## Description 

1 Appendix C, Sanction Guidance 

2 Haz Mat Incident Rpt - 4 pp 

3 Photos - 12 pp 

4 Ltr R to US DOT - 1 pp 

5 Dunn Bradstreet - Bus Summary - 7 pp 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

Nu Fashion FAA- 2011 - 1123 · 

Agency Exhibits .,,·r\t,C'T' 1

lf=NT or ...... ' , "1 1\ ... 1 r . ;·:,i\hlSPORTATION 

.,,······r·r ·'1')~R~Tinr· .. , .. : ,1\i".' I I r~'· c' .. \u. 'I\!,') -' ·..,., j '-~ ........ J \ 'L,..t l "· 

2 n 1 z 1 2 l\ !O: o o 

.. 

1)tb5 

CAfy 

10 IN 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X NO 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

., 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

NU FASHION BEAUTY SUPPLY DISTRIBUTORS 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-1123 

HEARING NOTES 

GAYLE TOWNSEND 

BEVIS SCHOCK 

. FAA OPENING 

7 violations ofF AA regs w/ regard to hazmat. 

Motion for SJ on pleadings, 

SJ granted, 7 violations founded. 

49 CPR 171.2 

FAA for $15,000 civil p~nalty 

RESPONDENT OPENING 

R admitted violations 

ISSUE IS AMOUNT OF FINE 

Argument is over appropriateness of fine 

Case is over a box of hairspray 

Customers having trouble with the mechanism, returned hairspray to mfr. 

., 

This is hairspray, aetosol product, never went on airplane, no hx of violations .. 

1 
Asking for $1,000 fine 

DAVID SCHAUFLER 

Hazmat safety mgmt - 4 yrs. 

OFFERED for ~hipment an aerosol. 

Product was never shipped! Was caught by UPS and stopped 

Could have been offered if properly labeled and packed 

It is not a forbidden material 

Reclassified to consumer commodity 

CROSS 

PROBLEM FOR AGENCY 

NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT REQUEST TO REDUCE-NO FINAN/CAL DATA 

PROBLEM FOR RESPONDENT: 

NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT REQUEST TO REDUCE-NO FINAN/CAL DATA 

I AM INCLINED TO LOWER PENALTY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE- R HAS 

BEEN COOPERATIVE SINCE BEGINNING- ASKED FOR PENALTY REDUCTION . . .. 

2 
•· 

I 

.f~r·· 

- L.(J \~tl> ~ 1'\ 

10/01/07 2150.38 

Appendix C. Sanction Guidance 

' Hazardous Materials Enforcement 

1. Background. 

a. Legislation. Congress determined that the unregulated transportation of hazardous 

materials constitutes a threat-to public safety in all forms of transportation. Congress addressed 

that threat in 1974 by enacting the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA). By 1990, 

Congress determined that effective enforcement of the HMTA required more severe action, and 

enacted the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990, Public Law No. 

101-615, 1990 U.S: Code Congress. & Admin. News 104 Stat. 4605. The primary effect of this. 

1990 revision of the HMTA was to raise the maximum civil penalty for violation of any 

regulation enacted under the HMTA to $25,000, and, for the first time, to require a $250 

minimum penalty for any such violation. The HMTA was recodified in 1994 and is now referred 

to as the "Federal hazardous material:transportationlaw," 1994 U.S. Code Congress. & Admin. 

News 108 Stat 759, codified at.49 U.S.C. §§ 5101-5127. In the 1994 recodification, Congress 

specifically stated that the recodification created no substantive change to the earlier form of the 

statute. In 2005, the Congress enacted and the President signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA- LU), Public Law 109-59, 

August 10, 2005. That legislation, among other things, modified the limitations on civil 

penalties th~t may be assessed for violations of the hazardous materials statute and regulations. 

b. Civil Penalties. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S. C. 

§ 2461 (note), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 

104-134, April26, 1996, provides a mechanism for adjustments for monetary civilpenalties for 

inflation in order to maintain the deterrent effect of monetary civil penalties and promote 

compliance with the law. Under the statute, the adjusted civil penalty maximums cannot be 

applied unless they are :implemented by regulation. The adjusted civil penalties are listed in part) 

13 of Title 14 of the CFR, subpart H. 

Pursuant to SAFETEA ·_ tU, the max:imum civil perialty that may be assessed:'for a violation 

of the Federal hazardous material law or a hazardous material regulation is now $50,000; the 

minimum civil penalty is now $250. There are two exceptions to those limits. A maximum civil 

penalty of$100,000 may be assessed if the violation results in death, serious illness, or severe. 

injury to any person, or substantial destruction of property. The min:imum civil penalty that may 

be assessed for a training violation is $450. 

c. Enforcement Responsibility. Within the Department of Transportation, the Pipeline & 

Hazardous Materials Safety Programs Administration (PHMSA), created by the Norn;tim Y. 

Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act in 2004, adopts the Hazardous 

Materials Regulations (HMR), which govern the transportation of hazardous materials (hazmat). 

The FAA, under delegated authority, enforces the Federal hazardous material transportation law 

and the HMR, with particular emphasis on shipment ofhazmat by air. 49 C.F.R. § 1.470). 

C-1 
10/01/07 2150.38 

d. Violation of the HMR.s. The HMR set forth regulations for the transportation of hazmat. 

A knowing violation ofthe statute or of the HMR can support the assessment of a civil penalty 

between $250 and $100,000. A person acts lmowingly when the person has actuallmowledge of 

the facts giving rise to the violation; or a reasonable person acting in the circumstances and 

exercising reasonable care would have that lmowledge. 49 U.S.C. § 5123(a)(l)(A). The civil 

penalties authorized under the statute apply to each violation of any regulation set forth in the 

HMR; they also apply to the violation of an order, special permit, or approval issued by the 

Department. Moreover, under the statute, each continuing violation of the HMR can constitute a 

separate violation for each day a violation continues. ·In section 5124 of the statute, Congress 

prescribed criminal penalties for a willful violation of the Federal hazardous material 

transportation law or the HMR; willful violations require evidence of both knowledge of the 

laws and regulations and intent to violate them. 

e. Investigative and Enforcement Procedur~s. Part 13 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations- Investigative and Enforcement Procedures (14 C.F.R. part 13) governs the 

procedures applicab1e to enforcement oftheHMR by the FAA. Hazmat violations occurring on 

or after August 2, 1990, may be dismissed by an adrrllnistrative law judge (ALJ) if a notice of 

proposed civil penalty has not been issued within 2 years of the violation, unless good cause for 

delay has been shown. 14 C.F.R. § 13.208(d). 

2. Consideration of Statutory Criteria, As a general matter, a sanction should be imposed 

that is su,fficiently deterrent but not excessive, in order to comply with the underlying purposes 

of the Federal hazardous material transportation"law and HMR. In determining the sanction to 

be assessed, penalty criteria set forth in 49 U.S. C. § 5123 must be considered. These criteria are 

the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation; the degree of culpability of the 

violator; the history of past violations (if any); the ability to pay; the effect on t~e ability to 

continue to do business; and other matters as justice requires. Some of these considerations 

already are factored to some extent into the categories in the Hazardous Material Sanction 

Guidance Matrix. The statutory factors are further considered under the weighting analysis that 

is performed to indicate the amount of the civil penalty within the appropriate range, i.e., at the 

minimum, moderate, or maximum portion of the sanction range .. The Matrix recognizes that an 

even higher penalty coulcfbe warranted for a significantly aggravated case, consistent with the 

increased maximum penalty of$50,000 imposed by SAFETEA-LU. In addition, the Matrix 

reflects the potential $100,000 penalty, also imposed by SAFETEA-LU, for a violation that 

;results in death, serious illness,· or severe injury to any person, or substantial destruction of 

property. 

3. Consistency of Penalty Sanctions. The Hazardous Materials Sanction Guidance is designed· 

to promote better consi~tency so that similar penalties are imposed in similar cases. The 

specified Matrix ranges (e.g., $250-$550, or $15,000-$32,500) are intended to reflect the nature, 

circumstances, extent, and gravity of the case as compared with other types of cases. Each case, 

however, must be evaluated on its own facts. A sanction may differ from the specified Matrix 

ranges when the facts and circumstances of a case support either a greater or lesser penalty. 

When a. special agent believes that a penalty should exceed the specified Matrix ranges, the agent 

. should consult with legal counsel before further processing ofthe Enforcement Investigative 

Report (EIR). This consultation is not necessary in the case of a recommended penalty that is 

C-2 
10/01/07 2150.38 

less than that provided in the Matrix. In either situation, the basis for the decision to go outside 

th,e ranges should be explained in detail. 

4. Part 175 Violations. Violations of part 175 of the HMR, which establish particular 

requirements for air carriers and other aircraft operators, are contained in a separate matrix. 

However, such operators often offer hazardous materials for air transportation, as well as accept 

and transport them. For this reason, such operators may be liable for violations both as a 

business entity within the Hazardous Materials Sanction Guidance Matrix, as well as for specific 

air carrier violations. 

5. Violation Committed by Small Business Entity, To meet statistics-gathering requirements, 

the investigating special agent must determine whether the alleged violator qualifies as a smaU 

business concem under the SmaU Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREF A). For an extensive discussion ofhow to make that determination, see Part OneAbbreviations and Definitions, in Appendix B of this order. If investigating speqia1 agents are 

unable to obtctin m<i~PeP9.ently information to determine whether an alleged violator is a small 

business concern, they request such information in the letter of investigation. See sample letter 

of investigation in Figure A-1 of Appendix A. Because violations of Title 49 of the U.S. Code 

and the HMR may be committed by entities in addition to those normally regulated by the FAA, 

the investigating agent may need to refer to the SBA' s complete table of size standards to find 

the correct size limit for an alleged violator. , 

a. Enforcement Policy under SBREFA. Chapter 7, Paragraph 10, of this order generally 

outlines the FAA's enforcement policy under SBREF A. In determining whether and liow to 

provide for the reduction or waiver of civil penalties for statutory or regulatory violations by 

small entities, the FAA's policy may contain certain conditions. Those conditions may allow for 

excluding from such a reduction or waiver: a small entity that has been subject 'to multiple 

enforcement actions by the agency, a violation involving willful or criminal conduct, a violation 

that results when there has not been a good faith attempt to comply with the requirements, and a 

violation that poses a serious health, safety or environmental threat. With respect to air carriers 

. and other aircraft operators, the FAA takes into consideration company size in determining the 

appropriate amount of ci'\{il penalty. See the Matrix, Figure C-1, below. 

b. Information Sheet for Complaints by Small Business Concerns. Each FAA employee 

who conducts an inspection of a small business concern that is regulated by the FAA provides 

the small business concern with an information sheet. The information sheet informs that entity 

that it may submit complaints or coni.ments regarding unfair FAA regulatory enforcement to the 

National Ombudsman. FAA special agents may obtain a copy of the information sheet .for 

hazardous materials inspections and additional guidance for distributing it from the ASH 

regional offices. 

c. Reduction or Waiver of Penalty. The FAA does not reduce or waive the penalty of an 

alleged violator solely because it is a small business entity. This is because a violation of the 

hazmat statutes or HMR typically poses a serious health, safety, or environmental threat (and 

may involve one of the other reasons for exclusion). Accordingly, the FAA will usually reduce 

C-3 
I/ J 

10/01/07 2150.38 

or waive a penalty only if the small business entity provides evidence t<? demonstrate its inability 

to pay or that the proposed penalty would prevent the entity from continuing in business. 

d. Enforcement Actions Other than Civil Penalties. The FAA may, in limited 

circumstances, announce policies to provide for hazmat enforcement actions less onerous than 

civil penalties, that is, administrative actions. Such policies may apply to small business entities 

or to others, and will be announced as Compliance and Enforcement Bulletins in this order. 

