SERVED: MAY 13, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC • ~ • "; -

IN THE MATTER OF 

WILLIAM A. LUKER, JR. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09SW0008 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. FAA-2009-1044 

ORDER OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RONNIE A. YODER 

GRANTING COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

This proceeding arises from a Complaint served November 5, 2009, in which the Federal 

Aviation Administration ("FAA") Regional Counsel, Southwest Region ("Complainant"), alleges a violation of the Department of Transportation ("DOT") Hazardous Materials Regulations 

("HMR"), and a Request for Hearing by William A. Luker Jr. ("Respondent"), received on October 27, 2009.' The undersigned administrative law judge was assigned to this proceeding by 

Notice of Assignment of Proceeding, served January 5, 2010, and ordered parties to file any 

amended complaint or answer, on or before February 5, 2010.^ 

By "Complainant's Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Motion"), served January 4, 2010, 

Complainant moves for decision in this proceeding pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(f)(5), arguing 

that there remains no genuine issue of material fact that requires a hearing and Complainant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.^ Respondent filed no answer to the Complaint or the 

' Complainant Counsel's Letter to Hearing Docket (Nov. 5, 2009). According to the Complaint, Complainant's Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty was served October 16, 2009. 

^ Order of the Chief Administrative Law Judge at 2 (Jan. 5, 2010). 

' Motion at 1. 
Motion. For the reasons set forth below, I grant the Motion, find Respondent in violation as alleged and assess a civil penalty of $500. 

I. BACKGROUND 

The Complaint alleges Respondent knowingly violated the HMR, 49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e),'* 

in that Respondent "offer[ed] hazardous material for transportation in commerce within the United States when the material was not properly classed, described, packaged, marked, labeled, and 

in the condition for shipment required by the Hazardous Material Regulations."^ 

First, Complainant alleges that on April 19, 2009, Respondent, knowingly offered 

checked baggage to American Airlines at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Texas, that 

contained hazardous materials for transportation on American Airlines flight number 2404 to 

Baltimore, Maryland.* Complainant alleges that the Transportation Security Administration 

("TSA") screened Respondent's baggage and discovered a canister of Coleman propane fuel, a 

canister of butane fuel, and a torch lighter. 

Complainant supports these allegations with an American Airlines Undeclared Dangerous Goods Discrepancy Report,^ Material Safety Data Sheets ("MSDS") for each hazardous material,^ and an email, dated May 15, 2009, from Respondent to Paul Klimas,'° FAA Hazardous 

Materials Special Agent, Southwest Region, who investigated the matter. *' The email states: 

"In my haste to catch the plane, I threw the propane and butane cylinders in my 

duffel bag, completely forgetting at that moment that they were substances that 

could not be transported on a plane. After I was in the security line, one of the 

* Complaint III, at 2 (Nov. 5, 2009). 

'Id. 

^Id. para l,at 1. 

^ Id. para 2, at 1. 

^ Motion Ex. 2. 

' Motion Ex. 5-7. The MSDS for the Coleman propane fuel canister and butane lighter provide the DOT shipping 

names, "Liquefied Petroleum Gas," Motion Ex. 5, at .5; and "Lighters, containing flammable gas." Motion Ex. 7, at 

3 (emphasis in original) 

'"MotionEx. 3. 

"MotionEx. 9. 
baggage inspectors approached me and pointed out that he had found those items 

in my duffel, and would have to confiscate them, unless there was someone at the 

airport who could take them back to my home. I said no, apologized for the 

MISTAKE, made in HASTE, and went on about my business."'^ 

Second, Complainant alleges that the baggage was not marked with applicable identification"^ 

markings or labels that would indicate the baggage contained hazardous materials, accompanied 

by a "Shipper's Certification or Declaration of Dangerous Goods," or accompanied by shipping 

papers that described the hazardous material and provided emergency response information, including a 24-hour emergency response teh^hone number.'^ Last, Complainant alleges that Respondent offered the hazardous materials for air transportation without appropriately marking and 

labeling the outer container label and failed to declare the shipment.'"* 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Summary Judgment Standard and Analysis. 

