SERVED:April15, 2013 

RECEIVED 

APR 2 2 2013 

In the matter of: 

HEARING DOCKET 

SCOTTTICE 

Respondent 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0042 

Case No. 2012NE700211 

RESPONSE TO THE FAA MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED 

AND ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF JANUARY 29, 2013 

On March 27, 2013, I was served an order to file a written Response to the FAA's March 20, 2013 

Motion for Order Deeming Allegations Admitted and to Limit Hearing to Issue of Civil Penalty, and to 

specifically state any reasons why I did not file a timely Answer to the Complaint. My response is that 

I believed that what was required of me at the time was to either pay the proposed civil penalty of $600 

or request a hearing in the matter. I chose to request the hearing, did so in a timely fashion, and sent 

copies of my request to the other parties listed on the Service List. If there was more that was required 

of me, I am still unsure of what that is. 

I was also ordered to file a written Answer to the January 29,2013 Complaint. My answer, which 

has been conveyed to the FAA in written form in an email the day I received the original complaint, 

and verbally in multiple phone conversations with Attorney Sargent since that time, is that the fuel can 

in question was nearly empty. Its presence in my checked bag was simply an oversight on my part, 

an honest mistake of forgetting to properly dispose of a piece of trash, for which I sincerely apologize. 

I don't believe the small amount of fuel that remained in the canister constituted a significant threat to 

anyone's safety and don't feel that the offense of forgetting to throw it out justifies a fine of hundreds of 

dollars. I flew to Vermont without any fuel in my baggage, and purchased the fuel canister in question 

at a local camping supply store before embarking on a week long hike on the Long Trail, during which 

time I used up the fuel cooking my meals and warming my dishwater. The end point of my 

backpacking trip was in Manchester, where my sister lives. When I arrived there I washed my dirty 

clothes and disposed of what little food I had left, then spent a week enjoying the hospitality of my 

sister and her family. Unfortunately, as I have explained to the FAA repeatedly, the spent fuel canister 

remained packed inside of my cook pots where I did not see it, and I forgot to dispose of it before 

boarding the plane to return home a week later. 

In response to each specific allegation: 

1. I was a ticketed passenger on Cape Air flight 60 on September 11, 2012. 

2. I did offer my backpack as checked baggage on said flight. 

3. TSA personnel did inspect my backpack and did find one nearly empty container of 

stove fuel that I had forgotten to dispose of. 

4. The container was marked Danger, Extremely Flammable, Contents Under Pressure. 

However, these warnings should be understood to apply when the container is full, as an 

empty container would neither be dangerous, nor flammable, nor have contents that are 

under pressure. My point here is that since the container in question was mostly empty, 

the level of actual danger posed should be understood to be very much lower than that 

posed by a full container of such fuel. 

5. The fuel in question is classified as hazardous material as stated. 

6. The fuel is a liqnified petroleum gas and is forbidden for transportation on passenger-
carrying aircraft, although there must be exceptions for small quantities because 

cigarette lighters are permitted on passenger-carrying aircraft. 

7. I had intended to dispose of the nearly empty fuel canister after my backpacking trip, but 

forgot to do so. Therefore, since I was unaware that the canister was still in my 

backpack, I did not provide a Shipper's Certification or Declaration for Dangerous 

Goods. 

8. I had intended to dispose of the nearly empty fuel canister after my backpacking trip, but 

forgot to do so. Therefore, since I was unaware that the canister was still in my 

backpack, I did not properly class, describe, package, mark, label, or put it in the proper 

condition for shipment. 

9. I had intended to dispose of the nearly empty fuel canister after my backpacking trip, but 

forgot to do so. Therefore, since I was unaware that the canister was still in my 

backpack, I did not add the certification required by the statues mentioned. 

10. I had intended to dispose of the nearly empty fuel canister after my backpacking trip, but 

forgot to do so. Therefore, since I was unaware that the canister was still in my 

backpack, I did not provide 2 copies of the required shipper's certification. 

11. I had intended to dispose of the nearly empty fuel canister aftet my backpacking trip, but 

forgot to do so. Therefore, since I was unaware that the canister was still in my 

backpack, I did not mark it with the proper shipping name and number, nor did I precede 

the missing marking with "UN" or "NA", nor was the missing marking done durably 

and in English. 

12. I had intended to dispose of the nearly empty fuel canister after my backpacking trip, but 

forgot to do so. Therefore, since I was unaware that the canister was still in my 

backpack, I did not make emergency response information immediately available. 

13. I had intended to dispose of the nearly empty fuel canister after my backpacking trip, but 

forgot to do so. Therefore, since I was unaware that the canister was still in my 

backpack, I did inadvertently offer a small amount of a forbidden material for 

transportation aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft. 

14. I had intended to dispose ofthe nearly empty fuel canister after my backpacking trip, but 

forgot to do so. Therefore, since I was unaware that the canister was still in my 

backpack, I did inadvertently violate the law as noted previously. 

I am definitely guilty of forgetfulness, but I do not believe that a nearly empty fuel canister cushioned 

inside of two titanium pots, surrounded by a sleeping bag and a tent, inside of checked baggage with no 

means of either releasing or igniting what small residue of combustible material remained, constituted a 

significant threat to anyone's safety, even if it had not been detected and removed by the Transportation 

Security Adruiuistration agents at the airport. It was stupid of me to forget to throw it out, and I don't 

think I'll ever make such a mistake again, but I just need to ask that some common sense be used in 

deciding whether this is even an offense worthy of prosecution, let alone a fme of hundreds of dollars. 

I sincerely hope that I have now complied with the orders that were given me by Judge Sullivan, and 

I also hope this explains why I am requesting a hearing. I am obviously not an attorney, and can't 

afford to retain one for a matter such as this, therefore I must ask the court for forgiveness if I have 

failed to follow the proper procedures in some regard. I have tried to the best of my abilities to comply 

with everything that has been asked of me so far and will continue to do so. 
Unless the FAA's request for an order Deeming Allegations Admitted and Limiting the Hearing to the 

Issue .of Civil Penalty would prevent me from entering evidence that the statements I have made in my 

answer to the allegations are true, I have no objection to such an order. I would ask, however, that the 

FAA be ordered to weigh the container of fuel in question to determine how much combustible material 

was actually involved. 

I believe that it is quite a common occurrence for people to forget that they have prohibited items in 

their baggage or on their person when they are boarding airplanes. I also believe that normally when 

these things happen and it seems that the offense was unintentional, even items such as bullets or 

shotgun shells which could potentially be quite dangerous are simply confiscated without further 

prosecution. I would suggest that a nearly empty canister of backpacking stove fuel could have, and 

should have, been handled the same way. I hope that common sense will be used at some point and 

that someone with the authority to so will decide that this case is simply not worthy of prosecution, 

since it was completely unintentional and did not constitute a significant threat to anyone. 

ScottTice 

Attachment: Service List 
FDMS No. FAA-2013-0042 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

Mr. R. Bennett Sargent, Esq. 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ANE-7 

New England Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

12 New England Executive Park 

Burlington, MA01821 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

Mr. Scott Tice 

Pro se Respondent 

21125 Timberland Rd. 

Barronett, WI 54813 

ONE COPY