U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Rr-.· 

1~. (~~.· 

~- ,I 

P.UG 17 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

1N THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO. 2015-1321 

Fisher Scientific Company, LLC FAA CASE NO. 2011S0700457 

Respondent Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

FAA'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR 

INSUFFICIENCY AND FOR COMPLAINANT'S VIOLATION OF RULE 208 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter FAA), through the undersigned 

counsel, files this response to the Respondent's June 23, 2015, motion to dismiss. The FAA 

asserts the Respondent's motion should be denied. In support of its argument, the FAA submits 

the following: 

I. The Complaint Sufficiently Alleges that the Respondent Knowingly Violated 49 

U.S.C., Subtitle III, Chapter 51, §§ 5101-5128 (Hazardous Materials Transportation 

· Act "HMTA") and 49. C.F.R. Subtitle B, Chapter I, Subchapter C (hazardous 

materials regulations ("HMRs")) 

Fisher Scientific Company, LLC (hereinafter "Respondent"), asserts that the complaint is 

insufficient and should be dismissed under 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(£)(1)1 Specifically, the 

Respondent argues the complaint is insufficient to the extent that it alleges that the Respondent 

1 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(1)(1) states [a] respondent may file a motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency instead 

of filing an answer. If the administrative law judge denies the motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency, the 

respondent shall file an answer not later than 10 days after service of the administrative law judge's denial of the 

motion. A motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency must show that the complaint fails to state a violation 

of a provision of the Federal aviation statute listed in the first sentence in 49 U.S.C. 4630l(d)(2) or in 49 U.S. C. 

47531, or any implementing rule, regulation, or order, or a violation of the Federal hazardous materials 

transportation statute, 49 U.S.C. 5121-5128, or any implementing rule, regulation or order. 
"'knowingly' offered a declared shipment of hazardous materials." (Respondent's Memorandum 

at 2, '1]1 ). Rather, the Respondent argues the complaint is required to allege that the Respondent 

'"knowingly committed any act which is a violation of that or some other HMR."2 

(Respondent's Memorandum at 2, '1]2). In other words, the Respondent argues that the complaint 

must allege that the Respondent knowingly violated each HMR cited in the complaint, i.e., that 

the Respondent "knowingly violated 49 C.P.R. Part 173." However, as the HMTA and case law 

demonstrate, the Respondent's argument is without merit. 

The Respondent relies on the language contained in the HMT A, which states "[a] person 

that knowingly violates this chapter or regulation ... issued under this chapter is liable to the 

United States Government for a civil penalty .... " 49. U.S.C. § 5123(a)(1) (2011). However, the 

Respondent overlooks the term "knowingly," which the HMT A defines as: 

A person acts knowing! y when~ 

(A) the person has actual knowledge of the facts glVmg nse to the 

violation; or 

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

reasonable care would have that knowledge. 

49. U.S.C. § 5123(a)(1)(A)&(B) (2011). Based on the HMTA definition of "knowingly," the 

complaint only need allege that the Respondent had knowledge of the facts giving rise to the 

violation, i.e., that the Respondent "knowingly offered to United Parcel Service (UPS) a one 

piece shipment consisting of a specification fiberboard box containing hazardous materials for 

transportation by air;"3

•

4 not that the Respondent had knowledge that it committed a violation of 

2 Although the Respondent argues that the complaint must allege that that the Respondent "'knowingly conunitted 

any act which is a violation of' that or some other HMR" (Respondent's Memorandum at 2, ~2), the Respondent 

argues that "in order to show that 'a person acted knowingly' .... " (Respondent's Memorandum at 3, 111), the 

Government must prove the person had 'actual knowledge of the facts living rise to the violation .... "' The FAA 

submits the Respondent's brief is contradictory, and submits the latter argument is a correct interpretation of the 

HMTA. 

3 See Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, ~1 (Exhibit 1); Amended Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, ~1 (Exhibit 2). 

