### SERVED : MAY 13 , 201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C • ~ • " ; - IN TH EMATTE RO F WILLIA M A . LUKER , JR . FA A DOCKE T NO . CP09SW000 8 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) DM S NO . FAA-2009-104 4 ORDE RO FCHIE FADMINISTRATIV ELA WJUDG ERONNI EA . YODE R GRANTIN GCOMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR Y JUDGMEN T Thi s proceedin g arise s from aComplain t serve dNovembe r

5 , 2009 , i n whic hth e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA" ) Regiona l Counsel , Southwes t Regio n ("Complainant") , alleg

e s aviolatio n o f

th e Departmen t

o f Transportatio n ("DOT" ) Hazardou s Material s Regulation s ("HMR") , an daReques t

for Hearin g b y Willia mA . Luke r Jr . ("Respondent") , receive do n Oc

tobe r 27 , 2009. ' Th e undersigne dadministrativ e la w judg e was assigne dt o thi s proceedin g b y Notic e o f Assignmen t

o f Proceeding , serve dJanuar y 5 , 2010 , an dordere dpartie s t o file an y amende dcomplain t

o r answer , o n o r

befor e Februar y 5 , 2010. ^ B y "Complainant' s Motio n for Summar y Judgment " ("Motion") , serve dJanuar y 4 , 2010 , Complainan t

move s for

decisio n i n thi s proceedin g pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(5) , arguin g tha t ther e remain s n o genuin e issu e o f materia l fac t

tha t require s ahearin g an dComplainan t i s entitle dt o judgmen t

a s amatte r

o f law. ^ Responden t

filedn o answe r

t o th e Complain t

o r th e

' Complainan

t Counsel' s Lette

r to Hearing Docke

t (Nov . 5 , 2009) . According t o the Complaint , Complainant' s Fi

na l Notic e o f Propose dCivil Penalt

y was servedOctobe

r 16 , 2009 . ^ Orde r o f th e Chief Administrativ e La

w Judg e a t 2 (Jan . 5 , 2010) . ' Motion a t 1 .Motion . Fo r th e reason s se t

fort hbelow , I gran t

th e Motion , findResponden t i n violatio n a s al

lege dan dasses s acivi l penalt y o f $500 . I . BACKGROUN D Th e Complain t

allege s Responden t

knowingl y violate dth e HMR , 4 9 C.F.R . § 171.2(e),' * i n that Responden t

"offer[ed ] hazardou s materia l for transportatio n i n commerc e withi n th e Unit

edState s whe n th e materia l wa s not properl y classed , described , packaged , marked , labeled , an d i n th e conditio n for

shipmen t require db y th e Hazardou s Materia l Regulations." ^ First , Complainan t

allege s tha t

o n Apri l 19 , 2009 , Respondent , knowingl y offere d checke dbaggag e t o America n Airline s at Dallas/For t

WorthInternationa l Airport , Texas , that containe dhazardou s material s for transportatio n o n America n Airline s flight numbe r 240 4 t o Baltimore , Maryland. * Complainan t allege s tha t

th e Transportatio n Security Administratio n ("TSA" ) screene dRespondent' s baggag e an ddiscovere dacaniste r o f Colema n propan e fuel , a caniste r o f butan e fuel , an datorc hlighter . Complainan t

support s thes e allegation s witha n America n Airline s Undeclare dDanger

ou s Good s Discrepanc y Report, ^ Materia l Safety Dat aSheet s ("MSDS" ) for eac hhazardou s ma terial, ^ an da n email , date dMa y 15 , 2009 , fromResponden t t o Pau l Klimas,' ° FA A Hazardou s Material s Specia l Agent , Southwes t Region , wh o investigate dth e matter . * ' Th e emai l states : "I n m y hast e t o catc hth e plane , I thre w th e propan e an dbutan e cylinder s i n m y duffel bag , completel y forgettin g a t tha t momen t tha t the y wer e substance s tha t coul dno t b e transporte do n aplane . Afte r I wa s i n th e securit y line , on e o f th e

