest Airlines Company, FAA Case No. 2010SW700184 

ORDER ASSESSING CIVIL PENALTY 

On February 23, 2011, Southwest Airlines Company was 

advised through an Amended Notice of Proposed Civil that the 

Federal Aviation Administration proposed to assess a civil 

penalty in the amount of $78,000.00. 

In order to avoid further litigation, the parties have 

agreed to settle this case for $62,000.00 and Southwest 

Airlines Company has agreed to waive any further rights of 

appeal. This order constitutes a finding by the Federal 

Aviation Administration of the facts and regulatory violations 

contained herein. It is determined that: 

1. On or about June 30, 2010 Southwest Airlines Company 

(~Southwestu) offered FedEx Corporation a package containing 

hazardous material for transportation by air from Dallas, Texas 

to Loves Park, Illinois. 

2. The shipment consisted of an aircraft main engine fuel 

control unit that contained fuel. Tag number 303273 was 

attached to the aircraft main engine fuel control unit. Written 

on this tag number 303273 was the language "NEEDS TO BE 

DRAINED". 

3. The aircraft main engine fuel control unit was inside of a 

fiberboard box. 
4. An aircraft main engine fuel control unit that contains fuel 

is classified as a hazardous material under the Department of 

Transportation Hazardous Material Regulations (49 C.F.R. § 

172.101). 

5. The proper shipping name for an aircraft main engine fuel 

control unit that contains fuel is Dangerous Goods in Machinery. 

It is a hazard class 9. Its UN identification number is UN3363. 

6. At all times mentioned herein, the above described box was 

not marked with the proper shipping name or UN identification 

number of the hazardous material. 

7. At all times mentioned herein, the above described box was 

not labeled with the proper hazardous material labels, was not 

accompanied by a shipper's declaration of dangerous goods, 

shipper's certification or other proper shipping documents 

containing the information, including emergency response 

information, required by the hazardous material regulations, and 

was not otherwise in a condition for transportation by air as 

required by the hazardous material regulations. 

8. The shipment was sent via FedEx "Express Saveru US air bill 

number 9757 0088 0799. The air bill did not identify the 

contents of the package. 

9. The shipper was listed as Shipping Dept., SWA/0204043, 2630 

Shorecrest Drive, Dallas, Texas 75235. 

10. The consignee was Rocky Garst, Woodward Governor Co., 

Aircraft Product Service Center, 5001 North 2nd Street, Loves 

Park, Illinois 61111-5808. 

11. The shipment was discovered leaking at the FedEx Alliance 

Regional Cargo Sort Center in Fort Worth, Texas. 

12. Southwest offered hazardous material for transportation by 

air when the material was not properly classed, described, 

packaged, marked, labeled, and in a condition for shipment as 

required or authorized by applicable requirements of the 

hazardous material regulations. 

13. Southwest offered hazardous material for transportation by 

air when the shipping papers did not include: 

(a) the identification number prescribed for the 

material as shown in Column (4) of the§ 172.101 

2 
table; 

(b) the proper shipping name prescribed for the 

material in Column (2) of the § 172.101 table; 

(c) the hazard class or division number prescribed 

for the material, as shown in Column (3) of the 

§ 172.101 table; 

(d) the packing group in Roman numerals, as 

designated for the hazardous material in Column (5) of 

the § 172.101 table; 

(e) the total net mass per package, must be shown 

unless a gross mass is indicated in Columns (9A) 

or (9B) of the§ 172.101 table in which case the total 

gross mass per package must be shown; 

(f) An estimate of the individual total quantities or an 

estimate of the individual total quantity of dangerous 

goods in its liquid state contained in the article. 

(g) the number and type of packages must be 

indicated. 

14. Southwest offered hazardous material for transportation by 

air and failed to certify by printed certification, in the 

manner allowed by 49 C.F.R. §§ 172.204(a) (1), (2) or 

172.204 (c) (1), that the material was offered for transportation 

in accordance with the hazardous material regulations. 

15. Southwest offered hazardous material for transportation by 

air when it failed to provide two copies of the certification 

showing that the materials were in accordance with the 

certification set forth in § 172.204 (a) (1), (2) or § 

172.204(c) (1) of the hazardous materials regulations. 

16. Southwest offered hazardous material for transportation in 

air commerce in non-bulk packaging and failed to mark the 

package with the proper shipping name and identification number 

for its contents. 

17. Southwest offered hazardous material for transportation by 

air and failed to label the package or containment device with 

the label specified in Section 172.101 (49 C.F.R. § 172.101). 

3 
18. Southwest offered hazardous material for transportation by 

air and failed to make emergency response information 

immediately available for use at all times the hazardous 

material was present. 

19. Southwest offered hazardous material for transportation by 

air and failed to make emergency response information, including 

an emergency response telephone number, required by this subpart 

immediately available to any person who, as a representative of 

a Federal, State, or local government agency, responds to an 

incident involving a hazardous material, or is conducting an 

investigation, which involves a hazardous material. 

20. Southwest offered hazardous material for transportation by 

air and failed to provide and maintain emergency response 

information that includes the minimum information set forth in 

this section, 172.602(a) (1-7)). 

21. Southwest offered hazardous material for transportation by 

air and failed to provide an emergency response telephone number 

immediately available for use away from the package containing 

the hazardous material. 

22. Southwest offered hazardous material for shipment by air 

when emergency response information was not presented on a 

shipping paper. 

23. Southwest offered hazardous material for shipment by air and 

failed to provide an emergency response telephone number 

(including area code) for use in the event of an emergency 

involving hazardous material that is monitored at all times that 

the material is in transportation, including storage incidental 

to transportation. 

24. Southwest offered hazardous material for shipment by air and 

failed to provide an emergency response telephone number of a 

person knowledgeable of the hazardous material being shipped and 

who has comprehensive emergency response and incident mitigation 

information for that material, or has i~~ediate access to a 

person possessing such knowledge and information. 

25. Southwest offered hazardous material for transportation by 

air and failed to provide an emergency response telephone 

number, for use in the event of an emergency involving the 

hazardous material, and entered on a shipping paper immediately 

following the description of the hazardous material required by 

4 
subpart C of this part, or entered once on the shipping paper in 

a clearly visible location. 

26. Southwest offered hazardous material for shipment by air and 

failed to class and describe the hazardous material in 

accordance with parts 172 and 173 of Subpart B, Preparation of 

Hazardous Materials for Transportation. 

27. Southwest offered hazardous material for shipment by air and 

failed to use packaging that was designed, constructed, 

maintained, filled, its contents so limited, and closed so that 

under conditions normally incident to transportation there was 

no identifiable release of hazardous materials to the 

environment. 

28. By reason of the above, Southwest violated the following 

Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations): 

a. Section 171.2(e) (49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e)), in that Southwest 

offered hazardous material for transportation by air in commerce 

when the material was not properly classed, described, packaged, 

marked, labeled, and in a condition for shipment as required or 

authorized by applicable requirements of the hazardous material 

regulations. 

b. Section 172.200(a) (49 C.F.R. § 172.200(a)), which requires 

that each person offering a hazardous material for 

transportation to properly describe the hazardous material on 

the shipping papers. 

c. Section 172.202(a) (1) (49 C.F.R. § 172.202(a) (1)) in that it 

offered hazardous material for transportation in air commerce 

when the required hazardous material description on the shipping 

papers did not include the identification number prescribed for 

the material as shown in Column 4 of the§ 172.101 Table. 

d. Section 172.202(a) (2) (49 C.F.R. § 172.202(a) (2)) in that it 

offered hazardous material for transportation in air co&merce 

when the required hazardous material description on the shipping 

papers did not include the proper shipping name prescribed for 

the material in Column 2 of the§ 172.101 Table. 