6. Use of the Sanction Guidance. This guidance provides agency persom1el with a systematic 

way to evaluate a case and arrive at an appropriate penalty, considering all the relevant statutory 

criteria including mitigating and aggravating circumstances, if any. Statutory considerations 

have been factored into the various ranges within the Sanction Guidance Matrix. Determination 

of where a sanction lies within these ranges is aided by a series of weighting questions that probe 

the various aggravating and mitigating factors that may exist in a case. 

a. Weight Analysis. First, the weighting analysis is performed. Agency personnel respond 

to a series of questions to determine the aggregate weight of the case. The aggregate weight of 

the case helps determine the sanction amount for each violation group within the established 

ranges of the Matrix. 

b. Determination of-Sanction. It is important to note that determination of where the 

sanctipn lies within the Matrix is not the result of a mathematical computation. Evaluation of the 

case is based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. Generally, if the answer to a 

particular question represents a more significant aspect of a case, greater consideration should be 

given to that answer. For example, violations involving an extremely dangerous substance, even 

in minute quantities, might warrant a penalty at the maximum end of the range or even a penalty 

exceeding the Matrix ranges (if not already at the statutory maximum). 

c. Determination of Category. Under the Sanction Guidance Matrix, agency personnel 

determine the category of violator the person falls within (for example, business entity that 

regularly offers, accept~? or transports hazmat) anq the offense category (fq_r._,~:x,ample, undeclared 

shipment within hazmat quantity limitations). The sanction ranges under the various violator 

categories take into account the relative culpability of the violator. Similarly, the offense 

categories address the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the particular offense. After 

determining the appropriate categories and intersecting box of the Matrix, agency personnel then 

determine which subcategories of offenses (for example, shipping papers) are alleged to have 

been violated. Based on the weighting analysis performed in subparagraphs 8.a.-e., an 

appropriate penalty is assigned for each of the applicable violation groups. The penalty amount 

for each relevant violation group is added together to reach the recommended sanction. 

d. Other Relevant Sanction Factors. Under subparagraph 8.g., the special agent then 

considers other relevant factors, including evidence of corrective action. A recommended 

sanction may be reduced prior to the issuance of a notice of proposed civil penalty when there is 

adequate reliable information concerning the corrective actions taken by a respondent. 

.Corrective actions that justify reduction of the recommended penalty must exceed the minimum 

C-4 
10/01/07 2150.38 

legal requirements. The special agent also attempts to provide information concerning the 

alleged violator's size, fmancial condition, and ability to pay a recommended sanction. 

7. FAA Legal Counsel Review. When an'EIR is forwarded to legal counsel for enforcement 

action, counsel will give appropriate consideration to.the recommended sanction. FAA legal 

counsel will also review the factors, analysis, and determinations under the Hazardous Materials 

Sanction Guidance. The basis for deviating from the recommended sanction, if any, should be 

. explained to, and discussed with, the investigating special agent. Final determination of the 

sanction amount proposed in the notice of proposed civil penalty is ordinarily a product of joint 

decisionmaking and approval of the investigating agent and the legal office. 

8. Federal Aviation Administration Hazardous Materials Sanction Guidance. This 

Sanction Guidance is divided into three sections: case analysis; utilization of the Sanction 

Guidance Matrix (Matrix); and consideration of other statutory factors. The Sanction Guidance 

Matrix is contained in Figure C-1 and the Risk Cat~g9r:ies are contained in Figure C-2. 

a. Case Analysis (Evaluation of Statutory Assessment Factors). 

(1) This section contains a series of questions to assist a special agent in evaluating a 

case and recommending a sanction. It also assists an attorney in evaluating a case file prior to 

initiation, and after additional information is received in response to a notice of proposed civil 

penalty. The questions review factors involving the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of 

the viola,tion, the violator's degree of culpability, and the violator's history of prior violations. 

Some of these factors are already considered to some extent within the various categories of the 

Sanction Guidance Matrix. The questions in this section provide additional consideration of the 

statutory factors and examine the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors iii a case. 

(2) The agent answers each question in Section I and determines if a relative weight of 

minimum, moderate, or maximum should be assigned based on the response to the question. 

With the exception of Question (l)(a), not all questions will necessarily apply to a given fact 

situation. Question (l)(a) addresses the nature of the ha:z;.ardous material(s) invol:v:ed; and the. 

evidence will indicate the risk' category and, therefore, the weight. The aggravating or mitigating 

factors addressed in the other questions only apply to the case when the question receives a yes 

response. Questions receiving a no response do not affect the weighting of the case and are not 

considered. For example, that the violation did not result in injury or damage is not a mitigating 

factor, and should not result in penalty mitigation. In many instances, the answers to most or all 

of the questions will be no and the only relevant weighting factor in this section will be the risk 

category of the material identified in Question (l)(a). 

(3) In determining the final aggregate weight of the case, the responses to each of the 

questions do not have to be equally considered. Determination of whether the overall case 

should have a minimum, moderate, or maximum weight cannot be determined with mathematical 

certainty. Generally, if the answer to a question demonstrates that the factor at issue represents a 

more significant aspect of the case, greater consideration is given to that factor. The !mal 

aggregate weight is based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. Once 

C-5 
I .~ 

10/01/07 2150.38 

determined, the fmal aggregate weight is then utilized to arrive at the recommended sanction for 

each applicable violation group on the Sanction Guidance Matrix (See, Figure C-1 ). 

b. The Nature, Circumstances, Extent, and Gravity ofthe Violation (Factors 

Concerning the Shipment): 

(1) What material(s) was offered, transported, or accepted for air transportation? Figure 

C-2 divides hazardous materials of particular classes, divisions, at1d packing groups into three 

risk categories: Category A, Category B, and Category C. Find the material offered, transported, 

or accepted, in Figure C-2 and answer the questions below. 

• Ifthe material( s) is in Category A, assign a Maximum weight. 

• If the material(s) is in Category B, assign a Moderate weight. 

• If the material(s) is in Category C, assign a Minimum weight. 

Guidance Note: The categories in FigureC-2 represent the inherent risk of dangerto air 

transportation posed by the material. If there is more than one type of hazardous material 

involved in the shipment, use the hazardous material in the highest risk category. 

(2) What quantity of the material(s) was offered, transported, or accepted for air 

transportation? 

· • Did the package( s) exceed the authorized quantity limitations by a significant 

amount? If yes, consider a Moderate or Maximum weight depending on the degree to which the 

limitation was exceeded. 

Guidance Example: The quantity limitation for gasoline on a passenger plane"is 5 liters per 

package. If a violator offers 30 liters in a single package on a passenger plane, assign a 

maximum weight for this factor. 

• Did the package contain a forbidden material? If yes, assign a Maximum weight. 

• Were there multiple packages in the shipment? Ifyes, consider a Moderate or 

Maximum weight, depending on the number of packages and total amount of hazardous material 

being transported in violation. 

Guidance Note: A package means a packaging plus its contents. There may be multiple 

packages in one shipment or overpack. Multiple packages often represent multiple violations. 

Under the Sanction Guidance, this fact is considered an aggravating circumstance rather than a 

direct multiplier of the sanction for each violation. Each case, however, must be evaluated on its 

particular facts. A very large number of packages may result in such an egregious case that the 

overall weight of the case is so high that a penalty beyond the maximum point in the range is 

warranted. 

An investigation will occasionally reveal sufficient evidence of several shipments from the same 

offeror over a period of several days, all of which involve violations of the HMR. These 

independent acts of offering usually are consolidated into one EIR'and addressed in one notice 

C-6 

I 
10/01/07 2150.38 

of proposed civil penalty. However, for purposes of determining the appropriate sanction, each 

separate shipment. with separate air waybill or shipping papers, separate destination, and/or 

other evidence establishing it as a separate shipment, is ordinarily considered as a separate 

incident for purposes of applying the sanction guidance analysis. It is suggested that the 

separate shipments be treated as individual counts in the EIR and the notice of proposed civil 

penalty, with each count having its own sanction derived from application of this guidance. 

(3) Did the shipment cause some damage or harm to persons or property or interfere with 

commerce? If yes, consider a Moderate or Maximum weight. 

Guidance Note: The fact 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. Depending on the degree of damage caused by the shipment and/or the 

existence of other aggravating factors, departure from the ranges may be justified It is 

important to note that death, serious illness, or severe injury to any person, or substantial 

destruction of property, warrants additional consideration of aggravation of the total penalty. 

c. Violator's Degree of Culpability. The Matrix, Figure C-1, considers the relative 

· culpability of the violator. This section of the analysis further evaluates the degree of culpability 

of the violator. 

(1) Is the violator the manufacturer of the hazardous material? If yes, consider a 

Maximum yveight. 

Guidance Note: A manufacturer of a hazardous material is expected to have complete 

knowledge of the nature of the hazardous material it manufactures or uses; thus, a high degree 

of culpability will ordinarily be imputed to it. , 

(2) Did someone other than the violator prepare the shipment for transportation? If yes, 

consider a Minimum or Moderate weight. 

Guidance Note: Facts supporting an affirmative answer to this question may be cause to 

mitigate culpability and/or pltrsue a separate enforcement action against othef'f'espcmsible . 

parties who handled the shipment. A shipper that reships materials received from another 

person in the same packaging is independently respons'ible for ensuring the shipment complies 

with the HMR. Nevertheless, the reshipper is generally considered to have a lesser degree of 

culpability for compliance of the package as received However, if the reshipper unpacks and/or 

repackages the shipment, the reshipper remains as culpable as the original shipper and 

generally is not accorded mitigation under this weighting factor. (For purposes of this section, a 

"reshipper" refers to a person, other than the original offeror, who offers a shipment of 

hazardous material for transportation.) 

(3) Did the violator reasonably rely on incorrect information from another source? If 

yes, consider a Minimum weight. 

C-7 
10/01/07 2150.38 

Guidance Note: Detrimental, reasonable reliance on another party may be a mitigating factor 

when considering the violator's degree of culpability. For example, reliance on an inaccurate 

Material Safoty Data Sheet (MSDS) would be mitigating. 

(4) Does the violator have a history of previous HMR violations? If yes, consider a 

Moderate or Maximum weight. 

Guidance Note: To establish a violation history, a prior violation must be an actual finding of 

violation pursuant to a legal enforcement action. Special agents should attempt to determine the 

corporate structure of the violator and whether other business entities or names are or have 

been used by the entity in order to obtain a complete violation history . . The number and age of 

violations should be considered. Ordinarily, findings of violation more than· 5 years old darry 

less weight, unless a continuing pattern of violation exists. 

d. Other Factors. 

