11/19/201 0 16:2 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* OM S 1001/02 3 

## ^QfBAMENTO F UNllH O STATl- S DEPARIMRN T O F TRANSPOR'rATIO#V:ANSPORTATfO N FEDERAL AV1ATIO

N ADMlNlSTRATIO N •' • \c T OPERATION S T n the Matter

of : I'ederal Expres s Corporatio n 

## M NOn S P I4 : 2 1 FA A Docket No . CP10NM000 8 FA A Cas e No . 2008NM70020 8 DM S No . FAA-2010-079 2 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwi n FEDERA L EXPRESS' S RESPONS E T O COMPLAINAI S 

### I^ S MOTIO N FO R DECISION , O RT

N TH E ALTERNAT J VR . MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR Y JUDGMEN T HEREAFTE RLIMITIN G TH E HEARIN G T O A DETERMINATIO N A S T O TH E APPROPRIAT E SANCTIO N COME S NO W th e Respondent , Federal Expres s Corporation , b y an dthroug h counsel , an din respons e to th e Motio n fo r Decision , o r

in th e ahemativc , Motio n fo r Summar y Judgmen t

hereafte r limiiin g th e hearin g t o adeterminatio n a s t o th e appropriate sanction , submit s th e following : For mof Response ; T n th e cas e a

t bar , th e (!:oniplainant' s Motio n i s title di n suc h awa

y a s t o indicat e tha t th e Motio n fo

r Decisio n requeste di s that th e Cour t rul e o n al l issues , includin g th e propose dsanction . In th e alternativ e t o that , applyin g th e Complainant' s titl e and argument , th e Complainan t ask s tha t th e Cour t grant Complainant' s alternativ e Motio n fo r Summar y Judgmen t

hereafte r limitin g th e hearin g t o adeterminatio n a s l o th e appropriat e sanction . Base don that phrasing , an

dth e conten t

in th e Complainant' s Motio n a s awhole , th e Responden t wil l firs t addres s th e Complainant' s prayer fo r th e Cour t t o rul e o n al l matter s before it , an dwil l the n separatel y addres s th e Complainant' s prayer tha t th e Cour t limi t an y hearin g t o th e issu e o f sanctions . Pag e 1 of 7_l_1/1_9/201 0 1G:2 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S li002/023



### 1 . Standar do f

La w an dArgumen t

regardin g Complainant' s Motio n fo r Decisio n o n all issue s befor e th e Cour t includin g Sanctio n Th e Complainant' s Motio n fo r Decisio n i s governe db y 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(5) . "Th e Rule s sa

y that th e administrativ e la

w judg e shal l grant

aparty' s motio n fo

r decisio n i f th e pleadings , depositions , answer s t o interrogatories , admissions , matter s that th e administrativ e la

w judg e ha s officially noticed , o r evidenc e introduce ddurin g th e hearin g sho w tha t there i s n o genuin e issu e o f material fac t

andthat th e part y makin g th e motio n i s entitle dto adecisio n a s amatter o f law. " i n th e Matte r

o f AB G Caulkin g Contractors , Inc. , FAA Docke t

No . CP05SO0050 , 200 6 FA A Lexi s 493 , a t *7 . Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.224(a) , th e Complainan t mus t sho w tha t th e propose d civi l penalt

y i s appropriate . I n th e Matter o f Willia mA . Lukcr . Jr. , 201 0 l-A

A LEXI S 99 , FAA Docke t

No . CP09SW0008 , a

t +14 . Th e FAA ha s promulgate dguidanc e fo r proposin g penalties , bu t "thi s Guidanc e [sic ] i s no t bindin g o

n respondent s o f administrativ e la

w judge s in settin g penalties. " Td ^ Further , i

n a200 6 case , I n th e Matter o f AB G Caulkin g Contractors , Inc. . th e cour t noted : Whil e th e Complainant' s motio n paper s purpor t t o sho w ho w th e FA A arrive dat

th e civi l penalty it

i s seeking , th e statement s o f th e Complainant' s lawyer s are no t evidence , an dnothin g els e supportin g th e questio n o f

quantu mwa s submitte dwit h th e motion . T

n addition , whil e th e motio n asserte dtha i th e FAA hadperforme daweightin g analysis , th e Complainan t

di dno t explai n ho w tha

t analysi s wa s performe dan ddi dno t provid e supportin g factua l informatio n fo

r tha t analysis . Accordingly , genuin e issue s o f

material fact

remai n wit

h respec t l o th e i.ssu

c o f sanction . 200 6 FAA LEXI S 49 3 a

t +13 . I n the cas e a

t bar , th e Complainant' s Motio n regardin g civi l penalt y contain s only statement s by Complainan t withou t supportin g documentation . Th e attache daffidavit s d o no t i n an y wa y discus s th e weightin g analysis , ho w tha t analysi s wa s performed , or Pag e 2 o f 7_11/19/201 0 18:2 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A . D„ S ^003/02 3



### supportin g factua

l informatio n fo

r th e analysi s a s note dwa s necessar y i n AB G Caulkiii K Contractors , Inc . Whil e th e Complainan t allege s broadl y tha t

th e propose dpenalt

y i s withi n th e rang e cstabli.she db y law , th e Complainan t give s n o descriptio n o f

th e specifi c factor s o r weighin g o f

thos e factors . Th e Complainan t provide s n o concret e histoi y o f prio r allege dviolation s b

y th e Respondent ; rather , th e Complainan t allege dviolation s withou t providin g cas e number s o r other frame s o f

referenc e t o allo w th e Responden t t o eithe r admi t o r den y th e allegations . Th e Complainan t fail s t o addres s th e aggregat e weigli t o f th e violation , th e nature , circum.sianccs , exten t an dgravity o f

th e violation , o r ih e Respondent' s degre e o f culpability , history o f

prio r offenses , an dability t o pay , t o an y exten t other tha n bal dassertion s b y counse l i n writin g but withou t th e necessar

y dncvimentatio n or

exhibit s i n support . Mos t importantly , however , arecen t decisio n b y th e Cour

t ha. s addresse dwhethe r acomplainan t

ma y b e entitle dt o adecisio n withou t ahearing , whe n th e amoun t o f sanctio n i s dispute dby arespondent . Th e Court , whe n decidin g In ih e Matte r o f Airtran Airwavs . Inc. , (201 0 FA

A LEXI S 10 6 (FA A 2010) , th e cou n noted : Th e Complainant' s motio n paper s purpor t t o sho w that

th e amoun t o f th e penalty i

t ha s sough t

wa s calculate di n accordanc e wit h FA A Orde r 2150.3B , effectiv e Octobe r 1 , 2007 . Th e FA

A point s ou t

tha t Orde r 2150.3 B f*3 J contain s guidanc e o n th e matte r o f sanction s fo

r us e by I'AA employee s involve di n th e investigatio n andprosecutio n o f enforcemen t

cases . I t als o note s tha t

i n Folsom' s Ai r

Service . Inc. . FAA Order N o 2008-1 1 (Novembe r

6 , 2008) , th e Administrato r hel dtha t Orde r No . 2150,3 B reflect s th e Administrator' s general view s abou t th e civi l penalt y range s tha

t are appropriat e for

different type s o f

violations . Tru e a s tha t

ma y be , i t remain s clea

r that administrativ e la

w judge s arc no t boun db y th e content s o f

Order 2150.3D , n l an dtha i th e Re-sponden t i s entitle dt o ahearin g on th e questio n whethe r $ 15,00 0 or

som e lesse r

su m i s th e appropriat e sanctio n fo r th e violatio n i

t committed . Ihi s mean s tha t ther e ar c dispute dissue s o f material fac t

tha t mus t b e plumbe di n orde r

to arriv e at th e appropriat e sanction . I t follow s that , althoug h th e FAA' s Pag e 3 of 711/19/201 0 16:2 4 FA X 202493514 2 FAA . DM S i004/02 3



### motio n to limi t

th e hearin g t o th e issu e o f sanction s mus t

b e granted , there remain s a n issu e o f the appropriat e sanctio n tha t ca n b e decide donl y afte

r th e hearin g o n tha

t issu e i s held . Therefore , it

i s clea r that , whil e th e Cour

t clearl y ha s th e autliorit y t o determin e whethe r

th e Complainan t

ma y hav e th e hearin g i n thi s cas e limite dto th e issu e o f

sanctions , th e matte r

o f th e Complainan t

askin g for

adecisio n o n whethe r th e sanction s propose db y th e Complainan t ar e appropriat e withou t a hearin g mus t

not , respectfully , b e grante dove r th e protes t

o f th e Respondent . Fo r further consideratio n o f

thi.* ! Court , ihc Responden t respectfull y submit s tha t

th e penalt

y amount o f $299,90 0 i s excessiv e an dunreasonable , despit e th e Complainant' s bol dassertio n i n th e Motio n tha t th e amoun t

''shoul db e considere dmor e than reasonable. " Thi s wa s demonstrate db y the Complainant' s ow n initial penalty o f

only $86,70 0 fo

r th e exac t

sam e violations , note din th e original Notic e o f

Propose dCivi l Penalt

y i.ssue dayea r before th e Amende d Notice , whic h increase dth e fin e mor e tha n threefol dwithou t th e additio n o f

ne w allegation s o r

explanatio n whatsoever . I t i s repeate da

t th e beginnin g o f

eac h Inlbnna i Conferenc e hel db y th e Complainan t

that an y exchang e in th e Informa l Conferenc e wil l not

b e use dagains t

th e othe r

party (wit

h th e exceptio n o f impeachmen t

purposes) . However , th e onl y contac t betwee n th e partie s fro

mih c tim e o f th e origina l Notic e wit

h apropose dpenalty o f

$86,70 0 an dth e tim e o f

th e Amende dNotic e with apropose dpenalt y o f $299,90 0 was , i n fact , th e Informa l Conlerence . Th

e sudde n an dunexplaine dincreas e i n propose dpenalty in ando f itsel f smack s o f

badfait h an dambush , andJustic e demand s ahearin g on suc h a n issu e t o determin e wha

t factor s whic h w/cr

c unknow n at

th e tim e o f

th e Notic e Pag e 4 of ?11/19/201 0 19:2 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A. OM S ^,005/02 3



### warrante dsuc h amarke dincreas e ove r on e yea r later . Th e Responden t

deserve s th e opportunity , additionally , t o utiliz e th e discover y method s allowe db

y law , durin g th e tim e allowe din th e Proceduni l Order o f thi s Honorabl e Court , t o prepar e a n argumen t

anddefens e regardin g th e amoun t o f civi l penalty , includin g mitigatin g factor s andweightin g argument s that ar c essentia l t o th e issu e o f sanctions . II . Standar do f