2 
the HMRs. See In the Mater of Scott H. Smalling, FAA Docket No. CP93NM0260, *1, *3 

(October 5, 1994) ("However, in this context- a civil case in which specific intent to violate the 

regulations need not be shown -lack of knowledge ofthe law is irrelevant."). This interpretation 

also was discussed and acknowledged by Department of Transportation ("DOT") Administrative 

Law Judge ("ALI") Burton S. Kolka in FAA v. Boats U.S. Marine, Inc., FAA Docket No. 

CP94EA0148 *1,*1 (December 29, 1994). There, ALI Kolko stated "[t]he statute requires 

knowledge only of the act which constituted the violation - offering a shipment for 

transportation by air- not knowledge of the application of the act to relevant law or regulations." 

In support of his finding, ALJ Kulko cited to legislative history: 

The conference report accompanying H.R. 15223 (which bill was later enacted) 

instructs that a 'civil penalty may be imposed only upon proof that the defendant 

knowingly committed the act which constitutes the violation (it is not necessary to 

show that he knew the act constituted a violation) ... " (italics supplied). S. Conf. 

Rep. No. 1347, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. 23, reprinted in 1974 U.S. Code Cong. & 

Admin. News 7669, 7686. Plainly, Congress evidencing a strong public interest in 

the enforcement of hazardous materials regulations, required only that knowledge 

of the act be shown in order to make out a violation. 

Id. The Court has repeatedly applied the same requirement in subsequent cases before it. See In 

the Matter of William A. Luker, Jr., FAA Docket No. CP09SW0008 *1,*3 (May 13, 2010) 

("[49 U.S. C.§ 5123] requires that the alleged violator must have known the 'facts giving rise to 

the violation."'); In the Matter ofKMC Acquisition Corp. d/b/a l<.irkhill Mfg. Co., FAA Docket 

No. CP08S00004 *1,*1 (August 6, 2008) ("It is difficult to conceive of any plainer way to 

allege the mens rea required to state a violation of the law" where the complaint alleges that the 

respondent tendered to an air carrier a package containing hazardous materials with knowledge 

4 The FAA submits the Respondent knew that it offered hazardous materials for transportation by air, to the extent 

that Respondent's counsel explained that the hazardous materials were "properly declared." (Respondent's 

Memorandum, Exhibit 2, p2, 11 ). 

3 
of the nature of the contents.); FAA v. Mace Adhesives & Coatings Co., Inc., FAA Docket No. 

CP02EA0004 *1,*1 (June 19, 2002) ("Congress intended civil penalties to be imposed on those 

who knowingly committed the act that constituted a violation, which boils down to knowingly 

tendering a shipment for carriage in air commerce."). 

Based on the foregoing, the Respondent's argument that the complaint must allege that 

the Respondent "knowingly committed any act which is a violation of that or some other HMR" 

is without merit and due to be denied. 

II. The FAA Timely Notified the Respondent of Violating 14 C.P.R. § 173 .27( e) 

The Respondent argues that the complaint, in its entirety, should be dismissed under 14 

C.P.R. § 208(d),5 because the Agency amended its Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty more than 

two years after the facts giving rise to the violation occurred. 6 (Respondent's Memorandum at 5, 

~4). More specifically, the Respondent argues that the FAA's amendment to paragraph "f' of 

the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty (in which the FAA alleged that the Respondent was 

obligated to include absorbent materials in its package) warrants dismissal of the complaint 

because the amendment occurred more than two years after the incident occurred. 

The Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, paragraph "f," served on July 3, 2013, alleges: 

5 14 C.F.R. ~ 208(d) states: Instead of filing an answer to the complaint, a respondent may move to dismiss the 

complaint, or that part of the complaint, alleging a violation that occurred on or after August 2, 1990, and more than 

2 years before an agency attorney issued a notice of proposed civil penalty to the respondent. (1) An administrative 

law judge may not grant the motion and dismiss the complaint or part of the complaint if the administrative law 

judge finds that the agency has shown good cause for any delay in issuing the notice of proposed civil penalty. (2) If 

the agency fails to show good cause for any delay, an administrative law judge may dismiss the complaint, or that 

part of the complaint, alleging a viola6on that oCcmTed more than 2 years before an agency attomey issued the 

notice of proposed civil penalty to the respondent 6 The Respondent alternatively argues that the complaint's reference to "absorbent materials" should be dismissed 

should the Court deny the Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint, in its entirety, under 14 C.F.R. § 208(d). 