( 1) Each case must be evaluated on its particular facts. As such, many cases may present 

unique scenarios and aggravating or mitigating factors that are not routinely seen. If an 

aggravating or mitigating circumstance exists that is not adequatelyaddressed elsewhere in the 

sanction guidance, it may be included and assigned a weight under this section. The factor 

should be clearly identified and explained in the analysis portion of the EIR and carefully 

scruti.Qized by legal counsel. 

Guidanc,e Note: For example, a shipment of a single package containing several different 

hazardous materials may present an aggravating factor. The degree of seriousness of this factor 

will increase if the hazardous materials are incompatible with each other and, therefore, create 

an increased risk. 

Mitigating factors may also exist that have not been adequately considered. For example, a 

shipment containing a de minimis quantity of material or an amount that would have qualified 

under the small quantity exception of 49 C. FR. § 173.4 may present a mitiga{irzgfactor if as a 

result there was a redu~~d risk to safety in transpo~tation. That the material~ould have been 

shipped as a consumer commodity can also be a mitigating factor. 

e. Determine the Final Aggregate Weight of the Case. 

(I) All the responses/weights are evaluated to determine a fmal aggregate weight for the 

case (Minimum, Moderate, and Maximum.). Questions receiving a no response will not be 

included in this evaluation. To determine the fmal aggregate weight, the agent or attor.ney. must 

exercise his or her discretion in light of the statutory factors and knowledge of the particular. 

facts of the case. The facts of the particular case will dictate the relative importance of each of 

the weighting factors in reaching the final aggregate weight. The fmal aggregate weight should 

be decided as a result of careful analy~is, not a mathematical averaging. It is possible that a 

single weighting factor may outweigh all others. The agent or attorney's analysis should always 

be explained in this regard. · 

C-8 
i. / ~ 

10/01/0.7 2150.38 

Guidance Example: A case involving (l hazardous material in the lowest risk category may be 

evaluated to have a maximum weight because of the large quantity shipped or the damage 

resulting from the shipment. 

f. · Utilize the Matrix: (Figure C-1). 

(1) The sanction ranges under the offeror and offense categories of the Sanct~on 

Guidance Matrix reflect the relative culpability of the violator and the nature, circumstances, 

extent, and gravity of cases for the majority of violations. Consideration of these particular 

statutory factors tinder the Federal hazardous material transportation law is built into the Matrix. 

Further analysis of the statutory factors is required to determine the appropriate sanction within 

the ranges established under the Matrix. This analysis is performed in subparagraphs 8.a.-e. 

After determining the final aggregate weight of the case under subparagraphs 8.a.-e., that weight 

is applied to the appropriate Matrix range to identify the recommended sanction amount for each 

ofthe relevant violationgroups and for the case as a wl:J.qle. Although the :nohce ofprop.osed 

civil penalty may cite numerous violations of a particular part or subpart of the HMR, unless 

upward departure is justified, a single penalty amount for each violation group is ordinarily used 

to reach the full sanction. 

(2) Instructions. 

• Identify the appropriate category for the type of entity and the nature of the 

offense involved in the case. Refer to the Definitions Section that follows the Matrix in Figure 

C-1 for guidance. Go to the intersecting box and identify the applicable sanction range for each 

violation group. ., 

• Apply the conclusion reached in the subparagraphs 8.a.-e. weighting analysis to 

assign a saflction amount within the minimum, moderate, or maximum portion of the sanction 

range. for each relevant violation group. The recommended civil penalty at this stage is the sum 

of the sanctions for each of the applicable violation groups. A sanction should not be assessed 

for a violation group if there have been no violations of that part or subpart of the BJv.IR. The 

sanction amount for each violation group need not be identical but ordinarily is witiri:rl the 

portion of the particular sanction range that represents the overall weight of the case. 

(3) Departure from the Matrix ranges. The ranges of penalties specified in the Matrix 

(e.g., $250-$550) are intended to cover the majority of cases involving violations of the HMR. 

The facts and circumstances of a particular case, however, may justify either an upward or 

downward departure from the specified Matrix ranges. This sanction guidance anticipates 

departure from the specified Matrix ranges when justified. A case involving violations in which 

the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the incident are particularly severe or egregious, · 

may justify upward departure from the specified ranges. If the investigating agent believes, 

based upon the facts of a case, that a penalty should exceed the specified Matrix ranges, the 

agent should consult with legal counsel before further processing of the EIR. (However, in no 

case may the civil penalty per violation exceed the maximum allowed by law.) Conversely, the 

investigating agent may believe that mitigating factors justify a downward departure from the 

C-9 
10/01/07 2150.38 

Matrix range. Consultation with legal counsel is not necessary in the case of a recommended 

penalty that is less than that provided in the Matrix. (However, in no case may the civil penalty 

per violation be less than the minimum allowed by law.) In either situation, however, the agent 

is to provide a detailed explanation of the basis for the decision to go outside the ranges. 

( 4) Violations of part 17 5 regulations, which establish particular requirements for air 

carriers and other aircraft operators, are contained in a separate matrix. However, such operators 

often offer hazmat for air transportation as well as accept and transport it. As such, the operator 

may be liable for violations as a business entity within the main Matrix as well as for the specific 

part 175 violations. 

g. Impact of Other Statutory Factors. The Federal hazardous material transportation law 

also requires consideration of a violator's ability to pay a civil penalty, the impact of the civil 

penalty on the violator's ability to continue to do business, and other matters that justice 

requires. Consideration of these factors may result in adjustment of the recommended civil 

penalty calculated -in subparagraph 8.f. In situations where the agent or attorney is in possession 

of mitigating information, such an inability to pay the recommended civil penalty or corrective 

action taken, reduction of the recommended penalty may be appropriate. Mitigating information 

should be sufficiently reliable, uncontroverted, and documented in order to support reduction of 

the recommended civil penalty prior to issuing the notice of proposed civil penalty. 

(1) Ability to pay or continue in business. Historically, the FAA has considered these 

factors after' the issuance of the notice of proposed civil penalty due to the absence of reliable 

financial information on which to base a reduction prior to the issuance of a notice. This 

Sanction Guidance recommends that the special agent make efforts to obtain reliable information 

regarding the violator's size and financial condition for review prior to the issu~ce of a notice.· 

This information will be transmitted to the legal office for consideration. It is recognized that it 

may not always be possible for the special agent and/or attorney to obtain reliable financial 

information on a particular respondent, that financial circumstances change, and that information 

may be provided after the issuance of the notice that may warrant further consideration of a 

respondent's ability to pay. 

• The investigating agent will attempt to include fmaticial information-as an exhibit 

in the EIR. It is anticipated that this information, if available, will be obtained from reliable 

fmancial data bases. Financial documentation should include, but need not be limited to, 

information concerning the violator's corporate structure, business address, officers, number of 

employees, and gross revenues. 

• The investigating agentprovides a statement or comment with respect to the 

fmancial information obtained but ordinarily does not evaluate the financial condition of a 

respondent with respect to its ability to pay a proposed civil penalty. The investigatmg agent's 

statement should encompass areas like the number of employees, gross revenues, and nature of 

business of the violator. 

• FAA legal counsel reviews the fmancial information provided in the EIR and 

evaluates its sufficiency and relevance to the recommended civil penalty. Legal counsel may 

C-10 
10/01/07 2150.38 

determine if more current information exists concerning the fmancial condition of a respondent 

and if that information substantially differs. from the information available at the time of 

preparation of the EIR. If there is a basis for determining that the recommended sanction is 

inappropriate based upon the fmancial information provided in the EIR, the recommended 

sanction is adjusted prior to issuance of the notice of proposed civil penalty. This is a 

preliminary consideration of a company's ability to pay. As such, pre-notice adjustment of a 

recommended civil penalty does not preclude further consideration of a respondent's fmancial 

claims after issuance of the notice. 

(2) Corrective Action. 

• The most common other matter that the FAA takes into consideration is corrective 

action. Corrective action that results in mitigation is remedial action that exceeds the minimum 

legal requirements. The primary factors in determining the appropriate amount of penalty 

reduction are the extent and timing of the corrective action. In other words, mitigation is 

detellllin~fi o:q the l;la::;is qfhow :n:ulch .correctiYe action was taken.andho.w . .quickly the action 

was taken. Systemic change intended to prevent future violations should be given greater 

consideration. Similarly, corrective action that commences upon the violator's frrst learning of 

the violations ordinarily is given greater credit than corrective action that conimences only after 

the violator receives the letter of investigation or the notice of proposed civil penalty. 

Mitigation of a recommended civil penalty based upon corrective action should be 

referenc~d in the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty so that the respondent is on notice that credit 

already has been given for such action. 

(2) Status of violator as a small business entity or concern. See subparagraphs 5.a.-b. 

above. ·· 
10/01/07 

OFFENSE 

CATEGORIES 

I. Declared Shipment 

1. Shipping Papers 

2. Labels 

3. Markings 

4. Packaging 

5. Training 

6. Emerg. Response 

7. Release into Environ. 

8. Other 

H. Undeclared ShiQment 

Within Hazmat 

· Quantitv Limitations 

1. Shipping Papers 

2. Labels ' 

3. ·Markings 

4. Packaging 

5. Training 

6. Emerg. Response 

7. Release into Environ. 

8. Other 

ill. Undeclared 

Shipment 

Hazmat Forbidden on, 

or exceeds gtv limits for, 

Passenger Aircraft 

1: Shipping Papers · 

2. Labels 

3. Markings 

4. Packaging 

5. Training 

6. Emerg. Response 

7. Release into Environ. 

8. Other 

·IV. Undeclared 

Shipment 

Forbidden on, or 

exceeds gtv limits for, 

All Aircraft 

1. Shipping Papers 

2. Labels 

3. Markings 

4. Packaging 

5. Training 

6. Emerg. Response 

7. Release into Environ. 

8. Other 

V. Intentional or 

MATRIX& DEFINITIONS 

(Figure C-1) 

C. Business Entity 

that uses or handles 

A. Individual* B. Business Entity hazmat in the 

course of business 

250-550 250-1,100 500-2,200 

250-550 250-1,100 500-2,200 

250-550 250-1,100 . 500-2,200 

250-550 250-1,100 500-2,200 

---------- 450-1,100 500-2,200 

250-550 250-1,100 500-2,200 

250-550 250-1,100 500-2,200 

250-550 250-1,100 500-2,200 

250-1,100 1,500-8,200 2,500-11,000 . 

250-1,100 1,500-8,200 2,500-11,000 

250-1,100 1,500-8,200 2,500-11,000 

250-1,100 1,500-8,200 2,500-11,000 

------------- 1,500-8,200 2,500-11,000 

250-1,100 1,500-8,200 2,500-11,000 

250-1,100 1,500-8,200 2,500-11,000 

250-1,100 1,500-8,200 2,500-11,000 

500-5,500 5;000-16,200 7,500-22,000 

500-5,500 5,000-16,200 7,500-22,000 

500-5,500 5,000-16,200 7,500-22,000 

500-5,500 5,000-16,200 7,500-22,000 

_ .......... ~----- 5,000-16,200 7,500-22,000 .... ~.,. 

