### SERVE D OCTOBE R26 , 201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C 

### •':ANSPORWiQN, ^ 

## ^ ;,ce r OPEBWIOM S

, n ;T : 

### r- ] p 1:3 0

FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION ,

Complainant , V . PRECISIO N DISPLAY S AN D TOOLS ,

Respondent . FAADOCKE T No . CP09AL000 8 (Civi l Penalt yAction )

DM S No . FAA-2009-073 3

INITIA L DECISIO N O F ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDG E RICHAR D C . GOODWI N Found : Responden t

i s hereb y assesse dacivi l penalty of $20,000 . I . Backgroun d Thi s proceedin g i s limite dt o th e questio n o f penalty . I previousl y grante d summary judgmen t

t o Complainan t

Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("Complainant, " "FAA, " o r

"th e agency" ) o n th e violation s i t allege dagains t

Responden t

Precisio n Display s an dTool s ("Respondent " o r "Precision") . Se e Orde r Grantin g Motio n fo

r Decision , serve dAugus t

4 , 2010 . Precision , acompany whic hbuild s fixtures, stores , an dth e lik e (Tr . 32-33) , wa s foun dt o hav e committe deightee n violation s o f th e Hazardou s Material s Regulation s ("HMRs") . O n Ma y 9 , 2008 , i t wa s determined . Precisio n ha doffere dfor transportatio n o n apassenger-carryin g aircraf t ashipmen t

containin g severa l material s classifie da s hazardous . Th e good s consiste do f aone-quar t

(3 2 ounce ) can o f

lacque r thinner , classifie da s aflammable liquid ; aone-pin t (1 6 ounce ) can o f

stain , als o classifie da s a flammable liquid ; thre e 16-ounc e aeroso l can s o f a"multipurpos e adhesive, " aflammable gas ; an dtw o 12-ounc e can s o f spray paint , als o a n aeroso l whic hi s classifie da s a flammable gas . Th e shipmen t ha dnot bee n declared . A s such , non e o f th e severa l labeling , marking , an dothe r notification s tha t

th e HMR s requir e for

th e protectio n o f person s wh o migh t

com e i n contac t

wit hsuc hmaterial s - typicall y carg o handlers , passengers , an dcre w —wer e present . Th e Responden t als o was foun di n violatio n o f tw o training-relate dHMRs . Th e employe e wh o offere dth e material s ha dno t receive dth etrainin g required . H e was not workin g unde r

th e direc t

supervisio n o f

aproperl y trained hazma t employee . Finally , Responden t di dno t hav e arecor do f

curren t trainin g for

eac h o f it s hazma t

employee s meetin g HM Rrequirements. ' Thu s th e onl y issu e remainin g i s penalty . Unde r th e provision s o f

4 9 U.S.C . §5123(a)(l ) an d1 4 C.F.R . §13.305(d) , th e agenc y aske dfor an assessmen t

o f $20,000 . Responden t

asserte dtha t

i t wa s unabl e t o pa y thi s amoimt . I t claime dadditional mitigatin g circumstances . A hearin g wa s hel dan dtestimon y take n o n Augus t 17 , 2010 , i n San Francisco . A t th e hearing Responden t

was represente db y it s presiden t an downer , Rober t Persekian . Mr . Persekia n was Precision' s sol e witness . H e offere devidenc e i n support o f Respondent' s position , but hi s presentatio n wa s incomplete. ^ Subsequen t t o th e hearin g I issue dan orde r

permittin g Responden t

additiona l tim e t o file informatio n supportin g it s positio n (Orde r o n Mitigatio n o f