Lai v an dArgumen t

regardin g Alternativ e Motio n fo r Summar y Judgmen t

hereafte r

limitin g th e hearin g t o adeterminatio n a s t o th e appropriat e sanctio n Th e Responden t

agree s tha

t n o genuin e issu e a s t o material fac t exist s i n thi s matte r a s t o th e violation s allege di n thi s case , an dtha t th e hearin g on thi s matte r .shoul d b e limite dt o adeterminatio n a s t o th e appropriat e sanction . Jh e Responden t doc s contend , however , that

th e fact s i n thi s eas e wil l necessaril y b e relevan t i n ahearin g t o determin e th e appropriat e sanction , an dthat suc h facts , testimon y an dexhibit s a s necessary t o tha i consideratio n shoul db e allowed . Ih e gravit y o f th e violation s wil l clearl y b e aprimar

y consideratio n in the cas e an dtherefore , suc h fact s wil l b e admissibl e andrelevant . Conclusio n Primarily , applicabl e decision s by th e Cour t indicat e that

aMotio n for

Decisio n i s no t appropriat e in acas e when th e sanctio n amount i s disputed , andthat

ahearin g shoul d b e hel do n th e issu e o f

sanctions . I n addition , thi s eas e i s stil l withi n th e discovery tim e allowe db y th e Court' s Procedura l Order . T o mov e fo r ajudgment

withou t firs t allowin g reasonabl e tim e for

discovery render s thi s Motio n fo r Decisio n premature . However , th e Pag e 5 o f 711/19/201 0 16:2 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A • > DM S 12006/02 3



### Responden t

agree s tha t

th e cas e i s appropriate fo r ajudgmen t

on th e violation s an dha s never dispute dsuch , eve n in it s Answer t o th e Complaint . WHEREFORE , th e Re.sponden t pray s tha t

th e Complainant' s Motio n fo r Decisio n b e denied , a s agenuin e issu e a s t o material fac t - regardin g the amount

o f sanction s t o b e impose d- exists ; an dth e Responden t request s atria l o

n th e issue s raised . Further , ih e Responden t

agree s tha

t th e cas e i s appropriate fo r aSummar

y ,Tudgnien

t limite dt o th e issu e o f th e violation s alleged , whil e rcsei-ving th e right t o pu t o n proo f a t ahearin g o n sanction s regardin g th e natur e andgravit

y o f th e violations , a s wel l a s othe r relevan t informatio n to b e considere db y th e Court . Respectfull y submitte dthi s 18t h da y o f November , 2010 . HT.DRRAkEXEftfiSSXQRPORATIO N CynthiaChandler-Snel l Senio r Attorne y Federa l Expres s Coiporatio n 362 0 Hack s Cros s Roa

d Buildin g B , 3"^ Floo r Memphis , T

N 3812 5 (901)434-836 1 (901)434-828 3 Fa

x

Pag e 6 o f 711/19/201 0 16:2 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S



### I hereb y certif

y tha t th e foregoin

g 0007/02 3



### CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

ha s been sen t

vi aPriority Overnigh t

(an dfa x t o FA A Counse l an

dJudge' s Office ) on thi i

, th e 18' " da

y o f November , 20 ) 0 t

o Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Wilbu r Wright Building , Suite 2W100 0 Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Scot t Morris , Attorne y Offic e o f th e Regional Counsel , Northwjjs t Mountai n Regio n Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 160 1 LindAve. , S W Renton , W

A 9805 7 Fa x 425-227-100 7 Th e Honorabl e RichardC . Goodwi n Administrativ e Law .Tudg

c Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 US Dcpaitmen t

o f Transportatio n 1200 Ne w Jerse y Ave . S E Las t Buildin g Groun dMoor , Roo mE1 2 -32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 Fa x 202-366-753 6 pnmiaChandler-Sne l Senio r Attorne y Federa l Expres s Corporatio n 362 0 Hack s Cros s Road

r< l 

### Buildin g B,3'M'loo T Memphis , TN 3812 5 (901)434-836 1 (901)434-828 3 FAX IS32(.3 1



### Pag e 7 o f 711/19/201 0 16:2 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S lg|008/02 3

Pag e 1 

# LexisNexis ' LF.XSF. E 2 )0 6 FAA LLXi. S 49r ,

I n ih e Matte r

o f A t 0 Caulkin g Contraclors , liic . FA A Do de t No . CP05SO005 0 ; DM S No . FAA-2005-2288 8 Civi l Penally Actio i tJNlIDl ^ STATE S DEPA^TMEN' I O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDliRAl . AVI

A OII'I C 1 ION ADMINISTRATIO N

- . O F HEARING S 200 6 ACTION : I'l J AOMTNTSTRATiV E LA W JUDGE ' FO RDl-CJSIO N O

N TH E PLEADING S OR , T N TH E ONL Y 1 ORDE RRULIN G O N TTT E COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N ALTERNATJVl: . MOTIO N FO RHEARIN G O N SANC'JiO N ISSUEDBY : Isaac D . itenkin . Administrativ e l^ w Ji i Ig e OPINION : On Januar y 13 , 2006 , th e Federa l Aviatio n Admini s spondent , ARG Caulkin g Contraciors , Inc. , requcslir ^ fo r violaLiun s o f

th e Department' s llaTardou s Materia l requeste dahearin g on Augu-sl 10 , 2005 , an dI wa s asstsnc d Februar y 7,2006 . Pendin g befor

e m e i s th e Complainant' s motio n U hearin g t o th e questio n o f Sanction ; i

t wa. s filedb

y o f th e complain t

an danswer

andvariou s othe r

materi i aletter fi'o mthe Responden t

t o th e Complainan t

datec th e Respondent' s response s t o thos e requests . Th e attachment s position . FA A LEXJS49 3 il y 12,200 6

straltio n (I'A A o r

Complainant ) issue dacomplain t agains t th e Rc

a$ 60,00 0 civi l penalt

y b e assesse dagains t

th e Responden t Regulation s (FIMR) , 4 9 C.F.R . Part s 171-180 . Th e Responden t to th e proceeding , vic e Chie f Judg e Yoder . b y Notic e date d i g that :

f adecisio n o n th e pleading s or , i n th e alternative , t o limi t

the the!Complainan t

o n Jun e 7,2006 . Attache dt o th e motio n i s acop y Is , includin g thirty-tw o (32 ) photograph. s o f th e subjec t

shipment , Novembe r

14,2000 , th e Complainant' s discovery request s an d [*1 ] conver

t th e motio n into amotio n fo r summar y dis

Th e Responden t

file dit s answe r

t o th e motio n o

n sid e o f th e pleadings , th e Responden t argue dthai i

t h t d fact concernin g th e amoun t

o f th e civi l penally. " Base p held , a s scheduled , s o that i t coul dobtai n areductio n Th e Pleading s I n it s complaint , the FA

A allege dtha

t th e ferin g aone-gallo n (3,79T. ) meta l containe r

of " t o Unite dParce l Servic e (UPS ) for transportatio n by i prope r shippin g papers , certification , marking. s faile dt o ensure that

eac h o f it s ha/ma t

employee s w n l ihes e failures , th e complain t alleged , 172.202(a)(l)-(5.) , 172.301(a) , 172.300(a ) an d .Tun e 21,2006 . I

n th e answer , whic h als o containe dmaterial s out - ' • presente dsubstantial evidenc e o f agenuin e issu e of

materia l o n thi s evidence , th e Responden t sai dthat A hearin g siioul db e n th e civi l penalt

y sough t b y th e FAA . Responden t

ha dviolate dth e HM Ro

n o r abou t Octobe r 30 , 2000 , by of

Trem( o Decklin e Primer " (hereinafter "primer") , ahazardou s material , i i r t o Columbia , Kentuck

y whe n th e shipmen t

di dno t includ e the emergenc y respons e infonmaliori , andpackagin g an dth e Responden t ; properl y trained , n l :onstiiute dviolation s o f

4 9 C.F.R . §<

{ 171.2(a) , 172.200(a ) and 172. 3 I2(H X 172.400(a) , 172.600(c) , an d173.1(b) .11/19/201 0 16:2 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A . DM S @009/02 3

Pag e 2 200 6 I'A A LEXI S 493 , * r*3 ] I n it s answer

to th e complaint , th e Responden t denie dknowin g that

th e primer

wa s ahazardou. s materia ) andseated tha t i t doe s no t regularl y shi p hazardou s material. s an dtherefore doe s no t hav e an y "hazma t employees. " Th e Respon

den t admitte dth e remainin g allegation s o f th e complaint . O n Januar y 27,2006 , th e Complainan t seive don th e Re.sponden t variou s discover

y requests . I

n it s response , serve d Februar y 23 , 2000 , th e Responden t admitte dtha

t th e 3 2 photograph s th e Complainan t late r filedi n support o f th e pend

in g motio n trul y an daccuratel y depic t th e subjec t

shipmem , tha t

i t (Le , th e Respondent ) di dno t prepar e ashipper' s cer tification , declaratio n o f

dangerou s goods , o r

other shippin g papers , o r

mar k o r labe l th e bo x a s containin g aflammable liquid . Th e Responden t

als o concede dtha

t i t di dno t provid e emergenc y respons e informatio n o r atelephon e numbe r vrit h th e shipment . Th e Responden t als o sai dtha

t th e bo x wa s marke d"corrosive " anddenie dtha t i t di dno ( mar

k th e shipmen t wit h th e standar dorientatio n markiiig-'i , a s require dunde r th e HMR . T n it s motio n to r

summar y disposition , th e Complainan t take s issu e wit

h th e Respondent' s denial that i l posse.s.sc d the requisit e ['^ l mens_rca ^ Accordin g t o th e Complainant : Th e Responden t

denie dknowin g tha t

th e content s o f

th e shipmen t

wer e hazardou s despit e th e fac t tha t th e ph<ito

graph s o f th e shipmen t

clearl y indicate s [aic ] tha t th e labe l on th e "Trenic o Decklin e Primer " ha s severa l hazardou s warning s andth e Materia l Safet y DataShee t

include s tran.sportaiio n requirements fo r traiisportaiio n by air . Th e Re

- -•iponden t als o denie dtlia

t i t faile dt o includ e orientatio n marking s on th e shipment . However , Responden t ha s admitte d tha t th e photograph s o f

th e subjec t

shipment accuratel y depic t

th e shipmc~n

t i n question . Specifically , photograph s 2a-2 d .sho w tha t th e UP S shippin g labe l wa s applie dt o kraf t pape r whic h covere dthe marking s on th e fiberboardbo x an dob

scure dal l label s an dmarking s on th e box . Additionally , Re.sponden t admit s in it s letter

date dNovembe r

14,2000 , tha

t on e o f it s employee s wrappe dth e bo x t o cove r an y addresse s o r

trackin g iiurobei s tha

t ma y hav e bee n o n th e bo x use d fo r Ihe shipment . (I'ootnote s omitted. ) Th e Complainant' s motio n als o explain s ho w i t deiennine dit s propose deivj i penalt y amount . B y usin