* Complain t

III , at 2 (Nov . 5 , 2009) . 'Id . ^Id . par al,a t

1 . ^ Id . par a2 , at

1 . ^ Motio n Ex . 2 . ' Motio n Ex . 5-7 . Th e MSD S for th e Colema n propan e fuel caniste r an dbutan e lighte r

provid e th e DO T shippin g names , "Liquefie dPetroleu mGas, " Motio n Ex . 5 , at .5 ; an d"Lighters , containin g flammable gas. " Motio n Ex . 7 , at 3 (emphasi s i n original ) '"MotionEx . 3 . "MotionEx . 9 .baggag e inspector s approache dm e an dpointe dout tha t h e ha dfoun dthos e item s i n m y duffel , an dwoul dhav e t o confiscat e them , unles s ther e wa s someon e a t th e airport wh o coul dtak e the mbac k t o m y home . I sai dno , apologize dfor th e MISTAKE , mad e i n HASTE , an dwen t o n abou t m y business."' ^ Second , Complainan t

allege s tha t

th e baggag e wa s not

marke dwithapplicabl e identification" ^ marking s o r

label s tha t

woul dindicat e th e baggag e containe dhazardou s materials , accompanie d b y a"Shipper' s Certificatio n o r Declaratio n o f

Dangerou s Goods, " o r

accompanie db y shippin g paper s tha t

describe dth e hazardou s materia l an dprovide demergenc y respons e information , in

cludin g a24-hou r

emergenc y respons e teh^hon e number.' ^ Last , Complainan t allege s tha t

Res

ponden t offere dth e hazardou s material s for ai r transportatio n withou t

appropriatel y markin g an d labelin g th e oute r

containe r

labe l an dfaile dt o declar e th e shipment.'" *

II . DISCUSSIO N A . Summary Judgmen t

Standar dan dAnalysis . A motio n for

decisio n ma y b e grante d"i f th e pleadings , depositions , answer s t o interro

gatories , admissions , matter s that th e administrativ e la w judg e ha s officiall y noticed , o r evidenc e introduce ddurin g th e hearin g sho w tha t ther e i s n o genuin e issu e o f materia l fac t

an dtha t th e part y makin g th e motio n i s entitle dt o adecisio n a s amatte r o f law."' ^ Th e movan t

"ha s th e bur

de n o f showin g tha t

ther e i s n o genuin e issu e o f materia l fac t

dispute db y th e parties."' * A motio n for

decisio n unde r

1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(5 ) i s comparabl e t o amotio n for summar y judgmen t

unde r Rul e 56(c ) o f

th e Federa l Rule s o f

Civi l Procedur e ("FRCP").' ' Th e standar dfor

decidin g asummar y judgmen t motio n unde r

th e FRC Pi s governe db y th e Suprem e Court' s opinio n i n Celote x Corp . v . Catrett , 47 7 U.S . 31 7 (1986) : Motio n Ex . 3 . 1 2 ' ' Complain t

paras . 3-5 , at

1 . "^Mparas . 9-10 , at2 . ' ' 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(5 ) (2009) . ^^Ibi d ^' ^ See . e.g. . Horizo n Ai r

Indus. , Inc. . FA A Orde r

No . 1996-24 , at

6 n. 3 (Aug . 13 , 1996) . 3"I n ou r vie w th e plai n languag e o f Rul e 56(c ) mandate s th e entry o f summar y judgment , after

adequat e tim e for

discover y an dupo n motion , agains t apart y wh o fail s t o mak e ashowin g sufficien t t o establis hth e existenc e o f an elemen t

essen tia l t o tha t

party' s case , an do n whic htha t part y wil l bear

th e burde n o f

proo f at trial . In suc hasituation , ther e ca n b e "n o genuin e issu e a s t o an y materia l fact, " sinc e acomplet e failure o f proo f concernin g a

n essentia l elemen t

o f th e nonmov in g party' s cas e necessaril y render s al l othe r fact s immaterial. " Id . a

t 322-23 . O n amotio n for

summar y judgment , al l evidenc e an dinference s ar e t o b e viewe di n th e ligh t mos t favorabl e t o th e nonmovin g party . However , "i f th e movin g party' s documentar y presen tatio n demonstrate s tha t

it s versio n o f

th e fact s entitle s i t

t o judgmen t

a s amatte r

o f law , th e Ce

lote x rul e require s th e part y opposin g th e motio n t o com e forwardwithdocument s (othe r than th e pleadings ) supportin g aversio n o f th e fact s tha t

woul dpreclud e th e gran t o f summar y judg

ment."' ^ Complainan t

allege s tha t

Responden t

offere dacaniste r

o f propane , acaniste r

o f butan e fuel , an datorc hlighte r

for ai r transportatio n withou t

declarin g th e contents , markin g an dlabe

lin g th e baggage , o r

accompanyin g th e baggag e wit hth e appropriat e certification , declaration , o r require dpapers . Complainan t allege s tha t