Penalty , serve dAugus t

24 , 2010) . Th e Orde r directe dResponden t

an dMr . Persekia n t o submi t t o Complainant , n o late r tha n Septembe r

3 , 2010 , certai n specifie dfinancial information . Th e informatio n sough t included , for

th e tim e span s note di n th e orderin g paragraphs , ta x returns , credi t car d statements , aprofi t

an dlos s statement , an d"[a]n y othe r informatio n Responden t

deem s relevan t t o it s prayer

for mitigation. " (Orde r

o n Mitigatio n o f

Penalty , Orderin g ^ 1 .f) . Complainan t

wa s directe dt o notif

y th e Court

i n writin g concernin g Respondent' s complianc e withthi s orde r b y Septembe r

10 , 2010 . Complainan t

dul y submitte dth e notification . I n addition , an da s part o f it s submission , i t

filed aMotio n for

Decisio n Settin g Penalty ("Motio n for Decision"). ' Th e agenc y argue s tha t

Respondent' s filings faile dt o mee t it s proo f I t seek s th e civi l penalty o f $20,00 0 i t

ha doriginall y proposed. " Responden t di dnot answe r th e Motio n for Decision . I gran t th e Motion for

Decisio n at

thi s junctur e insofa

r a s i t request s adecisio n o n th e penalt y issue . Consideratio n o f th e merit s o f

tha t motio n follow s below . Becaus e th e ensuin g discussio n dispose s o f th e penalt y issu e followin g a n ora l evidentiar y hearing , i t constitute s a n Initia l Decision . Se e 1 4 C.F.R . §13.232 ; Florenc e LBarnhill , FA A Orde r No . 92-3 2 (May 9 , 1992) , 199 2 W L753161 , pp . 3-4 .

' Th e specific HM

Rsection s violate dar

e se t ou t i n Ordering Paragrap

h#3 . ^ Precision' s evidenc e i s summarizedan dconsideredbelow i

n section nLA. 2 beginning o n pag e 5 . ' Th e fill! titl e of

the notification an

dpleading i s "FAA' s Notification to Judg e R e Precision Displays ' Complianc e Wit

hOrde r o n Mitigation of

Penalty , An

dMotio n fo r Decisio n Setting Penalty. " (Italic s i n Original) . " * Th e arguments containedi

n Complainant' s Motio

n fo r Decisio n ar e summarize

dbelo w i n section III.B. , whic hbegin s o n pag e 5 .I LFramewor k Complainan t

bear s th e burde n o f

provin g tha t

th e penalt y i t

seek s i s appropriate . Bu t th e ple ao f

inabilit y t o pa y i s a n affinnativ e defense . Tha t is , i t i s Respondent' s burde n t o prov e mitigatio n o f al l o r par t o f a n otherwis e appropriat e civi l penalty . See , I e.g. , America n Ai r Network , FA A Orde r

No . 2006- 5 (Februar y 10 , 2006) , p . 9 n . 19 . A s I | | underscore da t th e hearing , "it' s incumben t upo n [Respondent ] t o demonstrat e t o th e |; | Cour t tha t yo u canno t

affor dt o pay". . . " (Tr . 43 ; se e als o Tr . 76 ) (italic s added) . I \Respondent' s owner , Mr . Persekian , indicate dtha t h e understoo dthi s (Tr . 66-67) . H l | I n determinin g whethe r t o asses s apenalty , an di f so , settin g it s amount , th e f ] decisionmake r mus t conside r

"th e nature , circumstances , extent , an dgravit y o f th e f J violation, " and , wit hrespec t t o th e violator , "th e degre e o f culpability , an y histor y o f ; i prio r violations , th e abilit y t o pay , an dan y effec t o n th e abilit y t o continu e t o d o ; / business, " an d"othe r matter s tha t

justic e requires " (4 9 U.S.C . §5123(c)) . I n othe r words , : th e totalit y o f th e circumstance s involve ddetermine s th e prope r assessment . Stebbin s ' \Aviation , FA A Orde r No . 2006- 3 (Februar y 7 , 2006) . \Th e determinatio n o f a n appropriat e assessmen t als o i s informe db y a n agenc y directive . Th e FA A ha s issue dt o it s staf f detaile dguideline s fo r arrivin g a t

ajustifiabl e civi l penalt y amoun t

(Orde r No . 2150.3B) . Th e guideline s als o ar e intende dt o advis e th e publi c o f th e sanctio n polic y tha t th e Administrato r

intend s t o follo w throug hth e adjudicatio n o f

individua l cases . Folso m' s Ai r Service , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 2008-1 1 (Novembe r