& th e FAA' s interna l sanctio n guidance , th e Complainan t says , i t assigne damaximu mfinal [*5 j aggregat e weigh t

t o th e cas e an d determine dtha

t th e Re.sponden

t wa s aCaiegoi 7 C violato r (i.e ^ abusines s entit

y tha t use s o r handle s hazardou s materi

al s i n th e cours e o f

it s busines.s) ; an

dtha t th e allegation s amoun t

t o aCategory I

I olTens e (i.e. , oHerm g fo

r transportatio n a n undeclare dshipmen t

withi n hazardou. s material s quantity limitations) . Th e Complainan t then determine dtha t

th e Kespondcn i violate dreguJation." ! under th e followin g si x (6 ) offens e subcategories : shippin g papers , labeling , marking , packaging , training , andemergenc y response . Accordin g t o th e Complainant , i t propose da$ 60,00 0 civi l penally , sinc e a$ 10,00 0 civi l penalt

y i s applicabl e to eac h o f

th e 6 offens e subcategorie s whe n th e proceedin g include s amaximu m aggregat e weigh t

an dwhe n aCategor

y I I violatio n i s committe dby aCateftoiy C violator . Th e Respondent' s respons e t o th e subjec t motio n i s limite dt o th e issu e o f sanction . Accordin g t o th e Respondent ; Contrar y t o Complainant' s motion , arevie w o f th e material s o

n file demonstrate s tha

t there i s agenuin e issu e o f material fact

i n disput e a s t o th e amoun t o f th e civi l penalty , . - . Althoug h Compiainant'. s motio n state s tha t a"weightin g analy.si s [*6 ] wa s performed " regardin g th e civi l penalty , i t ha s offere dn o factua

l material s supportin g tha t statement, .

. . On th e contrary , AU

G ca n sho w tha t

th e [statutoril y required ] penalty con.sideration s support acivi l penalty fa

r lower than $ 60,000 , Th e Ke.tiponden

t says , an dproffer s a

n affidavi t b y it s secretary/treasure r

asserting , tha t

i l i s u first-time violato r

and that afte r th e allege dviolation s occurred , i t institute dapolic y prohibitin g th e shipmen t o f hazardou s material s an dhad it s aj>sistan

r vic e presiden t

complet e ahazardou s marerial s trainin g cours e i n conformit y wit h 4 9 C.F.R . § /

72.204 . Th e Responden t

als o say s tha

t at th e hearin g i t

ca n sho w substantial evidenc e justifyin g alowe r civi l penalty amount , includ

in g evidenc e provin g that

i t wa s no t amanufacturer

o f the prime r

a t issu e an dtha t i t doe s no t regularl y handl e o r

shi p hazardou s material s i

n th e cours e o f

it s business . Th e Cr i teri afo r Grantin g SummaryJudgmen t I t i s well-seicle dthat , notwithstandin g th e Respondent' s reques t fo r ahearing , th e Departmen t i s no t require dt o provid e ahearin g i f

ther e ar e n o dispute dmaterial issue s o f fact . See , e.g. . Petinimlvani av . Rilav . 8 4 r.3 d125 . 13 0 (S J Cir . 1996) . ['7 | A

n evidentiary hearin g befor e a n administrativ e la

w Judg e nee dno t

b e conducte di f

al l materia l issue s11/19/201 0 16:2 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A . QM S iOIO/02 3

Pag e 3 2006lA A T.HXIS493 , *

o f fac t ca n b e adequatel y resolve don th e basi s o f th e writte n recordbefor

e th e agency . Se e Knot

t v . FERC . 3H61.3 d 36 8 (h i Cir . 2004) : Delt aAi r Line s v . Denarimen l ofTramporiaxion . 511'J d106 5 (D. C Cir . 1995) . Under th e Rule s olPracilc e governin g thi s proceeding , aparty ma y make amotio n lo r

deci.sion regardin g al l o r

any pa n o f th e proceeding s a

t any tim e befor

e th e adniinistrativ e la

w Judg e ha s issue da

n initial decisio n i

n th e proceedings . 1 4 C.F.R . S 13.218(fX5) . Th e Rule s sa y that th e administrativ e la

w judg e shal l gran t

aparty' s motio n for

decisio n ifili e pleadings , depositions , answer s t o interrogatories , admissions , matter s that th e administrativ e la

w Judg e ha s olTicially noticed , o r

evidenc e introduce ddurin g th e hearin g sho w tha t ther e i s n o genuin e issu e o f material fact

andtha t th e party makin g th e motio n i s entitle dt o adecisio n a s amatter o f law , Jd . Th e part

y makin g th e motio n fo

r decisio n ha s th e bur

de n o f .showing dia l ther e i s n o genuin e an ddispute dissu e o f materia l fact . U

L Motion s [*8 ) fo

r decision , whe

n accompanie dby material s dehor s th e pleading s ar e analogou s t o motion s fo r summar y Judgmen t

unde r Rul e 5 6 o f

the federa l Rule s o f

Civi l Procedure (FRCP) . See , e.g. . Horizo n Ai r Industries . Tne. . FA A Order No . 96-24 , at

6 n. 3 (Aug . 13 , 1996) . Th e standar dfo r decidin g asummar

y judgmen t

motio n luider

th e FRC P i s governe dby th e Suprem e Court' s opinio n i n Celoie x Core , v . Carrett . 47 7 U.S . 317 . 10 6 S . Ci . 254S . 9 1 L.Ed.2d26 5 (I9S6) : I n ou r view , ihe plai n languag e o f Rul e 56(c ) mandate s th e entr y o f summar y judgment , aflc r

adequat e tim e fo

r dis

cover y andupo n motion , agains t aparty wh o fail s t o mak e ashowin g sufficient t o establis h th e existenc e o f a n elemen t essential to tha

t party' s ease , andon whic h tha t part y will bear

th e burde n o f

proo f a t trial . I n suc h asituation , ther e can b e n o "genuin e issu e a s t o any material fact, " sinc e acomplet e foilure o f proo f concernin g a

n essenlia ! elemen t

o f th e noninovin g party' s cas e necessaril y render s al l other fact s Immaterial . O n amotio n fo

r suminai y judgment , al l evidenc e an dinference s ar e t o b e viewe di n ligh t mos t (avorabl e t o non movin g party ; however , l*9J anonmovin g part y ma y no t res t upo n mere denial s o r

allegation s i

n pleadings , but

mus t se t fort h specifi c fact s sufficient

to rais e genuin e issu e fo

r trial . See , e.e. . Ciriren. ^ Siat e Ban k vfBi e Lak e v Trans

amaria x In.-; . Co. . 61 5 F.Siipp . 30 9 {D.Minn . 1993) . Analvsi s andConclusion s Wit h asingl e limite dexception , I fin dtha t there ar e n o genuin e di.sputc dissue s o f material fac t

relatin g t o th e Re

spondent' s liabilit

y unde r th e HM Ra s allege di

n th e complaint . A s ih e Responden t ha s concede di

n it s answer

to th e complain t andadmission s i

n respons e t o the Complainant' s discover y requests , 1 find tha

t o n o r abou t Octobe r 30 , 2000 , the Respondent

offere dth e prime r

t o UP S fo

r domesti c transportatio n by air withou t includin g th e prope r

shippin g pa pers , certification , markings , emergenc y respons e informatio n andpackaging . I'unhcr , th e Responden t admitte di

n it s answe r tha t i t violate dte n (10 ) o f

th e eleve n (11 ) regulation s liste din th e complaint . I n it s answer , th e Responden t denie dknowin g tha

t the shippe dmaterial wa s hazardous . A s ainatte r o f law , how

ever , whether

th e Responden t

kne w a t th e tim e o f

th e shipmen t

tha t th e materia l wa. s hazardou s i s [* 10 1 o f n o conse quence . Th e governin g stature , 4 9 U.S.C . . f 5123 , subject s any perso n to acivi l penalt y wh o ha s "knowingl y committe d a n ac t whic h i s aviolatio n .... " Th e statute contain s adefinitio n o f th e term"knowingly; " i t

mean s tha

t aperso n ha s actual knowledg e o f

th e fact s givin g rise t o th e violation . Se e 4 9 U.S.C . § 5/2J(a)(l) , Knowledg e o f th e la w i s unneces sary . Respondent s ar e liabl e eve n if the y di dno t

kno w the y were breakin g th e law . Se e Riverdal e Mill s Corp. . FA A Order No . 2003-10 , p . 5 (Sept . 12 , 2003) ; Scot t iLSmallitm . FA

A Orde r No . 94-31 , p . 7 (Oct . 5 , 1994) . Congres s Li

tende dto preven t

individual s tro mrelyin g on ignoranc e o f th e la w a s a n excus e i n civil-penalty ha7.ardou s material s cases . See Scot

t H . Smalling , a

t 7 . Th e legislativ e histor

y o f th e Hazardou s Material s Iran.sportwtion Ac t stale s that

" a civi l penalty ma

y b e impose donl y upon proo f tha t th e defendant

knowingl y committe dth e ac t whic h constitute s the violatio n (;'

/ /. c no t necexi;ar y t o sho\ ^ tha t

/; c kn&y^ > th e ac t comlitttte daviolarion ) .. . . " (Emphasi s supplied. ) S . Conf . Rep . No . 1347 , 93rdCong, . 2n dSess. , ["^11 ] reprinte di n 197 4 U.S . Cod e Cong . & . Ad . New s 7669 , 7686 : se e als o TC I Corporation , FA