A motion for decision may be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, matters that the administrative law judge has officially noticed, or evidence 

introduced during the hearing show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the 

party making the motion is entitled to a decision as a matter of law."'^ The movant "has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact disputed by the parties."'* 

A motion for decision under 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(f)(5) is comparable to a motion for 

summary judgment under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP").'' The 

standard for deciding a summary judgment motion under the FRCP is governed by the Supreme 

Court's opinion in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986): 

Motion Ex. 3. 

12 

' ' Complaint paras. 3-5, at 1. 

"^Mparas. 9-10, at2. 

' ' 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(f)(5) (2009). 

^^Ibid 

^'^ See. e.g.. Horizon Air Indus., Inc.. FAA Order No. 1996-24, at 6 n.3 (Aug. 13, 1996). 

3 
"In our view the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary 

judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who 

fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at 

trial. In such a situation, there can be "no genuine issue as to any material fact," 

since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Id. at 322-23. 

On a motion for summary judgment, all evidence and inferences are to be viewed in the light 

most favorable to the nonmoving party. However, "if the moving party's documentary presentation demonstrates that its version of the facts entitles it to judgment as a matter of law, the Celotex rule requires the party opposing the motion to come forward with documents (other than 

the pleadings) supporting a version of the facts that would preclude the grant of summary judgment."'^ 

Complainant alleges that Respondent offered a canister of propane, a canister of butane 

fuel, and a torch lighter for air transportation without declaring the contents, marking and labeling the baggage, or accompanying the baggage with the appropriate certification, declaration, or 

required papers. Complainant alleges that Respondent's actions constituted a violation of 

§ 171.2(e) of the HMR, prohibiting any person from "offer[ing]... a hazardous material for 

transportation in commerce unless the hazairdous material is properly classed, described, packaged, marked, labeled, and in condition for shipment as required or authorized by applicable requirements of [the HMR] "^' 

The HMR define "hazardous material" to include "materials designated as hazardous in 

the Hazardous Materials Table [49 C.F.R. § 172.101]."^^ Complainant supports the assertion 

'* See. e.g.. Ventura Air Servs.. Inc., FAA Docket No. CP07EA2005, FDMS No. FAA-2007-27540, Administrative 

Law Judge's Order Granting Motion for Decision, at 6 (July 24, 2007). 

'^ Wilcox Trucking. Inc., Docket No. FMCSA-2001-9596, Administrative Law Judge's Decision and Order Granting 

Motion for Summary Judgment, at 4 (July 27, 2007). 

^ See supra notes 6, 7, 13, and 14 and accompanying text. 

^'49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e). 

^M9C.F.R.§ 171.8. 
that Respondent offered the items for transportation in commerce and that such items were hazardous materials under the HMR Hazardous Materials Table with the American Airlines' Undeclared Dangerous Goods Discrepancy Report, Respondent's email, and the MSDS sheets.^^ 

Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 171.1(g) and 49 U.S.C. § 5123, a person must "knowingly" violate the HMR to be liable for a civil penalty. The statute requires that the alleged violator must 

have known the "facts giving rise to the violation." Knowledge of the law is unnecessary, and 

alleged violators are liable even if they did not know they were breaking the law. In Scott H. 

Smalling, the Administrator rejected Smalling's argument that he did not violate the HMR 

"knowingly."^^ Though he claimed "he did not know that firecrackers were hazardous materials," Smalling "readily admitted that he had actual knowledge of the facts giving rise to the 

violation—i.e., that he placed fireworks in his suitcase, and that he checked his bag with the air98 90 

line." Though Respondent asserted in his email that he had "completely for[gotten] at that 

moment that they were substances that could not be transported on a plane,"^° he conceded actual 

knowledge in that he "threw the propane £ind butane cylinders in [his] duffel bag."^' Thus, 

Complainant has shown that Respondent had actual knowledge of the facts giving rise to the violation—^that he placed the hazardous materials in his baggage and checked that baggage with 

^' Motion Ex. 2-3, 5-7. See 49 C.F.R. § 172.101, at 154 ("Butane, see also Petroleum gases, liquefied"), 207 ("Lighters containing flammable gas"), 243 ("Propane see also Petroleum gases, hquefied") (emphasis in original). 

^"49 0.8.0. § 5123(a)(1)(A). 

^' See Riverdale Mills Corp., FAA Order No. 2003-10, at 5 (Sept. 12, 2003) (citing Scott H. Smalling, FAA Order 

No. 1994-31, at 7 (Oct. 5,1994)). 