6 , 2008) , p . 13 . Appendi x C o f Orde r 2150.3 B provide s guidanc e o n settin g civi l penaltie s i n case s o f violation s o f

th e HMRs. ^ Th e guidelines ' Sanctio n Guidanc e Tabl e fo r hazardous-material s violation s set s ou t penalt y recommendation s withi n thre e range s o f

amounts , designate dminimum , moderate , an dmaximum . Suggeste dpenalt y j amount s ar e quantifie dwithi n variou s categories . Th e overal l inten t i s t o bes t

reflec t th e • natur e an dcircumstance s o f th e violatio n unde r

consideration . Mitigatin g and/o r aggravatin g factor s als o ar e par t o f th e calculus . Hazardou s materials , b y thei r ver y nature , ar e dangerous . Tenderin g o f suc h good s t o aircraf

t put s th e safet y o f

ai r transportatio n - th e overridin g goa l o f th e Departmen t

—a t significan t

risk . O n accoun t

o f hazmats ' inheren t

capacit y fo r

peril , th e HMR s effec t

awe b o f

protectio n t o minimiz e ris k fo r person s wh o coul db e adversel y affecte db y proximit y t o suc hmaterials . i Undeclare dshipment s o f hazardou s material s lac k tha t protection . A s hidde n shipments , the y constitut e asafet y threa t whos e magnitud e i s unknown . Th e FA A ; consider s the mparticularl y worrisome . Th e Administrato r ha s emphasize dtha t undeclare dshipment s o f hazardou s material s "pos e aspecia l risk" {Envirosolve , Inc. , FA A Orde r

No . 2006- 2 (Februar y 7 , 2006) , p . 14 ; Interstat e Chemica l Company , Inc. , FA A Orde r

No . 2002-2 9 (Decembe r 6 , 2002) , p . 16) . Judg e Benki n ha s elaborate dtha t

^ Se e 7 2 Fed.Reg . 5585 3 (Octobe r 1 , 2007) ; Orde r

No . 2150.3 B i s foun din it s entiret y o n th e interne t a t rgl.faa.gov/ , the n clickin g "Orders/Notices " o n th e righ t sid e o f th e page ."[mjajo r

catastrophe s an dsignifican t los s o f lif e may occu r

becaus e seemingl y irmocuou s househol ditem s are place di n th e strea mo f ai r commerc e withou t

adequat e warnin g t o th e carrier , it s employee s o r emergenc y rescu e personnel. " Mole-Maste r Service s Corporation , Docke t

No . CP08SO0012 , Initia l Decisio n serve dFebruary 10 , 200 9 (200 9 W L348181) . III . Th e Parties ' Position s A . A t

th e Hearin g 1 . Complainan t Th e agenc y ha s classifie dunde r th e guideline s th e item s offere db y Precision , othe r tha n th e stain , a s "Categor y A. " Category A goods , i f released , carry th e potentia l for a"catastrophi c effect " o n an aircraft' s ability t o continu e saf e flight (6 4 Fed.Reg . 19443,1944 9 (Apri l 12 , 1999) ; Toyot aMoto r Sales , Inc. , FA A Orde r

No . 94-2 8 (Septembe r

30 , 1994) , p . 13) . Violation s warran t acivi l penalt y i n th e maximu mportio n o f th e recommende dmonetary range . Th e stai n fall s int o "Categor y B, " th e categor y designateda s moderat e risk . Unintende dreleas e o f Category B item s coul dcaus e injur y o r death . i, i \i