A Orde r No . 92-77 , pp . 8- 9 n.l 3 (Dec . 22 . 1992) , Th e Responden t

ha s admitte d(ha

t th e prime r

a t issu e i s ahazardou s material , liste dunder th e HM Ra s Coatin g So

lution , i n Hazar dClas s 3 , Packin g Group III . A s such , il ha s a n a.ssignedidentificatio n numbe r o f UN113 9 andmus t

b e property labele das "FLAMMABLE LIQUID. " Sinc e th e Responden t offere dahaz^ardou

amaterial for

transportatio n by air , knowin g tha t

i t wa s indee daprimer , th e Responden t wa s require dt o d o s o i

n accordanc e wit

h th e IIMR . Th e Responden t

denie di n it s respons e t o th e Complainant' s discovery reques t that i t di dno t mar k th e sliipmen t wit h th e standar dorientatio n markings . However , i l als o admine dtha t

th e photogjaph s proffere db y th e Complainant , includin g thos e identifie da s Exhibit s I (2a-2d) , whic h sho w tha t th e UP S shippm g labe l wa s applie dt o kraf t pape r cov erin g th e .shipmen

t box' s marking s andlabels, trul y an daccuratel y depic t th e subjec t

shipment . I

n it s respons e t o th e11/19/201 0 16:2 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 21011/02 3 Pag e 4 200 6 FA A LEXI S 493 , * pendin g motion , th e Responden t mad e n o effont o explai n thi s discrepanc y o r otherwis e t o defen ditsel f agains t th e al

legatio n that

i t di dno t f*]2 ] property mar

k th e shipment . 13eeau.s e th e Responden t

ha s submitte dnodiin g t o rebu t th e evidenc e o r

th e inference s th e Complainan t woul d hav e me dra w fro mit , ther e i s nothin g o f

recordt o contradic t

th e Complainant' s versio n o f th e facts . Hence , 1 find, a s 1 must , tha t th e Responden t

violate d4 9 C.F.R . ^f

f 172.300(a ) an d172.312(a) , whic h requir e tha t eac h non-bul k

combinatio n packag e havin g inne r

paekagiiig s containin g liqui dha2ardou s material s mus t b e legibl y marke dwit

h packag e orienta

tio n marking s o

n tw o opposit e vertical side s o f th e packag e wit

h th e arrow s poijitin g i

n th e correc t

upright direction . Th e FAA' s complain t

allege s that

the Responden t

offere dth e .shipmen

t fo r transportatio n by ai r

when i t faile dt o ensure tha t eac h o f it s hazmat

employee s wa s properl y trained , andthat i t violate d4 9 C.F.R . § 173.1(b ) i n tha t i t olTered ath e .shipmen

t an dfaile dt o obe y iL

s dut y t o instruc t

eac h o f it s otllcers , agents , an demployee s havin g responsibility fo r preparin g hazardou s material s fo r shipment a s t o th e applicabl e IIMR . T o thos e allegations , th e Responden t sai di n it s answe r that i t doe s no t regularl y shi p hazardou s material s an dtherefore doe s no t hav e an y "haiina t

employees. " [ * 1 3 j 1 h e pendin g motio n an dth e Respondent' s respons e t o tha t motio n d o not

mentio n th e charg e tha

t th e Responden t violate dthe HMRtrainin g requirements . Accordingly , there i s n o basi s fo r me t o gran t

amotio n fo

r summai y dispo.si

tio n ofiha t

charge . Th

e issu e o f whctlier th e Responden t

violate dth e HM

Rtrainin g requirement s must , therefore , b e reserve dfo

r th e hearing . Th e issu e o f

sanctio n wil l als o b e reserve dfo r ih e hearing . Th e Complainant' s motio n di dno t satisf y it s burde n o f proo f concernin g th e amoun t

o f th e civi l penalty to b e impose do n th e Respondent . Whil e th e Complainant' s motio n papeiT i purport t o sho w ho w th e FA

A arrive da

t th e civi l penalt

y i t i s seeking , the statement s o f th e Complainant' s law

yer s are no t

evidence , an dnothin g els e .supportin g th e questio n o f quantu mwa s submitte dwit h th e motion , In addition , whil e th e motio n asserte dtha t ih e FAA hadperforme daweightin g analysis , th e Complainan t di dno t explai n ho w tha t analysi s wa s performe dan ddi dno t provid e supportin g factua l informatio n fo

r tha t analysis . Accordingly , genuin e is

sue s o f material fac t

remai n wit

h respec t t o th e issu e o f

sanction . Accordingly , 1 partiall y gran t andpartiall y deny th e Complainant' s [*I4 ] motion . I hereb y findanddetermin e that th e Responden t

i s liabl e for

violatin g 4 9 C.F.R . Jfi

i 171.2(a) , 172.200(a ) an d l72.202(a)(l)-(5) , 172.301(a) , 172.300(a) an d172.312(a) , 172.400(a) , an d172.600(c) . Th e hearing , no w schedule dt o tak e plac e on Jul y 26 , 2006 , wil l b e limite dt o th e issu e o f th e Respondent' s liabilit

y under 4 9 C.F.R . § 173.1(b ) an

dt o th e issu e o f

sanction . I T I S S O ORDERED . Lega l Topics : Foi ' relate dresearc h andpractic e materials , se e th e followin g lega l topics : Civi l ProcedureSummar

y JudgmentHcaringsRequesl s fo r HearingsEnviromnental LawHazardou s Waste s & Toxi c Sub

stancesTrau-sportationTransportalio n LawCarric r DLitie. s & T.iabilitiesllazardou s Material sI _ _n/19/201 0 16:2 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S @|012/02 3

Pag e I

<E > 

# LexisNexis ' LEXSE E 201 0 FAA LEXI S 9 9 In th e Matter

o f Willia mA . Luker , Jr . 1'A A Docket No . CP09SW000 8 Civi l Penalt

y Aaion ; DM S No . FAA-2009-104 4 LJNITE D S I'ATE S DEPARTME N lO F TRANSPORTAI'IO N FEDERA L AVI

A I'lO N ADMINISTRATIO N OiriC E O F HEARING S 201 0 FA A LEXI S 9 9 Ma y 13,201 0 ACTION : I'l l ORDEROI ' CTITF. F ADMINISTRAlTVF . LA W lUDG E RONNIE A , YODE RGRANTIN G COM

PLATNANT S MOTIO N FO RSUMMARY JUDGMEN T ISSUEDUV : Ronni e A . Yoder , Chie f Administrativ e La

w Judg e OPINION : Thi s proceedin g arise s fro maComplain t

serve dNovembe r

5,2009 , i n whic h the Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA" ) Regional Counsel , Southwes t Regio n ("Complainant") , allege s aviolatio n o f th e Departmen t

o f Transportatio n ("DOT" ) Hazardou s Material s Regulation s ('TTMR") , an daReques t fo r Hearm g b y Willia

mA . Luke r

Jr . ("Respon

dent") , receive do

n Octobe r 27,2009 . n I Th e undersigne dadministrativ e la w judg e wa s a.ssignedt o thi s proceedin g b y Notic e o f Assignmen t

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

o r an swer , on o r before Februar

y 5 , 2010 . n 2

n l Complainan t

Counsel' s Lette r

t o Hcaiin g Docke t

(Nov . 5 , 2009) , Accordin g t o th e Complaint , Com

plainant' s Fina

l Notic e o f

Propo.sedCivi l Penalt

y wa s serve dOctobe r

16 , 2O09 . n 2 Orde r o f the Chie f Administrativ e Law Judg e a r 2 (.Tan . 5,2010) . b y "Complainant' s Motio n \*1 \fo r Summar y Judgment " ("Motion") , serve dJanuar y 4 , 2010 , Complainan t

move s fo r decisio n i

n thi s proceedin g pursuan t t o 1 4 C.i'.R . § 1.3.218(f)(5) , arguin g that ther e remain s n o genuin e issu e o f ma teria l fact tha t require s ahearin g an dComplainan t i s entitle dt o judgmen t

a s amatter

o f law . n 3 Responden t

filedn o answer to th e Complain t

o r th e Motion . Fo r

th e reason s se t

fort h below , I gran t

th e Motion , findResponden t i n violatio n a s allege dandasses s acivi l penalty o f S 500 . n 3 Motio n a

t 1 . 

### T . BACKGROUN D Th e Complain t

allege s Respondent

knowingl y violate dth e HMR , 4 9 C.F.R , § 171.2(e) . n4 in tha t Responden t

"of

f'er[ed j hazardou s materia

l fo r transportatio n i

n commerc e withi n the Unite dState s whe n th e material wa s no t properl y classed , described , packaged , marked , labeled , an di n th e conditio n for shipmen t require db y th e Hazardou s Materia l Regulations. " n 511/19/201 0 16:2 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 0013/02 3

Pag e 2 2010FAAI.EXTS99,' *

n4 Complain t

III , a t 2 (Nov . 5 , 2009) . n5 Id . [*3 ] First , Complainan t

allege s tha

t o n Apri l 19,2009 , Re.spondent , knowingl y offeredchecke dbaggag e t o America n Airline s a t Dallas/Foi l Wort

h Tntemationa

l Airport , Texas , tha

t c<)nlaine dhazardou s material s fo

r transporliilio n o

n America n Airline s flight

number 240 4 l o Baltimore , Maryland . n 6 Complainan t allege s tha

t th e Transportatio n Securit y Administnitio n ("TSA" ) screene dRespondent'. s baggag e an ddiscovere dacaiiisic r

o f Colcmaa i propan e fuel , acaniste r o f butan e fuel , andatorc h ligliter . n 7

n 6 Id . paraI . a

t 1 . n 7 /(/ . par a2 , a

t I . Complainan t

support s tlies e allegation s wit h a n America n Airline s Undeclare dDangerou s Good s Discrepanc y Re

port , n 8 Materia

l Safet y Dat aSheet s ("MSDS" ) fo r eac h hazardou s material , n O an da n email , date dMa

y 15 , 2009 , fro

m Responden t

t o Paul Klimas , nl O I'A A Hazardou s Material. s Specia l Agent , Southwes t

Region , who investigate dthe matter , n l 1 Th e emai l states : "I n m y hast e to catch th e plane , I thre w the propan e an dbutan e cylinder s i n m y duflfe l bag , completel y forgettin g L'*4

J a t diat momen t tha t the y wer e substance s tha

t coul dno t h e hansporte don aplane . Afte r 1 wa s i n th e security line , on e o f

the baggag e inspector s approache din c an dpointe dou t that h e hadfoun

d thos e item s i

n m y duffel , an dwoul dhav e t o confiscate them , unles s ther e wa s someon e a t th e airpo n who coul dlake the

mbac k t o m y home . 1 sai dno , apologize dfo r th e MISTAKE , mad e i

n HASTE , and wen t on abou t m y business. " n 1 2 Second , Complainan t

allege s tha

t th e baggag e wa s no t

marke dwit

h applicabl e identificatio n marking s oi ' label s tha t woul dindicate th e baggag e containe dhazardou s materials , accompanie db y a"Shipper' s Certificatio n o r Declaratio n of Dangerou s Goods, " o r

accompanie db

y shippin g paper s tha

t describe dtli e hazardou s material an dprovide demergenc y respons e information , includin g a24-hour emergenc y respons e telephon e number . nl 3 Last , Complainan t allege s that Responden t