e. Section 172.202(a) (3) (49 C.F.R. § 172.202(a) (3)) in that 

it offered hazardous material for transportation in air commerce 

when the required shipping papers did not include the hazard 

class or division number prescribed for the material, as shown 

5 
in Column (3) in the Hazardous Materials Table, referenced in 

section 172.101. 

f. Section 172.202(a) (4) (49 C.F.R. § 172.202(a) (4)) in that 

it offered hazardous material for transportation in air commerce 

when the required shipping papers did not include the Packing 

Group, in Roman numerals, prescribed for the material in Column 

5 of the § 172.101 Table. 

g. Section 172.202(a) (6) (49 C.F.R. § 172.202(a) (6)) in that 

it offered hazardous material for transportation in air corr®erce 

and failed to describe on the shipping papers the total net mass 

per package, unless a gross_mass is indicated in Columns (9A) or 

(98) of the§ 172.101 Table. 

h. Section 172.202 (a) (6) (iii)) (49 C.F.R. § 172.202 (a) (6) (iii)) 

in that it offered hazardous material for transportation in air 

commerce and failed to describe on the shipping papers the total 

net mass per package, unless a gross mass is indicated in 

Columns (9A) or (98) of the§ 172.101 Table. 

i. Section 172.202(a) (7) (49 C.F.R. § l72.202(a) (7)) in that 

it offered hazardous material for transportation in air com®erce 

and failed to describe on the shipping papers the number and 

type of packages. 

j. Section 172.204(a) (49 C.F.R. § 172.204(a)) in that it 

offered hazardous material for transportation by air and failed 

to certify by printed certification, in the manner allowed by 49 

C.F.R. §§ 172.204(a) (1) or 172.204(a) (2), or 172.204(c) (1) that 

the material was offered for transportation in accordance with 

the hazardous material regulations. 

k. Section 172.204(c) (2) (49 C.F.R. § 172.204(c) (2) in that it 

offered hazardous material for transportation by air when it 

failed to provide two copies of the certification showing that 

the materials were in accordance with the certification set 

forth in§ 172.204 (a) (1), (2) or § 172.204 (c) (1) of the hazardous 

materials regulations. 

l. Section 172.300 (49 C.F.R. § 172.300), which requires that 

each person offering a hazardous material for transportation to 

properly mark each package, freight container, and transport 

vehicle containing the hazardous material. 

m. Section 172.301(a) (49 C.F.R. § 172.30l(a)) in that it 

offered a hazardous material for transportation in air corr®erce 

6 
in non-bulk packaging and failed to mark the package with the 

proper shipping name and identification number for its contents. 

n. Section 172.400(al (49 C.F.R. § 172.400(all in that it 

offered hazardous material requiring labeling under the 

hazardous material regulations for transportation in air 

commerce and failed to label the package or containment device 

with the label specified in Section 172.101 (49 C.F.R. § 

172.1011. 

o. Section 172.600 (49 C.F.R. § 172.60011, which requires that 

each person offering a hazardous material for transportation to 

provide and maintain emergency response information_9uring 

transportation and at the facility where hazardous materials are 

loaded for transportation, stored incidental to transportation 

or otherwise handled during any phase of transportation. 

p. Section 172.600(cl (111 (49 C.F.R. § 172.600(cl (111 in that 

it offered hazardous material for transportation by air and 

failed to make emergency response information immediately 

available for use at all times the hazardous material was 

present. 

q. Section 172.600(cl (21 I (49 C.F.R. § 172.600(cl (21 I in that 

it offered hazardous material for transportation by air and 

failed to make emergency response information, including 

emergency response telephone number, required by this subpart 

immediately available to any person who, as a representative of 

a Federal, State, or local government agency, responds to an 

incident involving a hazardous material, or is conducting an 

investigation which involves a hazardous material. 

r. Section 172.602(al (1-71 I (49 C.F.R. § 172.602(al I in that 

it offered a hazardous material for transportation by air and 

failed to provide and maintain emergency response information 

that includes the minimum information set forth in this section, 

172.602(al (1-711. 

s. Section 172.602(bl (211 (49 C.F.R. § 172.602(bl (211 in that 

it offered hazardous material for transportation by air and 

failed to provide an emergency response telephone number 

immediately available for use away from the package containing 

the hazardous material. 

t. Section 172.602(bl (31 (ill (49 C.F.R. § 172.602(bl (31 (il in 

that it offered hazardous material for shipment by air when 

7 
emergency response information was not presented on a shipping 

paper. 

u. Section 172.604(a) (1)) (49 C.F.R. § 172.604(a) (1)) in that 

it offered hazardous material for shipment by air and failed to 

provide an emergency response telephone number (including area 

code) for use in the event of an emergency involving hazardous 

material that is monitored at all times that the material is in 

transportation, including storage incidental to transportation. 

v. Section 172.604(a) (2)) (49 C.F.R. § 172.604(a) (2)) in that 

it offered hazardous material for transportation by air and 

failed to provide an emergency response telephone number of a 

person knowledgeable of the hazardous material being shipped and 

who has comprehensive emergency response and incident mitigation 

information for that material, or has immediate access to a 

person possessing such knowledge and information. 

w. Section 172.604(a) (3)) (49 C.F.R. § 172.604(a) (3)) in that 

it offered hazardous material for transportation by air and 

failed to provide an emergency response telephone number, for 

use in the event of an emergency involving the hazardous 

material, and entered on a shipping paper immediately following 

the description of the hazardous material required by subpart C 

of this part, or entered once on the shipping paper in a clearly 

visible location. 

x. Section 173.l(b) (49 C.F.R. § 173.l(b), which prohibits the 

shipment of hazardous material by air that was not packed in 

packaging specified in Part 173. 

y. Section 173.22(a) (1)) (49 C.F.R. § 173.22(a) (1)) in that it 

offered hazardous material for shipment by air and failed to 

class and describe the hazardous material in accordance with 

parts 172 and 173 of Subpart B, Preparation of Hazardous 

Materials for Transportation. 

z. Section 173.24(b) (1)) (49 C.F.R. § 173.24(b) (l)) in that it 

offered hazardous material for shipment by air and failed to use 

packaging that was designed, constructed, maintained, filled, 

its contents so limited, and closed so that under conditions 

normally incident to transportation there was no identifiable 

release of hazardous materials to the environment. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 

5123(a), that Southwest be and is hereby, assessed a civil 

penalty of $62,000.00. 

8 
Southwest is hereby ordered to pay, immediately, the 

assessed amount by mailing or delivering a certified check, 

money order, or company check in the amount of $62,000.00 

payable to the "Federal Aviation Administration" addressed to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

DOT/FAA MMAC AMZ-350 

PO BOX 25770 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125-5082 

ATTN: Sonny Rogers 

As an alternative method of payment, civil penalties may be paid 

with a credit card at the following website: 

http://www.pay.gov 

The amount of civil penalty assessed in this order 

constitutes a debt owed to the United States. Southwest has now 

exhausted its right to seek review of the validity or amount of 

this debt. If this debt is not paid in full within 30 days of 

Southwest's receipt of this letter, the debt is delinquent. 

For delinquent debts, federal regulation (49 C.F.R. § 

89.23) requires us to charge interest, from the date of this 

Order, at a fixed annual rate of 1.0%, along with an 

administrative charge of $12 per month, representing our costs 

of administrative collection. Furthermore, if the full amount 

assessed is not paid in full within 120 days of Southwest's 

receipt of this letter, we are required to assess an additional 

penalty at an annual rate of 2.625%, accruing from the date of 

delinquency. 

Delinquent debts may be reported to consumer reporting 

agencies or commercial credit bureaus, which could adversely 

affect Southwest's credit rating. Nonpayment of this debt may 

ultimately result in a referral to a collection agency, or the 

United States Department of Justice for enforced collection. 

Upon our receipt of Southwest's payment in the amount of 

$62,000.00 Southwest may consider this matter closed. 