Respondent' s action s constitute daviolatio n o f § 171.2(e ) o f

th e HMR , prohibitin g an y perso n from"offer[ing].. . ahazardou s materia l for transportatio n i n commerc e unles s th e hazairdou s materia l i s properl y classed , described , pack

aged , marked , labeled , an di n conditio n for shipmen t a s require do r

authorize db y applicabl e re quirement s o f

[th e HMR ] "^ ' Th e HM Rdefin e "hazardou s material " t o includ e "material s designate da s hazardou s i n th e Hazardou s Material s Tabl e [4 9 C.F.R . § 172.101]."^ ^ Complainan t support s th e assertio n

' * See . e.g. . Ventur aAi r

Servs. . Inc. , FA A Docke t No . CP07EA2005 , FDM S No . FAA-2007-27540 , Administrativ e La w Judge' s Orde r

Grantin g Motio n for

Decision , at

6 (Jul y 24 , 2007) . ' ^ Wilcox Trucking . Inc. , Docke t No . FMCSA-2001-9596 , Administrativ e La w Judge' s Decisio n an dOrde r Grantin g Motio n for

Summary Judgment , at

4 (Jul y 27 , 2007) . ^ Se e supr anote s 6 , 7 , 13 , an d1 4 an daccompanyin g text . ^'4 9 C.F.R . § 171.2(e) . ^M9C.F.R. § 171.8 .tha t

Responden t

offere dth e item s for

transportatio n i n commerc e an dtha t suc hitem s wer e ha

zardou s material s unde r

th e HM RHazardou s Material s Tabl e withth e America n Airlines ' Un

declare dDangerou s Good s Discrepanc y Report , Respondent' s email , an dth e MSD S sheets.^^ Pursuan t t o 4 9 C.F.R . § 171.1(g ) an d4 9 U.S.C . § 5123 , aperso n mus t "knowingly " vi

olat e th e HM Rt o b e liabl e for acivi l penalty . Th e statut e require s tha t th e allege dviolato r

mus t hav e know n th e "fact s givin g rise t o th e violation. " Knowledg e o f th e la w i s unnecessary , an d allege dviolator s ar e liabl e eve n i f the y di dnot

kno w the y wer e breakin g th e law . I n Scot t H . Smalling , th e Administrato r rejecte dSmalling' s argumen t tha t h e di dno t

violat e th e HM R "knowingly."^ ^ Thoug hh e claime d"h e di dno t kno w tha t

firecrackers wer e hazardou s mate rials," Smallin g "readil y admitte dtha t h e ha dactua l knowledg e o f th e fact s givin g rise t o th e violation—i.e. , tha t

h e place dfireworks i n hi s suitcase , an dtha t h e checke dhi s ba g wit hth e air

9 8 9 0 line. " Thoug hResponden t asserte di n hi s emai l that h e ha d"completel y for[gotten ] at tha t momen t tha t the y wer e substance s tha t coul dnot

b e transporte do n aplane,"^ ° h e concede dactua l knowledg e i n tha t

h e "thre w th e propan e £in dbutan e cylinder s i n [his ] duffe l bag."^ ' Thus , Complainan t

ha s show n tha t

Responden t

ha dactua l knowledg e o f th e fact s givin g rise t o th e vi

olation—^tha

t h e place dth e hazardou s material s i n hi s baggag e an dchecke dtha t baggag e with

^ ' Motio n Ex . 2-3 , 5-7 . Se e 4 9 C.F.R . § 172.101 , at 15 4 ("Butane , se e als o Petroleu mgases , liquefied") , 20 7 ("Ligh

ter s containin g flammable gas") , 24 3 ("Propan e se e als o Petroleu mgases , hquefied" ) (emphasi s i n original) . ^"4 9 0.8.0 . § 5123(a)(1)(A) . ^ ' Se e Riverdal e Mill s Corp. , FA A Orde r No . 2003-10 , at

5 (Sept . 12 , 2003 ) (citin g Scott H . Smalling , FA A Orde r No . 1994-31 , at

7 (Oct . 5,1994)) . ^ * Smalling , FA A Orde r

No . 1994-31 , at

7 . "/J . at 5 . ^ ' Id . at 7 . ^ ' Se e supr anot e 1 0 an daccompanyin g text . ' ^ Se e supr anot e 1 2 an daccompanyin g text .America n Airlines.^ ^ Complainan t ha s als o show n that , a

t som e earlier

tim e befor e h e packe d th e bag . Responden t

kne w tha t

thos e "substance s . . . coul dnot b e fransportedo n aplane."^ ^ Unde r Procedura l Rul e 13.209(f) , afailur e t o file an answe r t o acomplain t