500-5,500 5,000-16,200 . 7,500-22,000 

500-5,500 5,000-16,200 7,500-22,000 

500-5,500 5,000-16,200 7,500-22,000 

500-32,500 7,500-32,500 10,000-32,500 

500-32,500 7,500-32,500 10,000-32,500 

500-32,500 7,500-32,500 10,000-32,500 

500-32,500 7,500-32,500 10,000-32,500 

---------- 7,500-32,500 10,000-32,500 

500-32,500 7,500-32,500 10,000-32,500 

500-32,500 7,500-32,500 10,000~32,500 

500-32,500 . 7,?00-32,500 10,000-32,500 

' 

CONSULT CONSULT CONSULT 

C-12 

2150.38 

D. Business Entity 

that regularly 

offers, accepts, or 

transports hazmat 

1,000-5,500 

1,000'-5,500 

1,000-5,500 

1,000-5,500 

1,000-5,500 

1,000-5,500 

1,000-5,500 

1,000-5,500 

5,000-13,000 

5,000-13,000 

5,000-13,000 

5,000-13,000 

5,000-13,000 

5,000-13,000 

5,000-13,000 

5,000-13,000 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-3 2,500 

I 0,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

15,000-32,500 

CONSULT 
10/01/07 2150.38 

Deliberate Violation, or LEGAL- Up to LEGAL- Up to LEGAL- Up to LEGAL- Up to 

other significant 50,000 per offense 50,000 per offense 50,000 per offense 50,000 per offense 

aggravation category may be category may be category may be category may be 

assessed assessed assessed assessed 

VI. Violation results in CONSULT CONSULT CONSULT CONSULT 

death, serious illness, LEGAL- Up to LEGAL- Up to LEGAL- Up to LEGAL- Up to 

severe injun, or lOO,OOOper 100,000 per 100,000 per offense 100,000 may be 

substantial destruction . offense category offense category category may be assessed 

of J>ronertv may be assessed may be assessed assessed 

h. *Sanctions applicable to air carrier and commercial operator passengers and 

crewmembers. The range for the total civil penalty to be assessed, absent mitigating or 

aggravating factors, is $250 (the statutory minimum) to $1,000. 

·E. Group I & II F. Group ill & IV 

A1R CARRIER AND OTHER AIRCRAFT Air Carriers and Air Carriers and 

OPERATOR VIOLATIONS Other Aircraft Other Aircraft 

Operators .Operators. 

Failure to comply with Parts 171, 172, or 173 Use main Matrix. Use main Matrix. 

requirements of the HMR as an offeror ofhazmat. 

Improper acceptance ofhazmat for air transportation. 

(i.e., quan-qty, labeling, marking, packaging, and 5,000-32,500 2,500-16,200 

shipping papers) 

See 49 C.F.R. §§ 175.30(a)(l)- (4) 

Failure to inspect hazmat shipment properly. 10,000-32,500 5,6'00-16,200 

See 49 C.F.R. §§ 175.30(b), (c), (d), (e) 

Improper storage/securing ofhazmat aboard aircraft. 10,000-32,500 5,000-16,200 

Failure to provide hazmat training, maintain records of 10,000-32,500 5,000-16,200 

training, or meet minimum requirements for hazmat 

training (49 C.F.R). ---'". 

Using untrained/improperly tramed hazmat personnel, 10,000-32,500 5,000-16,200 

failure to retainhazmat training records (49 C.F.R.} 

Failure to notify FAA properly of incident/discrepancies 5,000-16,200 1,000-5,500 

in hazmat shipment. 

Failure to provide notice to the pilot-in-command. 5,000-16,200 1,000-5,500 

Other Part 175 violations. 5,000-16,200 1,000-5,500 

Intentional, deliberate, or other significantly aggravated CONSULT CONSULT LEGAL 

violation. LEGAL- Up to - l]p to 50,000 per 

50,000 per offense category 

offense category may be assessed 

may be assessed 

Violation results in death, serious illness, severe injury, or CONSULT CONSULT LEGAL 

substantial destruction of property. LEGAL- Up to -Up to 100,000 per 

IOO,OOOper offense category · 

offense category may be assessed . 

may be assessed 

C-13 

I 

1 
10/01/07 2150.38 

9. Definitions: Note that these definitions are only for the purpose of applying the sanction 

guidance in this appendix. 

a. Air Carrier and Other Aircraft Operator Groups (1, II, III, IV) -Air carriers and 

other aircraft operators are divided into two categories for purposes of detennining an 

appropriate sanction. These categories track the air earner groups established in Appendix B 

this order. For purposes ofhazmat sanction guidance, the FAA also includes other aircraft 

operators operating in commerce that are of similar size, e.g., part 129 Foreign Air Caniers, part 

125 Operators, and part 91 Operators. 

(1) Group I is comprised of air carriers with annual operating revenue of$100,000,000 

or more. Other aircraft operators with annual operating revenue of$100,000,000 or more are 

included in Group I for hazmat sanction guidance purposes. 

(2) Group II is comprised of air carriers and other commercial operators that have an 

annual operating revenue ofless than $100,000,000, and have 50 or more pilots and operate 25 

or more aircraft. Other aircraft operators of the same size are included in Group II for hazmat 

sanction guidance purposes. 

(3) Group III is comprised of air carriers and other aircraft operators that do not meet the 

criteria for Group II, that is, they have only 6 to 49 pilots, or only 6 to 24 aircraft. Other aircraft 

operators of the same size are included in Group III for hazmat sanction guidance purposes. 

( 4) Group IV is comprised of all other air carriers and commercial operators not meeting 

the criteria for Groups I, II, or III. Other aircraft operators of the same size are included in 

Group N for hazmat sanction guidance purposes; ., 

b. Business Entity. A business, corporation, partnership, Sub-S Corporation, sole 

proprietor, association, or any type of commercial entity. An individual who offers a hazmat 

shipment in air transportation in the course of his or her self-owned business falls into this 

category. It includes a non-profit organization and all other entities defined under the HMR's 

definition of person (49 CF.R. § 171.8), with the exception of an individual (asdefmed below). 

c. Business Entity that Regularly Offers, Accepts, or Transports Hazardous Materials 

in the Course of Its Business. A business entity that offers hazmat with some anticipated 

frequency, or purports to do so, regularly offers hazmat. For example, a catalogue company that 

· offers hazardous material to its customers would fall into this category, even though its actual 

sale or transportation of the hazmat is infrequent or limited. This category includes 

manufacturer or distributor of hazmat and a freight forwarder. 

d. Business Entity that Uses, Handles Hazmat in the Course oflts Business. This 

category encompasses the business that utilizes hazmat in its business but does not offer it for 

transportation on a regular basis, as described above. For example, a manufacturer of a nonhazmat product that uses hazmat in the manufacturing process could fall into this category. It 

must be established that the company ordinarily does not offer the hazmat it utilizes for 

transportation, and the shipment in this instance represents an isolated incident. This type of 

business is held to a higher standard than the business entity that has no regular involvement 

C-14 
10/01/07 2150.38 

with hazmat. The described business entity receives the subject hazardous material in 

transportation and uses it in' its business; thus, it is clearly on notice of the hazardous nature of 

the material and the regulatory requirements to which the hazmat is subject. 

e. Declared Shipment. For purposes of this sanction guidance, a declared shipment has at 

least one of the following communicative indicia---markings, labels, and/or shipping papers that 

meet the communicative requirements of the HMR. A package that has shipping papers that 

declare the contents as hazardous material, but is otherwise not marked or labeled, falls into this 

category. For purposes of this definition, a shipping paper is any document to which handlers 

refer in. the normal course of transportation and that complies with one or more of the 

· communicative requirements in the HMR for shipping papers. Similarly, a properly marked and 

labeled package that lacks shipping papers also falls into this category. An example of a 

shipment that would not meet this definition is one where the offeror states that the shipment 

contains hazmat, but only in paperwork to .which the handlers do not refer in the normal course 

of transportation. 

f. Hazmat- A hazardous material, as defined in 49 C.P.R. § 171.8, includes and is 

interchangeable with the term dangerous goods, as used i:ri the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Technical Instructions. 

g. Individual -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. 

h. Intentional or Deliberate Violation- A violation falls into this category when the 

offeror, acceptor, air carrier, or aircraft. operator has knowledge of the requirements of the HMR, 

and willfully circumvents or attempts to circumvent those requirements. For example, an offeror 

who places a properly marked and labeled hazmat shipment along with properly completed 

shipping papers, into an overpack marked as printed material, has com.initted an intentional or 

deliberate violation. 

i. Undeclared Shipment- If a shipment does not meet the definition of declared shipment, 

it is an undeclar~d shipment"' 

· j. Undeclared Shipment Hazmat Exceeds Quantity Limits for All Aircraft- An 

undeclared shipment that is offered for transportation on or transported on any aircraft and the 

quantity of hazardous material exceeds the limit, per package, for transportation on cargo 

aircraft, as established in the 49 C.P.R.§ 172.101 Table. 

k. Undeclared Shipment Hazmat Exceeds Quantity Limits for Passenger Aircraft- An 

undeclared shipment that is offered for transportation on or transported on a passenger aircraft, 

and the quantity of hazardous material exceeds the limitation, per package, for transportation on 

passenger aircraft (but :not for transportation on cargo aircraft), as established in the 49 C.P.R. § 

172.101 Table. 

I. Undeclared Shipment Hazmat FQrbidden on All Aircraft- An undeclared shipment 

that is offered for transportation on or transported on any aircraft and the hazardous material is 

forbidden in air transportation on cargo aircraft, as established in the 49 C.P.R. § 172.101 Table. 

C-15 
.. .. 

10/01/07 2150.38 

· m. Undeclared Shipment Hazmat Forbidden on Passenger Aircraft- 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 on cargo aircraft), as established in the 49 C.F .R. § 172.101 Table. 

n. Undeclared Shipment Within Hazmat Quantity Limitations. 

(I) If the Uiideclared shipment is offere<;l for transportation on or transported on a passenger 

aircraft, the quantity of hazardous material must be within the limitation, per package, for 

transportation on passenger aircraft, as established in the 49 C.F .R. § 172.101 Table. 

(2) If the undeclared shipment is offered for transportation on a cargo aircraft, but not 

transported, the quantity of hazardous material must be within the limitation, per package, for 

transportation on passenger aircraft, as established in the 49 C.F .R. § 172.101 Table. 

(3) If the undeclared shipment is offered for transportation on and transported on a cargo 

aircraft, the quantity of hazardous material must be within the limitation, per package, for 

·transportation on cargo aircraft, as established in the 49 C.P.R. § 172.101 Table. 

All other undeclared shipments fit within the defmitions for Undeclared Shipment Hazmat 

Exceeds Quantity Limitsfor ... Aircraft, or Undeclared Shipment Hazmat Forbidden 

on ... Aircrafi, see above. 