9 
/ 

I 

DAVID DONNELL 

Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

Archier, Attorney 

222-5074 (Phone) 

222-5945/5092 (Fax) 

cc: FAA/MMAC Accounts Receivable 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that this order has been sent on June 15, 2011 by 

Federal Express to: 

ames Archier 

Mr. Barry Brown 

Associate General Counsel 

Operations & Environment 

Southwest Airlines 

P.O. Box 36611 

2702 Love Field Drive 

Dallas, Texas 75235-1611 

Dated: June 15, 2011 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0007 

(817) 222-5074 

10 
r. ~,(') 

· .. ~ ~.~,. jl''-

0,,~f\1J{l¥{{ U.S. Deportr;lerlt 

of Trar,sportotion 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

'-Tune 21, 2011 

Southwest Region 

Arkansas. Louisiana 

New Mexico. Oklahoma 

Texas 

Office of Regional Counsel, ASW-7 

2601 Meacham Bivd 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

(817) 222·5099 

(817) 222·5945/5092 FAX 

Certfied Mail Return Receipt 7003 2260 0004 1705 8717 

Mr. Gerald F. Murphy 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Certfied Mail Return Receipt 7003 2260 0004 1705 8724 

Mr. Brad Sheehan 

Director of Safety 

Atlantic Southeast Airlines & ExpressJet 

9090 Toffie Terrace 

Atlanta, Georgia 30354 

Pe: ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., ·FAA Case No. 2010SW700147 

(Hazardous Material Enforcement Case) 

ORDER ASSESSING CIVIL PENALTY 

On August 30, 2010, Express Jet Airlines, Inc., was advised 

through a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposed to assess a civil penalty in 

the amount of $5,550.00. 

In order to avoid further litigation, the parties have 

agreed to settle this case for $5,000.00 and Express Jet 

Airlines, Inc., has agreed to waive any further rights of 

appeal. This order constitutes a finding by the Federal 

Aviation Administration of the facts and regulatory violations 

contained herein. It is determined that: 

1. Between May 10, and May 16, 2010, at George Bush 

Intercontinental Airport, Houston, Texas, the Federal Aviation 

Administration conducted a comprehensive hazardous material 

inspection. 

2. During the hazardous material shipping inspection, the 

inspectors reviewed Continental Airlines airway bill 

00506916512. 
3. Express Jet Air:i~es was listed as the shipper and consignee 

on airway bill 00506916512. 

4. ~his airway bill listed Oxygen, Compressed, hazard class 

2 . 2, I 5 . l ) , TJN l 0 7 2 . 

5. The airway bill 00506916512 was not signed and dated by 

Express Jet Airlines. 

6. On FedEx Express air waybill numbers 987781588078 and 

987881590582 Express Jet Airlines indicated "RQ'' in the 

hazardous material description for materials that were not 

hazardous substances as described in 49 C.F.R. § l72.20l(a) (4) 

7. By reason of the above, ExpressJet Airlines violated the 

following Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials 

Regulations (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations): 

a. Section 171.2(e) (49 C.F.R. § 17l.2(e)), in that Express 

Jet Airlines offered hazardous material for transportation by 

air in commerce when the material was not properly classed, 

described, packaged, marked, labeled, and in a condition for 

shipment as required or authorized by applicable requirements of 

the hazardous malerlal regulations. 

b. Section 172.20l(e) (49 C.F.R. § 172.20l(e)), in that it 

offered hazardous material for shipment by air and failed to 

ensure that the airway bill was dated. 

c. Section 172.203(c) (2) (49 C.F.R. § 172.203(c) (2)), in that 

it offered hazardous material for transportation by air and 

improperly placed "RQ" in front of the hazardous material 

descriptions on the airway bills. 

d. Section 172.204(d) (49 C.F.R. § 172.204(d)), in that it 

offered hazardous material for shipment by air and failed to 

sign the shipper's certification 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 49 TJ.S.C. § 

5123(a), that Express Jet Airlines be and is hereby, assessed a 

civil penalty of $5,000.00. 

Express Jet Airlines is hereby ordered to pay, i~~ediately, 

the assessed amour1t by mailing or delivering a certified check, 

money order, or company check in the amount of $5,000.00 payable 

to the "Federal Aviation Administration" addressed to: 

2 
Federal Aviation Administration 

DOT/FAA MMAC AMZ-350 

PO BOX 25770 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125-5082 

ATTN: Sonny Rogers 

As an alternative method of payment, civil penalties may be paid 

with a credit card at the following website: 

http://www.pay.gov 

The amo0nt of civil penalty assessed in this order 

constitutes a debt owed to the United States. Express Jet 

Airlines has now exhausted its right to seek review of the 

validity or amount of this debt. If this debt is not paid in 

full within 30 days of Express Jet Airlines's receipt of this 

letter, the debt is delinquent. 

for delinquent debts, federal regulation (49 C.F.R. § 

89.23) requires us to charge interest, from the date of this 

Order, at a fixed annual rate of 1.0%, along with an 

administrative charge of $12 per month, representing our costs 

of adn•"inislr:allve collecLluu. FuJCLlteL!llUJCe, if Lhe full d'llUUllL 

assessed is not paid in full within 120 days of Express Jet 

Airlines's receipt of this letter, we are required to assess an 

additional penalty at an annual rate of 2.625%, accruing from 

the date of delinquency. 

Delinquent debts may be reported to consumer reporting 

agencies or commercial credit bureaus, which could adversely 

affect Express Jet Airlines's credit rating. Nonpayment of this 

debt may ultimately result in a referral to a collection agency, 

or the United States Department of Justice for enforced 

collection. 

Upon our receipt of Express Jet Airlines's payment in the 

amount of $5,000.00 Express Jet Airlines may consider this 

matter closed. 

3 
DF~\'I D DC)l\JNILL 

Re,;rior:.al Counsel 

Sot.:_th\,Jest Regi_cn 

By: >;1 ,,, f6·cic ; 

<Jcyl[e's Archier, Attorney 

~(317) 222-5074 (Phone) 

(817 I 222-5945/5092 (Fax) 

cc: FAA/MMAC Accounts Receivable 

4 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I ce':tify that this order has been sent oc June 21, 2011 by 

certified mail to: 

Certfied Mail Return Receipt 7003 2260 0004 1705 8717 

Mr. Gerald F. Murphy 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Certfied Mail Return Receipt 7003 2260 0004 1705 8724 

Mr. Brad Sheehan 

Director of Safety 

Atlantic Southeast Airlines & ExpressJet 

9090 Toffie Terrace 

Atlanta, Georgia 30354 

) 

i 

~;':------JilL14 Dated: June 21, 2011 

· ,J~es Archier 

/ JYedera1 Aviation Administration 

/Office of the Regional Counsel 

{// Southwest Region 

2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0007 

(817) 222-5074 

5 
RESPONSE TO 1.13 

RESPONSE TO 1.14 

RESPONSE TO 1.15 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

December 1, 2008 

Southwest Region 

Arkansas, Louisiana, 

New Mexico, Oklahoma 

Texas 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Fort Worth, TX 76193-0007 

(817) 222-5099 

(817) 222-594515092 FAX 

Certified Mail Return Receipt 7004 2510 0005 6023 1037 

Mr. Francis C. Heil, Esquire 

Senior Attorney 

American Airlines l,egal Department 

P.O. Box 619616 

MD 5675 

DFW Airport, TX 75261-9616 

Re: American Airlines, Inc., FAA Case No. 2008SW700060 

ORDER ASSESSING CIVIL PENALTY 

On June 16, 2008, American Airlines, Inc., was advised 

through a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposed to assess a civil penalty 

in the amount of $49,000.00. 

After considering all the available information, the 

parties have agreed to settle this case for $41,500.00 and 

American Airlines, Inc., has agree to a finding of 

violations as alleged and to waive any further rights of 

appeal. It has been determined that: 

1. From January 22, 2008 to February 12, 2008, a special 

agent from the Federal Aviation conducted a hazardous 

materials assessment of American Airlines, Inc., 

(hereinafter "American"). 