"withou t goo d cause " i s "deeme da

n admissio n o f

th e trutho f

eac hallegatio n containe di n th e complaint."^' * In addition , "an y part y ma y file a n answer " t o amotion , "wit haffidavit s o r othe r evidenc e i n sup port o f th e answer , no t

late r tha n 1 0 day s after

servic e o f

awritte n motio n o n tha t

party."^ ^ Responden t

faile dt o tak e advantag e o f th e tw o opportunitie s t o challeng e Complainant' s allegations . Pursuan t

t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.209(f) , Responden t admitte dth e trutho f

eac hallegatio n i n th e Complain t

b y failin g t o file an answer . Second , Responden t faile dt o respon dto , o r

com e forwardwithevidenc e opposing , th e Motio n tha t woul dsupport

aversio n o f

fact s precludin g summary judgment . Becaus e Responden t submitte dnothin g t o rebu t th e evidenc e o r

th e infe

rence s t o b e draw n fromit , nothin g i n th e recor dcontradict s th e Complainant' s versio n o f th e facts . Therefore , I findtha t Responden t

violate d4 9 C.F.R . § 171.2(e) . Upo n Respondent' s admission s an dfailur e t o oppos e Complainant' s supporte dmotio n for summar y judgment . Complainan t establishe dth e absenc e o f agenuin e issu e o f

materia l fac t an di s entitle dt o ajudgmen t a s amatte r

o f la w a s t o thi s violation . B . Civi l Penalty . Complainan t

request s apenalt y o f

$500^^— areques t

that , lik e th e res t

o f th e Complain t an dMotion , remain s uncontested . / . Determinin g th e Statutor y Maximu mPenalty .

^ ^ Se e supr anote s 8 an d1 2 an daccompanyin g text . ' ^ Se e supr anot e 1 2 an daccompanyin g text . ^ * 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.209(f) . ' ^ 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(d) . ' * Complain t

at 3 ; Motio n a t

11 . Complainan t

state s tha t

th e Notic e o f

Propose dCivi l Penalt y tha t wa s issue dpro pose dacivi l penalt y amoun t o f $500 . Motio n at

8 .Complainan t assert s tha t

"Responden t

i s liabl e for

acivi l penalt y o f

no t les s tha n $25 0

. . . no r greate r tha n $50,00 0 .. . for

eac hviolatio n o f

th e Federa l hazardou s material s transporta tion la w . . . an dfor

eac hviolatio n o f

th e [DO T HMR]."^ ^ Th e statut e permit s civi l penaltie s for violation s o f

th e HM Ri n th e rang e o f at leas t $250 , but not mor e tha n $50,000 , for

eac hviolation.^ ^ Whe n determinin g th e amoun t o f civi l penalty , th e followin g mus t

b e considered : "(1 ) th e nature , circumstances , extent , an dgravit y o f th e viola

tion ; (2 ) wit hrespec t

t o th e violator , th e degre e o f culpability , an y histor y o f prio r violations , th e ability 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(3 ) othe r matter s tha t justic e requires."'' ^ 2 . Appropriat e Penalty , FA A Guideline s an dApplication . Complainan t

assert s that

th e civi l penalt y i s appropriat e for th e violation , a s th e violatio n constitute da"safety threa t whos e magnitud e i s unknown"'*' ^ an dth e sanctio n was assesse di n ac cordanc e wit hFA A sanctio n guidanc e an di s warrante db y precedent."^ ' Pursuan t t o Procedura l Rules , 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.224(a) , Complainan t mus t sho w th e pro pose dcivi l penalt y i s appropriate.'* ^ Th e VA A promulgate dGuidanc e for proposin g civi l penal

tie s for hazardou s material s violation s tha t incorporat e th e statutor y an dHM Rcriteria.'*' ' First , th e FA A consider s variou s aggravatin g an dmitigatin g circumstance s relate dt o th e statutor y pe -

" Motio n at

8 . ' * 4 9 U.S.C . § 5123(a) . ^ ' 4 9 U.S.C . § 5123(c) . Se e als o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.16(c) , listin g th e sam e factors . " " Motio n at

8 , 9 . ''Ibi d " ^ Se e Davi dG . Stout , FA A Orde r No . 1998-12 , at

1 2 (Jun e 11 , 1998 ) ("Complainan t bor e th e burde n o f

establishin g no t onl y th e violations , bu t

als o th e appropriat e sanctio n amount" ) (citing Toyot aMoto r Sales , FA A Orde r

No . 1994-28 , at

6- 7 (Sept . 30 , 1994)) . * ^ Se e Motio n Ex . 8 , at

C-2 . Exhibi t

8 i s an extract , consistin g o f th e Cove r

Letter , pag e xv , an dAppendi x C , Sanc

tio n Guidance—^Hazardou s Material s Enforcemen t (page s C- 1 throug hC-17 ) o f FA A Orde r