^* Smalling, FAA Order No. 1994-31, at 7. 

"/J. at 5. 

^' Id. at 7. 

^' See supra note 10 and accompanying text. 

'^ See supra note 12 and accompanying text. 
American Airlines.^^ Complainant has also shown that, at some earlier time before he packed 

the bag. Respondent knew that those "substances . . . could not be fransported on a plane."^^ 

Under Procedural Rule 13.209(f), a failure to file an answer to a complaint "without good 

cause" is "deemed an admission of the truth of each allegation contained in the complaint."^'* In 

addition, "any party may file an answer" to a motion, "with affidavits or other evidence in support of the answer, not later than 10 days after service of a written motion on that party."^^ 

Respondent failed to take advantage of the two opportunities to challenge Complainant's 

allegations. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(f), Respondent admitted the truth of each allegation 

in the Complaint by failing to file an answer. Second, Respondent failed to respond to, or come 

forward with evidence opposing, the Motion that would support a version of facts precluding 

summary judgment. Because Respondent submitted nothing to rebut the evidence or the inferences to be drawn from it, nothing in the record contradicts the Complainant's version of the 

facts. Therefore, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e). 

Upon Respondent's admissions and failure to oppose Complainant's supported motion 

for summary judgment. Complainant established the absence of a genuine issue of material fact 

and is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law as to this violation. 

B. Civil Penalty. 

Complainant requests a penalty of $500^^—a request that, like the rest of the Complaint 

and Motion, remains uncontested. 

/. Determining the Statutory Maximum Penalty. 

^^ See supra notes 8 and 12 and accompanying text. 

'^ See supra note 12 and accompanying text. 

^* 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(f). 

'^ 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(d). 

'* Complaint at 3; Motion at 11. Complainant states that the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that was issued proposed a civil penalty amount of $500. Motion at 8. 
Complainant asserts that "Respondent is liable for a civil penalty of not less than $250 

. . . nor greater than $50,000 .. . for each violation of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law . . . and for each violation of the [DOT HMR]."^^ 

The statute permits civil penalties for violations of the HMR in the range of at least $250, 

but not more than $50,000, for each violation.^^ When determining the amount of civil penalty, 

the following must be considered: "(1) the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation; (2) with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior violations, the 

ability to pay, and any effect on the ability to continue to do business; and (3) other matters that 

justice requires."''^ 

2. Appropriate Penalty, FAA Guidelines and Application. 

Complainant asserts that the civil penalty is appropriate for the violation, as the violation 

constituted a "safety threat whose magnitude is unknown"'*'^ and the sanction was assessed in accordance with FAA sanction guidance and is warranted by precedent."^' 

Pursuant to Procedural Rules, 14 C.F.R. § 13.224(a), Complainant must show the proposed civil penalty is appropriate.'*^ The VAA promulgated Guidance for proposing civil penalties for hazardous materials violations that incorporate the statutory and HMR criteria.'*'' First, 

the FAA considers various aggravating and mitigating circumstances related to the statutory pe-

" Motion at 8. 

'* 49 U.S.C. § 5123(a). 

^' 49 U.S.C. § 5123(c). See also 14 C.F.R. § 13.16(c), listing the same factors. 

"" Motion at 8, 9. 

''Ibid 

"^ See David G. Stout, FAA Order No. 1998-12, at 12 (June 11, 1998) ("Complainant bore the burden of establishing 

not only the violations, but also the appropriate sanction amount") (citing Toyota Motor Sales, FAA Order No. 

1994-28, at 6-7 (Sept. 30, 1994)). 

*^ See Motion Ex. 8, at C-2. Exhibit 8 is an extract, consisting of the Cover Letter, page xv, and Appendix C, Sanction Guidance—^Hazardous Materials Enforcement (pages C-1 through C-17) of FAA Order 2150.3B, FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program (Oct. 1, 2007) [hereinafter "Guidance"]. 
nalty factors and assigns an "aggregate weight" (maximum, moderate, minimum).'*'* Second, a 

"Matrix"'*^ establishes a penalty range based on the type of violator and the type of violation, 

which is then modified by the "aggregate weight" to determine a recommended penalty for each 

"violation group." ^ Last, adjustments are made for the violator's ability to pay and for corrective actions.'*^ This Guidance is not binding on respondents or administrative law judges in set48 

tmg penalties. 