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

appropriatel y markin g andlabelin g th e oute r container labe l andfaile dto declare th e shipment . nl 4

n 8 Motio n Ex . 2 . n 9 Motio n Ex . 5-7 . Th e MSD S fo r the Coleman propan e fue

l caniste r an dbutan e lighter

provid e th e DO T shippin g names , "Liquefie dPetroleu mGas, " Motio n Ex . 5 , at 5 ; and"Lighters , conlaiuin g flammabl e ga.i. " Mo

lion Ex . 7 , a

t 3 (emphasi s i

n original) . 1*5 ] nI O Motio n Ex . 3 . n l I Motio n Ex , 9 . nl 2 Motio n Ex . 3 , nl. i Complain t

paras , 3-5 , a t

1 . nl4W . paras . 9-10 , at

2 . II . DISCUSSIO N A . Summar

y Judgtnc mStandar dan dAnaly.sis .n/19/201 0 16:2 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 1014/02 3

Pag e 3 201 0 FA A LEXI S 99 , • A motio n fo

r decisio n ma

y b e grante d"if

th e pleadings , depositions , answer s to inteirogatories , admissions , matter s tha t th e administrativ e law judg e ha s officially noticed , o r evidenc e introduce ddurin g th e hearin g sho w tha t ther e i s no genuin e issu e o f

material fact

andtha t th e party makin g th e motio n i s entitle dt o adecisio n a s amatte r o f law. " n l 5 Th e movan t "ha. s th e burde n o f

showin g tha

t ther e i s n o genuin e i.s.su

e o f material fact

dispute db y th e panics. " n 1 6 nl 5 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(5 ) (2009) . nl( > Ibi d Amotio n fo

r decisio n under

I4C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(5 ) i s comparabl e t o amotio n fo

r summar y judgmen t

unde r Rul e 56(c ) o f th e Federal Rule s o f

Civi l Pi-ocedur

e ("FRCP") . nl 7 fh e standardfo r decidin g asummar

y judgmen t

[*6 ] mo tio n unde r the l'"RC P i s governe db y th e Suprem e Court' s opinio n i n Cclnte x Corp . v . Cairett . 47 7 U.S . 31 7 (19H6) : "I n ou r vie w th e plai n languag e o f Rul e 56(c ) mandate s the enfr

y o f summai y judgment , al\e r adequat e lim e fo r di.seovcr y andupo n motion , agains t aparty wh o fail s to mak

e ashowin g .sulllclent

t o establis h th e existenc e o f

a n elemen t essential t o tha

t party' s ca.sc , andon whic h thai part y will bear

th e burden o f proo f a t trial , i n suc

h asituation , ther e ca

n b e "n o genuin e issu e a s t o an y materia l fact, " sinc e acomplete failur e o f proo f concernin g a

n essentia l elemen t o f th e nonmovin g party' s cas e necessaril y render s all other fact s immaterial. " Id . a t

322-23 . On amotio n fo

r summar y judgment , all evidenc e an dinference s ar e t o h e viewe di n th e ligh t mos t favorabl e t o th e nonmovin g party . nl 8 However , "i f th e movin g party' s documentar y presentatio n demonstrate s tha t it s vei"sio n o f th e fact s entitle s i t

t o judgmen t

a s amatte r

oClaw , th e Culotac rul e require s th e party opposin g the motio n t o com e forwar d wit h document s (othe r

tha n th e pleadings ) supportin g aversio n o f th e facts tha t

woul dpreclud e ['•'7 ] th e gran t o f sum mar y judgment. " n l 9

n 1 7 See , e.g. , Horizo n Ai r Indus. , Inc. , FA

A Order No . 1996-24 , a

t 6 n. 3 (Aug . 13 , 1996) . T\\SSee , e.g. , VenturaAi

r Serva. , /wc , FAA Docke t

No . CP07EA2005 , FDM S No , FAA-2007-27540 , Ad

ministrativ e Law Judge' s Orde r Grantin g Motio n fo

r Decision , at

6 (Jul y 24,2007) . nl 9 Wiko x Trucking . Inc. , Docket No . FMCSA-2001-9596 , Administrativ e La w Jtidge' s Decisio n an dOr

der Grantin g Motio n fo

r Summar y Judgment , at

4 (Jul y 27,2007) . Complainan t

allege s tha

i Respondent

offeredacaniste r

o f propane , acanister

o f butan e ftiel , an datorc h lighter fo r ai r transportatio n without

declarin g th e contents , markin g andlabelin g the baggage , o r accompanyin g th e baggag e wit h th e appropriat e certification , declaration , o! " require dpapers . n2 0 Complainant allege s tha

i Respondent' s action s consti

tute daviolatio n o f

§ 171,2(e ) o f

th e TTMR

, prohibitin g an

y perso n fro

m"offer[ing].. . ahaziirdou s material fo r trans portatio n i

n commerc e unles s th e hazardou s material i s properl y classed , ["'S J described , packaged , marked , labeled , andi n conditio n fo

r shipmen t a.s require do

r authorize db y applicabl e rcquiremenL s o f fth e HMR].... " n2 1 n2 0 Se e .nipr anote s 6 , 7 , 13 , an d1 4 andaccompanyin g text . n2 1 4 9 C.F.R . § 171.2(c) . Th e HM Rdefin e "hazardou s material " t o includ e "material s designate da s hazardou s i n th e Hazardou. s Material s Tabl e [4 9 C.F.R . § 172.101) . n2 2 Complainan t support s th e a.s.scrtio

n that Responden t

offere dth e item s fortran.sporta

tion i n conmierc e an dtha

t suc h item s were hazardou s material s unde r th e HM RHazardou s Material s Tabl e wit h th e America n Airlines ' Undeclare dDangcrou. ? Good s Discrepanc y Report , Respondent' s email , an dthe MSD S sheets . n2

j n2 2 4 9 C.F.R . § 171.8 .11/19/201 0 16:2 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A . DM S 0015/02 3 Pag e 4 201 0 FA A LEXI S 99 , * n2 3 Motio n Ex . 2-3 , 5-7 . Se e 4 9 C.f.R . § 172.101 , a t 15 4 ("Butane , see als o Petroleu mgase.s , liquefied") , 20 7 ("T-ighters containin g flammable Ra.<!"), 24 3 ("Propan e .se e als o Petroleu mgases , liquefied" ) (emphasi s i n original) . [*9 ]Pursuan t

t o 4 9 C.F.R . § 171. 1 (g ) and4 9 U.S.C . § 5123 , aperso n mus t "knowingly " violat e th e HM Rt o b e liabl e fo r acivi l penalty . Tli e stature require s tha t th e allege dviolato r

mus t hav e know n th e "fact s givin g rise t o th e violarion. " n2 4 Knowledg e o f

th e la w i s unnecessary , an

dallege dviolator s are liabl e even i f ihe y di dno t

kno w the y wor

e breakin g th e law . n2 5 I n Scof

f H . Smalling , th e Administrato r rejecte dSmalling' s argumen t that h e di dno t

violat e the HM

R "knowingly. " n2 6 'Ilioug h h e claime d"h e di dno t kno w that

firecrackers wer e hazardou s material.s, " n2 7 Smallin g ''readil y admine dtha t

h e ha dactual knowledg e o f

th e faa s givin g ris e t o th e violation--/ . <?. , that h e place dfireworks i

n hi s suitcase , an dthat

h e checke dhi s ba g wit

h th e airline. " n2 8 Thoug h Responden t asserte din hi s emai l n2 9 that h e ha d "completel y lorfgorten ] a

t that momen t tha t the y wer e substance s that coul dno t b e transporte do

n aplane. " n3 0 he con cede dactual knowledg e in tha t h e "thre w th e propan e an dbutan e cylinder s i n [his j duffel bag. " n3 1 Thus , C^omplainan t ha s show n tha

t Responden t

hadactual knowledg e o f

th e fact s givin g ris e t o th e violation—tha t [* 1 O j h e place dth e haz

ardou s material s i

n hi s baggag e andchecke dthat baggag e wit

h American Airlines . n3 2 Complainan t ha s als o show n that , a t .som e earlie r time befor

e h e packe dth e bag , Responden t kne w that

thos e "sub-stance s .. . coul dno t b e trans porte do n aplane. " n3 3

n2 4 4 9 U.S.C . ^5123(!i)(\)iA) . n2 5 Se e liiverdal e Mil h Corp. , FA A Order No . 2003-10 , a

t 5 (Sept . 12 , 2003 ) (citin g Sco » II . Smalling , FA A Orde r No . 1994-31 , a

t 7 (Oct . 5 , 1994)) . n2 6 Smalling , FA

A Orde r No . 1994-31 , a

t 7 . n2 7 hi . at 5 . n2 8 Id . a t 7 , n2 9 Se e supr anot e 1 0 an daccompanyin g text . n3 0 Se e supr anot e 1 2 andaccompanyin g text . n3 1 I d n3 2 Se e .^upr

anote s 8 an d1 2 andaccompanyin g text . n3 3 See.iupr u not e 1 2 andaccompanyin g text . Under Procedural Rul e 13,209(1) , afailur e to file a n answe r t o acomplain t

"whhou t goo dcause " i s ''deeme da n admissio n o f

th e trut h o f eac h allegatio n containe di n th e complaint. " n3 4 I

n addition , "an y [*\\ \party ma y file a n an swer " t o amotion , "wit

h affidavit s o r

othe r evidenc e i

n support o f th e answer , no l late r

tha n 1 0 day s aflc r

servic e o f

a wiiLte n motio n onthatpany. " n3 5 n3 4 14 C.F.R , § 13.209(f) . n3 5 I4C.F.R.? ? 13.218(d) . Responden t

failedt o tak e advantag e o f th e tw o opportunitie s t o challeng e Complainant' s allegations . Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F. R§ 13,209(f) , Responden t admitte dth e trut

h o f eac h allegatio n i

n th e Complain t

b y failin g t o file an answer . Sec

ond , Responden t

faile dt o respon dto . o r

com e forwar

dwit h evidenc e opposing , th e Motio n tha t woul dsuppor

t aversio n o f fact s precludin g summar

y Judgment . Llecau.se Responden t submiiie dnothin g t o rebu t th e evidenc e o r

th e inference s t o b e draw n fro

mit , nothin g i n th e recor dcontradict s th e Complainant' s versio n o f th e facts . Therefore , I findtlia t Re

sponden t violate d4 9 C.F.R , § 171.2(e) .J11/19/201 0 16:2 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S @|016/02 3