2150.3B , FA

A Com

plianc e an dEnforcemen t Progra m(Oct . 1 , 2007 ) [hereinafte r "Guidance"] .nalt y factor s an dassign s a n "aggregat e weight " (maximum , moderate , minimum).'*' * Second , a "Matrix"'* ^ establishe s apenalt y rang e base do n th e typ e o f violato r an dth e typ e o f

violation , whic hi s the n modifie db y th e "aggregat e weight " t o determin e arecommende dpenalt y for eac h "violatio n group. " ^ Last , adjustment s ar e mad e for th e violator' s ability t o pa y an dfor correc tiv e actions.'* ^ Thi s Guidanc e i s no t bindin g o n respondent s o r administrativ e law judge s i n set 4 8 tm g penalties . Complainan t

argue s tha t

th e Guidanc e wa s properl y applie db y assignin g afinal aggre gat e weigh t

o f "lo w moderate " t o th e case,'* ^ determinin g th e Responden t t o b e aCategor y A of

fender ("Individual"),^ ° an dfinding tha t th e shipmen t

wa s aCategor y I I "Undeclare dShipmen t Withi n Hazma t

Quantit y Limitations."^ ' Responden t ha s no t challenge dComplainant' s applica

tio n o f th e Guidance . A . "Aggregat e Weight " o f th e Violation . I n assessin g civi l penalties , th e FA A use s th e statutor y an dregulator y consideration s t o determin e th e "aggregat e weight " o f th e violation : "(1 ) th e nature , circumstances , extent , an d gravity o f th e violation ; (2 ) wit hrespec t t o th e violator , th e degre e o f culpability , an y histor y o f prio r violations , th e ability t o pay , an dan y effec t o n th e ability t o continu e t o d o business ; an d (3 ) suc hothe r

matter s a s justic e ma y require."^ ^ However , th e Guidanc e als o note s tha t not al l factor s ar e t o b e give n equa l weigh t an dth e final aggregat e weigh t i s "base do n th e totalit y o f th e

' ^ Guidanc e paras . 6 , at

C-4 ; 8.a. , at

C-5 . "* ' Guidanc e fig. C-1 , at

C-12 . "* * Guidanc e para . 6.c , at

C-4 . * ^ Guidanc e para . 6.d , at

C-4—C-5 . * ^ Eri c Salcido , FA A Docke t No . CP08SO0003 , FDM S No . FAA-2008-0234 , Initia l Decisio n o f th e Administrativ e La w Judge , at

6- 7 & n. l (Aug . 1 , 2008) ; Stebbin s Aviation , FA A Docke t No . CP00SW0014 , FDM S No . FAA-2000

- 7576 , Initia l Decisio n o f

Chie f Administrativ e La w Judge , at 9 n.5 4 (Aug . 30 , 2004) . * ^ Motio n a t

9 . '"Mats . ^ ' Id . at 8-9 . " 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.16(c) ; Motio n Ex . 8 , para . 8.a.(l) , at C-5 . 8fact s an dcircumstance s o f th e case."^ ^ A s th e factor s "d o not hav e t o b e equall y considered . Complainan t

maintain s relativ e prosecutoria l discretio n i n determinin g th e case' s final aggregat e weight"^' * i n proposin g aleve l o f civi l penalty . (i ) The Nature , Circumstances , Extent , an dGravit y o f th e Violation . Responden t

i s an individua l wh o shippe dth e hazardou s material s for persona l purposes . Responden t

ma y hav e "forgotten " tha t th e substance s an ditem s wer e hazardou s material s bu t wa s awar e tha t

the y coul dno t

b e transporte do n aplane . ^ ^ Responden t

offere dfo r

ai r transportatio n i n commerc e on e packag e containin g thre e dif

feren t undeclare dhazardou s materials.^ ^ Undeclare dshipment s o f hazardou s material s pos e a special risk.^^ Th e material s at issu e wer e ahazar dclass/divisio n 2.1 , "flammabl e gas."^ ^ Com

plainan t acknowledges , an dResponden t doe s not contest , tha t

thi s substanc e i s a"Categor y A " materia l unde r

th e Guidelines , whic hcarrie s amaximu mweight , base dupo n thei r inheren t dan

ge r t o ai r transportatio n withapotentiall y catasfrophi c effect s resultin g i n deatho r injury t o th e crew , passengers , an dpublic.^ ^ Complainan t

an dth e FA A agen t

foun dth e quantit y o f

hazardou s materia l t o b e small , justifyin g afinal aggregat e weigh t o f moderate.^ ° Th e Guidanc e consider s package s exceedin g th e authorize dquantit y limitation s b y asignifican t amoun t t o b e a n aggravatin g factor.^ ' Moreo

