September 22, 2013

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

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, ALJ Office ofHearings U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New JerseyAvenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590

Inthe Matter ofScott Tice DocketNo. FAA-2013-0042 Case No. 2012NE700211

Dear Judge Sullivan: 

# RECEIVED

SEP 30 2013 

## HEARING DOCKET

Before I respond to the FAA's motion for Decision onthe Matter ofCivil Penalty, I would like to ask that the transcript ofthe last conference call we had be corrected. Onpage 31 ofthe 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) andjaded. And that's thatpart that really bothers me." I am sure that what I said thenwas "cynical.andjaded." It's not a huge deal, and I'm sure it wasjust a mistake or a problem with hearing what I said clearly, but it is a point that is importantto me and the reason thatI am spending the time to dispute this matter, so I would appreciate it ifit 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. Itwas an honest, completely inadvertent mistake. I apologize, and I can assure everyone thatI will not make a similar mistake again. The mistake occurred because there was a lapse ofseveral days between the end ofmy 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 hadmypriority been to prepare for a return flight, and so I missed the piece oftrash that is the subject ofall ofthis trouble now, the empty fuel canisterthat I hadused up onwhile onthe trail that was hidden inside my cookpots. In the future, I will always remember to go through my pack completely, even ifI won't be flying for a while, because I realize now that ifI 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, ormeanthat it should notbe addressed, butthe purpose ofaddressing it is, as stated inthe FAA's Sanctions Policy 2150.3 B, to insure that future violations do not occur. I am completely in agreement withthat goal, and I want to assure everyone that I understand howI came to make the mistake and that I have changed the way that I clean out my backpack after trips now to preventthis from happening agam.

With regard to the amount ofthe fine that I should have to pay, I want to reiterate whatI said before: The amount and type offuel that I mistakenly offered inmy checkedbaggage was nearly identical inboth quantity and quality to what is in cigarette lighters, which are something that the FAAhas determined to be an acceptable risk on airplanes. Therefore, while it was still a violation ofthe law,
connnon sense would suggest that itwas 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 proofthat the quantity offuel 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 suchas this, but does notrequite them to preserve the evidence is something thatis unfair and limits my ability to defend myselfin 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 ofthe fuel during the course ofmy trip. I knowthis because I have years ofexperience withthese stoves, and I know that whenthe flame dwindles down to almost nothing even whenthe 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 offuel. After cooking and heating dishwater for my entire trip, I know that it couldn'tpossibly have had more than 10% ofthat amount left in

### it, and very likely didn't have even 5% left. 5% of8 ounces would be 4 tenths ofan ounce. Again, I knowthat having that canister inmy checked baggage was wrong and illegal even ifitwas empty, and I am not arguing that it shouldn't be. I'm only pointing outthat 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 enforcementpolicy must be fair and reasonable and should be perceived as fair by those subjectto regulation" (FAApolicy 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 onthe fact that the material that would have been in the canister ifit hadn't been empty is prohibited in 

### all cases. This is neither fair nor reasonable.
(Iknow it isfar beyond the scope of thisproceeding, butsince I share the FAA's desire to insure the safety of theflyingpublic, I ftel the needtopoint out that isobutane, theprohibited chemical we are dealing with here is also soldas a refrigerant under the trade name of R-600a, andhas replaced freon in many domestic refrigeration units because of concern about ozone depletion. Since I am aware that portable 12-voltcoolers are currentlypermittedas checked baggage onpassenger-carryingairplanes, itmightbe time for the FAA to take a closer lookatthis matter.)

The FAA is perfectlyjustified intaking 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 chosento ask for a civil penalty that I do not perceive as fair, the court will have to decide it. I amfme with that. I would ask you to consider my arguments and impose a fme that fits the crime. Ifl may, I would also like youto consider staying the fine after ithas beenimposed. That would be the strongest deterrent to me against re-offending.
Respectfully submittedthis 22nd day ofSeptember, 2013

OTTTICE Pro Se RespondentFDMS No. FAA-2013-0042 (Civil PenaltyAction)

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 LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New JerseyAvenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 Fax: 202-366-7536

FederalAviationAdministration (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 2Wl000

Mr. 

### R. Bennett Sargent, Esq. Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, ANE-7 New England Region FederalAviationAdministration 12 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA01.821 Fax: 781-238-705)!5"

SCOTT TICE: Dated September 22, 2013 Pro Se Respondent