Whil e th e quantitie s offere dfor shipmen t i n thi s matte r

wer e relativel y small , th e amounts . Complainan t

notes , wer e nonetheles s significant . An dthe y coul dhav e prove n particularl y perilous . Th e pain t product s coul dhav e bee n ignite deasil y b y heat , sparks , an dflame. Aerosol s ar e capabl e o f explodin g o r

rupturin g fi-omheat

o r sudde n teihperatur e change . On-boar dflammable substance s coul db e transforme dint o powerfii l accelerant s b y fire. Release di n th e confine s o f a n aircraft , thes e item s carrie dth e potential for

acatastrophi c effec t

- possibl e injur

y o r death~ o n th e safet

y o f aircraf t operation s {see Tr . 12) . Th e agency' s penalty recommendatio n als o consider s th e natur e o f th e offendin g entity . Th e guideline s coimse l tha t th e greate r

th e degre e o f

arespondent' s involvemen t i n hazardou s materials , th e highe r th e sanctio n amoimt

shoul dbe . A busines s regularl y offerin g o r

transportin g hazardou s material s wil l b e subjec t t o agreate r

penalt y tha n a busines s usin g dangerou s good s i n th e cours e o f it s business . An dth e latte r typ e o f busines s wil l warran t

agreate r penalty , al l thing s bein g equal , tha n amer e "busines s entity " (Appendi x C , p . C-12) . Complainan t determine dthat

Responden t

i s abusines s entity (Tr . 18-19) . Weighin g al l th e factors . Complainan t conclude dtha t

th e violation s belonge di n th e "moderate " rang e (Tr . 11-17) . Th e numbe r

o f categorie s o f

violation s i s th e final facto r i n Complainant' s determinatio n o f

penalty . Fiv e categorie s o f violation s wer e present . Th e agenc y too k a figure abi t

lowe r tha n th e midpoin t

o f th e suggeste drang e o f

fines pe r violatio n ~ $4,00 0

- an dconclude dtha t

a n appropriat e civi l penalit y woul db e a n assessmen t o f $4,00 0 pe r violatio n category , o r

atota l o f $20,00 0 (Tr . 18-20) . Complainan t conclude dtha t

acivi l penalt y o f

$20,00 0 appropriatel y reflecte dth e factor s relevan t t o it s judgment : th e natur ean dgravit y o f th e violation s an dth e nature , history , an dattitud e o f Responden t

(Tr . 19

- 21) . 2 . Responden t Mr . Persekia n testifie di n support o f Precision' s ple ao f

mitigation . H e state dtha t th e economi c downtur n i n 200 8 an dsignifican t medica l condition s experience db y both h e an dhi s daughte r

le dt o asituatio n wher e th e company' s "[ijncom e . . . wen t dow n t o a trickle " whil e "expense s ar e th e same. " (Tr . 31-34) . Th e amoun t o f wor k th e compan y obtaine di n 2009 , h e added , "wa s ver y minimal. " (Tr . 49) . Additionally , h e accumulate d a"bi g deb t

burden " o n accoun t

o f th e circumstance s (Tr . 51) , an dtestifie dtha t h e ha d bee n payin g hi s federal taxe s i n installment s (Tr . 5 1 -52) . Hi s adde dtha t hi s credi t

i s zer o (Tr . 52) . America n Expres s i n 201 0 got ajudgmen t

agains t Mr . Persekia n personall y o f neari y $54,00 0 (Tr . 55 , 59) . Responden t

als o asserte dtha t

th e violation s wer e not

deliberate ; i n fact , th e shipmen t wa s contrar y t o th e compan y polic y forbiddin g transportatio n o f dangerou s goods . Precisio n als o pointe dou t tha t i t ha s n o prio r

history o f

violations . A s noted , subsequen t

t o th e hearin g Mr . Persekia n an dPrecisio n wer e give n an opportunit y t o supplemen t Respondent' s presentatio n (Orde r o n Mitigatio n o f