-

' ^ Guidanc e par a8.a.(3) , at C-5 . ' * Lambto n Doors , FA A Docke t No . CPOOSOOO13 , FDM S No . FAA-2000-7454 , Initia l Decisio n o f Chie f Adminis

trativ e La w Judge , at

1 0 n.4 8 (May 7 , 2004) . Se e als o Motio n at Ex . 8 at C- 8 ("T o determin e th e final aggregat e weight , th e agen t

o r attorne y mus t

exercis e hi s o r

he r discretio n i n ligh t

o f th e statutor y factor s an dknowledg e o f th e particular case") . ' ^ Se e supr anot e 1 2 an daccompanyin g text . ^ * Se e supr anote s 6 , 7 , 13 , an d1 4 an daccompanyin g text . " Interstat e Chem . Co. , FA A Orde r No . 2002-29 , at

1 6 (Dec . 6 , 2002) ; Phillip s Bldg . Supply , FA A Orde r N o 2000

- 20 , at 1 1 (Aug . 11 , 2000 ) (notin g tha t suc hundeclare dshipment s "increas e th e likelihoo do f injury" ) (quotin g Mid

tow n Neo n Sig n Corp. , FA A Orde r No . 1996-26 , at

10-1 1 (Aug . 13 , 1996)) . ' * Motio n at

9 ; Guidanc e fig. C-2 , at

C-17 . ''Ibi d ^"Motio n at

9 . * ' Guidanc e para . 8.b.(2) , at C-6 .ver , apackag e containin g aforbidde n materia l i s assigne damaximu mweight . ^ ^ However , th e Guidanc e als o recognize s that othe r factors , whic hshoul db e identifie dan dexplained , ma y b e considered . Th e Guidance' s exampl e i s " ashipmen t containin g ad e minimi s quantit y o f ma teria l o r a n amoun t tha t woul dhav e qualifie dunde r th e smal l quantity exceptio n o f 4 9 C.F.R . § 173. 4 ma y presen t

amitigatin g facto r

i f a s aresul t

ther e wa s areduce drisk t o safety i n trans portation."^' * However , class/divisio n 2. 1 material s d o not qualif y for § 173.4a(b)' s small

quantit y exceptio n for

transpor t aboar dpassenge r

aircraft . Therefore , Respondent' s baggag e containe dtw o hazardou s materials , propan e an dbu

tane , forbidde n for

fransportation aboar dapassenge r aircraft,^^ warrantin g amaximu mweight . Al l thre e hazardou s material s wer e class/divisio n 2. 1 hazards^ ^ an ddi dnot qualif y for asmall

quantit y exceptio n for

fransport aboar dapassenge r

aircraft . However , Complainan t identifie d th e smal l quantit y a s amitigatin g facto r an dsupporte dth e determinatio n wit hth e agent' s decla

ratio n an dassessment , reducin g th e aggregat e weigh t t o "moderate. " Th e hazardou s material s wer e offere dfo r shipmen t

an dcoul dhav e cause dsever e person a l injury an dpropert y damage . Moreover , th e fac t tha t th e baggag e lacke dmarking s o r label s regardin g th e hazardou s natur e o f it s content s create dseriou s potentia l for harm , becaus e th e air

lin e ha dn o notic e t o tak e precaution s tha t ar e necessar y an dpruden t whe n transportin g flammabl e an dhazardou s materials .

'^I d 6 3 " M 7cf . para . 8.d.(l) , atC-8 . * ' Se e 4 9 C.F.R . § 172.101 , listin g "forbidden " o n th e HM RHazardou s Material s Tabl e for th e quantit y limitation s o n passenge r

aircraf t o f propan e an dbutane . * * Se e supr anot e 58 , an daccompanyin g text . ^ ^ Complainant' s Motio n at 9 . ^ * Se e TC I Corp. , FA A Orde r No . 1992-77, at

1 3 & n.l 7 (Dec . 22 , 1993 ) (discussin g loading , removal , an dspil l respons e option s availabl e t o forewarne dairlin e personnel) . 1 0Fortunately , TS A discovere dth e item s an dpotentia l dange r wa s averted . However , ab

senc e o f damag e an dpersona l injury wa s merel y fortuitou s an di s no t amitigatin g factor.^^ Con

siderin g th e lac k

o f damag e an dinjury . Complainan t foun dn o relate daggravatin g factors.^ ° ^ (ii ) Respondent' s Degre e o f Culpability , Histor y o f