4 
By reason of the above, Fisher violated the following Department of 

Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (Title 49 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations): 

f. Section 173.27(e) in that Fisher offered a package containing hazardous liquids 

in Packing Group I or II of Class 3, 4, 5, 6, or 8, in glass, earthenware, plastic or 

metal inner packages and failed to use a means of containing the liquid in the 

form of leakproof liner, plastic bag, or other equally efficient means of 

containment in the event of leakage. 

(Exhibit 1). The Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty was served on the Respondent within two 

years of the incident giving rise to the violation. As a result, the Notice of Proposed Civil 

penalty was timely issued pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 208(d). The Amended Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty/ paragraph "f", served on July 24, 2014, alleges: 

By reason of the above, Fisher violated the following Department of 

Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (Title 49 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations): 

f. Section 173.27(e) in that Fisher failed to ensure that except as otherwise 

provided in this subchapter, a package containing liquids hazardous materials in 

Class 3, 4, or 8, or Division 5.1, 5.2 or 6.1 that are packaged and offered for 

transport in glass, earthenware, plastic or metal inner packages are packaged with 

absorbent materials as follows: ... (2) Packing Group 1 liquids on cargo aircraft, 

and Packing Group II liquids including Division 5.2 liquids on passenger and 

cargo aircraft, must be packaged using a sufficient quantity of absorbent material 

to absorb the entire contents of any one of the inner packagings containing such 

liquids. When the inner packagings are of different sizes and quantities, sufficient 

absorbent material must be used to absorb the entire contents of the inner 

packaging with greatest volume of liquid. (3) When absorbent materials are 

required and the outer packaging is not liquid tight, a means of containing the 

liquid in the event of leakage must be provided in the form of a leakproof liner, 

plastic bag or other equally efficient means of containment. 

Exhibit 2). Although the amendment to paragraph "f" was made more than two years after the 

incident occurred, the amendment is proper because it relates back to the time the Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty was issued. The "relation back doctrine" enables a plaintiff to add a new 

claim after the statutory period has expired, if the original notice sufficiently notifies the 

7 The FAA subsequently filed the Amended Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty as the complaint. 

5 
respondent of the charges. In the Matter of: Mississippi Air Express, LLC, Docket No. FAA2014-0866 *1, *9 (July 22, 2015). Where an amendment asserts a claim which arose from the 

occurrences alleged in the original complaint, it relates back to the date of the original pleading. 

FAA v. Beni, FAA Docket No. CP95SOOI38 (June 25, 1996). Because the amended claim in 

the instant case arises from the original set of facts alleged in the Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty, neither the amendment, nor the complaint, is subject to dismissal under 14 C.F .R. § 

208(d). 

Based on the foregoing, the Respondent's argument that the Agency's amendment to 

paragraph "f' of the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty is untimely is without merit and due to be 

denied. 

III. Conclusion 

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the Respondent's motion to dismiss the 

complaint for insufficiency under 14 C.P.R. § 13.218(±)(1) and for untimeliness under 14 C.P.R. 

§ 208( d) are without merit and due to be denied. As a result, the FAA requests that the Court 

deny the Respondent's June 23, 2015, motion to dismiss. 

R'VJ~(J:::""' L d"yof____,b'-+----"-7/'--J...:..__~, 2015. 

William Vines 

General Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

6 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing FAA's Motion for Extension to File a Response was sent to 

the following via certified mail: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

Jerry W. Cox, Esq. 

Potomac Strategy Associates 

2729 Gallows Rd., Suite 401 

Vienna, VA 22180 

1

AUG -.z 2015] 

Dated 

7 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Southern Region 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

P. 0. Box 20636 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

(404) 305-5200 

(404) 305-5223 FAX 

JUL 3 2013 

CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

REGULAR MAIL 

2011S0700457 

President 

Fisher Scientific Company, L.L.C. 