Complainant argues that the Guidance was properly applied by assigning a final aggregate weight of "low moderate" to the case,'*^ determining the Respondent to be a Category A offender ("Individual"),^° and finding that the shipment was a Category II "Undeclared Shipment 

Within Hazmat Quantity Limitations."^' Respondent has not challenged Complainant's application of the Guidance. 

A. "Aggregate Weight" of the Violation. 

In assessing civil penalties, the FAA uses the statutory and regulatory considerations to 

determine the "aggregate weight" of the violation: "(1) the nature, circumstances, extent, and 

gravity of the violation; (2) with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of 

prior violations, the ability to pay, and any effect on the ability to continue to do business; and 

(3) such other matters as justice may require."^^ However, the Guidance also notes that not all 

factors are to be given equal weight and the final aggregate weight is "based on the totality of the 

'^ Guidance paras. 6, at C-4; 8.a., at C-5. 

"*' Guidance fig. C-1, at C-12. 

"** Guidance para. 6.c, at C-4. 

*^ Guidance para. 6.d, at C-4—C-5. 

*^ Eric Salcido, FAA Docket No. CP08SO0003, FDMS No. FAA-2008-0234, Initial Decision of the Administrative 

Law Judge, at 6-7 & n.l (Aug. 1, 2008); Stebbins Aviation, FAA Docket No. CP00SW0014, FDMS No. FAA-2000-

7576, Initial Decision of Chief Administrative Law Judge, at 9 n.54 (Aug. 30, 2004). 

*^ Motion at 9. 

'"Mats. 

^' Id. at 8-9. 

" 14 C.F.R. § 13.16(c); Motion Ex. 8, para. 8.a.(l), at C-5. 

8 
facts and circumstances of the case."^^ As the factors "do not have to be equally considered. 

Complainant maintains relative prosecutorial discretion in determining the case's final aggregate 

weight"^'* in proposing a level of civil penalty. 

(i) The Nature, Circumstances, Extent, and Gravity of the Violation. 

Respondent is an individual who shipped the hazardous materials for personal purposes. 

Respondent may have "forgotten" that the substances and items were hazardous materials but 

was aware that they could not be transported on a plane. ^^ 

Respondent offered for air transportation in commerce one package containing three different undeclared hazardous materials.^^ Undeclared shipments of hazardous materials pose a 

special risk.^^ The materials at issue were a hazard class/division 2.1, "flammable gas."^^ Complainant acknowledges, and Respondent does not contest, that this substance is a "Category A" 

material under the Guidelines, which carries a maximum weight, based upon their inherent danger to air transportation with a potentially catasfrophic effects resulting in death or injury to the 

crew, passengers, and public.^^ 

Complainant and the FAA agent found the quantity of hazardous material to be small, 

justifying a final aggregate weight of moderate.^° The Guidance considers packages exceeding 

the authorized quantity limitations by a significant amount to be an aggravating factor.^' Moreo-

'^ Guidance para 8.a.(3), at C-5. 

'* Lambton Doors, FAA Docket No. CPOOSOOO13, FDMS No. FAA-2000-7454, Initial Decision of Chief Administrative Law Judge, at 10 n.48 (May 7, 2004). See also Motion at Ex. 8 at C-8 ("To determine the final aggregate 

weight, the agent or attorney must exercise his or her discretion in light of the statutory factors and knowledge of the 

particular case"). 

'^ See supra note 12 and accompanying text. 

^* See supra notes 6, 7, 13, and 14 and accompanying text. 

" Interstate Chem. Co., FAA Order No. 2002-29, at 16 (Dec. 6, 2002); Phillips Bldg. Supply, FAA Order No 2000-

20, at 11 (Aug. 11, 2000) (noting that such undeclared shipments "increase the likelihood of injury") (quoting Midtown Neon Sign Corp., FAA Order No. 1996-26, at 10-11 (Aug. 13, 1996)). 

'* Motion at 9; Guidance fig. C-2, at C-17. 

''Ibid 

^"Motion at 9. 