,, 

C-16 
10/01/07 

CATEGORY "A" 

{Maximum Weight} 

RISK CATEGORIES 

(Figure C-2) 

2150.38 

Category "A" materials are materials that when released in the confines of an aircraft can potentially have a catastrophic 

effect on an aircraft's ability to continue safe flight, resulting in a crash or emergency landing causing injury or death to 

passengers and flightcrew, as well as persons on the ground. 

C~ 1 Explosives: Division 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, . 

Class 2 Compressed Gases All 2.1, 2.2 with Subsidiary Risk 5.1 and All 2.3 PIH Zones A-D 

Class 3 Flammable Liquids PG I, II, and (PIH) 

Class 4 Divisi.on 4.1 Flammable Solids PG I, & {Matches) 

Division 4.2 Spontaneously Combustible Materials PG I (Pyrophoric) 

Division 4.3 Dangerous When Wet PG I 

Class 5 Division 5.1 Oxidizing Liquids and Solids PG I, U, e.g., "Chemical Oxygen Generators" 

Division 5 . .2 Organic Peroxides PG II (Type A,B,C,D) 

Class6 Bivision 6.1 Toxic/Poisonous Materials PG I (PIH) 

Class 7 Cargo Aircraft Only Quantities on Passenger Aircraft 

Class 8 Corrosive Material Liquid PG I and {PIH) 

Forbidden Materials {See 49 C.F.R. § 173.21 & ICAO Technical Instructions) 

Forbidden Hazmat listed in Dangerous Goods Table 49 C.F.R. § 172.101 

CATEGORY "8" 

{Moderate Weight} 

The materials listed in Category "8" are materials that may not pose an immediate threat to the safety of a flight, but can 

cause death or injury to persons due to unintended releases in aircraft cabin areas, and potential damage to aircraft 

structures over a longer period of time due to undiscovered releases on aircraft structural components. 

Class 1 

Class3 

Class 4 

Class 5 

Class 6 

Class 7 

Class 8 

Division 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, All Compatibility Groups 

PG Ill Flammable Liquids 

Division 4.1 Fl~:~mmable Solids PG II, Ill 

Division 4.2 Spontaneously Combustible Materials PG II, Ill 

Division 4.3 Dangerous When Wet PG II, Ill 

Division· 5.1 Oxidizing Liquids or Solids PG Ill 

Division 5.2 Organic Peroxides (Type E,F,G) 

Division 6.1 Toxic/Poisonous Materials PG I,JI (NON- PIH) 

Division 6.2 Infectious Substances ·· · 

Radioactive Materials, yellow label II, white label I 

Liquids PG II, Ill Solids PG I; II, Ill 

Category "C" 

{Minimum Weight} 

., 

The materials listed in Category "C" are materials that present the least amount of risk to the transportation system. 

Class 2 

Class 6 

Class 7 

Class 9 

2.2 Nonflammable Gas 

Division 6.1 Toxic/Poisonous Materials PG Ill 

All other RAM (LSA, L TO QTY, Instruments, and Articles) 

Miscellaneous Dangerous Goods {ORM-D and Consumer Commodity} 

NQI!;;_ This guidance is not intended to replac4;! the experienced judgment of a special agent who is convinced, based on 

the evidence and facts of a case, that the failure of an air carrier, shipper, freigi:Jt forwarder, or passenger to follow 

established regulations has posed a risk to aviation safety. 

C-17 
t·.s. l)epariltlcn! ofTranspl,lrtation 

Res.·nrdt and Special Programs 

Admini~r.rati<m 

Hazardous Materials 

Incident Report 

Form Approval OMB i\o. 2137-0039 

.-\ccurdlng te> tlte Paperwork Reduclion Act of I 995, no persons ar!' required to respond 10 a collection of information unless it dhplays a valid {)MB control number. 

The valid OMB control numlwr for tlti.s infonnatlon C<>llce!'ion i~ 21.37-0039. The filling .;mt of thi• informn.tion is manda.tory and will tllke 96 minutes to complete. 

1"\STRUCTIONS: Submit this .report to !he Systems. manager, U.S. . Rt>search and Special Progrants Administration, OJlke 

of l!az:u:-dous M.ntt•ri:1ls Safet~, I)HM-63, Washington, D.-C. 20590-0001. If space provided for any it~m is inadequate, usc a scpnr:•tc ~IH'<:-t M paper., it,le,l!rf)•ing the 

o;ntr) number bt>lng completed. Copies of this form and instructions can b.e obtained from the Office of Hazardous Materials Website at .llttp://hn:r.mat.dotgov. l f you 

have nay que~tions, you can co.ntaci the Ha:t.:\rdous M:lterlals Information Center at 1·800-H;\IR-4922 (l-S00-467-4922) or onlin~ at: .lwp:!/bmcm>\t.dot.go~·. 

PART I· REl'OR'f TYPE 

L Thi;; is ~ repm1: 0 /\) A hazardous mm~dnJ incident [g) B) An undeclared shipmt:ur with Ill) r·elea>c 

C)A >pt·cifkatmn curgo cmk l ,000 gallons greater cmmllning aay ba7.ardou;; maicrials that {I) rec.eiw:d struqu.rnl damage to ilre lr.ding 

D n:tcn!ion ~ystcm or damage ihat requires repair to <1 system imended m protect the luding retention system and (2) did ll<.lt hai'C a re!c:~s::. 

1. lndicute wbcthel' this is: 0 An initial·report 0 A ,;upplemental (follow-up) r·epon 0 Additional pages 

P .. \RT II -GENERAL lJ'iC!l)ENT INFOIV•lATION 

3. Dale nflnddent: _G_2_'0_9_1_l_l __________ _ 4. Time or lucidcr!!. (US!! 24 .. !Jour time): .,.o_7_:o_o _________ ,_ .. _______ _ 

5. Ea!er Nr,ticmal Rt~ponse Cent~r Report Number (rf npplicablc): 

i:> If you submitted a r<:JX)rt to another Fedemi DOT agency, ~'1l1Ct' the agency !utd report 

I. Locmion of htcitic!li: Ciiy: EARTH CITY County: --------- Swtt': _r-_'lv_' ____ ..,.-__ ZIP Code (ifkll(Wm): _6_30_4_5 __ _ 

St!Wl Addrcss,~vlik murkct'l'Yarduumc/AirpontBody ofWatcriRiver Mik: 1381\l RIDER TRAlL DRIVE 

0 Hlgh>vay 0 Rail 

Tr:msport<•tion Phase: I§ Loading 0 Unloading 

Name: UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 

Street: 55 GLENLAKE PKWY 

C.i!y: ATLANTA State: ----·------·-------------

l:l.Origm 

(if diffet~eot fh:m1 

shipper addr~-ss) 

[J. Desti11ation: 

Fcdeml DOT !D Number: 

Name: NU FASHION 

Street: 1366 KINGSLAND AVE 

City: SAINT LOUIS 

Wt!yhil!!Ship[.ling Paper:· 

City: 

Street 6ugo VIPOND DR 

MlSSlSAUGA 

IZR7l2756643505t;74 

City: ------

l-la7mat Registration Number: 

·---------·S.!.atc: 

Hazmat Rcgistmti<:m Numlxor: 

State: 

State: 

14. i'mpcr Shipping Na:mc'(lfHa:z.lll"d<.luS Material: CONSUMER COMMODITI' 

15. Tcdum:;licTra<ic Nam.::. 

! 6. Hw.a~dt•us Clll.~s/ ORJ\f-D [ki!SW!l! • 

---=----

1 i, ld<:ntiiica!k>n 

Number: 

AEROSOLS 

(f..g.. l.!N2764, NA2020) 

IS. Packing 

Group: 

(if applicable) 

0 \Vater 

0 !n Transit Slumgc 

GA Zll' ('ode: _3_0_3::t_s_· __ _ 

,, 

MO Zll' Code; 1\3! 33 l ol4 

ZIP Code: 

ON Z!P Code: ISJ'2V4 -------

19. Quantity 

Released: 

----------------

21!. Was the materia.! shipped as alul7.antous wa.sre'l 0 Yes lf y~-s, provoide the EPA Manifest Number: 

2 i. Is this a Toxic by ltthatati<itl (TIH) matcri:ll'? DYes lfycs, provide the Ha;r.ru:d Zone: 

11. Was th.:.: material sltipped.tmder an Exemplitm. Approval. or Competeut Authority Certificate? DYes 

lfyes, provide the Exemptioa .• Approval, <Jr CA number: 

23. Wt•s this art undedart!d h<tir.ank)U .. ~ materials shipment'? 
':'··= 

-------------·-----------.------... 

I' ART Ill- PACKAGl:'\G iNFORMATIO!\ 

J.4. Check Packag,ing Type (check only one .. Wmorc than one, list type of packaging, copy Pan !11, and C<)l!lpkre fb!' each type): 

IE] Non-bulk 

0 Cylinder 

0IBC 

0RA.M 

0 Cargo utnk :Vlotor Vchidq C'TMV'! 0 lank Cctr 

0 Portable Tank 0 Other 

25. Sec instmctiuns •md enter the appmpliate failure GO<ks ti)Ulld 111 the end of the instructions, He sure to enter the C<l<l(.'S from the list that cnmlSpunds w the p;uticular 

packaging type dteckcd nh,we. En~<.•r the nu.tnber of codes as itppropriate to describe the incident. Enter tlw mo~t importllnt f~oi!ure poim in line I. If there a•~ mon' than two 

failure !X'int.s, pr\lvide in rhis fllflllllt in part V.L · · 

l. What Faikd: N A How Failed' N A Cause~ of Failure: 

2. What Failed: t·lww Failed: 

126a. Provide the packaging identifiClltion.mmicings. if available. 