6722 Bickmore Avenue 

Chino, CA 91708 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY 

Based on a report of investigation, including the letter of James W. Patterson, Esq .. dated August 

12,2011, it appears that: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

On or about July 20, 2011, Fisher Scientillc Company, L.L.C, ("Fisher") 

knowingly o!Tered to United Parcel Service (UPS) a one piece shipment 

consisting of a spccit!cation tlberboard box containing hazardous materials for 

transportation by air. 

The above-mentioned shipment, assigned UPS tracking number/air waybill 

number 1Z9V34911325638264, was offered by Fisher for next day air 

transportation to the consignee, Genova Diagnostics, 63 Zillicoa Street, Asheville, 

NC 28801. 

On or about July 21, 2011, ground handling personnel at the UPS sort facility 

discovered the above-mentioned shipment leaking. 

The above-mentioned specitlcation tlberboarcl box contained a one ( 1) liter plastic 

bottle of sodium hydroxide solution, Class 8, UN 1824. 

Further investigation showed that approximately 2 ounces had leaked into and 

through the tlberboard container. 

Fisher alTered the above-described shipment for transportation by air when it 

failed to ensure friction type closures were securely, tightly and effectively held in 

place by positive means. 

Fisher offered the above shipment of hazardous material for transportation by air 

and failed to usc a means of containing the liquid in the fom1 of a leakproof liner, 

plastic bag or other equally efficient means of containment. 

Government 

Exhibit 
8. Fisher offered the shipment of hazardous materials for transportation by air and 

failed to package it so there would be no identifiable release of hazardous material 

to the environment. 

9. Fisher offered the shipment of hazardous materials for transportation by air and 

failed to ensure the closure was secure and leakproof. 

10. Fisher offered the shipment of hazardous materials for transportation by air and 

failed to pack, secure, and cushion the package to prevent breakage or leakage. 

By reason of the above, Fisher violated the following Department of Transportation Hazardous 

Materials Regulations (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations): 

a. Section 171.2(a) in that Fisher offered a hazardous material for transportation in 

commerce when the hazardous material was not properly classed, described, packaged, 

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

requirements of this subchapter. 

b. Section 173.24a(a)(3) in that Fisher failed to ensure that inner packagings of combination 

packagings were sufficiently packed, secured, and cushioned to prevent their breakage or 

leakage and to control their shifting within the outer packaging under conditions normally 

incident to transportation. 

c. Section 173.24(b)(l) in that Fisher failed to use a package which was designed, 

constructed, maintained, filled, its contents so limited, and dosed, so that under 

conditions normally incident to transportation, there would be no identifiable release of 

hazardous material to the environment. 

d. Section 173.24([)(1) in that Fisher failed to use a package which had closures so designed 

and closed that under conditions (including the effects of temperature and vibration) 

normally incident to transportation, there would be no identifiable release of hazardous 

materials to the environment from the opening to which the closure was applied and the 

closure was secure and leakproof. 

e. Section 173.27(d) in that Fisher failed to ensure stoppers, corks or other such frictiontype closures were held securely, tightly and effectively in place by positive means, and 

that each screw-type closure on any packaging was secured to prevent closure from 

loosening due to vibration or substantial change in temperature.· 

f. Section 173.27(e) in that Fisher offered a package containing hazardous liquids in 

Packing Group I or !I of Class 3, 4, 5, 6, or 8, in glass, earthenware, plastic or metal inner 

packagings and failed to use a means of containing the liquid in the form of leakproof 

liner, plastic bag, or other equally ef1icient means of containment in the event of leakage. 

2 
In accordance with Section 5123(a) of Title 49 of the United States Code (Transportation) ( 49 

U.S.C. § 5123(a)), Fisher is liable for a civil penalty not lower than $250, nor greater than 

$27.500 for each violation of the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials 

Regulations. After reviewing our investigative file, we propose to assess a civil penalty in the 

amount of $6,500 for these violations. 

Enclosed is infi.mnation on Fisher's options in responding to this Notice. The options include 

pariicipating in an inti.mnal conference with an FAA attorney. and submission of information to 

the FAA for consideration. Fisher must submit, in writing, its choice of the altematives 

explained on the enclosed information forn1, on or before 30 days atler Fisher receives this 

Notice. If Fisher fails to submit its choice within that time, Fisher will have no further right to 

participate in the inli.mnal procedures. 