2. During this assessment, the special agent discovered 

that American failed to properly complete the Notification 

to Pilot-In-Command (hereinafter "NOPIC") for hazardous 

materials American transported via passenger-carrying 

aircraft flights from Dallas/Fort Worth International 

Airport (hereinafter "DFW"), Texas. 

3. On February 6, 2008, American failed to include the 

technical name for Flammable Solid, Organic, N.O.S., 4.1 

UN1325, PG III on the Notification to Pilot-In-Command for 

flight 50 from DFW to London Gatwick International Airport, 
London, England. The technical name for this hazardous 

material is '-'iron oxide and aluminum". 

4. On February 6, 2008, American failed to include the 

technical name for Polyamines, Liquid, Corrosive N.O.S., 8, 

UN2735, PG III on the Notification to Pilot-In-Command for 

flight 925 from DFW to Miami International Airport, Miami, 

Florida. The technical name is trithylene tetramine, 

metaxylenediamine. 

5. On February 5, 2008, American failed to identify the 

location of COMAT, described as Dangerous Goods in 

Machinery, hazard class 9, UN3363, on the Notification to 

Pilot-In-Command form for flight 1499 from DFW to Norman Y. 

Mineta International Airport, San Jose, California 

6. On February 5, 2008, American failed to identify the 

location of COMAT, described as Adhesives, hazard class 3, 

UN1133, Packing Group II on the Notification to Pilot-InCommand form, for flight 1046 from DFW to Miami 

International Airport, Miami, Florida. 

7. On February 6, 2008, American failed to identify the 

location of COMAT, described as batteries, wet filled with 

alkali, hazard class 8, UN2795, on the Notification to 

Pilot-In-Command form for flight 739 from DFW to Los 

Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles, California. 

8. On February 7, 2008, American failed to identify the 

location of COMAT, described as Dangerous Goods in 

Machinery, hazard class 9, UN3363 on the Notification to 

Pilot-In-Command form for flight 559 from DFW to Austin 

Bergstrom International Airport, Austin, Texas. 

9. On February 7, 2008, American failed to identify the 

location of COMAT, described as Paint, hazard class 3, 

UN1263, Packing Group II on the Notification to Pilot-InCommand form for flight 1672 from DFW to Tulsa 

International Airport, Tulsa, Oklahoma. 

10. American transported hazardous material in air commerce 

when it failed to provide the technical name of the 

hazardous materials on the Notification to Pilot-In-Command 

form. 

2 
11. American transported COMAT in air commerce when it 

failed to identify the location of the COMAT on its 

Notification to Pilot-In-Command form. 

12. By reason of the facts and circumstances described in 

paragraphs 1 through 11 above, American violated the 

following Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials 

Regulations (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations): 

a. Section 175.l(b)) (49 C.F.R. § 175.1(b)), in that 

American transported hazardous material in air commerce 

when it did not comply with the requirements of Subpart A 

of Part 175. (49 C.F.R. § 175, et seq.). 

b. Section 175.33(a) (1) (i) (49 C.F.R. § 

175.33(a) (1) (i)), in that American transported hazardous 

material in air commerce when it failed to provide 

additional description requirements provided in§§ 172.202 

and 172.203 on the Notification to Pilot-In-Command form. 

c. Section 175.33(a)(4) (49 C.F.R. § 175.33(a)(4)), 

in that American transported hazardous material in air 

commerce when it failed to identify the location of COMAT 

on the Notification to Pilot-In-Command form. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 

5123, that American be and is hereby, assessed a civil 

penalty of $41,500.00. 

American is hereby ordered to pay, immediately, the 

assessed amount by mailing or delivering a certified check, 

money order, or company check in the amount of $41,500.00 

payable to the "Federal Aviation Administration" addressed 

to: 

DOT/FAA/MMAC, 

Accounts Receivable, 

AMZ-310, P.O.BOX 25082 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125-5082 

The amount of civil penalty assessed in this Order 

constitutes a debt owed to the United States. American has 

now exhausted its right to seek review of the validity or 

amount of this debt. If this debt is not paid in full 

within 30 days of American's receipt of this letter, the 

debt is delinquent. 

3 
/ 

( 

i 

I 

(~ 

For delinquent debts, federal regulation (49 C.F.R. § 

89.23) requires us to charge interest, from the date of 

this Order, at a fixed annual rate of 5.125%, along with an 

administrative charge of $12 per month, representing our 

costs of administrative collection. Furthermore, if the 

full amount assessed is not paid in full within 120 days of 

~merican's receipt of this letter, we are required to 

assess an additional penalty at an annual rate of 3.0%, 

accruing from the date of delinquency. 

Delinquent debts may be reported to consumer reporting 

agencies or commercial credit bureaus, which could 

adversely affect American's credit rating. Nonpayment of 

this debt may ultimately result in a referral to a 

collection agency, or the United States Department of 

Justice for enforced collection. 

Upon our receipt of American's payment in the amount 

of $41,500.00 American may consider this matter closed. 

LYNETTE WORD 

Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

By: /L----~----~~~~~~~~ 

s Archier, Attorney 

222-5074 (Phone) 

222-5945/5092 (Fax) 

4 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that this Order has been sent on December 1, 2008 

by certified mail, return receipt requested to: 

( 

~/ 

Mr. Francis C. Heil, Esquire 

Senior Attorney 

American Airlines Legal Department 

P.O. Box 619616 

MD 5675 

DFW Airport, TX 75261-9616 

Dated: December 1, 2008 

Federal Aviation Administration 

,6ffice of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0007 

(817) 222-5074 

---- ----- - -- -------- ---

5 
U.S. Deportmer1t 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

[cJarch 12, 2009 

Southwest Region 

Arkansas, Louisiana, 

New Mexico. Oklahoma 

Texas 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Fort Worth, TX 76193-0007 

(817) 222-5099 

(817) 222-5945/5092 FAX 

Certified Mail Return Receipt 7004 2510 0005 6023 9606 

Mr. Francis Heil 

Senior Attorney 

P~erican Airlines Legal Department 

P.O. Box 619616 

MD 5675 

DFW Airport, Texas 75261-9616 

Re: American Airlines, Inc., FAA Case No. 2008SW700102 

ORDER ASSESSING CIVIL PENALTY 

On July 10, 2008, American Airlines, Inc., 

(hereinafter "American") was advised through a Notice of 

Propbsed Civil Penalty that the Federal Aviation 

Administration proposed to assess a civil penalty in the 

amount of $63,600.00. 

After considering all the available information, the 

parties have agreed to settle this case for $45,000.00 and 

American has agreed to waive any further rights of appeal. 

This Order constitutes a finding by the Federal Aviation 

Administration of the facts and regulatory violations 

contained herein. 

1. On or about April 11, 2008, a special agent from the 

Federal Aviation Administration conducted a supplementary 

hazardous material assessment of American Airlines, Inc., 

(hereinafter "American") . 

2. At all relevant times, A.'Tlerican 1Nas the holder of Air 

Carrier Operating Certificate No. AALA025A and Operations 

Specifications issued under Part 121 of the F~deral 

Aviation Administration. 

3. During this assessment, the special agent 

that American failed to properly complete the 

to the Pilot-In-Command (hereinafter "NOPIC") 

discovered 

Notification 

for hazardous 
materials Americar,_ -:ransported via passerH;rer-car:r:/in-;r 

a~rcraft flights from Dallas/Fort Worth International 

Airport (hereinafter "D2Wu), Texas. 

4. On March 2, 2 0 0 8, the NO PIC for American flight number 

1299 from DFW to Miami International Airport, Miami, 

Florida failed to include the packing group for a shipment 

described as Seat-belt pretensioners, hazard class 9, 

UN3268, PG II as required by hazardous material 

regulations. 