!dentillcatio.; Markings: -----------------------------·--·-.. ---~--

(Exampk<.--s: lA l!Y 1.41!50/92/USNRB/93/RL, UNJ !H!IY0493/USA/M9339/!()800il200, DOT- I 05A- I OGW (RAlL). DOT 406 (H!GHW A Y). DOTS!, DOT 3-A) 

26b. For Non-bulk. me, or rwn-spccitkatiou J.lliCkaging, if identification markings urc inwmplctc or unavailabt.:, sec instnrctions and complete the following: 

Single P:tckag~ '" Ot!Wr l'ackag.ing: Single Package (>f Inner !'a<;kaging {if IU'Y): 

l'ackagir;g Type: 

Material ofCon:muetion: Material r>fCons.tmction: !'klal (any type) 

Head Type (l)mms only): 0 Removab!<: 

27. Describe the p11ckag<: capacity and (he quantity: 

Single f'uckage; or Ouwr l'ackaging:. Sincle Package nr Inner Packaging: (if ru1y): 

Package C:wacny: 65 Pounds Package Capacity: HI Ounce..~ 

------~~--------------------

Amount in l'ackage: !0 J'(lundS Amoundn Package: 120 Ou.nce.~ 

Number in Shipment Number in Shipment 

Number Faikd: Number Failed: ., 

23. Provide packaging crmstruction and. test itlf~irmation. a.~ appropoinl.e: 

Mrurufacturcr: FIELD l'ACK.-\G!NG Mrumliu .. 'tllre Date: 

Sc1inl Numh<:r: Last Test Date: 

------------------- (lfTtmkCar, C'!'MV. Portable Tank, or Cylinder) 

--------------(lfTauk Car, CTMV, Portable Tank) 

-----------------f[fTank Car, CTMV, l'ortllble Tnnk) 

Head Thickn~:ss: (lfTank Car, CTMV) 

·---------- (lfCylind~-r} 

[fvalvc or device fai!oo: 

Typo.!: MunufitctW'cr: Model: 

29. lfthc packngirrg is tb•· Radi(mctivc M•I!Crial~, cmnpletc tile ·following: 

Packaging Cntcgory: 0 Typer\ 0 T~pcB 0 TypcC 0 0 Industrial 

Packaging C'crtitlcatil>n: 0 Self Certified 0 U.S. Ce.tification Certilication Number: 

------------~-----------

Nuclidc(s) Pres~"l!t: Trdllsport Index: 

Activi!y:. Critical Safcl;y Judex: 

L __ •r~Qn=n~!hXA)~T~F~5~S(rum' .. 'l~f0~!.~2~00~4~i-------------------------------------,r•u~ge~2~--·-------------------------------- -------·-·--
··.{ 

·····-·····-.......... ------·--···---------·- , PART IV- CO!'iSEQUEi'.'CES 

30. R.:sult oflnddc:nt (du.:ck all that atwly): 0 Spillage [J Fin: 0 Explosion 0 fv1ntt~da! Ent~rcd \Vaterw~1y/$wnn Sewer 

0 Vapor(Ga.~) Di~persinu 0 Envinmmentlll Damage [8J No Rcle:t5<.< 

0 FirelE~1S Rt:fX.H1fi. D ln-house Cleanup [8J Othc.r Clcarmp 

J2. Uumng ... -s: Was the total <.lamagc cost moru than SSOO'? DYes [8] No 

!fy~s. e~u:cr the tol!('wmg inform;1don: tfno, go to question :n. 

!VTateria} 1 .OSli'.: t•mpcrty Damage: R csponc<c Cost: Remcdi~ttion/Cieanup Cosl: 

s $ ______________ __ s ______________ __ s ________________ __ 

!See damag.: definitions in the insU"Uctlcms) 

33u. Did the hn7.anlous material cause t;r ..:omrihutc to a huma!l fitta!ity? DYes 

If yes, enter rht numhc~r nf !iualiti•~s resulting from the h~lztmlous material: 

Fatalities: Employees Responders 

33b. Were !.here human r:1tnlitics tht1t did ntlt result from the hazardous material:' DYes @No 

34. Did the hat.Mdous maw,ria! cause or contril:m!i.llo personal injury'! DYes 

lf ye~, enter the numb~r of injllries resulting from !.he hazardous matcri?.l: 

H<>spita!izcd f/lllmitted only): Respqnders 

Non-Hnspitaliz~d: Employees 

(e.g,; On site first aid (}r Emergt:ncy Room observation and relt!!ISe) 

35. Did the hnzardm .. ~ materi~•l cause or contribute to an evacuation? [8JNn 

lf yes, provide the f\11lowing infonnation: 

Tow! number <.>f general public e-vacuated Total number of employees evacuated 

Dumtion oftiw evacuation ------- (hours) 

3(>. Was a major tr.Uillp<Jrtation rutety or facility closed? 

37. Was i.h<~ material involved iu a cmh or derail!tlllnt? 

If yes, provide the following mformation: 

Vehicle <Jvcrturn? 

Vehicle left n>ndwayitrack'! 

DYes [8J No 

··DYes 

W~ather ~tmditi<ms: 

DYes 

DYes 

DNo 

0No 

General Publk' -----

if yes, how many'' 

Gem:rall'ublic 

General Public 

Total Evacuated 

.. 

If yes, how =my! (hours) 

1-:-------·--.. ·---·--------------------------------------·---------t 

PART V- AIR INCIIU:NT INFORMATION (please refer to §175.3lt·o ~port a discrepancy for air shipments) 

3&. Wa.~ the shipmen\ on a passenger aircraft'! [EINo 

lf ye>, was it tendcn'd as cargo, or as passenger baggage'! 

D Cargo 0· Passenger baggage 

3'}. Where did the incident oc.:ur (if linko,Jwn, check the appropriate box for the location wbcre the incident was discovered)? 

D Air canier cargo fnctlity 

D By surfil.re toffrom ailpmt 

[8J Sort cemer 

0 Dwi.ng !light 

· 40. Wh:n phlc~cM lmd the shipment already undc•·gmte priw to the i~tddent'? (Check ~u that apply) 

D Shipment had IIlli been transported 0 Transported by air (first !light) 

@ lnitialtrnn~rx-,rt by highway to cargo facility 0 Tnmst\::r at sort ccmtcr!cargo facility 

D Haggage aren 

D During k>atfingJunloading nf'ain::ra!l 

D Transport by air (subs~-quent tl!ght.~) 
--------~-------------------------------------

~~'"-,' ~>·;~·.,., .,.,_, ~~~ ·: .. ·.::· ... '!.: 

r---·-.. ----··------·----·-.----- . --···~-------------------.., 

fP,~Rl' Vf :_~~.!_"!'~(~:"OF EVE~TS & PACK-\GE.FAH.U.RE --- .· . . . . -- . --· . . . 

I 

!A~s.:nhl:) rhc sequence ot ev·ems that k<i to the mculent an(! the uctwm; tak<.:n at the tmt<.: !twas dJ~covercd. Dcscnbc the pa~kage flulur~ .. mdild:ng the. SIZe and l<lCU~l\lH o! holes. 

c.r __ ~cks .. ct._c. f.'ho-togmp~~ a~d c.

1

iagmm-'..>hou_ l.d ~.e suhmitted..if nccdc. d lbr clari!ication. E.sti.mattl the dumtion of the rd~ase. ifp<J>sibh Describe what. wa.s d.om.,-w m.;tigatc.· t.he 

dkct.> o! th<J release. ( ontmue on m!tlrttonul so~cts tfnccessary. . 

\I:IHr.E LOAD!NG PACKAGt~ UMDER NO llCED A R.-\TTUNG NOISE COMM!:--IG FROM THE l'ACKAGE.LOADER NOTW!ED SLWERVfSOR Ti!All1!.: !lEARD I J\ RATTLING NOISE A:-iD THOU<lHT l'HEI<.E ~-1AY BE AHROSOL CANS IN THE PACKAGE. !',\CKA(;E V!i\$ OPFN AND FOUND TIIAT THE PACKAGE 

I CONTAH~ED ANOTHER BOX INSIDE T!L\T W_.;s !-..IARKfoD ORM-D CONSUt\!ER COMMOD!T\' HAIR SI'Ri\ Y L_ !\VEL i AEROSOL J>ACKAOE WAS TAKEN 

OUT OF THF. Uf'S SYSTEM AND HMSC WAS CALLED. WE WERE TI!EN INST!WCTED TO TAKE PICTURES AND E·\·lAIJ Til EM AND HOI D FOR POSSIBLE 

-l·AA !NS!'EC'T!ON, 

I 

PART VU- R.ECOMiVtENOATIONS/AC'rtONS TAKEN TO PREVI>;NT Rl':C.'Ul{Rl':NCE 

---· ----·----------------------------~------------------------------, 

Where you utc able iu du so, su~ga;;t or dt:scrioo changes (such a.s atklitiomll training, use ufbetter packaging, or improved operating pro~edun-:s) _to help prevent recurrence. 

Provide recommendations ·fbr mlpmvement m lul:l'.ardous materials ttansp<lrl.tttion beyond !he control of your individual company. Continue on additional sheets i.f necessary . 

.. 

PAin VU! -CONTACI' !Nl.-ORMATION 

Cont:wr.'s Name (Type or Print): RITA BURKE ~~~~------------------

Telephone Numtx'f: ( 404 i H288'109 

Contact's Title: DANGEROUS GOODS MANAGER (404) 8284108 

United l'arccl Service Hrur.mat Rcgistartinn Numb<."!· ; 12!. 90555 

~-----------------------------

Business Name arid Address: 

{ifnol already provided) . 

55 Gfcnlake Pkwy 

Atlan1a G t\ J0328 

~~@~_P_s_._c_o_~_l ______________ ___ Date: 

!EJ Ciirricr 0 Sllippcr 0 Facility 0 Oilier 

I E-mail Addre>s: 021!5/l l 

tn;parer i:;: 

Form !JOT "'f"'~'5&"'(!{'"l:-'1.1'"'("'fl,..l·"'2t"'Jfl"'4"")--------------------.....,l',...age-4-:-------------------------------' 
Photograph #1 

'o 

I certify that this photograph fairly and accurately depicts the undeclared 

hazardous materials~ This is a. photograph of the outside package that contained 

twelve 1 0-ounce aerosol cans of Compare Products Professional Hair Spray· 

·(Compares to Sebastian Mega Hold) Maximum Volume and Hold. The proper 

shipping description for. this product is Aerosols, 2.1, UN 1950 and .was offered for 

air transportation to the United Parcel Service (IPXA) Tracking Number 

1ZR712756643505874) from Saint Louis, Missouri to Mississauga, Ontario, 

Canada as provided to me in email and photographed on or about February 11 , 

2011. 

-. 

'/1'--. 

\ 
Photograph #2 

.. I certify that this photograph fairly and accurately depicts the undeclared 

hazardous materials. This is a photograph of the outside package that contained 

twelve 1 0-ounce aerosol cans of Compare Products Professional Hair Spray 

(Compares to Sebastian Mega Hold) Maximum Volume and Hold. The proper 

shipping description for this product is Aerosols, 2.1, UN1950 and was offered for 

air transportation tothe''united Parcel Service (IPXA) Tracking Num-6er 

1ZR712756643505874) from Saint Louis, Missouri to Mississauga, Ontario, 

Canada as provided to me in email and photographed on or about February 11, 

2011. 
Photograph #3 

't, 

I certify that this photograph fairly and accurately depicts the undeclared 

hazardous materials. This is a photograph of the outside package that ,contained 

twelve 1 0-ounce aerosol cans of Compare Products Professional Hair Spray 

(Compares to Sebastian Mega Hold) Maximum Volume and Hold. The proper 

shipping description for this product is Aerosols, 2.1, UN1 950 and was offered for 

air transportation to tne United Parcel Service (IPXA) Tracking N'Lim6er 

1ZR712756643505874) from Saint Louis, Missou'ri to Mississauga, Ontario, 

Canada as provided to me in email and photographed on or about February 11 , 

2011. 
Photograph #4 

I certify that this photograph fairly and accurately depicts the undedared 

hazardous materials. This is a photograph of the outside package that contained 

twelve 1 0-ounce aerosol cans of Compare Products Professional Hair Spray 

(Compares to Sebastian Mega Hold) Maximum Volume and Hold. The proper 

shipping description for this product is Aerosols, 2.1, UN1950 and was offered for 

air transportation to ttie United Parcel Service (IPXA) Tracking N"Lrmoer 

1ZR712756643505874) from Saint Louis, Missouri to Mississauga, Ontario, 

Canada as provided to me in email and photographed on or about February 11 , 

2011. 