RANDY E. H~' AN 

ACII~q ~ I NAL COUNSEL 

BY: 'W ____. 

WILLIAM VINES 

Attorney 

Oftlce of the Regional Counsel 

Enclosures: Information Sheet 

Reply Form 

FAR 13.16 and Subpart G ofPm113 

3 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty has been sent by ceiiitled 

mail and regular mail to: 

President 

Fisher Scientific Company. L. L.C. 

6722 Bickmore Avenue 

Chino. CA 91708 

James W. Patterson. Esq. 

Reger, Rizzo, & Damall. LLP 

Cira Centre. 13'h Floor 

2929 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, P A 19104-2899 

~f)) e 

Donna E. Stanley 

Legal Assistant 

Date 

;[U 

to 

I'D 

D 

Postage 1--'-------l 

Certified Fee 

' 

' 

"I 

/ 

Poc;tmark 

Here 

Sie Reverse for lnstrucl ons B 0 AU ust2006 ~ ' 
U.S. Department Southern Region 

of Transportation Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

mw l2 4 201 

CERTifiED MAIL -RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

REGULAR MAIL 

President 

Fisher Scientific Company, L.L.C. 

6722 Bickmore Avenue 

Chino, CA 91708 

P. o. Box 20636 

Atlanta, Gecrgia 30320 

(404) 305-5200 

(404) 305-5223 FAX 

2011 S0700457 

AMENDED NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY 

The Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty issued on July 3, 2014 is hereby amended as follows: 

Based on a report of investigation, including the letter of James W. Patterson, Esq., dated August 

12, 2011, it appears that: 

1. On or about July 20, 2011, Fisher Scientific Company, L.L.C, ("Fisher") knowingly 

offered to United Parcel Service (UPS) a one piece shipment consisting of a 

specification fiberboard box containing hazardous materials for transportation by air. 

2. The above-mentioned shipment, assigned UPS tracking number/air waybill number 

1Z9V34911325638264, was offered by Fisher for next day air transportation to the 

consignee, Genova Diagnostics, 63 Zillicoa Street, Asheville, NC 28801. 

3. On or about July 21, 2011, ground handling personnel at the UPS sort facility 

discovered the above-mentioned shipment leaking. 

4. The above-mentioned specification fiberboard box contained a one !-liter plastic 

bottle (with friction or screw-type cap) of "Acros Sodium Hydroxide IN Standard 

Solution". 

5. (a) "Acros Sodium Hydroxide IN Standard Solution" is classified as a hazardous 

material under the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(HMR) (49 C.F.R. § 172.101). 

(b) The proper shipping name of the material is sodium hydroxide solution. It is in 

Hazard Class 8 (Corrosive Liquid), Packing Group II, and has an assigned 

identification number ofUNI824. 

6. Further investigation showed that approximately 2 ounces of the 

material had leaked into and through the fiberboard container. 

above-described 

Government 

Exhibit 
7. Fisher offered the above-described shipment for transportation by air when it failed to 

ensure friction type closures were securely, tightly and effectively held in place by 

positive means, and/or failed to ensure that each screw-type closure on any packaging 

was secured to prevent closure from loosening due to vibration or substantial change 

in temperature. 

8. Fisher offered the above shipment of hazardous material for transportation by air and 

failed to use a means of containing the liquid in the form of a leakproof liner, plastic 

bag or other equally efficient means of containment. 

9. Fisher offered the shipment of hazardous materials for transportation by air and failed 

to package it so there would be no identifiable release of hazardous material to the 

environment. 

I 0. Fisher offered the shipment of hazardous materials for transportation by air and failed 

to ensure the closure was secure and leakproof. 

11. Fisher offered the shipment of hazardous materials for transportation by air and failed 

to pack, secure, and cushion the inner package to prevent breakage or leakage. 