5. On March 3, 2008, on the NOPIC for American flight 48, 

DFW to Paris Charles De Gaulle Airport, Paris, France, the 

basic description provided for a. p,ackage· conta-ining items 

classified as Aerosols, Flammable, 2.1 UN1950 and Flammable 

Liquid, N.O.S., 3, UN1993, PG II failed to include the 

technical name of the material and the packing group as 

required. 

6. On March 6, 2008, on the NOPIC for American flight 

number 2344, DFW to Chicago O'Hare International Airport, 

Chicago, Illinois, the basic description provided for a 

shipment of items classified as Amines, Liquid, Corrosive 

N.O.S., hazard class 8, UN2735, packing group II, failed to 

include the technical name of the material as required. 

7. On March 6, 2008, the NOPIC for American flight number 

1299, DFW to Miami International Airport, Miami, Florida 

failed to include the packing group for a shipment 

described as Extracts, flavoring liquid, hazard class 3, 

UNll97, as required. The NOPIC also incorrectly referred 

to this material having a hazard class "3u subsidiary risk. 

8. On March 8, 2008, the NOPIC for American flight number 

474 DFW to Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, 

Atlanta, Georgia failed to include the packing group for a 

shipment described as Extracts, flavoring liquid, hazard 

class 3, UN1197, packing group II, as required. 

9 On March 9, 2008, the NOPIC for A_merican flight n'~rober 

536, DFW to Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, 

Atlanta, Georgia failed to include the proper hazard class 

for a shipment described as Extracts, flavoring liquid, 

hazard class 3, UN1197, packing group II, as required. 

10. By reason of the facts and circumstances described in 

paragraphs 1 through 10 above, &merican violated the 

2 
following Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials 

Regulations (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations): 

a. Section 175.l(b)) (49 C.F.R. § l75.llb)), in that 

Ainerican transported hazardous material in air commerce 

when it did not comply v1ith the requirements of Subpart A 

of Part 175. (49 C.F.R. § 175, et seq.). 

b. Section 175.33(a) (1)) (49 C.F.R. § 175.33(a) (1), 

in that American transported hazardous material in air 

commerce when it failed to provide the proper shipping 

name, hazard class, and identification number on the 

Notification to Pilot-In-Command form. 

c. Section 175.33(a) (1) (i) (49 C.F.R. § 

l75.33(a) (1) (i)), in that American transported hazardous 

material in air commerce when it failed to provide 

additional description requirements provided in §§ 172.202 

and 172.203 on the Notification to Pilot-In-Command form. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 

5123, that American be and is hereby, assessed a civil 

penalty of $45,000.00. 

American is hereby ordered to pay, immediately, the 

assessed amount by mailing or delivering a certified check, 

money order, or company check in the amount of $45,000.00 

payable to the "Federal Aviation Administration" addressed 

to: 

DOT/FAA/MMAC, 

Accounts Receivable, 

AMZ-310, P.O.BOX 25082 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125-5082 

The amount of civil penalty assessed in this Order 

constitutes a debt owed to the United States. American has 

now exhausted its right to seek review of the validity or 

amount of this debt. If this debt is not paid in full 

within 30 days of American's receipt of this letter, che 

debt is delinquent. 

For delinquent debts, federal regulation (49 C.F.R. § 

8 9. 2 3) requires us to charge interest, from the date of 

this Order, at a fixed annual rate of 5.125%, along with an 

administrative charge of $12 per month, representing our 

costs of administrative collection. Furthermore, if the 

3 
full amount assessed is not paid in full within 120 days of 

American's receipt of this letter, we are required c:o 

assess an additional penalty at an annual rate of 3.0%, 

accruing from the date of delinquency. 

Delinquent debts may be reported to consumer reporting 

agencies or commercial credit bureaus, c1hich could 

adversely affect American's credit rating. Nonpayment of 

this debt may ultimately result in a referral to a 

collection agency, or the United States Department of 

Justice for enforced collection. 

Upon our receipt of American's payment in the amount 

of $45,000.00 American may consider this matter closed. 

LYNETTE WORD 

Regional Counsel 

American Region 

/" 

/ / 

By:- .. tft~~'{l(/f('- kct/ l 

James Archier, Attorney 

(817) 222-5074 (Phone) 

(817) 222-5945/5092 (Fax) 

' 

4 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that this Order has been sent on !'larch 12, 2009 

by certified mail, return receipt requested to: 

Mr. Francis Heil 

Senior Attorney 

American Airlines Legal Department 

P.O. Box 619616 

MD 5675 

DFW Airport, Texas 75261-9616 

) " / 1 / ' 

By>":·,-ftt//_,( (( t{ftl (. 5 

/ James Archier 

Dated: March 12, 2009 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

American Region 

2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0007 

(817) 222-5074 

5 
U.S. Deportment 

of Tronsportotior 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Southwest Region 

Arkansas_ Louisiana 

New Mexico_ Oklahoma 

Texas 

Office of Regional Counsel ASW-7 

2601 Meacham Blvd 

Fort Worth TX 76137 

(817) 222-5099 

(817) 222-594515092 FAX 

Certified Mail Return Receipt 7004 l160 0002 0277 0698 

Mr. Francis C. Heil 

Senior Attorney 

American Airlines 

P.O. Box 619616 

Dallas/Fort Worth Airport 

Texas 75261-9616 

Re: American Airlines, Inc., FAA Case No. 2010SW700123 

ORDER ASSESSING CIVIL PENALTY 

On .1\.ugust 11, 2010, American Airlines, Inc., was 

advised through a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the 

Federal Aviation Administration proposed to assess a civil 

penalty in the amount of $32,500.00. 

In order to avoid further litigation, the parties have 

agreed to settle this case for $22,500.00 and American 

Airlines, Inc., has agreed to waive any further rights of 

appeal. This order constitutes a finding by the Federal 

Aviation Administration of the facts and regulatory 

violations contained herein. It is determined that: 

l. From April 6, 2010 to April 19, 2010, the Federal 

Aviation Administration conducted a comprehensive hazardous 

material inspection at Dallas/Fort Worth International 

Airport ("DFW"), Texas. 

2. At all relevant times, Arnerican Airlines, Inc., 

("American") was the holder of Air Carrier Operating 

Certificate No. AALA025A and Operations Specifications 

issued under Part 121 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration. 

3. During the inspection Arnerican routinely failed to 

properly complete the Notification to the Pilot-In-Co~,and 
( ~~~,IOPIC" l prc·'Tidecl tc tLe CaDtai:t c£ .2"merican flights as 

fol::_ov.:s: 

a. 

l482 

On March 16, 2010, for P,,merican Fligh" Numbe1: 

(DFV1J to Tampa, Flo~ida ("TP?_.'')), featured the 

basic description provided for a shipment, offered 

on AWB 8276-8420 (2 packages total), for items 

classified as Radioactive Materi.al, Type A Package, 

7, UN2915. The NOPIC failed to include the proper 

shipping name as required. 

b. On February 2, 2010, the NOPIC for P_merican 

Flight 2167 (OFW to San Jose, Costa Rica (SJO)) 

featured the basic description for a shipment 

offered on AWB 001-9657-6292 (1 package), for items 

classified as Phosphoric Acid Solution, 8, UN1805, 

PG III and Corrosive Liquid, N.O.S., 8, UN1760, PGIII. 

the NOPIC failed to include the technical name of 

the latter item as required. 

c. On February 6, 2010, the NOPIC for American 

Flight 1690 (DFW to Miami International Airport 

(~MIA"), Miami, Florida featured the description 

for a shipment offered on AWB 001-8247-3603 (2 

packages total), for items classified as Air Bag 

Modules, 9, UN3268. The NOPIC failed to include the 

packing group and ~Ex number" as required. 

d. On February 9, 2010, the NOPIC for American 

Flight Nurnber 433 (DFW to ~lexica City, Mexico (~MEX") 

featured the description for a shipment offered on AWB 

001-3790-0214 (3 packages total) for items classified 

as Corrosive Solid, N.O.S. 8, UN1759. The NOPIC 

failed to include the complete proper shipping name 

as required. 

e. On February 13, 2010, the NOPIC for American 

Flight Number 409 (DFW to Mexico City, Mexico ("MEX")) 

featured the description for a shipment offered on 

AWB 001-8208-3750 (1 package), for items classified as 

Phosphoric Acid Solution, 8, UN1805, PG III and 

Corrosive Liquid, N.O.S., 8, UN1760, PGIII. The 

NOPIC failed to include the packing group of the 

latter item as required. 

f. On February 16, 2010, the NOPIC for American 

Flight Number 1549 (DFW to Houston, Texas (IAH)), 

2 
Featu~ed t~e descr~ption f8r a shiDment offered on 

f'i~V,7E ;JOl-77290566 (5 pccka:;!esj, for =-_terns cletssi::ie6 as. 