L)j I 'C.-· 
Photograph #5 

I certify that this 

photograph fairly and accurately depicts the undeclared hazardous materials. This 

is a photograph of the top of the outside package that contained twelve 1 0-ounce 

aerosol cans of Compare Products Professional Hair Spray (Compares to 

Sebastian Mega Hold) Maximum Volume and Hold. The proper shipping 

description for this product is Aerosols, 2.1, UN 1950 and was offered for air 

transportation to the United Parcel Service (IPXA) Tracking Number 

1ZR712756643505874) from Saint Louis, Missouri to Mississauga, Ontario, 

Canada as provided to me in email and photographed on or about February 11, 

2011. 
Photograph #6 

I certify that this photograph fairly and accurately depicts the undeclared 

hazardous materials. This is a photograph of the top of the outside package that 

contained twelve 1 0-ounce aerosol cans of Compare Products Professional Hair 

Spray (Compares to Sebastian Mega Hold) Maximum Volume and Hold. The 

proper shipping description for this product is Aerosols, 2.1, UN1950 and was 

offered for air transportation to the United Parcel Service (IPXA) Tracking Number 

1ZR712756643505874) from Saint Louis, Missouri to Mississauga, Ontario, 

Canada as provided to me in email and photographed on or about February 11 , 

2011. 
Photograph #7 

.. I certify that this photograph fairly and accurately depicts the undeclared · 

hazardous materials. Thisis a photograph of the bottom of the outside package 

that contained twelve 1 o-ounce aerosol cans of Compare Products Professional 

HC1ir Spray (Compares to Sebastian Mega Hold) Maximum Volume and Hold. The 

proper shipping desc[iption for this productJs Aerosols, 2.1, UN1~§Q and was 

offered for air transportation to the United Parcel Service (IPXA) Tracking Number 

1ZR712756643505874) from Saint Louis, Missouri to Mississauga, Ontario, 

Canada as provided to me in email and photographed on or about February 11 , 

2011. 
Photograph #8 

I certify that this photograph fairly and accurately depicts the undeclared 

hazardous materials. This is a photograph of the packing slip found inside the 

package that contained twelve 1 0-ounce aerosol cans of Compare Products 

Professional Hair Spray (Compares to Sebastian Mega Hold) Maximum Volume 

and Hold. The proper shipping description for this product is Aerosols, 2.1, 

UN1950 and was offered for air transportation to the United Parcel Service (IPXA) 

Tracking Number 1ZR712756643505874) from Saint Louis, Missouri to 

Mississauga, Ontario, Canada as provided to me in email and photographed on or 

about February 11, 2011. 
Photograph #9 

I certify that this photograph fairly and accurately depicts the undeclared 

hazardous materials. This is a photograph of the inside package that contained 

twelve 1 0-ounce aerosol cans of Compare Products Professional Hair Spray 

(Compares to Sebastian Mega Hold) Maximum Volume and Hold. The proper 

shipping description for this product is Aerosols, 2.1, UN1950 and was offered for 

air transportation to the United Parcel Service (IPXA) Tracking Number 

1ZR712756643505874) from Saint Louis, Missouri to Mississauga, Ontario, 

Canada as provided to me in email and photographed on or about February 11, 

2011. 
Photograph #1 0 

I certify that this photograph fairly and accurately depicts the undeclared 

hazardous materials. This is a photograph of the inside package that contained 

twelve 1 0-ounce aerosol cans of Compare Products Professional Hair Spray 

(Compares to Sebastian Mega Hold) Maximum Volume and Hold. The proper 

shipping description for this product is Aerosol&, 2.1, UN1950 and 'N,§§Offered for 

air transportation to the United Parcel Service (IPXA) Tracking Number 

1ZR712756643505874) from Saint Louis, Missouri to Mississauga, Ontario, 

Canada as provided to me in email and photographed on or about February 11, 

2011. 
Photograph #11 

I certify t.hat this photograph fairly and accurately depicts the undeclared 

hazardous materials. This is a photograph of one of the twelve 1 0-ounce aerosol 

cans of Compare Products Professional Hair Spray (Compares to Sebastian Mega 

Hold) Maximum Volume and Hold. The proper shipping description for this 

product is Aerosols, 2.1, UN 1950 and was offered for air transportation to the 

United Parcel Service (IPXA) Tracking Number 1ZR712756643505874) from Saint 

Louis, Missouri to Missisauga, Ontario, Canada as provided to me in email and 

photographed on or about February 11, 2011. 
Photograph #12 

I certify that this photograph fairly and accurately depicts the undeclared 

hazardous materials. This is a photograph of one of the twelve 1 0-ounce aerosol 

cans of Compare Products Professional Hair Spray (Compares to Sebastian Mega 

Hold) Maximum Volume and Hold. The proper shipping description for this 

product is Aerosols, 2.1, UN1950 and was offered for air transportation to the 

United Parcel Service (IPXA) Tracking Number 1ZR712756643505874) from Saint 

Louis, Missouri to Mississauga, Ontario, Canada as provided to me in email and 

photographed on or about February 11, 2011. 

/C) I'-
NU FASHION BEAUTY 

SUPPLY DISTRIBUTORS 

25 February, 2011 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

10801 Pear Tree Lane, Suite 200 

Saint Ann, Missouri 63074 

Dear Special Agent Louis Umland-Messer: 

' ~·" / 

'~) 1366 KINGSLAND AVE 

ST. LOUIS, MO 63133. . . 

(314) 725-8434 FAX (314)725-8436' A ' ,v, . . o\.9 . rr\IV 

1?/7> 

Nu Fashion Beauty Supply was established in 1969 by· my father and mother Sun Moo Chyu and 

Kyung Ja Chyu. We are a ·minority owned small business as defined by the criteria of the Small 

Business Administration. We are a sole proprietorship and therefore have no corporate officers. 

Although we do operate retail stores, 13(:36 Kingsland Ave is our only office. We have not had any 

hazardous materiai shipment training ahd typically never ship prOduct by air. We do ship aerosols by 

ground L TL and ground UPS and have since contacted our shippers for proper shipping instructions. 

We have 20 employees, five of which work in the offic;:e warehouse.. On February 9, 2011 we shipped 

undeclared hazardous products to our vendor Assured Packaging in Mississauga Ontario. We have in 

the last ten years shipped no more than 4 shipments to Canada, most of them ground and all but one, 

check payments. We recently received a prOduct that had a formulation problem and was requested a 

sample. Although, nonetheless labeled improper1y, our intentions were to ship by ground as there was 

no urgency. We were unaware that the product was hazardous and that specific requirements needed 

to be met for shipping. Our UPS driver can even contest that we even needed his help to print invoices 

that are required to accompany international shipments. After 40 years of doing business, you can see 

that shipping by air, or international is not a common practice by our company, and that we are just 

unfamiliar with the UPS Wor1dship software and were careless with this shipment. Our bookkeeper's 

husband is a shipping manager for Firmnich Inc, A major manufacturer, is hazmat certified and has 

agreed to come to us and instruct us on hazmat shipping. I am also looking into enrolling in a UPS 

Hazmat program for ground shipping. We have no intentions of ever shipping hazardous materials by 

air·in the future; However, if the FAA deems it necessary I will also enroll in a class for air shipping. 

I've been working for this company for over ten years, but the last two have been very rough. Two 

years ago my father was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer and my father and mother were forced 

to retire. I have since then·'taken full responsibility for the operation of our business, Xhere are many 

nuances to this business that I have rapidly been trying to learn. I fully understand the seriousness of 

this violation, and take full responsibility. I hope you can please have leniency when accessing the 

fines for our violations. 

~~ely,. · · 

~tL GayleChyu 

Vice President 

/ 
D&B Business Infonnation ' 

Decide with Confidence· 

· Busin 

To save report(s)'to your PC, r:;lick here for instructions. 

I@ Print this Report 

Copyright 2011 Dun & Bradstreet- Provided under contract for the exclusive use of subscriber 263751116L 

AITN: Dave 

NU FASHION BEAUTY PRODUCTS 

1366 Kingsland Ave 

Saint louis, MO 63133 

This is a headquarters location. 

Branch(es) or division(s) exist. 

Telephone: 314 725-8434 

Fax: 314 725-8436 

Manager: SUN M CHYU, OWNER 

Year started: 1969 · 

Employs: 

History: 

SIC: 

Line of 

business: 

20 (3here) 

CLEAR 

5087 

5999 

Whol service establishment equipment, 

ret mise merchandise 

SUMMARY ANAl YS!S 

Report Printed: MAR 14 2011 

In Date 

D&B's Credit limit Recommendation 

D&B's industry and risk-based limit guidance 

'' Learn More ff View Now 

Payment Trends Profile 

Payment trends and industry beJ;Jchmarks 

n, Learn t•,•1ore :1 View Now 

D-U-N-S Number: 

D&B Rating: 

Number of employees: 

Composite credit 

appraisal: 

D&B PAYDEX®: 

. . . . . . ...................... ~- ..... ~ .. . 

88-439-7696 

1R3 

1R is 10 or more 

employees. 

3 is fair. 

............ , ............................................................................. ~...................... ··; 

I D&B PAYOEX: 65 . . i I Vlfhen weighted by dollar anio'Lint; payments to ! 

i suppliers average 19 days beyond terms. i !-...-............... ,_,,...,.,.,,.........., ....... _MO'W""""OO<-,)NN~ ... N;-...,.~ ................... .-~ .. -, .... -. ........ R .. _,,""""'""""""''"'""""'""""'' .. """"'""'"'; 

0 v t(W; 

.• , MttMj raf 

tOO 11iiyto l!i[iow :ll!l days slC!W ll'ill!lmp.t ;!J.n,11ieiipater, 

Based on up to 24 months of trade. 

~ Enhanced payment trends and industry 

· benchmarks are available on this business 

D&B Rating: 1R3 

Number of employees: lR indicates 10 or more employees. 

Composite credit appraisal: 3 is fair. 

https://www:dnb.com/deliverv/42/426163/426163.BIRH0.2175)477540615.tng.print.htm... 3/14/2011 
D&B Business Information "" )ort: NU FASHION BEAUTY PROD7 TS Page 2 of7 

The 1R and.2R ratings categories reflect company size based on the total number of employees for the business. They 

are assigned to business files that do not contain a current financial statement. In 1R and 2R Ratings, the 2, 3, or 4 

creditwort~iness indicator is based on analysis by D&B of public filings, trade payments, business age and other 

important factors. 2 is the highest Composite Credit Appraisal a company not supplying D&B with current financial 

information can receive. For more i,nformation, see the D&B Rating Key. 

Below is an overview of the company's rating history since 01/23/98: 

D&B Rating Date Applied 

1R3 11/20/08 

1R2 08/02/08 

1R3 10/01/07 

1R2 07/28/05 

1R3 12/30/03 

1R2 08/19/02 

1R3 08/03/00 

1R2 04/28/00 

1R3 02/25/98 

01/23/98 

The Summary Analysis section reflects information in D&B's file as of March 14, 2011. 