Penalty , Augus t 24 , 2010 ; se e I.D. , p . 2) . Responden t provide dsevera l item s t o Complainan t b y th e du e dat e o f

Septembe r

3 , 2010 . B . Th e Motio n fo r

Decisio n Complainant' s Motion for Decisio n state s that

th e docimient s Precisio n provide d i n respons e t o my Orde r

o n Mitigatio n o f

Penalt y wer e materiall y incomplete . Respondent , i t

concludes , di dnot

compl y withth e Order , an dfaile di n it s proof. Th e agenc y se t

ou t numerou s instance s o f

require ddocument s missin g fro m Respondent' s submission . Th e Orde r o n Mitigatio n o f

Penalty sough t

annua l credi t

car d statement s for

th e year s 2007 , 2008 , an d200 9 for bothPrecisio n an dMr . Persikian . The y wer e no t

provided . No r

was aPrecisio n profi t

an dlos s statemen t

coverin g th e first si x month s o f

calendar year 201 0 submitted . Othe r

document s ha dke y informatio n missing . Som e credi t

car dstatement s di dnot

identif y th e debtor . Som e credi t card s wer e i n th e nam e o f

entitie s whos e relationshi p t o Precisio n o r Persikia n was not

explained. * I n severa l instance s Responden t submitte donl y on e sid e o f credi t car dstatemen t copie s whic hevidentl y ha dbee n copie dont o bot hsides . Thi s di dnot , o f course , enabl e meaningfu l review . I n fact . Complainan t states , Precisio n supplie donl y on e sid e o f

^ Som e o f the financia

l records , including aprofi

t an dlos s statemen

t fo r the first si x month s o

f 2010 , wer e i n the nam e o f Mayolo , Inc . Mayolo , Inc . apparently i s the nam e o f th e corporation unde

r whic hPrecision operates . Tr . 36-37 . Bu

t Responden

t neve r providedan

y documentar

y evidenc e fo

r tha t claim . Nor

didi t explai n ho w Mayolo record s affecte

dit s ow n financia l situation , specificall

y its claimedinabilit

y to pay .nearl y al l apparentl y two-side dcopies o f bankin g an dlin e o f

credi t statement s a s wel l a s credi t car dstatements . Suc hapervasiv e bungl e suggests , i t asserts , "actua l contemp t for th e judge' s direction. " (Motio n for Decision , p . 3) . Moreover , th e material s wer e unsorte dan dgenerall y disorganize d(Motio n for Decision , p . 3) . N o inde x wa s provided . Finally , Precisio n di dno t explai n wh y an y o f th e material s support

it s claime dinabilit y t o pa y (Motio n for Decision , p . 11) . Th e motio n conclude s tha t Responden t

faile di n it s obligatio n t o demonstrat e a n inability t o pa y th e civi l penalty Complainan t ha s suggested. ' I t

ask s tha t Responden t

b e ordere dt o pa y th e $20,00 0 civi l penalt y i t seeks , or , i n th e alternative , tha t th e hearin g b e reconvene dt o resolv e thi s issu e (Motio n for Decision , p . 12) . IV . Decisio n I findan dconclud e tha t

acivi l penalt y o f

$20,00 0 i s warranted. Responden t

pu t int o th e strea mo f

commerc e ashipmen t

containin g severa l hazardou s materials . Al l excep t on e wer e classifie dunde r th e guideline s a s Category A , signifyin g good s carryin g th e greates t ris k o f danger . Th e shipment , furthermore , ha dnot bee n declared , thu s affordin g n o notic e t o anyon e encounterin g th e material s i n th e cours e o f flight. Finally , th e individua l charge dwithpackagin g an dforwardin g th e good s neithe r ha dreceive dth e requisit e trainin g no r wa s unde r

th e supervisio n o f

an employe e wh o had . Respondent' s conduc t wa s careles s an dirresponsible . Mos t importantly , i t carrie dsignificant , eve n potentiall y catastrophic , danger . Suc hcircumstance s warran t a substantial penalty . Th e penalty shoul db e i n an amoun t tha t woul dcaus e Precisio n i n th e fiature t o mor e carefiill y conside r th e consequence s o f

loosin g ashipmen t

int o th e strea m o f commerce . Respondent' s pleas i n mitigatio n fail . I t di dnot fiimis hadequat e proo f

o f it s inability t o pa y th e civi l penalty proposed . I t shoul db e note dtha t