Gas Oil, 3, Ur~1202. rhe NO?!C failed to include the 

packing group as required. 

g. On February 24, 2010, the NOPIC for American 

Flicjht Number 48 (DFW 1:0 Faris, France !"COG") I, 

featured the descriptio~ for a shipment offered on AWB 

7796-9043 (1 package), for an item classified 6S 

Adhesives, 3, UN1133, PGII. The NOPIC failed to 

include the packing group as required. 

h. On February 28, 2010, tl:te NOPIC for American 

Flight Number 3 6 ( DF\IJ to t1adrid, Spain ("MAD") I, 

featured the description for a shipment offered on 

AWE 001-7878-3983 (1 package), of an item classified 

as Arnines, Liquid, Corrosive, N.O.S., 8, UN2735, PG 

II. The NOPIC failed to include the packing group as 

required. 

i. On March 6, 2010, the NOPIC for American Flight 

Number 963 (DFW to Sao Paulo, Brazil (GRU)), featured 

the description for a shipment offered on AWB 001-

96383-416 (1 Package), for an item classified as 

Acetonitrile, 3 UN1648, PGII. The NOPIC failed to 

include the packing group as required. 

j. On March 12, 2010, the NOPIC for American Flight 

651, 1266, and 1238 (DFW to Miami, Florida ("MIA") I 

Featured the description for a shipment offered on 

AWE 001-9642-1555 (3 packages total, 1 package was 

transported on each flight), for items classified as 

Printing Ink, 3, UN1210, PG III. The NOPIC failed to 

include the packing group as required. 

k. On March 16, 2010, the NOPIC for American Flight 

Number 2479 (DF~J to Los Angeles, California (LAX)), 

featured the description for a shipment offered on 

AWB 001-9987-7606 (1 package), for items classified as 

Cartridges, Power Device, 1.48, UN0323. The NOPIC 

failed to include the "EX number" as required. 

l. On April 9, 2010, the NOPIC for American Flight 

·Number 963 (DFW to Sao Paulo, Brazil (GEU)), featured 

The description for a shipment offered on AWB 1306-

5113 (1 package), for an item classified as Flammable 

Liquid, Corrosive, N.O.S., 3 (8), UN2924, PG II. Tf:e 

3 
NOPIC failed to include the subsidiary hazard class 

na~e of the material as required. 

4. On April 13, 2010, American failed to properly 

monitor the teleohone number indicated on the Notice to 

Pilot in Command as required by the hazardous material 

regulations. 

5. By reason of the facts and circumstances described in 

paragraphs 1 through 10 above, American violated the 

following Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials 

Regulations (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations): 

a. Sectionl75.l(b)) (49C.F.R. §175.l(b)), inthat 

American transported hazardous material in air commerce 

when it did not comply with the requirements of Subpart A 

or Part 175. (49 C.F.H. § 175, et seq.). 

b. Section 175.33(a) (1)) (49 C.F.R. § l75.33(a) (1), 

rn that American transported hazardous material in air 

cormnerce "'hen it failed to provide the proper shipping 

name, hazard class, and identification number on the 

Notification to Pilot-In-Command form. 

c. Section 175.33(a) (1) (i) (49 C.F.R. § 

175.33(a) (1) (i)), in that American transported hazardous 

material in air commerce when it failed to provide 

additional description requirements provided in§§ 172.202 

and 172.203 on the Notification to Pilot-In-Command form. 

d. Section l75.33(a) (8)) (49 C.F.R. § l75.33(a) (8), 

in that American transported hazardous material in air 

corrllierce when it failed to provide a telephone number of a 

person not aboard the aircraft whom the information from 

the pilot-in-command can be obtained and the phone number 

is monitored at all times the aircraft is in flight. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 

512 3 (a) , that American be and is hereby, asses sed a civil 

penalty of $22,500.00. 

American is hereby ordered to pay, immediately, the 

assessed amount by mailing or delivering a certified check, 

money order, or company check in the amount of $22,500.00 

payable to the "Federal }\viation Administration" addressed 

to: 

4 
Federal Aviation Administration 

DOT/FAA MMAC AMZ-350 

PO BOX 25770 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125-5082 

ATTN: Sonny Rogers 

As an alternative method of payment, civil penalties may be 

paid with a credit card at the following website: 

http://www.pay.gov 

The amount of civil penaltyassesse_c:l in _this order_ 

constitutes a debt owed to the United States. A.rnerican has 

now exhausted its right to seek review of the validity or 

amount of this debt. If this debt is not paid in full 

•eJi thin 30 days of Amer:i_can' s receipt of this letter, the 

debt is delinquent. 

For delinquent debts, federal regulation (49 C.F.R. § 

8 9. 23) requires us to charge interest, from the date of 

this Order, at a fixed annual rate of 1.0%, along with an 

administrative charge of $12 per month, representing our 

costs of administrative collection. Furthermore, if the 

full amount assessed is not paid in full within 120 days of 

P11nerican' s receipt of this letter, we are required to 

assess an additional penalty at an annual rate of 2.625%, 

accruing from the date of delinquency. 

Delinquent debts may be reported to consumer reporting 

agencies or commercial credit bureaus, which could 

adversely affect American's credit rating. Nonpayment of 

this debt may ultimately result in a referral to a 

collection agency, or the United States Department of 

Justice for enforced collection. 

Upon our receipt of American's payment in the amount 

of $22,500.00 American may consider this matter closed. 

5 
Lil'J!I 0 DOCJNELL 

Ac:ing Regional Counsel 

.Southi·.Jest Region 

By: 

/ 

. // /} . 

Jli,.V (t_/~_cf:tv_); James ·Ar;chier, Attornej/ 

(817) 222-5074 (Phone) 

(817) 222-5945/5092 (Fax) 

cc: FAA/MMAC Accounts Receivable 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that this order has been sent on Jvlay 13, 2011 by 

certified mail to: 

Mr. Francis C. Heil 

Senior Attorney 

American Airlines 

P.O. Box 619616 

Dallas/Fort Worth Airport 

Texas 75261-9616 

I ) ;t L 

''By-;---.• ·~ 1/l.i_f :_c:" l:t!<~_f{J-, ./·Jafnes Archier 

Dated: Jvlay 13, 2011 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0007 

(817) 222-5074 

6 
US, Depa~ment 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

December 7, 2011 

Via Federal Express 

Southwest Region 

Arkansas, Louisiana, 

New Mexico, Oklahoma 

Texas 

Mr. Jonathan T. Linde 

Managing Director & Senior Counsel 

Regulatory 

United Airlines, Inc. 

77 W. Wacker Drive 

16th Floor HDQLD 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

l'ii'·,f--,··<_' ; I ' MIDi).7 -..: ;_.; -' --~'-:~ 0\~hi u 

Office of Regional Counsel, ASW-7 

2601 Meacham Blvd 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

(817) 222-5099 

(817) 222-5945/5092 FAX 

Re: Continental Airlines, Inc., FAA Case No. 2010SW700146 

ORDER ASSESSING CIVIL PENALTY 

On September 1, 2011, Continental l\.irlines, Inc., was 

advised through an Amended Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that 

the Federal Aviation Administration proposed to assess a civil 

penalty in the amount of $35,850. 