Prio r Offenses , Ability t o Pay . Th e Complaint , Motion , an dsupportin g document s indicat e tha t Responden t

bear s full responsibilit y fo r

th e action s tha t

le dt o th e violations . Therefore , areduce dpenalt y i s inappro

priat e i n thi s cas e base do n share do r partia l culpability.^ ' Althoug hunfamiliar withth e HMR , Responden t

wa s awar e that

th e substance s coul dno t b e transporte db y air , suggestin g mor e tha n aminima l sanction . Complainan t offer s n o histor y o f

HM Rviolations ; however , " aviolation

free histor y shoul db e th e nor man dwil l no t b e considere da s mitigatin g an otherwis e reasonabl e 7 9 civi l penalty. " Last , Responden t ha s neve r

asserte dan y inabilit y t o pa y th e propose dcivi l pe nalty . (Hi ) Othe r Matter s That

Justic e Ma y Require . Last , Complainan t

cite s preceden t

tha t warrant s th e civi l penalt y amount . ^ ^ Responden t offere dn o othe r

matters , circumstances , o r fact s tha t justic e migh t

requir e t o b e considered . Ac

cordingly , Complainant' s determinatio n o f afinal aggregat e weigh t o f "lo w moderate " i s appro priate . B . Applicatio n o f

th e Matrix .

^ ' Lambto n Doors , supr anot e 54 , at 1 4 (citing TC I Corp. , supr anot e 68 , at 14) . Se e als o Guidanc e para.8.b.(3) , at C- 7 ("[T]tha t

n o damag e occurre da s aresul t o f th e shipmen t

i s no t amitigatin g factor . However , damag e o r harm ma y aggravat e th e nature , circumstances , extent , an dgravit y o f th e violation.") . TM Motio n at

9 . " Se e Lambto n Doors , supr anot e 54 , at 1 5 (citin g TC I Corp. , supr anot e 68 , at 15-1 7 ("penalty reduce dbecaus e violation s aros e i n par t

a s aresul t

o f athir dparty' s negligence")) . ^ ^ Lambto n Doors , supr anot e 54 , at 1 5 (citin g TC I Corp. , supr anot e 68 , at 20) . '' ^ Motio n at

9-10 . 1 1Th e penalt y rang e unde r th e Guidanc e i s determine db y th e typ e o f violato r an dth e typ e o f violation , i n accordanc e withth e Guidance' s matrix.^' * (i ) Type o f

Entity . A Category "A " offender i s a n "individual,"^ ^ define da s " ahuma n wh o offer s ashipmen t o f hazardou s materia l i n hi s o r he r persona l capacity , withou t an y busines s purpos e an dnot a s part o f acommercia l enterprise. " Responden t i s aCategor y A offender . (ii ) Offens e Category . Complainan t

support s it s Categor y II offens e determinatio n withth e declaration^ ^ o f Agen t Klimas , wh o treate dth e "aggregat e case " a s aCategor y I I offens e basedupo n th e torc h lighter , thoug hth e othe r

tw o hazardou s material s (th e propan e an dbutane ) offense s wer e Cate

gory III . However , Agen t Klima s an dComplainan t recognize dtha t

th e propose dcivi l penalty , $500 , me t th e Category II I minimu mcivi l penalt y for aCategory A offender . Th e Guidanc e state s that

th e offens e categorie s "addres s th e nature , circumstances , an d gravity o f th e particular

offense. " Unde r

th e Guidance , aCategor y I I offens e i s a n "Undeclare d Shipmen t Withi n Hazma t

Quantit y Limitations, " an daCategor y II I offens e i s a n "Undeclare d Shipmen t Hazma t Forbidde n o n . . . Passenge r Aircraft."^ ^

^ * Se e supr anot e 4 6 an daccompanyin g text . " Guidanc e fig. C-1 , at

C-12 . ^ * Complainant' s Motio n at Ex . 8 at C-15 . ^ ' A n unswor n declaratio n unde r penalt y o f

perjury ha s th e forc e an deffec t o f aswor n declaration , verification , cer tificate , statement , oath , o r affidavit . 2 8 U.S.C . § 1746 . ^ * Motio n Ex . 9 par a2 , at 1 . ^ ' Motio n at