Precisio n wa s give n numerou s chance s t o d o so : i n discovery , at th e hearing , an dpursuan t t o my Orde r

o n Mitigatio n o f

Penalty . Ye t

i t utterl y failed. ' I n respons e t o th e Orde r o n Mitigatio n - ei

t leas t it s thir dbit e at

th e appl e ~ Precisio n sen t t o th e FA A adisorganize dmuddl e o f half

forme ddocuments . Th e submissio n wa s nowher e near complete . No r

di dResponden t eve n bothe r

t o attemp t

t o explai n wh y thes e doctiment s establishe dit s claim . I t i s significant , moreover , tha t Responden t

mad e n o respons e t o Complainant' s characterizatio n o f

it s submissio n i n th e agency' s Motion for Decision . Whe n apart y

' Motio n fo r Decision , p . 12 . Indeed , ther e ar e som e indici atha

t Responden

t didnot disclos e it s control o

r acces s to substantia

l amounts of

cash . A checking accoun

t i n Mr . Persekian' s name , according to Complainant , ha s bee

n use dto wir e ove r half amillion dollar s to unknow n accounts sinc e Decembe

r 2008 . Motio n fo r Decision , pp . 11-12 . * Unde r thes e circumstances , ther

e i s n o reason to gran

t Complainant' s reques t

i n th e alternativ e to reconvene th e hearing to affor dResponden

t yet anothe r opportunit y to give evidenc e o

n thi s issue .fail s t o challeng e assertion s unde r circumstance s in whic hi t woul db e reasonabl e an d natura l t o d o so , i t

ma y b e assume dthat

that party acknowledge s that th e assertion s ar e true . U.S . V

. Hale , Al l U.S . 17 1 (1975) . Havin g n o reaso n t o otherwis e doub t Complainant' s assertions , w e ma y tak e th e agenc y a t it s word . Respondent' s othe r

point s i n mitigatio n d o not avai l it . That

th e violatio n may hav e bee n unintentiona l doe s no t mitigat e a

n otherwis e reasonabl e sanction ; indeed , evidenc e tha t

aviolatio n wa s intentiona l woul dconstitut e an aggravatin g factor , makin g a highe r sanctio n appropriate . America n Ai r Network , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 2006- 5 (February 10 , 2006) , p . 8 . No r doe s aviolation-fre e history mitigate , for suc hhistory i s considere dth e norm . Toyot aMoto r Sales , USA

, Inc. , FA A Orde r

No . 94-2 8 (Septembe r 30 , 1994) . Finally , Precision' s polic y agains t handlin g hazardou s material s doe s not warran t asanctio n reduction . Policie s not t o shi p may fai l t o b e followe d- as , o f course , occurre di n thi s case . Interstat e Chemica l Company , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 2002-2 9 (Decembe r

6 , 2002) , p . 18 . A balancin g o f

al l th e statutory factor s demonstrate s tha t acivi l penalt y o f $20,00 0 i s appropriate . I t fairl y reflect s al l th e fact s an dcircumstance s o f th e case : th e natur e an dexten t

o f th e violation s (particularl y th e leve l o f hazar dResponden t

introduce d int o th e streamo f

commerce ) an dth e natur e an dsiz e o f Respondent' s business . Anothe r facto r suggestin g tha t

th e civi l penalt y amoun t i s appropriat e i s th e assessment' s similarity t o fines levie di n roughl y comparabl e cases . Se e Mole-Maste r Service s Corporation , Docke t