Pag e 5 20101AAT,EXIS99 , * Upo n Respondent' s admission s andfailure t o oppos e Complauiant' s supporte dmotio n for summar y judgment . Complainan t

establishe dth e absenc e o f agenuin e issu e o f

material [*12 ] fac t

an di s entitle dt o ajudgmen t a s amatte r o f law a dt o thi s violation . B . Civi l Punaliy . Complainan t

request s apenalty o f

$ 50 0 n3 6 —

areques t that , like th e res t

o f th e Complain t

an dMotion , remain s uncontested .

n3 6 Complain t

a t 3 ; Motio n at

11 . Complainan t

state s that

th e Notic e o f

Propose dCivi l Penalt

y tha t wa s is

suedpropose dacivi l penalt y amount o f S 500 . Motio n at

8 . / . Determinin g th e Statutory Maximwn Fenali)' . Complainan t

assert s tha

t "Responden t

i s liabl e fo

r acivi l penalty o f

no t les s tha n $ 25 0 . . , no r

greate r tha n $ 50,00 0 .. . fo

r eac h violatio n o f

th e Federal hazardou s material s transportatio n la w .. . an dfo r eac h violatio n o f

th e [DO T HMRJ. " n3 7

n3 7 Motio n a

l 8 . Th e statute permit s civi l penaltie s fo r violation s o f

th e ITM Ri n th e rang e o f

a t leas t $ 250 , but

no t more tha n $ 50,000 , fo r each violation , n3 8 When determinin g f' * 13 ] th e amoun t

o f civi l penalty , th e followin g mus t b e considered : "(1 ) th e nature , circumstances , extent , andgravit y o f th e violation ; (2 ) wit

h respec t t o th e violator , th e degre e o f culpa

bility , any histor

y o f prio r violations , th e abilit

y t o pay , an dan

y effect o n the ability t o continu e t o d o business ; an d(3 ) othe r matter s tha

t justic e requires. " n3 9 n38^S'(;.i-.C , ^5/2J(a) . n3 9 4 9 U.S C § 5123(c) . Se e als o 1 4 C.F.R . J } 13,16(c) , listin g th e same factors . 2 . Appropriai e Penalty . l-'A A Gtddeline s an dApplication . Complainan t

a-ssert s tha t th e civi l penalt

y i s appropriat e fo

r the violation , a s th e violatio n constitute da"safet y threa t whos e magnitud e i s unknown " n4 0 an dth e sanctio n wa s assesse di n accordanc e wit

h FA A .sanction guidanc e and i s warrante db y precedent . n4 1

n4 0 Motio n a

t 8 , 9 , n4 l Ibi d [*I4 J Pursuan t t o Procedura l Rules , 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.224(a) , Complainan t mus t sho w th e propose dcivi l penalt y i s appro priate . n4 2 Th e FA

A promulgate dGuidanc e fo r proposin g civi l penaltie s fo r hazardou s material s violation s tha t incor

porat e th e statutor

y an dHM

Rcriteria . n4 3 First , th e FAA consider s variou s aggravatin g andmitigatin g circumstance s relate dt o th e statutor

y penalty factor s an dassign s a n "aggregat e weight " (maxirnun) , moderate , minimum) . n4 4 Second , a"Matrix " n4 5 establishe s apenalty rang e base do n th e typ e o f

violato r andth e typ e o f

violation , whic h i s the n modi

fiedb y th e "aggregat e weight " t o determin e arecommende dpenalt y fo r eac h "violatio n group. " n4 6 Fast , adjustment s are mad e fo

r th e violator' s ability t o pay andfo r correctiv e actions , n4 7 Thi s Guidanc e i s no t bindin g on respondent s o r administrativ e la

w judge s i n settin g penalties , n4 8 n4 2 See . Davi dG . Stout , FAA Orde r No . 1998-12 , a

t 1 2 (Jun e 11 , 1998 ) ("Complainan t bore th e burde n o f establishin g no t

onl y th e violations , bu

t als o th e appropriai e sanctio n amount" ) (citin g Toyot aMoto r Sales , FA

A Orde r No . 1994-28 , a

l 6- 7 (Sept . 30 , 1994)) .J_1/19/201 0 16:2 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A > DM S 0017/02 3

Pag e 6 201 0 FA A LEXI S 99 , * [*I5 ] n4 3 Se e Motio n Ex . 8 , a t C-2 . Exhibi t

8 i s a n extract , consistin g o f

the Cover

Letter , pag e xv , an dAppendi x C , Sanctio n Guidance-Hazardou s Material s Enforcement (page s C- 1 throug h C-17 ) o f FA A Orde r 2150.3B , FA A Complianc e an dEnforcement Progra m(Oct . 1 , 2007 ) [hereinafter "GuidancC'l . n4 4 Guidanc e paras . 6 , a

t C-4 ; 8.a. , a

t C-5 . n4 5 Guidanc e fig. C-1 , a

t C-12 . n4 6 Guidanc e para , 6.c , a

t C-4 , n4 7 Guidanc e para . 6.d , at C-4~C-5 , n4 8 EricSalddo , FAA Docket No . CP08SO0003 , FDM S No . FAA-2008-0234 , Initia l Decisio n of

th e Ad

ministrativ e La

w Judge , a

t 6- 7 & n . 1 (Aug . 1 , 2008) ; Srebbin s Aviation , FA A Docke t No . CP00SW0014 , l-DM S No . FAA-2000-7576 , Initia l Decisio n o f

Chie f Adminislnitiv e La

w Judge , a

t 9 n.5 4 (Aug . 30 , 2004] , Complainan t

argue s tha t

the Guidanc e wa s properl y applie db y assignin g afinal aggregate weigh t o f "lo w moder

ate " t o th e case , n4 9 determinin g th e Responden t to b e aCategor

y A offende

r ("Individual") , nS

O andfinding tha

t th e shipment wa s aCategor

y I I "Undeclare dShipment

Withu i Hazma

t Ouaniit y Limitations. " n5 1 Respondent ha s no t chal

lenge d[*16 ] Complainant' s applicatio n o f the Guidance . n4 9 Motio n at

9 . ii5 0 Id . a t 8 . n5iyrf . at8-9 . A . "Aggregat

e Weight " o f

th e Violation . I n assessin g civi l penalties , th e FA A use s th e statutoty an dregulator y con.sideration s t o determin e th e "aggregate weight " o f

th e violation : "(1 ) th e nature , circumstances , extent ; an dgravit y of th e violation ; (2 ) wit

h respec t t o th e viola

tor , th e degre e o f

culpability , an

y histor y o f prio r violations , th e abilit

y t o pay , an

dan y effec t on the abilit

y to continu e t o d o busines.s ; an

d(3 ) suc h othe r matter s a s justic e ma

y require. " n5 2 However , the Guidanc e als o note s tha t no t al l factor s are l o b e give n equa l weight an dth e final aggregate weight i s "base don th e totality o f th e fact s andcircum

stance s o f th e case. " n5 3 A s the factor s "do no t hav e to b e equall y considered , Complainan t maintain s relativ e prosecu torial discretio n i

n determinin g th e case' s final aggregate weight " n5 4 i n proposin g aleve l o f

civi l penalty . [•17. 1 n5 2 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.16(c) ; Motio n Ex , 8 , para . 8.a,(l) , a t C-5 .

n5 3 Guidanc e par a8.a.(3) , a t C-5 . n5 4 Lambto n Door:, ; FA

A Docke t No . CP00SO0013 , FDM S No . FAA-2000-7454 , Initial Decisio n o f Chie f Administrativ e I .a

w Judge , at

1 0 n.4 8 (Ma

y 7 , 2004) . Se e al.<;

o Motio n a

t Ex . 8 a t C- 8 ("T o determin e th e final aggregate weight , th e agent o r attorne y mus t

exercis e hi s o

r he r discretio n in light

o f the statutoi y factor s and knowledg e o f

th e particula

r case") , (i ) Th e Nature , Ciroumitanccs , Extent , an dGravit y o f th e Violation . Respondent

i s a n individual wh o shippe dth e hazardou s material s fo r personal purposes . Respondent ma y hav e "forgotien " tha

t the substance s anditem s were hazardou s material s but wa. s awar e tha t the y coul dno t

b e transporte do

n aplane . n5 511/19/201 0 16:2 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A • > DM S 0018/02 3

Page ? 20I0FA A LEXI S 99 , *

n5 5 Se e supr anot e 1 2 andaccompanyin g text . Respondent

offere dfo

r air transportatio n i

n commerc e on e packag e containin g thre e different undeclare dhaziirdou s materials . n5 6 Undeclare dshipment s ofhazardou s material s pos e aspecial [* 18 ] risk . n5 7 Th e material s a

t issu e wer e a hazardclass/divisio n 2.1 , "fiammabl e gas. " n5 8 Complainan t acknowledges , an dResponden t doe s no t contest , tha t

thi s substanc e i s a"Categor

y A " material under

th e Guidelines , whic h carrie s amaximu mweiglit , base dupon thei r inheren t danger t o air transportatio n wit

h apotentiall y catastrophi c effect s resultin g in deat h o r injur y t o th e crew , passengers , an dpublic . n5 9 n5 6 Se e supr anote s 6 , 7 , 13 , an d1 4 andaccompanyin g text . n5 7 Inter.'^Tai

e Chem . Co. , FA

A Order No . 2002-29 , a

t 1 6 (Dec . 6 , 2002) ; Phillip s DIdg . Supply , FA A Orde r No 2000-20 , at

1 1 (Aug . 11 , 2000 ) (notin g tha t suc h undeclare dshipment s "increas e Ih c likelihoo do f

