U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 

## DEC- S2014 Alaskan Region Office of the Regional Counsel

CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 ATTN: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 Re: Intbe Matter ofSea Hawk Air, Inc. Case No. 2011NM730060 Dear Sir or Madam: 222 W. 7th Avenue #14 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Phone: (907) 271-3570 Fax: (907) 271-2800 Email: craig.black@faa.gov 

# RECEIVED DEC 1 6 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET

We have received notification that Sea HawkAir, Inc., requested a hearing in the above-referenced case. Enclosed are the original and one copy ofthe Complaint in tbe above-referenced proceeding as required by§ 13.208(a) ofthe Rules ofpractice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 C.F.R. Part 13, Subpart G. By copy ofthis letter, the Complaint is being served on Respondent as required by§ 13.208(b). The FAA requests thatthe hearing in this matterbe held in Anchorage, Alaska, and expects that the hearing will last one day. Please address all communications for the FAA to Howard L. Martin, Jr., Regional Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, Office oftbe Regional Counsel, AAL-7, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587. HOWARD L. MARTIN, JR. Regional Counsel
By:
Enclosures cc: John L. Wright, Esq. (with copy ofFAR 13.16 and Subpart G ofPart 13)

### In the Matter of:
SeaHawkAir, Inc. Judge NotAssigned U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

# RECEIVED DEC 16 2014 HEARING DOCKET FAA DocketNo. Unassigned

COMPLAINT The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), bycounsel, hereby files its Complaint, pursuant to Rule 208 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.P.R.§ 13.208), and states as follows: 

### I. On Aprill6, 2013, Respondent was advised through a Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty that the FAAproposed to assess a civil penalty in

### the amount of$36,000. OnNovember 4, 2014,aFinal Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty in the amount of$36,000 was issued. On November 24, 2014, Respondent submitted a writtenrequest for a hearing. 

### II. 1. Onor aboutApri122, 2011, Respondent offered to Alaska Airlines an eight-piece cargo shipmentfor air transport from Kodiak, Alaskato Anchorage, Alaska ("the shipment"). 2. The Air Waybill, which an employee or other agent ofRespondent apparently named Kiowa Oliver signed to accompany the shipment, no. 027-7217 1923 ("the waybill"),described the nature ofthe shipment as "HUNTING GEAR" and listed the dimensions ofthe eight pieces. 3. In offering the shipment, Respondent's employee or other agent initialed the portion ofthe waybill that reads "THIS SHIPMENT DOES NOT CONTAIN DANGEROUS GOODS", thereby representing thatthe shipment did not contain dangerous goods.
4. The shipmentincluded tenrounds ofFederal ammunition ("the ammunition") and one box ofFederal primers ("the primers") (collectively "the items").
5. The items are classified as hazardous materials under § 172.101 ofthe United States Department ofTransportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), 49 C.F.R Chapter I, Subchapter C (Parts 171.80).
6. The ammunition's proper shipping name is "Cartridges, Small Arms." Itis inhazardous class 1.4S and packing group II, and has an assigned identification number ofUN0044.
7. The primers' proper shipping name is "Primers, cap type." They are inhazard class 1.4S and packing group II and have an assigned identification number ofUN0044.
8. Respondent offered the shipment for transportation by air withoutproperly providing in the shippingpaper any ofthe following: a description ofthe items; an emergency response telephone number; the assigned identification munber, proper shipping name, orhazard class 2for the items; the total net mass ofthe items perpackage; a statement indicating that the shipment is withinthe limitations prescribedfor eitherpassenger and cargo aircraft orcargo aircraft only; the shipper's certificationrequired bythe HMRs; ortwo copies ofthe shipper's certification.
9. Respondent offered the shipment for transportation in a non-bulk packaging without marking the package withthe proper shipping name and identification for the items.
10. Respondent offered the shipmentfor transportation without labeling the package as specified inthe HMRs.
11. Respondent offered the shipment for transportation without providing an emergency response telephone number thatwas monitored at all t:mes the shipment was intransportation by a personwho was either knowledgeable ofappropriate emergencyresponse and incident mitigation information for the items or had immediate access to such a person. 

### III. 1. Byreason ofthe foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the following Department ofTransportation Hazardous Materials Regulations: (a) Section 171.2(e) inthat Respondent offered a hazardous material for transportation in commerce withoutproperly classing, describing, packaging, marking, labeling, or otherwise placingthe hazardous material in condition for shipment as 3

### required or authorized by the applicable requirements ofthe HMRs or an exemption or special permit, approval, orregistration issued under either the HMRs or 49 C.P.R. Chapter I, Subchapter A; (b) Section 172.200(a) inthat Respondent offered hazardous material for transportation without describing the hazardous material on the shipping paper inthe manner required by subpart C ofthe HMRs; (c) Section 172.301(a) in that Respondent offered a hazardous material for transportation in a non-bulk packaging without marking the package withthe proper shipping name and identification number for the hazardous material; (d) Section 172.400(a) in that Respondent offered a hazardous material for transportation in a non-bulkpackaging without labeling the package as specified in the HMRs; and (e) Section 172.604(a) inthat Respondent offered a hazardous material for transportation without providing an emergency response telephone number that was monitored at all times the shipment was in transportation by a person who was either knowledgeable ofappropriate emergency response and incident mitigation information for the items orhas irumediate access to such a person.
4

### IV. 1. Under 49 U.S.C. § 5123(a)(l) and 14 C.P.R.§ 13.305(d), Respondent is liable for a civil penalty ofat least $250 ($450 for training violations) butnot more than $50,000 (or $100,000 for violations resulting in death, serious illness, or severe injury to any person, or substantial destruction ofproperty) for each violation ofthe HMR.
2. Under the facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civil penalty of$36,000 is appropriate. WHEREFORE, the Federal Aviation Administration, by counsel, respectfully requests that the administrative lawjudge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty inthe amount of$36,000. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 

# 'tS -f:.b_day ofDecember 2014.



### 5 HOWARD L. MARTIN, JR. Regional Counsel
By:CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: Sea Hawk Air, Inc. Case No. 2011NM730060 FAA DocketNo. To Be Assigned I hereby certifY that onthis date I served a copy ofthe FAA's Complaint and a copy ofthe foregoing letterby sending thembypostage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: Sea HawkAir, Inc. c/o John L. Wright The Law Office ofJohn L. Wright, P.C. 11705 Airport Way, Suite 307 Broomfield, CO 80021 I further certifY that on this date I have s<:rved the original ofthe foregoing letter and the original and one copy ofthe FAA's Complaintbypostage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000

Office ofthe Regional Couns 222 West 7th Avenue #14 6 

# I1e. 

# ? ;;o!.t; Date I