~ How does NU FASHION BEAUTY PRODUCTS's payment record compare to its industry? 

A Payment Trends Profile will show you - View Now 

If you have questions about this report, please call our Customer Resource Center at 1.800.234.3867 from anywhere 

within the U.S. If you are outside the U.S. contact your local D&B office. · 

*** Additional Decision Support Available *** 

Additional D&B products, monitoring services and specialized investigations are available t9 help you evaluate this 

company or its industry. Call Dun & Bradstreet's Customer Resource Center at 1.800.234.3867 from anywhere within 

the U.S. or visit our website at www.dnb.com. 

HISTORY 

The following information was reported 03/09/2011: ,, 

Management: SUN M CHYU, OWNER 

Ownership information provided verbally by Manivanh Manifhonh, Bkpr, on Jan 07 2010. 

Business started 1969 by Sun M Chyu. 

SUN M CHYU born 1937. 1969-present active here. 

CORPORATE FAMILY 

Click below to buy a Business Information Report on that family member. 

For an expanded, more current corporate family vieW1 use D&B's Global Family Linkage product. 

Branches (US): 

https://www.dnb.com/delivery/42/426163/426163.BIRHQ.21753477540615.tng,print.htm... 3/14/2011 
D&B Business Information r 1ort: NU FASHION BEAUTY PRODT TS Page 3 of? 

[] · Nu Fashion Beauty Products 

[] Nu Fashion Beauty Products 

D Nu Fashion Beauty Products 

0 Nu Fashion Beauty Products 

[] Nu Fashion Beauty Products 

0 Nu Fashion Beauty Products 

[] Nu Fashion Beauty Products 

0 Nu Fashion Beauty Products 

0 Nu Fashion Beauty Products 

03/09/2011 

Saint Louis, MO 

Saint Louis, MO 

Saint Louis, MO 

Saint Louis, MO 

Saint Louis, MO 

Saint Louis, MO 

Saint Louis, MO 

Saint Louis, MO 

Saint Louis, MO 

DUNS# 14~685-0313 

DUNS # 82-782-4991 

DUNS # 82-782-5683 

DUNS# 96-238-5829 

DUNS # 96-238-6025 

DUNS # 14-685-0321 

DUNS # 96-238-6389 

DUNS# 96-238-6199 

DUNS # 82-780-8770 

Description: Wholesales service establishment equipment, specializing in beauty salon or barber shop equipmeht 

(70%). Retails hair care products (30%). 

Terms are cash, Net 30 days. Sells to general public and retailers. Territory : United States. 

Nonseasonal. 

Employees: 20 which includes owner. 3 employed here. 

Facilities: Owns 60,000 sq. ft. in on 1st floor of a multi story steel building. 

Location: Central business section on side street. 

Branches: This business has additional branches; detailed branch information is available.jn D&B's linkage or 

family tree products. 

SIC & N.AICS 

SIC: 

Based on information in our file, o&B has .assigned this 

company an extended 8-digit SIC. D&B's use of 8-digit 

SICs enables us to be more specific to a company's 

operations than if we use the standard 4-digit code. 

The 4-digit SIC numbers link to the description on the 

Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) 

Web site. Links open in a new browser window. 

50870100 

59991304 

Beauty salon and barber shop equipment 

and supplies 

Hair care products 

D&B PAYDEX 

NA;J:CS: 

423850 

446120 

Service EstablishmenfEquipment and Supplies · 

Merchant Wholesalers 

Cosmetics, Beauty Supplies, and Perfume 

Stores 

fiB Enhanced payment trends and industry benchmarks are available on this business 

The D&B PAYDEX is a unique, dollar weighted indicator of payment performance based on up to 35 payment 

experiences as reported to D&B by trade references. 

3-Month D&.B PAYDEX: 64 D&B PAYDEX: 65 

https://www.dnb.com/delivery/42/4261.63/426163.BIRHQ.2175.3477540615.tng.print.htm... 3/14/2011 
• 

D&B Business Information T ort: NU FASHION BEAUTY PRODT. TS Page 4 of7 

i When weighted by dollar amount, payments to I 

t.~~ppli~~~ ~Y~E~Q~ ~? 9~Y~ ~~Y?~9 t~~r:.:.s:.. .... ... . .. J 

(i 

fmsiif 

t(i(i· 

P i 

Based on trade collected over last 3 ~onths. 

! When weighted by dollar amount, payments to ! suppliers average 19 days beyond terms. 

Hlll 

f f 

Based on up to 24 months of trade. 

When dollar amounts are not considered, then 

approximately 70% of the company's payments are 

within terms. 

The Payment Summary section reflects payment information in b&B's file as of the date of this report; 

Below is an overview of the company's dollar-weighted payments, segmented by its suppliers' primary industries: 

r-·-···---·-., .. ~,·-~-~~·~··~--~-·~T:r;;t;:;;·l·~i~t~i···o;;!l:;;·~~i;;·;:9~;tiii9'h·r~wi'th·i·~-:"· ... ,~--·--·-o;;~·si·~;···~-·-.. ····i 

!.. . .. . . .. . 1 ~~~~ ~!t. .J .. ~(;~it 1 -~(~~~j :~~-~~~~<~!:r9o 90> ) Top industries: 

Electric services 5 9,500 i 

Nonclassified 4 2,250 

Mfg toiletries 3 95,000 

Short-trm busn credit 2 20,000 

Telephone communictns 2 1,250 

Trucking non-local 2 -1,00D 

Mfg home cook equipt 1 15,000 

Mfg surface agents 1 5,000 

Whol office equipment 1 1,000 

Radiotelephone commun 1 500 

OTHER INDUSTRIES 3 850 

Other payment categories: 

Cash experiences 9 300 

Payment record unknown 1 100 

Unfavorable comments 0 0 

Placed for collections: 

With D&B i ! . 0 0 

Other 0 N/A 

Total in D&B's file 35 151,750 

The highest Now Owes on fife is $30,000 · 

The highest Past Due on fife is $10,000 

2,500 

1,000 

35,000 

15,000 

1,000 

750 

15,000 

5,000 

1,000 

500 

500 f 

i 

50 

100 

0 

35,000 

89; 

67 

50 

38 

100 

13 

50 

50 

100 

85 

11 

33 

50 

62 

49 

50 

50 

15 

38 

50 

50 

i 

- t 

- f 

- i 

D&B receives over 600 million payment experiences each year. We enter these new and updated experiences into 

.D&B Reports as this information is received . 

. ~ Have NU FASHION BEAUTY PRODUCTS's payment habits changed over time? 

A Payment Trends Profile will show you - View Now 

https://www.dnb.com/deliverv/42/426163/426163.BIRH0.2175.3477540615.tn!l.nrint.htm ':l/lLI./"){)1 1 
.. D&B Business Information . y 1ort: NU FASHION BEAUTY PRODr TS Page 5 of7 

PAYMENT DETAilS 

Detailed Payment History 

Date Reported Paying Record High Credit Past Due Selling Terms Last Sale (mm/yy) ($) ($) Within 

02/11 'Ppt 1,000 0 

Ppt 250 0 

Ppt-Siow 30 15,000 1,000: 2-3 mos 

Ppt-Siow 30 500 250 1 mo 

Ppt-Siow 60 1,000 0 4-5 mos 

Slow 15 500 0 0 6-12 mos 

Slow 30 5,000 5,000 5,000 1 mo 

Slow 30-60 750 500 500 1 mo 

(009) 50 0 0 1 mo 

Cash own option. 

01/11 Ppt 1,000 0 0 1 mo 

Ppt 250 100 0 1 mo 

Ppt-Siow 30 35,000 0 0 2-3 mos 

(013) 50 Cash account 2-3 mos 

12/10 Ppt 100 1 mo 

11/10 Ppt 500 0 .o 2-3 mos 

Ppt-Siow 30 250 0 0 N30 6-12 mos 

Slow 30-60 5,000 0 0 6-12 mos 

(018) 0 0 0 Cash account 6-12 mos 

(019) 0 0 0 Cash account 6~12 mos 

(020) 0 0 0 Cash account 6-12 mos 

05/10 (021) 50 Cash account 1 mo .. (022) 50 Cash account 1 mo 

(023) 50 Cash account 1 mo 

03/10 (024) so Cash account · 1 mo 

12/09 Ppt 2,500 250 0! 1 mo 

Ppt 2,500 1,000 0 1 mo 

Ppt 2,500 750 0 1 mo 

Ppt 1,000 500 0 1 mo 

Slow 10 1,000 250 100 1 mo 

11/09 Ppt-Slow 30 250 0 0 N30 1 mo 

09/09 Ppt 500 0 0 6-12 mos 

07/09 {032) 100 0 0 6-12 mos 

06/09 Ppt-Slow 30 30,000 30,000 10,000 1 mo 

Ppt-Siow 30 30,000 25,000 0 1 mo 

05/09 Ppt-Siow 30 15,000 oj 0 1 mo 

Payment experiences reflect how bills are met in relation to the terms granted. In some instances payment beyond 

terms can be the result of disputes over merchandise, skipped invoices etc. 

A Payment Trends Profile will show you - View Now 

FINANCE 

https://www.dnb.com/delivery/42/426163/426163.BIRHQ.2175.3477540615.tng.print.htm... 3/14/2011 
--------------------·· 

m ty ,ort: NU F ASHTON BEAUTY PRODT of'TS 

Page 6 of7 

o contact the management of this business have been unsuccessful. Outside sources 

ource. 3 is for information purposes only and is not the official record. Certified copies can only 

lien in more than one filing location. The appearance of multiple liens filed by the same 1y be indicative of such an occurrence. 

$480 

Open 

140229 

State Tax 

STATE OF MISSOURI 

CHYU, SUM M 

STLOUIS COUN1Y RECORDER OF DEEDS, SAINT LOUIS, MO 

02/27/2008 

02/27/2008 

03/18/2008 

$480 

Open 

02252008/0359 

State Tax 

STATE OF MISSOURI 

SUN M CHYU ., 

ST. LOUIS CI1Y RECORDER OF DEEDS, SAINT LOUIS, MO 

02/25/2008 

02/25/200fl 

03/18/2008 

ned in this report may have been paid, terminated, vacated or released prior to the date 

r): 

1t: 

m federal program(s): 

>•economic program consideration 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

YES (2011) 

YES {2011) 

N/A 

.rernment Activity section are as reported to Dun & Bradstreet by the federal 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~=zy~/~42:/~42~6~1~63~4~2~6~16~3~.B_I~~~Q_2_17~53.477540615.~~~~-~-·- 3/14n011 
i -----------------... 

D&B Business Information T ·Ort: NU FASHION BEAUTY PRODT TS 

Page 7 of7 

government and other sources. 

Copyright 2011 D"n & Bradstreet- Provided "nder contract for the ixcl"'lve "'e of sobscrJber 2637S1116t 

.. 

https://www.dnb.com/delivery/42/426163/426163.BIRHQ.2175.3477540615.tng.print.htm... 3/14/2011