In order to avoid further litigation, the parties have 

agreed to settle this case for $32,000 and Continental Airlines, 

Inc., has agreed to waive any further rights of appeal. This 

order constitutes a finding by the Federal Aviation 

Administration of the facts and regulatory violations contained 

herein. It is determined that: 

1. From May 10, 2010 to May 18, 2010 the Federal Aviation 

Administration ("FAA") conducted a comprehensive hazardous 

material inspection of Continental Airlines, Inc. 

("Continental") at George Bush Intercontinental Airport, 

Houston, Texas. 

2. During this inspection the FlU\ inspector observed numerous 

discrepancies involving incorrect preparation of Notice to Pilot 

In Command, improper shipping paper acceptance and preparation, 

and lack of an emergency response telephone number on shipping 

papers. 

_......,-:, 
3. On or about April 20, 2010, the Notice to Pilot In Command 

for Continental for Flight 632 from Houston, Texas to LaGuardia, 

New York, via air waybill number 00557301893 lacked the prefix 

"UN" in the identification number used for the basic description 

of Dry Ice, UN1845. 

4. On or about Harch 26, 2010, the Notice to Pilot In Command 

for Continental Flight 146 from Houston, Texas to Chicago, 

Illinois failed to include the technical name description for 

Gas N.O.S., 2.2 on air way bill number 60794707491. 

5. On or about April 9, 2010, the Notice to Pilot In Cormnand 

for Continental Flight Number 1586 from Houston, Texas to 

Orlando, Florida failed to include the loading location for 

items classified as Dangerous Goods in Hachinery, hazard class 

9, UN3363 on air waybill 005IAH34342453. 

6. On or about Harch 24, 2010, the Notice to Pilot In Command 

for Continental Flight Number 1195 from Houston, Texas tc Los 

Angeles, California used an incomplete shipping name for Carbon 

Dioxide Solid, hazard class 9, UN1845 on air waybill 

00579051442. 

7. On or about Harch 30, 2010 the Notice to Pilot In Corrmand 

for Continental Flight Number 34 from Houston, Texas to London, 

England failed to include the notation for a Limited Quantity 

Shipment for Adhesive, hazard class 3, Packing Group II that was 

offered on air waybill 00595479414. 

8. On or about July 20, 2009, Charles Justice prepared and 

offered a shipping paper on behalf of Continental with air 

waybill 005IAH34369543 for the transport of Flammable Liquid 

NOS, hazard class 3, Packing Group II from Houston, Texas to 

Cleveland, Ohio that did not include the required emergency 

response telephone number. 

9. On or about July 16, 2009 Continental accepted a shipping 

paper, in conjunction with air waybill 00517004470, that lacked 

the identification number, proper shipping name and hazard class 

for Paint, hazard class 3, packing group III. 

10. On or about April 26, 2009, Pedro Berrios prepared a 

shipping paper for Continental that was used in conjunction with 

air waybill 613260736946 to transport Life Saving Appliances, 

self-inflating, hazard class 9 from Houston, Texas to Newark, 

New Jersey. The hazardous material shipping description 

improperly included the notation "RQ". 

2 
11. By reason of the above, Continental violated the following 

Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations): 

a. Section 171.2(e) (49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e)), in that 

Continental offered hazardous material for transportation by air 

in coiiLmerce when the material was not properly classed, 

described, packaged, marked, labeled, and in a condition for 

shipment as required or authorized by applicable requirements of 

the hazardous material regulations. 

b. Section 172.200(a) (49 C.F.R. § 172.200(a)), which requires 

that each person offering a hazardous material for 

transportation to properly describe the hazardous material on 

the shipping papers. 

c. Section 172.20l(a) (4) (49 C.F.R. § 172.20l(a) (4)) in that 

it offered hazardous material for transportation in air commerce 

when the shipping paper provided additional information that was 

inconsistent with the required description. 

d. Section 172.20l(d)) (49 C.F.R. § 172.20l(d))) in that it 

offered hazardous material for transportation in air commerce 

and failed to include an emergency response telephone number on 

the shipping paper as prescribed in subpart G. 

e. Section 172.202(a) (1) (49 C.F.R. § 172.202 (a) (1)) in that it 

offered hazardous material for transportation in air commerce 

when the required hazardous material description on the shipping 

papers did not include the identification number prescribed for 

the material as shown in Column 4 of the§ 172.101 Table. 

Section 172.202(a) (2) (49 C.F.R. § 172.202(a) (2)) in that it 

offered hazardous material for transportation in air commerce 

when the required hazardous material description on the shipping 

papers did not include the proper shipping name prescribed for 

the material in Column 2 of the§ 172.101 Table. 

g. Section 172.202(a) (3) (49 C.F.R. § 172.202(a) (3)) in that 

it offered hazardous material for transportation in air commerce 

when the required shipping papers did not include the hazard 

class or division number prescribed for the material, as shown 

in Column (3) in the Hazardous Materials Table, referenced in 

section 172.101. 
h. Section 172.203(b) (49 C.F.R. § 172.203(b)) in that it 

offered hazardous material for transportation in air commerce as 

"limited quantity" without providing the language "Limited 

Quantity" or "Ltd Qty" following the basic description. 

l. Section 172.600 (49 C.F.R. § 172.600)), which requires that 

each person offering a hazardous material for transportation to 

provide and maintain emergency response information during 

transportation and at the facility where hazardous materials are 

loaded for transportation, stored incidental to transportation 

or otherwise handled during any phase of transportation. 

j. Section 172.604(a) (1)) (49 C.F.R. § 172.604(a) (1)) in that 

it offered hazardous material for shipment by air and failed to 

provide an emergency response telephone number (including area 

code) for use in the event of an emergency involving hazardous 

material that is monitored at all times that the material is in 

transportation, including storage incidental to transportation. 

k. Section 175.30(a) (2) (49 C.F.R. § 175.30(a) (2) in that it 

accepted hazardous material aboard an aircraft and failed to 

ensure that the hazardous material was described and certified 

on a shipping paper prepared in duplicate in accordance with 

part 172 of this subchapter or as authorized by subpart C of 

part 171 of this subchapter. 

1. Section 175.33(a) (1) (49 C.F.R. § 175.33(a) (1) in that it 

accepted hazardous material aboard an aircraft for 

transportation by air and failed to provide the pilot-in-command 

the proper shipping name, hazard class and identification number 

of the hazardous material aboard the aircraft. 

m. Section 175.33(a) (2) (49 C.F.R. § 175.33(a) (2) ln that it 

accepted hazardous material aboard an aircraft for 

transportation by air and the operator of the aircraft failed to 

inform the pilot in command of the location of the hazardous 

materials. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 

5123(a), that Continental be and is hereby, assessed a civil 

penalty of $32,000.00. 

Continental is hereby ordered to pay, i~mediately, the 

assessed amount by mailing or delivering a certified check, 

money order, or company check in the amount of $32,000.00 

payable to the "Federal Aviation Administration" addressed to: 

4 
Federal Aviation Administration 

DOT/FAA MMAC AMZ-350 

PO BOX 25770 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125-5082 

ATTN: Sonny Rogers 

As an alternative method of payment, civil penalties may be paid 

with a credit card at the following website: http://www.pay.gov 

The amount of civil penalty assessed in this order constitutes a 

debt owed to the United States. Continental has now exhausted 

its right to seek review of the validity or amount of this debt. 

If this debt is not paid in full witchin 30 days of Continental's 

receipt of this letter, the debt is delinquent. 