9 , E x 9 par a4 , at

2 . ' " Guidanc e para . 6.c. , at

C-4 . * ' Guidanc e fig. C-1 , at

C-12; para . 9.n.(l) , at

C-16 , describe s Categor y I I a s follows : "I f th e undeclare dshipmen t i s offere dfor

transportatio n o n . ." . apassenge r aircraft , th e quantit y o f

hazardou s materia l mus t b e withi n th e limita

tion , pe r package , for

transportatio n onpassenge r aircraft , a s establishe di n th e 4 9 C.F.R . § 172.10 1 Table " (empha

si s i n original) . * ^ Guidanc e fig. C-1 , at

C-12; para . 9.m. , at

C-16 , describe s Categor y II I a s follows : "A n undeclare dshipmen t that i s offere dfor

transportatio n o n o r

transporte do n apassenge r aircraft , an dth e hazardou s materia l i s forbidde n i n ai r transportatio n o n passenge r aircraf t (bu t no t i n ai r transportatio n i n carg o aircraft) , a s establishe di n th e 4 9 C.F.R . § 172.10 1 Table. " 1 2Th e HM RHazardou s Material s Tabl e o f sectio n 172.10 1 forbid s th e transportatio n o f propan e an dbutan e b y passenge r aircraft . Becaus e Categor y II offense s ar e limite dt o hazard

ou s material s withi n th e HM Rquantit y limitations , ashipmen t containin g aforbidde n hazardou s materia l canno t

b e aCategor y I I offense . Accordingly , Complainan t incorrectl y assume s tha t Category I I i s th e appropriat e offens e categor y applie dt o Respondent' s shipment . Responden t offere da n undeclare dshipmen t for transportatio n o n apassenge r aircraf t an dth e hazardou s ma teria l i s forbidde n i n ai r

transportatio n o n passenge r aircraft , aCategor y II I offense . Accordin g t o th e Guidanc e Matrix , th e tota l rang e for eac hoffens e relatin g t o aCategory II I undeclare dshipmen t

offere db y aCategor y A violato r i s $50 0 t o $5,500.^' * Complainan t pro pose s aminimu mcivi l penalt y o f $500 . Althoug htha t

i s th e minimu mpenalt y suggeste db y th e Guidance , tha t

i s th e penalt y requeste di n th e Complaint , an dconsequentl y n o greate r penalt y can b e imposed . Th e circumstance s discusse dabovi3—a s wel l a s Respondent' s reaso n for havin g th e items , th e hast e tha t

apparentl y precipitate dhi s inclusio n o f the mi n hi s baggage , an dhi s uncon troverte dassertio n tha t

h e coul dhav e avoide dconfiscatio n an dreporting , ha dsomeon e merel y bee n abl e t o remov e the mfromth e airport—al l indicat e tha t asignifican t

sanction , wit hsuffi

cien t deterren t an dpunitiv e effect , i s appropriate . Accordingly , w e conclud e tha t acivi l penalt y i n th e amoun t

o f $50 0 shoul db e assessed.^ ^

* ' 4 9 C.F.R . § 172.101 , at 154 , 243 . *" * Ma t Ex . 8 at C-12 . Thi s decisio n ma y b e appeale dt o th e Administrato r o f th e FAA . Th e Notic e o f Appea l mus t

b e filedno t

late r tha n 1 0 day s after

servic e o f

thi s decisio n (plu s five additiona l days , i f thi s decisio n i s serve db y mail) . 1 4 C.F.R . § § 13.233(a) , 13.211(e) . Th e appea l mus t b e perfecte dwit hawritte n brie f o r memorandu mno t

late r tha n 5 0 day s after servic e o f

thi s decisio n (plu s five additiona l days , i f thi s decisio n i s serve db y mail) . 1 4 C.F.R . § § 13.233(c) , 13.211(e) . Th e Notic e o f Appea l an dbrie f

o r memorandu mmus t

b e eithe r (a ) maile dt o th e Federa l Aviatio n Ad

ministration , 800 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC

430 , Wilbu r

Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 , o r (b ) delivere dpersonall y o r vi aexpedite dcourie r

servic e t o th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 600 Independenc e Ave. , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 , Wash

ington , D C 20591 , Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 . 1 4 C.F.R . § § 13.233(a) , 13.210(a)(2) , (1) . A cop y

1 3S O ORDERED .

P.ohni e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e L; Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t

o f th e Notic e o f

Appea l an dbrie f

o r memorandu mshoul dals o b e sen t t o counse l for

th e FA A i n thi s proceeding . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.233(a) . 1 4FA A Docke t No . CP09SW000 8 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio n Adminisfratio 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 ECOP Y Willia mA . Luker , Jr. , Responden t 1190 7 Winterthu r

Lane , Apt . PH 3 Reston,V A 20191-193 7 TEL : 571-271-218 4 Elly n Ponton , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counsel , ASW-7G 5 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 260 1 Meacha mBoulevar d Fort Worth , T X 76137-429 8 TEL : 817-222-508 9 FAX : 817-222-509 2 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yoder , Chie f Administrativ e Law Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mE12-32 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-214 2 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 : Federa l Avi

atio n Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 , Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 . 1 5