injury" ) (quotin g Midtow n Neo

n Sig n Corp. , FA

A Orde r No . 1996-26 , a

t 10-1 1 (Aug . 13 , 1996)) . n5 8 Motio n a

t 9 ; Guidanc e fig. C-2 , a

t C-17 , n5 9 Ibid . Complainan t

andth e FA

A agent foun dth e quantit

y o f hazardou s material t o b e small , justifyin g afina l aggregate weigh t o f moderate . n6 0 Th e Guidanc e consider s package s exceedin g ['•'19 1 the authorize dquantit y limitation s by a significant amoun t t o b e a n aggravatin g factor . n6 1 Moreover , apackag e containin g aforbidde n material i s assigne da maximu mweight . n6 2 However , th e Guidanc e als o recognize s tha t othe r factors , whic h shoul db e identifie dan dex plained , ma

y b e considered . n6 3 Th e Guidance' s exampl e i s " ashipment containin g ad e minimi s quantity o f materia l o r a n amount tha t woul dhav e qualifie dunder th e smal l quantit

y exceptio n or4 9 C.F.R . § 173. 4 ma y presen t amitigatin g facto r if a s aresul t

ther e wa s areduce dris k

to safet y i n transportation. " n6 4 However , class/divisio n 2. 1 material s d o no t qualif y fo r g 173.4a(b)' s small-quantit y exceptio n fo

r u-an.spor t aboardpassenge r

aircraft . n6 0 Motio n at

9 , n6 1 Guidanc e para . 8.b.(2) , a t C-6 . n6 2 I d 116 3 7^ . para , 8,d.(l) , aiC-8 . n6 4 I d Therefore , Respondent' s baggag e containe dtw o hazardou. s materials , propan e an dbutane , forbidden fo

r transporta tio n aboar dapassenge r

aircraft , n6 5 warrantin g amaximumweight . ['*20 i Al l thre e hazardou s material s wer e class/divisio n 2. 1 hazard s nfif i anddi dno t

qualif y fo r asmall-quantit

y exceptio n fo

r transpor t abt)ar dapassenge r

air

craft . However , Complainan t identifie dth e smal l quantit y a s amitigatin g facto r

an dsupporte dth e determinatio n wit h ihe agent' s declaratio n an

dassessmen t

n6 7 reducin g ih c aggregat e weight to "moderate. " n6 5 Se e 4 9 C. f

,R . S 172.101 , listin g "forbidden " o n th e HMRHazardou s Material s Tabl e fo r rhe quantit

y limitation s o

n passenge r

aircraf t o f propan e an

dbutane . n6 6 Se e .s'upr

anote 58 , an daccompanyin g text . n6 7 Complainant' s Motio n a t 9

- Th e hazjirdou s material s wei e offere dfo r shipmen t an dcoul dhav e cause dsevere personal injur y andpropert

y damage . Moreover , th e fact that th e baggag e lacke dmarking s o r label s regardin g th e hazardou s natur e o f it s content s11/19/201 0 16:2 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A . OMS 0019/02 3 Pag e 8 201 0 FA A LEXI S 99 , *

create dseriou s potential fo r harm , becaus e th e airlin e ha dn o notic e t o tak e precaution s that are necessar

y an dprudent whe n iran-iiportin

g flammable an dhazardou s materials . n6 S n6 8 Se e TC I Corp. , FA

A Order No . 1992-77 , a

t 1 3 & . n . 1 7 (Dec . 22 , 1993 ) (discussin g loading , removal , an dspil l respons e option s availabl e t o forewarne dairlin e persomiel) . [*2I ] Fortunately , 'IS A discovere dth e item s an dpotcniial danger wa s averted . However , absenc e o f damag e an

dper sona l injur y wa s merel y fortuitou s an di s no t amitigatin g factor , n6 9 Considerin g th e lack o f damag e andinjury . Com

plainan t foundn o relate daggravatin g factors . n7 0 n6 9 Lambto n Doors , .supranote 54 , a t 1 4 (citin g TC I Corp. , supr anote 68 , a t 14) . Se e als o Guidanc e para.8.b.(3) , a

t C- 7 ("[T]ha

t no damag e occurre da s aresul t o f th e shipmen l i s no t

amitigatin g factor . However , damag e o r han n ma y aggravate th e nature , circumstances , extent , an dgravit y o f th e violation.") . n7 0 Motio n a

t 9 . (ii ) Respondenl'. \Degre e o f Culpability , Histor

y o f Prio r Offenses , Abilit

y to Pay . Th e Complaint , Motion , andsupportin g document s indicat e tha t Respondent

bear s ful l responsibilit

y fo r the action s tha t le dt o th e violations . Therefore , areduce dpenalt y i s inappropriat e i

n thi s cas e ba.se

do n share do r

partia l culpability . n7 1 Althoug h unfamilia

r wit h the HMR , Responden t

wa. s aware tha

t th e sub.stance s coul d[•22 ] no t b e transporte dby air , suggestin g more tha

n aminima

l sanction . Complainan t

offer s n o histor

y o f HM Rviolations ; however , " aviolation

fie e histor y shoul db e the nor

mandwil l no t

b e considere da s mitigatin g a n otherwis e reasonabl e civi l penalty. " n7 2 Last , Responden t

ha s never asserte dan

y inabilit y t o pay th e propose dcivi l penalty . n7 1 Se e Lambto n Doors , supr anote 54 , a t 1 5 (citin g TC

I Corp. , supr anot e 6S , a

t 15-1 7 ("penalt

y reduce d becaus e violation s aros e i

n par t a s aresul t

o f athirdparty' s negligence")) . n7 2 Lambto n Doors , supr anot e 54 , a t 1 5 (citin g TCI Corp. , supr anote 68 , at 20) . (Hi ) Othe r Matter s Tha

t Justic e Ma

y Require . Last , Complainan t

cite s preceden t

tha t warrant s the civi l penalt

y amount . n7 3 Responden t offere dn o othe

r matters , circumstances , o r

fact s tha t justic e might

require t o b e con.sidered , Accordingly , Complainant' s determinatio n o f afinal aggregate weight

o f "lo w moderate " i s appropriate , n7 3 Motio n a

t 9-10 . 

### f23 J B . Applicatio n ofth aMatrix . Th e penalt

y rang e under

th e Guidanc e i s determine dby th e typ e o f violato r andth e typ e o f

violation , i

n accordanc e wit h th e Guidance' s manix . n7 4 n7 4 Se e supr anote 4 6 andaccompanyin g text . (i ) Typ e o f Entity . A Categor y "A " offende

r i s a n "individual, " n7 5 define da.s " ahuma n wh o offer s a.shipmen

t o f hazardou s materia l I n hi s o r he r personal capacity , withou t an y busines s purpos e andno t a.« ; par t o f acommercial enterprise. " n7 6 Respon

dent i s aCategoi y A offender .11/19/201 0 16:2 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S @|020/02 3 Pag e 9 20101AAT,EXIS99 , * n7 5 Guidanc e fig, C-1 , a

t C-12 . n7 6 Complainant' s Motio n a t Ex . 8 a t C-15 . (ii ) Offens e Category . Complainan t

support s it s Categor

y II offens e detenninatio n wit h th e declaratio n n7 7 o f

Agen t Klimas , who treate d th e "aggregat e case " a s aCategor y I I offen.sc base dupo n th e torc h lighter , thoug h th e othe r tw o hazardou s material s (th e propan e [*24

J an dbutane ) offense s were Categor y 111 . n7 8 However , Agen t Klima s an dComplainan t recognize dthat th e propose dcivi l penalty , $ 500 , me t th e Category IT

T minimu mcivi l penalty fo r aCategory A offender , n'7 9 n7 7 A n unswor n declaratio n unde r

penalt y ofperjur y ha s the forc e andeffec t o f aswor n declaration , verifi

cation , certificate , statement , oath , o r affidavit . 2 $ U.S.C . § 1746 . n7 8 Motio n Ex . 9 par

u 2 , a t 1 . n7 9 Motio n a

t 9 , E x 9 par a4 , a

i 2 . Ih e Guidanc e state s that

th e offens e categorie s "addres s th e nature , circum.stances , andgravity o f the particular

of

fense. " n8 0 Unde

r th e Guidance , aCategor

y f l otTcns e i s a

n "Undeclare dShipment

Withi n Hazma

t Qiiantil y Limita

tions, " n8 1 an daCategor

y II I olTens e i s a

n "Undeclare dShipment

Hazma t forbidde n on .. . Passenge r Aircraft. " n8 2 n8 0 Guidanc e para . 6.e. , a t C-4 . nS l Guidanc e fig. C-1 , at

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

t C-16 , describe s Categor

y II a s follows : "If

th e undeclare d shipmen t i.s offere dfor

transportatio n o

n .. . apuwfnj^ w aircraft , th e quantity o f hazardou s material mus t

b e wilhi n th e limitation , per

package , fo

r transportatio n o

n pa.Ksenge

r aircraft , a s establishe di

n th e 4 9 C.l'.K . § 172.10 1 Table " (emphasi s in original) . 1*25 1 n8 2 Guidanc e fig. C-1 , a t C-I2 i para . 9.m. , a

t C-16 , describe, ? Category III a s follows ; "A n undeclare d shipmen t tha t i s offere dfo

r transportatio n o n o r

transporte don apassenge r aircraft , an

dth e hazardou s materia l i s forbidde n i

n ai r transportatio n on passenge r aircraf t (bu t no t i n air transportatio n i

n carg o aircraft) , a s establishe d i n lii c 4 9 C.F.R . § 172.10 1 Table. " Th e HMRHazardou s Material s Tabl e o f sectio n 172.10 1 forbid s th e transportatio n ofpropan e andbutan e b y pas senger aircraft . n8 3 Becau.s e Categor y H offense s are limite dt o hazardou s material s >vithi n th e HM Rquantity limita

tions , ashipmen t

containin g aforhidde n hazardou s material canno t b e aCategor

y I I offense . Accordingly , Complainan t incorrectl y a.ssume s that

Category I

I i s th e appropriat e offens e categor y applie dt o Respondent' s shipment . Respondent offereda n undeclare dshipmen t

fo r transportatio n on apassenger aircraf t an dth e hazardou- s material i s forbidde n i n ai r iTiinsporiation on passenge r aireraft , aCategor

y 11 1 offense . n8 3 4 9 C.F.R , § 172.101 , a t 154,243 . [*26J Accordin g to ih e Guidanc e Matrix , th e total rang e fo r eac h offens e relatin g t o aCategory III undeclare dshipmen t offere dby aCategor

y A violato r

i s S 50 0 t o $ 5,500 . n8 4 Complainan t propose s aminimu mcivi l penalty of. ? 500 . Al

thoug h tha

i i s th e minimu mpenalty suggeste db y th e Cniidance , tha t i s th e penalt

y requeste di n th e Complaint , an dcon sequentl y n o greate r

penalty ca

n b e imposed . n8 4 W . atEx . 8atC-12 .11/19/201' 0 16:2 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A - ^ DM S 0021/02 3