For delinquent debts, federal regulation (49 C.F.R. § 

89.23) requires us to charge interest, from the date of this 

Order, at a fixed annual rate of 1.0%, along with an 

administrative charge of $12 per month, representing our costs 

of administrative collection. Furthermore, if the full amount 

assessed is not paid in full within 120 days of Continental's 

receipt of this letter, we are required to assess an additional 

penalty at an annual rate of 2.50%, accruing from the date of 

delinquency. 

Delinquent debts may be reported to consumer reporting 

agencies or commercial credit bureaus, which could adversely 

affect Continental's credit rating. Nonpayment of this debt may 

ultimately result in a referral to a collection agency, or the 

United States Department of Justice for enforced collection. 

Upon our receipt of Continental's payment in the amount of 

$32,000.00 Continental may consider this matter closed. 

DAVID DONNELL 

Regional Counsel 

South~Iest Region 

Attorney 

(Phone) 

222-5945/5092 (Fax) 

5 
cc: FAA/MMAC Accounts Receivable 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that this order has been sent on December 7, 2011 by 

Federal Express to: 

s Archier 

Mr. JonQ.than L Linde 

Managing Director & Senior Counsel 

Regulatory 

United Air Lines, Inc. 

77 W. Wacker Drive 

16th Floor HDQLD 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

' I, j .<;_ \../7 Dated: December 7, 2.011 

deral Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0007 

(817) 222-5074 

6 
U.S. Deportment 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Feb~uary 26, 2009 

Southwest Region 

Arkansas, Louisiana 

New Mexico, Oklahoma 

Texas 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Fort Worth. TX 76193-0007 

(817) 222-5099 

(817) 222-594515092 FAX 

Certified Mail - Return Receipt 7004 2510 0005 6023 9842 

Ms. Ann M. Aktabowski 

Vice President, Customer Services 

World Airways, Inc. 

101 fi'/orld Drive 

HLH Building 

Peachtree, Georgia 30269 

Re: World Airways, Inc., FAA Case No. 2007SW700311 

ORDER ASSESSING CIVIL PENALTY 

On January 27, 2009, World Airways, Inc., (hereinafter 

"World Airways") was advised through a Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty that the Federal Aviation Administration 

proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of 

$32,500.00. 

After considering all the available information 

presented in the Informal Conference on February 25, 2009, 

the parties agreed to settle this case for $25,000.00 and 

World Airways has agreed to waive any further rights of 

appeal. This Order constitutes a finding by the Federal 

Aviation Administration of the facts and regulatory 

violations contained herein. The Administrator has 

determined that: 

1. On or about November 5, 2006, World Airways accepted 

and transported a hazardous material shipment from Luanda, 

Angola to Houston, Texas. 

2. The Federal Aviation Adrninistration (hereinafter "FAA") 

became aware of this shipment on October 9, 2008. 

3. The shipment consisted of a package of human blood 

samples suspected of containing Marburg Virus, an 

infectious substance. 
li. Tte I1umar: b2_God sa_~cples, suspected of containir;_g 

MarbJrg Virus, were inside cf box and placed in the 

cYverhead storage comp2rtrnent of a passenger aircraft. Dry 

ice was used to cool -=he sample. 

5. The package was labeled with a ''bio hazard sticker." 

6. Marburg Virus is classified as a hazardous material 

under the Department of Transportation Hazardous Material 

Recjulations (49 C.F.R. § 172.101). 

7. The proper shipping name for Marburg 

Infectious Substances, affecting humans, 

virus is 

6. 2, UN2 814. 

8. The package was shipped under Etiological Permit number 

2006-02-077. 

8. The package did not contain a shipper's declaration. 

9. World Airways transported a hazardous material in 

cormnerce that failed to comply with the applicable 

requirements of subchapter C, subpart A of the hazardous 

material regulations. 

10. World Airways accepted a hazardous material for 

transportation aboard an aircraft when the aircraft 

operator failed to ensure that the hazardous material was 

described and certified on a shipping paper prepared in 

duplicate in accordance part 172 of this subchapter or as 

authorized by subpart C of part 171 of this subchapter. 

11. World Airways accepted hazardous material for 

transportation by air and failed to provide the pilot-incommand '"'i th a shipping paper that provided the proper 

shipping name, hazard class, and identification number of 

the material. 

12. World Airways accepted and transported hazardous 

material in the cabin of a passenger-carrying aircraft. 

13. By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, 

World Airways violated the following sections of the 

Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials 

Regulations (49 C.F.R. § 171 et.seq. 

a. Section 171.2(f) (49 C.F.R. § 171.2(f) in that it 

transported a hazardous material in comrr,erce that failed to 

2 
comply ·~-.7i-:_I-1 t~le app~:.icab_:_e 2:::'equ:~reme!its o£ subchapter C, 

suboart A of the hazardo~s m~te~ial regulat~ons. 

o. Section l75.30(a) (2) (49 C.F'.E. § 175.3C(a) (2) ::;_n 

that it accepted a haza~dous material for transportation 

aboard an aircraft when tte aircraft operator failed to 

ensure that the hazardous material was described and 

certified en a shipping paper prepared in duplicate in 

accordance with part l72 of this subchaoter or as 

authorized by subpart C of part 171 of this subchapter. 

c. Section 175.33(a) (1) (49 C.F.R. § 175.33(a) (1) 

accepted hazardous material for transportation by air and 

failed to provide the pilot-in-oo!l'mand with a shipping 

paper that provided the proper shipping name, hazard class, 

and identification number of the material. 

d. Section 175.75(b) (49 C.F.R. § l75.75(b) accepted 

and transported hazardous material rn the cabin of a 

passenger-carrying aircraft. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 

5123, that World Airways be and is hereby, assessed a civil 

penalty of $25,000.00. 

World Airways is hereby ordered to pay, immediately, 

the assessed amount by mailing or delivering a certified 

check, money order, or company check in the amount of 

$25,000.00 payable to the "Federal Aviation Administration" 

addressed to: 

DOT/FAA/MMAC, 

Accounts Receivable, 

AMZ-310, P.O.BOX 25082 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125-5082 

The amount of civil penalty assessed in this Order 

constitutes a debt owed to the United States. World 

Airways has now exhausted its right to seek review of the 

validity or amount of rhis debt. If this debt is not paid 

in full within 30 days of World Airways' receipt of this 

letter, the debt is delinquent. 

For delinquent debts, federal regulation (49 C.F.R. § 

89.23) requires us to charge interest, from the date of 

this Order, at a fixed annual rate of 5.125%, along with an 

admiEistrative charge of Sl2 per month, representing our 
costs of administrative collection. 

full amount assessed is not paid in 

E'urthermore, if the 

full wi~hin 120 days 

World Airways' ~eceipt of this letter, we are required to 

assess an additional penalty ar an annual rate of 3.0%, 

accruing from the date of delinquency. 

of 

Delinquent debts may be reported to consumer reporting 

agencies or commercial credit bureaus, 'flhich could 

adversely affect World Airways' credit rating. Nonpayrnent 

of this debt may ultimately result in a referral to a 

collec~ion agency, or the United States Department of 

Justice for enforced collection. 

Upon our receipt of World Airways' payment in the 

amount of $25,000.00 World Airways may consider this matter 

closed. 

LYNETTE WORD 

Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

By: . J"t;dt6/c[ 'r 

Oam§s Arc 1er, Attorney 

(817) 222-5074 (Phone) 

(817) 222-5945/5092 (Fax) 

4 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that this Order nas been sent on February 26, 

2009 by certified mail, return receipt requested to: 

Ms. Ann M. Aktabowski 

Vice President, Customer Services 

World Airways, Inc. 

101 ~Jorld Drive 

HLH Building 

Peachtree, Georgia 30269 

B-;=---=> '~~~') Dated: February 26, 2009 

/. Ja es Archier 

/ A'-;;,·deral Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

South-,Iest Reg ion 

2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0007 

(817) 222-5074 

5