*' Guidance para. 8.b.(2), at C-6. 
ver, a package containing a forbidden material is assigned a maximum weight. ^^ However, the 

Guidance also recognizes that other factors, which should be identified and explained, may be 

considered. The Guidance's example is "a shipment containing a de minimis quantity of material or an amount that would have qualified under the small quantity exception of 49 C.F.R. 

§ 173.4 may present a mitigating factor if as a result there was a reduced risk to safety in transportation."^'* However, class/division 2.1 materials do not qualify for § 173.4a(b)'s smallquantity exception for transport aboard passenger aircraft. 

Therefore, Respondent's baggage contained two hazardous materials, propane and butane, forbidden for fransportation aboard a passenger aircraft,^^ warranting a maximum weight. 

All three hazardous materials were class/division 2.1 hazards^^ and did not qualify for a smallquantity exception for fransport aboard a passenger aircraft. However, Complainant identified 

the small quantity as a mitigating factor and supported the determination with the agent's declaration and assessment, reducing the aggregate weight to "moderate." 

The hazardous materials were offered for shipment and could have caused severe personal injury and property damage. Moreover, the fact that the baggage lacked markings or labels 

regarding the hazardous nature of its contents created serious potential for harm, because the airline had no notice to take precautions that are necessary and prudent when transporting flammable and hazardous materials. 

'^Id 

63 

" M 

7cf. para. 8.d.(l), atC-8. 

*' See 49 C.F.R. § 172.101, listing "forbidden" on the HMR Hazardous Materials Table for the quantity limitations 

on passenger aircraft of propane and butane. 

** See supra note 58, and accompanying text. 

^^ Complainant's Motion at 9. 

^* See TCI Corp., FAA Order No. 1992-77, at 13 & n.l7 (Dec. 22, 1993) (discussing loading, removal, and spill 

response options available to forewarned airline personnel). 

10 
Fortunately, TSA discovered the items and potential danger was averted. However, absence of damage and personal injury was merely fortuitous and is not a mitigating factor.^^ Considering the lack of damage and injury. Complainant found no related aggravating factors.^° ^ 

(ii) Respondent's Degree of Culpability, History of Prior Offenses, Ability to Pay. 

The Complaint, Motion, and supporting documents indicate that Respondent bears full 

responsibility for the actions that led to the violations. Therefore, a reduced penalty is inappropriate in this case based on shared or partial culpability.^' Although unfamiliar with the HMR, 

Respondent was aware that the substances could not be transported by air, suggesting more than 

a minimal sanction. Complainant offers no history of HMR violations; however, "a violationfree history should be the norm and will not be considered as mitigating an otherwise reasonable 

79 

civil penalty." Last, Respondent has never asserted any inability to pay the proposed civil penalty. 

(Hi) Other Matters That Justice May Require. 

Last, Complainant cites precedent that warrants the civil penalty amount. ^^ Respondent 

offered no other matters, circumstances, or facts that justice might require to be considered. Accordingly, Complainant's determination of a final aggregate weight of "low moderate" is appropriate. 

B. Application of the Matrix. 

^' Lambton Doors, supra note 54, at 14 (citing TCI Corp., supra note 68, at 14). See also Guidance para.8.b.(3), at 

C-7 ("[T]that no damage occurred as a result of the shipment is not a mitigating factor. However, damage or harm 

may aggravate the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation."). 

TM Motion at 9. 

" See Lambton Doors, supra note 54, at 15 (citing TCI Corp., supra note 68, at 15-17 ("penalty reduced because 

violations arose in part as a result of a third party's negligence")). 

^^ Lambton Doors, supra note 54, at 15 (citing TCI Corp., supra note 68, at 20). 

''^ Motion at 9-10. 

11 
The penalty range under the Guidance is determined by the type of violator and the type 

of violation, in accordance with the Guidance's matrix.^'* 

(i) Type of Entity. 

A Category "A" offender is an "individual,"^^ defined as "a human who offers a shipment 

of hazardous material in his or her personal capacity, without any business purpose and not as 

part of a commercial enterprise." Respondent is a Category A offender. 

(ii) Offense Category. 

Complainant supports its Category II offense determination with the declaration^^ of 

Agent Klimas, who treated the "aggregate case" as a Category II offense based upon the torch 

lighter, though the other two hazardous materials (the propane and butane) offenses were Category III. However, Agent Klimas and Complainant recognized that the proposed civil penalty, 

$500, met the Category III minimum civil penalty for a Category A offender. 