By reason of the above, Fisher violated the following Department of Transportation Hazardous 

Materials Regulations (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations): 

a. Section 171.2(a) in that Fisher offered a hazardous material for transportation in 

commerce when the hazardous material was not properly classed, described, packaged, 

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

requirements of this subchapter. 

b. Section 173.24a(a)(3) in that Fisher failed to ensure that inner packagings of combination 

packagings were sufficiently packed, secured, and cushioned to prevent their breakage or 

leakage and to control their shifting within the outer packaging under conditions normally 

incident to transportation. 

c. Section 173.24(b)(l) in that Fisher failed to use a package which was designed, 

constructed, maintained, filled, its contents so limited, and closed, so that under 

conditions normally incident to transportation, there would be no identifiable release of 

hazardous material to the environment. 

d. Section 173 .24(f)(l) in that Fisher failed to use a package which had closures so designed 

and closed that under conditions (including the effects of temperature and vibration) 

normally incident to transportation, (i) there would be no identifiable release of 

hazardous materials to the environment from the opening to which the closure was 

applied, and (ii) the closure would be secure and leakproof. 

2 
e. Section 173.27(d) in, that Fisher failed to ensure that stoppers, corks or other such 

friction-type closures must be held securely, tightly and effectively in place by positive 

means. Each screw-type closure on any packaging must be secured to prevent closure 

from loosening due to vibration or substantial change in temperature. 

f. Section 173.27(e) in that Fisher failed to ensure that except as otherwise provided in this 

subchapter, a package containing liquids hazardous materials in Class 3, 4, or 8, or 

Division 5.1, 5.2 or 6.1 that are packaged and offered for transport in glass, earthenware, 

plastic, or metal inner packagings are packaged with absorbent materials as follows:. 

(2) Packing Group I liquids on cargo aircraft, and Packing Group II liquids 

including Division 5.2 liquids on passenger and cargo aircraft , must be 

packaged using a sufficient quantity of absorbent material to absorb the 

entire contents of any one of the inner packagings containing such liquids. 

When the inner .packagings are of different sizes and quantities, sufficient 

absorbent material must be used to absorb the entire contents of the inner 

packaging with the greatest volume of liquid. 

(3)When absorbent materials are required and the outer packaging is not 

liquid tight, a means of containing the liquid in the event of a leakage must 

be provided in the form of a leakproof liner, plastic bag or other equally 

efficient means of containment 

In accordance with Section 5123(a) of Title 49 of the United States Code (Transportation) (49 

U.S.C. § 5123(a)), Fisher is liable for a civil penalty not lower than $250, nor greater than 

$27,500 for each violation of the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials 

Regulations. After reviewing our investigative file, we propose to assess a civil penalty in the 

amount of $6,500 for these violations. 

Enclosed is inforn1ation on Fisher's options in responding to this Notice. The options include 

participating in an informal conference with an FAA attorney, and submission of information to 

the FAA for consideration. Fisher must submit, in V.'fiting, its choice of the alternatives 

explained on the enclosed information form, on or before 30 days after Fisher receives this 

Notice. If Fisher fails to submit its choice within that time, Fisher will have no further right to 

participate in the informal procedures. 

RANDY HYMAN 

ACTlN'G I[E~I~NAL COUNSEL 

BY \j .Jj '--

WILLIAM VINES 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Enclosures: Information Sheet 

Reply Form 

FAR 13.16 and Subpart G of Part 13 

3 
I how hy ~ ,'& l1m1 llm '""'" i "P A"'"'"'" N "" oc "f Pro'"''"" Ci yiJ P om!~ h" "'" "" 1 h y 

certified mail and regular mail to: 

{;'ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

President 

Fisher Scientific Company, LLC. 

6722 Bickmore Avenue 

Chino, CA 91708 

Jerry W. Cox 

Potomac Strategy Associates 

2729 Gallows Rd., Suite 401 

Vienna, VA 221 80 

'JUV t2 ~ 2014 

Date 

S Postal ServiceT. CEIPT 

UC.E.RTIFIED MAib. RE c verageProvidedJ . Onl ; No Insurance o 

Certified Fee L ___ 

7

_l 

( 

n M Return ReeelpJ!~~) L _____ l 

0 0 (Endorsement Req 

~ ~ Restricted Delive~~~~) L ____ _,_l, -~ (Endorsement Req 

• 

Postmark 

Here 

struct!On·