September 22, 2013 

FACSIMILE (202) 366-7536 & U.S. FIRST CLASS MAIL 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, ALJ 

Office of Hearings 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

In the Matter of Scott Tice 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0042 

Case No. 2012NE700211 

Dear Judge Sullivan: 

RECEIVED 

SEP 3 0 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

Before I respond to the FAA's motion for Decision on the Matter of Civil Penalty, I would like to ask 

that the transcript of the last conference call we had be corrected. On page 31 of the transcript, the first 

full paragraph reads: (Mr. Tice speaking) "So it goes to what I was trying to discuss last time about 

whether people are going to have respect for the government and its rules and regulations or whether 

they are going to just continue to be more circling (italics added) and jaded. And that's that part that 

really bothers me." I am sure that what I said then was "cynical.and jaded." It's not a huge deal, and 

I'm sure it was just a mistake or a problem with hearing what I said clearly, but it is a point that is 

important to me and the reason that I am spending the time to dispute this matter, so I would appreciate 

it if it could be corrected. 

Regarding the FAA's motion that I be fined $600 for my offense, I offer the following response: 

I made a mistake. It was an honest, completely inadvertent mistake. I apologize, and I can assure 

everyone that I will not make a similar mistake again. The mistake occurred because there was a lapse 

of several days between the end of my backpacking trip and my return flight home. I wanted to "clean 

up" after my backpacking trip and so I washed my clothes and disposed ofthe extra food and trash that 

I had accumulated. I didn't do this as thoroughly as I would have had my priority been to prepare for a 

return flight, and so I missed the piece of trash that is the subject of all of this trouble now, the empty 

fuel canister that I had used up on while on the trail that was hidden inside my cook pots. In the future, 

I will always remember to go through my pack completely, even if I won't be flying for a while, 

because I realize now that if I don't do it right away, I might not think it necessary to do a thorough 

check when that time does come. I know that the fact that my offense was inadvertent does not excuse 

it, or mean that it should not be addressed, but the purpose of addressing it is, as stated in the FAA's 

Sanctions Policy 2150.3 B, to insure that future violations do not occur. I am completely in agreement 

with that goal, and I want to assure everyone that I understand how I came to make the mistake and that 

I have changed the way that I clean out my backpack after trips now to prevent this from happening 

agam. 

With regard to the amount of the fine that I should have to pay, I want to reiterate what I said before: 

The amount and type of fuel that I mistakenly offered in my checked baggage was nearly identical in 
both quantity and quality to what is in cigarette lighters, which are something that the FAA has 

determined to be an acceptable risk on airplanes. Therefore, while it was still a violation of the law, 

connnon sense would suggest that it was only minimally so, and as we live in a society where it is 

commonly held that the punishment should fit the crime, the fine imposed here should be the minimum 

one. 

· As proof that the quantity of fuel that I offered is nearly identical to that in cigarette lighters, I am, 

sadly, not able to offer any. This is due to the fact that the FAA failed to preserve the canister as 

evidence. The fact that they have a policy which, according to Mr. Sargent, requires them to prosecute 

every case such as this, but does not requite them to preserve the evidence is something that is unfair 

and limits my ability to defend myself in this prosecution. I consider this to be a serious violation of 

my right to a fair trial. Nonetheless, I will state again for the record that I did, in fact, use up almost all 

of the fuel during the course of my trip. I know this because I have years of experience with these 

stoves, and I know that when the flame dwindles down to almost nothing even when the valve is all the 

way open, it is only a very short time before the flame goes out entirely and the canister is completely 

empty. When the canister in question was full, it contained 8 ounces of fuel. After cooking and heating 

dishwater for my entire trip, I know that it couldn't possibly have had more than 10% of that amount 

left in it, and very likely didn't have even 5% left. 5% of 8 ounces would be 4 tenths of an ounce. 

Again, I know that having that canister in my checked baggage was wrong and illegal even if it was 

empty, and I am not arguing that it shouldn't be. I'm only pointing out that the offense I committed was 

minimal and as such should carry a minimal penalty. The FAA's Sanction Guidance Policy states 

clearly that "To be effective, the agency's compliance and enforcement policy must be fair and 

reasonable and should be perceived as fair by those subjectto regulation" (FAA policy 2150.3 B 

section 2-3 (g)). In presenting his case for a fine of$600, Mr. Sargent glosses over the fact that the 

canister was essentially empty, and then bases his argument entirely on the fact that the material that 

would have been in the canister if it hadn't been empty is prohibited in all cases. This is neither fair nor 

reasonable. 

(I know it is far beyond the scope of this proceeding, but since I share the FAA's desire to insure the 

safety of the flying public, I ftel the need to point out that isobutane, the prohibited chemical we are 

dealing with here is also sold as a refrigerant under the trade name of R-600a, and has replaced freon 

in many domestic refrigeration units because of concern about ozone depletion. Since I am aware that 

portable 12-volt coolers are currently permitted as checked baggage on passenger-carrying airplanes, 

it might be time for the FAA to take a closer look at this matter.) 

The FAA is perfectly justified in taking action to insure that I do not violate the law again. An 

administrative action would have been sufficient to have accomplished that goal. The agency chose not 

to use that route, which is its prerogative. Since it has chosen to ask for a civil penalty that I do not 

perceive as fair, the court will have to decide it. I am fme with that. I would ask you to consider my 

arguments and impose a fme that fits the crime. Ifl may, I would also like you to consider staying the 

fine after it has been imposed. That would be the strongest deterrent to me against re-offending. 

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of September, 2013 

OTTTICE 

Pro Se Respondent 
FDMS No. FAA-2013-0042 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certifY that the foregoing has been sent this date by Facsimile and U.S. First Class Mail to: 

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 

Fax: 202-366-7536 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and One copy) 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Fax:202-493-5142 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

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, MA 01.821 

Fax: 781-238-705)!5" 

SCOTT TICE: Dated September 22, 2013 

Pro Se Respondent