The Guidance states that the offense categories "address the nature, circumstances, and 

gravity of the particular offense." Under the Guidance, a Category II offense is an "Undeclared 

Shipment Within Hazmat Quantity Limitations," and a Category III offense is an "Undeclared 

Shipment Hazmat Forbidden on .. . Passenger Aircraft."^^ 

^* See supra note 46 and accompanying text. 

" Guidance fig. C-1, at C-12. 

^* Complainant's Motion at Ex. 8 at C-15. 

^' An unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury has the force and effect of a sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit. 28 U.S.C. § 1746. 

^* Motion Ex. 9 para 2, at 1. 

^' Motion at 9, Ex 9 para 4, at 2. 

'" Guidance para. 6.c., at C-4. 

*' Guidance fig. C-1, at C-12; para. 9.n.(l), at C-16, describes Category II as follows: "If the undeclared shipment 

is offered for transportation on . .". apassenger aircraft, the quantity of hazardous material must be within the limitation, per package, for transportation onpassenger aircraft, as established in the 49 C.F.R. § 172.101 Table" (emphasis in original). 

*^ Guidance fig. C-1, at C-12; para. 9.m., at C-16, describes Category III as follows: "An undeclared shipment that 

is offered for transportation on or transported on a passenger aircraft, and the hazardous material is forbidden in air 

transportation on passenger aircraft (but not in air transportation in cargo aircraft), as established in the 49 C.F.R. 

§ 172.101 Table." 

12 
The HMR Hazardous Materials Table of section 172.101 forbids the transportation of 

propane and butane by passenger aircraft. Because Category II offenses are limited to hazardous materials within the HMR quantity limitations, a shipment containing a forbidden hazardous 

material cannot be a Category II offense. Accordingly, Complainant incorrectly assumes that 

Category II is the appropriate offense category applied to Respondent's shipment. Respondent 

offered an undeclared shipment for transportation on a passenger aircraft and the hazardous material is forbidden in air transportation on passenger aircraft, a Category III offense. 

According to the Guidance Matrix, the total range for each offense relating to a Category 

III undeclared shipment offered by a Category A violator is $500 to $5,500.^'* Complainant proposes a minimum civil penalty of $500. Although that is the minimum penalty suggested by the 

Guidance, that is the penalty requested in the Complaint, and consequently no greater penalty 

can be imposed. 

The circumstances discussed abovi3—as well as Respondent's reason for having the 

items, the haste that apparently precipitated his inclusion of them in his baggage, and his uncontroverted assertion that he could have avoided confiscation and reporting, had someone merely 

been able to remove them from the airport—all indicate that a significant sanction, with sufficient deterrent and punitive effect, is appropriate. Accordingly, we conclude that a civil penalty 

in the amount of $500 should be assessed.^^ 

*' 49 C.F.R. § 172.101, at 154, 243. 

*"* Ma t Ex. 8 at C-12. 

This decision may be appealed to the Administrator of the FAA. The Notice of Appeal must be filed not later 

than 10 days after service of this decision (plus five additional days, if this decision is served by mail). 14 C.F.R. 

§§ 13.233(a), 13.211(e). The appeal must be perfected with a written brief or memorandum not later than 50 days 

after service of this decision (plus five additional days, if this decision is served by mail). 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.233(c), 

13.211(e). The Notice of Appeal and brief or memorandum must be either (a) mailed to the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC430, Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, or (b) delivered personally or via expedited courier service to the 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Ave., S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.233(a), 13.210(a)(2), (1). A copy 

13 
SO ORDERED. 

P.ohnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative L; 

Attachment - Service List 

of the Notice of Appeal and brief or memorandum should also be sent to counsel for the FAA in this proceeding. 14 

C.F.R. § 13.233(a). 

14 
FAA Docket No. CP09SW0008 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Adminisfration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000^^ 

ONE COPY 

William A. Luker, Jr., Respondent 

11907 Winterthur Lane, Apt. PH3 

Reston,VA 20191-1937 

TEL: 571-271-2184 

Ellyn Ponton, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, ASW-7G5 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Boulevard 

Fort Worth, TX 76137-4298 

TEL: 817-222-5089 

FAX: 817-222-5092 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room E12-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

*' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 

20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

15