Pag e 1 0 201 0 FA A TFXI S 99,' * Th e circumstance s discusse dabove~a s wel l a s Respondent' s reaso n fo r havin g th e items , th e hast e tha t apparentl y precipitate dhi s inclusio n o f the mi n hi s baggage , andhi s uncontroverte dassertio n tha t h e coul dhav e avoide dconfisca

tio n an dreporting , ha

dsomeon e merel y bee n abl e t o remov e the mfro mth e airport-al l indicat e tha t asignifican t

sanc tion , wit h sufficien t deterrent an dpunitiv e effect , i s appropriate . Accoidliigly , w e conclud e tha t acivi l penalty i n th e amoun t o f $ 50 0 shoul db e assessed . n8 5 n8 5 Thi s decisio n ma

y b e appeale dto the Adminisiraio r o f the FAA , Th e Notic e o f

Appea l mus t b e filedno t late r tha n 1 0 day s afte

r servic e o f

thi s decisio n (plu s five additiona l days , i f thi s decisio n i s serve db y mail) . 1 4 C.F.R . § § 13.233(a) , 13.211(e) . Th e appeal mu.s t b e perfecte dwit

h awriuc n brie f

o r memorandu mno t

late r tha n 5 0 day s afte

r servic e o f

thi s decisio n (plu s five additional days , i f thi s decisio n i s serve db

y mail) , 1 4 C.F.R . § § 13.233(c) , 13211(e) . Th e Notic e o f Appea l an dbriefo r memorandu mmus t

b e eithe r (a ) maile dto th e Federal Aviatio n Admini.straiion , 800 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Washington , D C 20591 ; Altenlion ; Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AOC-430 , Wilbur

Wright Building-Suit e 2W1000 , o r (b ) delivere dpersonall y o r vi aexpedite dcourie r .service t o the Federa

l Aviatio n Administration , 60 0 Independenc e Ave. , S.W„ Wilbur Wrigh t Building-Suit e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 , Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 . 1 4 C. I '.R , § § 13.233(a) , 13.210(a)(2) , (I) . A cop y o f th e Notic e o f

Appea l an dbrie f o r memorandu mshoul dals o b e .sen t t o counse l lo r th e FA A i n thi s proceeding . 1 4 C.I'.R . § 13.233(a) , [*27 1 S O ORDERED . Ronni e A . Yoder Chie f Administrativ e I ,a

w Judg e Lega l Topics : Fo r relate dresearc h andpractic e materials , se e th e followin g lega l topics ; Transportatio n LawAi r

TransportationChartersTransponatio n I .awAi r TransponationCommcrcial AirlinesLuggageGen

era l OvervicwTransportatio n LawCairie r Dutie s & I.iabilitiesHazardou s Material s11/19/201 0 16:2 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A •> • DM S 0022/02 3 

# LexisNexis" " 2 o f 10 1 DOCUMENT S I n th e Matter

o f Airtra n Airways , Inc. , Respondent Docket No . CP10SO000 2 Civi l Penalt

y Proceeding ; DM S No . FAA-2010-019 3 irNITE D STATE S DEPARTMENT O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERAL AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S 201 0 FA A LEXIS 10 6 Ma y 19,201 0 ACTION : ['^I ] ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDGE' S ORDERDLNVrM G MOTIO N FO

RDECISIO N O

N THE PLEADING S AND GRANTIN G MOTION FO R TTEARTN G O

N SANCTIO N ONL

Y ISSUEDBY : Isaac D . Benkin , Administrativ e La w Judg e OPINION : I n thi s case , th e Federal Aviatio n Administrafio n ("FAA " o r "Complainant" ) ha s sought t o recover

a$ I5,OCI O civi l pen alt y fi-o mth e Respondent , AirTra n Airways , Inc . ("Respondent " o r "AirTran") . Th e FA

A ha s charge dAi r

Ira n wit h vio

latin g th e hours-of-servic e restriction s applicabl e t o th e us e o f on e ofit s fliglil attendants . Thos e re.striction s ar c foun di n § 121.46 7 ofth e Federal Aviatio n Regulation s ("EAR") , 14C.F.R. § 121.467 . Th e Respondent

fileda n answe r t o th e FAA' s complaint . Th e answer admine dal l o f

th e factua l allegation s o f

th e complaint bu t interpose da

n affitmativ e defense . Ih e affirmativ e defens e claime dtha t th e civi l penalt

y sought b y the FA A wa s "excessiv e andunwarranted, " l h e Respondent als o requeste da

n admiiiislraiiv e hearing . Th e cas e wa s as signe dt o m

e fo r th e purpos e o f

providin g the hearin g sough t b y AirTra

n an dissuin g a

n initia l decisio n base don th e evidenc e acquire ddurin g th e hearing . Th e FA A then filed amotio n for

adecisio n o

n th e pleading s or , i

n the alternative , fo

r adeterminatio n ['*2

] tha t th e hearin g woul ddea

l onl y wit h th e issu e o f

th e appropriat e amount

o f th e civi l penalt

y t o b e assessed . Th e Respondent submitte da

n oppositio n to the motion . Th e Respondent' s oppositio n concede dtha t on th e merit s o f

th e complaint' s clau n tha t AirTran ha

dviolate dth e hours-of-scrvic e rule s wit h respec t t o th e flight

attendan t identifie db y th e FAA , there wer e no issue s o f

maieria l fact t o b e decided . AirTra

n i n elTecl agree dtha

t i t hadrequire dth e fligln anendan t t o excee dth e limitation s i

n ? 121.46 7 o f

the FAR . However , AirTran als o argue dthat th e ( S 15,000 ) sanctio n sough t by th e FA A wa s excessive , an

dtha t th e agenc y improperl y electe dto us e it s autltorit y t o exac t acivi l penalt

y fo r th e viola

tion . "Responden t

believe s tha

t th e factor s iraditionall y relie dupo n b y Complainan t

t o arriv e al a

n appropriat e sanctio n i n matter s simila

r t o th e on e befor

e thi s Cour

t cal l fo r th e impo.sition o f

aLeUe r ofCorrectio n o r

acivi l penalt

y much les s tha n th e $ 15,000 sought. " Th e Complainant' s motio n paper s purpor t t o sho w tha t

th e amount

o f th e penalt y i t ha s sought

wa s calculate din ac cordanc e wit

h FA A Oider2l.50.3B , effectiv e Octobe r I , 2007 . Th e I'A

A pouit s ou

t tha t Ordef2l50.3 B [•*3

] contain s guidanc e o

n th e matter

of sanction s fo

r us e by FA

A employee s involve di

n th e invcstigaiio n an

dprosecutio n o f

en forcement cases . It als o note s that

i n Folsom' s Ai r

Service . Inc. . I'A A Order No 2008-1 1 (>lovember

6 , 200S) , the Ad

ministrato r

hel dtha t Order No . 2150.3 D retlect s th e Administrator' s genera l view. s abou t

the civi l penall y rungc s tha t are appropriat e fo

r differen t type s of violations . Tru e a s tha

t ma y be , i t remain s clea

r tha t administrativ e law judge s are no t boun db y th e content s o f

Order 2150,313 , n l andthat

th e Responden t

i s entitle dt o ahearin g on th e questio n whethe r S 15,00 0 o

r some lesser

su mi s th e11/19/201 0 18:2 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A •> • DM S 0023/02 3

appropriat e sanctio n fo

r the violatio n i

t committed . Thi s mean s tha t ther e ar e dispute dissue s o f materia l fac t tha t mus t b e plumbe di

n orde r t o arriv e a

t th e appropriat e sanction . T t follow. s that , althoug h th e FAA' s motio n t o limi t the hearin g to th e issu e o f

sanction. s mus t

h e granted , ther

e remain s a

n issu e o f ih e appropriat e sanctio n thai ca n b e decide donly afte r th e hearin g on tha

t issu e i s held . n l Se e Eri c ,'ialcido , 200 S l')OT Av. lexi s /rt " (initial decision) ; Lambto n Doors . FA A Docke t No . CP03SO001 3 (Ma

y 7 , 2004 ) (initia

l decision) ; Airwav S Froiaht Corp. . FA

A Docke t No . CP99002 1 (December 29 , 200 0 (initia

l decision) ; Stebbin s Aviation . Inc . FAA Docke t No . CPOOSW001 4 (Augus t 30 , 200 4 (initial Decision) , [*4 ] 1 s o ruling , I wis

h l o mak e i t clea r tha t th e only issu e remainin g i s th e amount o f th e civi l penall y t

o b e assessed . I

t i s well-settle dthat

th e FAA' s determinatio n t o institute acivi l penalt y proceedin g rathe r

tlia aemployin g some lesser for mo f sanctio n (suc h a s aletter

o f concciion ) i s amatte r

conmiitte dt o th e agency' s soun ddiscretion . I t cannot , and wil l not , b e reviewe db y a n adminisn-ativ e la

w judg e conductin g the hearin g under th e rtiles i

n Subpar t G o f I'ar t 1 3 o f th e FAA' s regulations . Offshor e Air . FA A Orde r No . 2002-7 , 200 2 Wl . 1042304 a t I (Apr . 16 , 2002) ; Glenn E . Wvalt . FA A Orde r No . 92-73 , 199 2 W

L 73322 0 {Dt:c . 21 , 1992) : BMion-Main e Ait-wav s Corp. . FA A Docket No . CP0S5 . 200 8 W L 348580 2 a l 2 (Aug . 8 , 2008 ) (inhial decision) . I'or thi s reason , evidenc e regardin g th e FAA'. s decisio n t o us e it s civi l penalt y powe r rathe r tha n som e othe r

sanctio n wil l no t

b e relevan t

i n the upcomin g hearing . Fo r th e reason s set

forl h above , the FAA' s motio n fo r decisio n on the pleading s i s denied , an dtli e FAA' s motio n t o limit th e hearin g t

o th e issu e o f

th e appropriat e amount

o f th e civi l penalt

y ['*5 ] t o b e assesse di s granted . I T I S S O ORDERED . liCga l Topics : For relate dresearc h andpractic e materials , se e th e followin g lega l topics : Transportatio n LawAi r

TransponatiouPersoimelFligli t AttendantsTransportatio n LawAir TransportationU.S . Federa l Aviatio n AdministrationCivi l PenaltiesTransportatio n LawAir TransportationU.S . f-'cdera l Aviatio n AdministrationDu

tie s & Power