No . CP08SO0012 , Initia l Decisio n o f administrativ e la w judg e Isaa c D . Benki n serve dFebruar y 10 , 200 9 (200 9 W L348181 ) ($25,00 0 fine for tenderin g aleaky , undeclare dpackag e o f nin e 11-ounc e tube s o f

sealant , ahazardou s material ) an d Jame s Walsh , Docke t

No . CP07SO0011 , Initia l Decisio n o f Judg e Benki n serve dMarc h 31 , 200 8 (200 8 W L926620 ) ($20,00 0 fine for tenderin g aundeclare dshipmen t containin g four

16.4-ounc e container s o f propan e fuel , on e bo x o f "strike-anywhere " matches , an don e bo x o f

safet y matches) . Th e penalty , I als o find, contain s sufficien t 'bite ' t o dete r

Precisio n an dothe r

comparabl e entitie s fro msimilar violations , an dwil l promot e complianc e withth e HMRs . Fo r all thes e reasons , i t

i s ORDERE D a s follows : 1 . Complainant' s Motio n for Decisio n i s grante di n it s entirety ; 2 . Respondent' s ple ai n mitigatio n i s denied ; 3 . Responden t

i s hereb y assesse dacivi l penalt y o f $20,00 0 for

violation s o f th e followin g Hazardou s Material s Regulations : 4 9 C.F.R . §§172.200(a) ; 172.201(d) ; 172.201(e) ; 172.202(a)(1) ; 172.202(a)(2) ; 172.202(a)(3) ; 172.202(a)(4) ; 172.202(a)(5) ; 172.203(f) ; 172.204(a) ; 172.204(c)(2) ;172.204(c)(3) ; 172.300(a) ; 172.301(a) ; 172.400(a) ; 172.604(a) ; 172.702(a) ; an d172.704(d). '

Richar dC . Goodwi n U.S . Administrativ e La w Jud^ e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t 

# I

Thi s decision ma

y be appealedto the Administrato r of the FAA . Th

e notic e of appea l must confor mt o section s 13.210 , 13.211(e) an d13.23 3 o f the Rule s o

f Practice , whic

hrequir e tha t anotic e of

appea l 1 ) b e file dnot latfe r tha n 1 0 day s (plu s a

n additiona

l fiv e day s if mailed) fromthe servic e dat e o f thi s decision , an d2 ) b e perfecte

dwit hawritte n brief o r memorandu

mnot late r tha n 5 0 day s (plu s a

n additiona

l five , i f mailed) fro mthe servic e dat

e o f thi s decision . The notic e o f appea l an dbriefe r memorandu

mmus t eithe r be a) mailedto the Federa

l Aviation Administration , 800 Independence Avenue , S . W. , Washington , D C 20591 , Attn : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , orb ) delivered personall y o r vi aexpeditedcourie

r servic e to the Federa

l Aviation Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2WI000 , Washington , D.C . 20591 , Attn : Hearing Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 . A cop

y of the notic e of

appea l andbriefe r

memorandu

mals o mus t

b e sen t t o agency counsel . Servic e upo

n th e presiding judg e i s optional . r , - i

ft!FA A Docke t No . CP09AL000 8 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y

Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Robert Persekian , Owne r Precisio n Display s an dTools, Responden t 155 5 Alu mRoc k

Avenue , Suit e 2 0 San Jose , C A 9511 6 TEL : 408-504-2515 FAX : 408-251-799 0 Howar dL . Martin , Jr. , Complainant' s Counse l Regiona l Counsel , Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , AAL- 7 Alaska n Regio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 22 2 Wes t 7 * Avenue , Bo x 1 4 Anchorage , A K

99513-758 7 TEL : 907-271-526 9 FAX : 907-271-280 0 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-213 9 Lega l Assistan t

202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Hearin g Docket , Federa l Aviatio n Administration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue, S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Buildin g - Roo m 2014 , Washington

, D C 20591 , Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .