02/18/2010 09:35 FAX 2024935142 FAA .. OMS ~ 002/022 

02/04/2010 15'29 FAX 847 294 7498 FAA REa COUNSL AGL7 oo:.uo~~ 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


OFFICE OF HEARINGS 


WASHINOTON, DC 


Federal Aviation Administration >10

* 

Complainant ... 

v. *' 

• FAA Docket No. CP09GL0004 

Federal Express Corporation * PAA Case No. 20090L700396 

OMS No. FAA-2009-Q097 

Respondent II 

* *****.~ ••****.*~.* •••* •• *.** ••• *•••*~ 

ludgeRichard C. Good.win 

POST-HEARING IJRlEF OF CLOSING ARGUMI'NT 

At the conclusion ofthe October 29,2009 hearing, the Honorable Judge asked the 

parties to file brtefs on the issues. Pursu.ant to Section 13.230(c) ofthe Rules ofPrac:tice 

in FAA Civil Penalty Actions (14 C.F.R. § 13.230(0), Complainant, by and through the 

undersigned counsel, hereby files this Post-Hearing Brief ofClosing Argument. 

L STATEMENT 01 THE CASE 

The FAA's Complaint oontained the following factual allegations and regulatory 

violations: 

1. 	 On or about September 10-14,2007, an FAA special agent conducted an 

inspection of shipments accepted into the transpotTation system by Federal Express 

Corporation (Fed Ex). The inspection took. place at the Fed Ex facility located at 

6648 South Perimeter Road. Indianapolis, Indiana 46241. 
02/18/2010 09:35 FAX 2024935142 FAA 	 TOMS lit! 003/022 

02/04/2010 15:29 F~~ 847 294 7498 FAA REa COUNSL AGL7 raJ 003/022 

2 

2. 	 Thirty.six. domestic shipments were examined during the inspection. Six shipments 

containing ha2ardous materials were accepted by Fed Ex in non-UN specification 

marked packaging, and one shipment containing hazardous materials was accepted 

without an "overpack" marking. 

3. 	 The seven shipments were accepted at three separate loeations over a two day 

period. AU seven shipments were transported in air commerce without meetin~; the 

hazardous material regulations. 

4. 	 Five ofthe shipments were offered by Advance Chemistry and Technology 

Midwest, eaeh shipment containing .71 liters ofa resin solution, which is classified 

as hazardous materials Wlder the Department ofTransportation Hazardous 

Material Regulations (49 C.P.R. § ] 12.101). The proper shipping name forthese 

materials is R.esin SolutiOn, Class 3, UN 1866, Packing Group II. 

5. 	 These shipments were recorded by Fed Ex on air wa.ybill numbers 7797 1263 

0279, 7925 5911 3189, 7924 15966506, 19176029 7544, 79116029 7588 and 

were transported. in air commerce on Fed Ex flights 1608, 2246, and 2435 from 

Earth City, Missouri to Indianapolis, Indiana on Septe:ll'lber 11, 2007. 

6. 	 One shipment was offered by Dow Coming Corporation and contained .4 

kilograms of a flammable soHd, which is classified as hazardous materials under 

the Department of Transportation Hazardous Material Regulations (49 C.F.R. § 

172.101). The proper shipping name for this material is Flamxnable Solid, organic, 

n.o.s., cyclosiloxane, Class 4.1, UN 1325, Packing Group II. 
02/18/2010 09:35 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS III 004/022 

02/04/2010 15:29 FAX 947 294 7499 FAA REG eOUNSL A8L7 III 004/022 

3 

7. 	 This shipment was recorded by Fed Ex on air waybill number 9360 43446262 and 

was transported in air commerce on Fed Ex flights 1641 and 1747 from Freeland. 

Michigan to Indianapolis, Indiana on September 12> 2007. 

8. 	 Tllis shipment was declared as an. "Overpack". but the outer packaging wa'1 n()t 

marked 'With an "Overpack." marking. 

9. 	 One shipment was offered by Custom-PAK Ptoducts and contained 2.831iters of 

isopropyl alcohol. which is classified as hazardous materials under the Department 

of Transportation Hazardous Material Regulations (49 C.F.R. § 172.101). The 

proper shipping name for this malerial is Isopropyl Alcohol) Class 3, UN 1219, 

Packing Group II. 

10. This shipment was recorded by Fed Ex on air waybill nWllber 7917 6049 024'J and 

was transported in air commerce on Fed Ex flights 1632 and 1728 from 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin to Indianapolis, Iniliana. on September II, 2007. 

11. Fed Ex offered hazardous materials for transportation by air in commerce when the 

materials were not properly classed. de!cribed, packaged, marked, labeled. and in 

the (;:ondition for shipment as required or authorized by the hazardous materials 

.regulations. 

12. Fed Ex accepted seven shipments of hazardous materials for shipment by air in 

nonaUN specific;:ation marked packages contra.I}' to the hazardous materials 

regulations. 

Because of the facts stated above, FAA contends that Fed Ex violated the following 

Department ofTransportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (Title 49 ofthe Code of 

Federal Regulations): 
02/18/2010 09:35 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 005/022 

02/04/2010 15:29 FAX 847 294 748B FAA REa COUHSL AGL7 005/022 

4 


L 	 Section] 71.2(e) (49C.F.R. § 171.2(e»), in that Fed Ex offered and accepted· 

hazardous materia.l for transportation by air in commerce when the material was 

not pr.operly.deseri.bed, packaged, marked,and in the condition for 5hipment a:s 

required or authorized under the hazardous material regulations (49 C.F.R. § 171, 

et seq.). 

2. 	 Seotion 111.11 (49 CFR Part 171.11). in that Fed Ex accepted a hazardous 

material for tTansportati.on -without ensuring that it was properly packaged, 

marked, labeled, classified, described and certified on a shipping paper a.nd 

otherwise in a condition for shipment as required by the ICAO Teclmical 

InstrU~tions; speoifically on point are section 4;1.1.2, section 5; 2.4.9, and section 

6; 2.1.1 ofthose Instructions regarding the requirement fOT UN spccitication 

packaging and an "Overpack." marking on the shipment. 

3. 	 Section 175.3 (49 C.F.R.. § 175.3). in that Fed Ex offered and accepted hazardous 

material for transportation by air in commerce when the material was not prop~rly 

prepared for shipment in accordance with the hazardous material regulations. 

4. 	 Section 175.30(a)(3) (49 C.F.R. § 175.30(a)(3)), in that Fed Ex accepted 

hazardous material for transportation by air in commerce when the m.aterial was 

not properly marked and labeled in accordance with subparts D and E ofpart 172~ 

and placarded in accordance lJIith SUbpart F of part 172 ofthe hazardous matel'ial 

regulations. 

The FAA presented two witnesses during the hearing. The fir.;t witness that testified 

before the coun was FAA Se(luxity Specialist, Cherice McDsniel (McDaniel). McDaniel 

testified that on or about September 10-14,2007, she conducted an inspection at the F'ed 

Ex Indianapolis Hub and discovered several acc~ptanc¢ violations of the Federal 
02/18/2010 09:35 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS 008/022 

02/04/2010 15:28 FAX B47 294 7498 FAA REG COU~SL ABL7 iii 008/022 

5 

Hazardous Material Regulations (FHMR). Tr.30. There were six (6) packages that did 

not have the required UN· specification packaging. Tr. 31. Advanced Chemistry and 

T cohnology was the sbippeI on five (S) ofthe packages that were not packaged in th.: 

UN- specifica~on packaging and therefore) did not have the required UN-speci.fication 

markings. Tr. 34. McDaniel testified that the shipments ccmtained. a Class 3 flammable 

liquid. a. resin solution. Tr. 33. These five packages had:flown to the Indiana.polis Hub 

and had been accepted by Fed Ex into the transportation system at another point. Tr. 36. 

She testified tbQt all five ofthe packages had a Fed Ex acceptance stamp on its packeLging 

to show that the package had been accepted into the tranSportation system by Fed Ex, Tr. 

36. 

McDaniel 'teStified that during the investigation she discovered Fed Ex had accepted a 

shipment of a. flammable solid from Dow Coming Corporation that was missing an 

overpack marking. TT. 39. She described the shipment as a fiberboard box that had a, 4,1 

label with the appropriate UN number and proper shipping name, which was UN 1325, 

flammable solid, organic. Tr. 38. This package had a Fed Ex employee acceptance stamp 

on the packaging showing that the shipment had been a.ccepted into the transportation 

system by Fed E~. Tr. 40. McDaniel testified that the shipment was missing the required 

overp~k marking. Tr. 41. 

McDaniel further testified that dwing the investigation she discovered a shipment from 

Custom Pack Products that did not have the required UN-specification markings. Tr. 43.. 

The package was a fiberboard box with the Class 3 flammable liquid label, the UN 1219 

marking. and the prop or shipping name. Tr. 41. This shipment was not packaged in the 

UN-specification packaging and therefore, did not have t:he required UN- specificaticln 

marking. TI'. 43. 

-"-"­
02/18/2010 09:35 FAX 2024935142 FAA .. OMS 141 007/022 

007/022 02/04/2010 15:29 FAX 841 284 7498 FAA REG COUNSL AGL7 

6 

McDaniel testified that each of the packages not only were accepted for transportation 

in air, but thc;y all were transported in air by Fed Ex. Tr, P,51. The evjdence ofthe 

!1h.ipments air transportation, the fliGht numbers for each shipment. was provided by Fed 

Ex in its Letter of R.esponse (LOR). Tr. 48-51. McDaniel testified to the LOR t.h.at she 

re<:eived by David Littlejohn. the Fed Ex dangerous goods advisor. Tr, 48-53. The LOR 

was admitted into evidence as Compla.l.twlt's Exhibit 5. Tr. 53. The letter explained that 

each ofthe hazardoug material regulation violations occurred due to mistake5 by both the 

shipper and the Fed Ex: employees. Tr.52-53. 

The second witness that testified for the FAA was Hazardous Material Specialist. Randy 

DrymiIler (Drymillc:r). Tr. 119. Drymiller ex.plAincd that he performed a teclmical review 

of the enforcement package that MoDaniel submitted to the Ha.:z::ma:t Branch manager and 

signed off on thepaekage on behalf of the acting Hazmat Branch Manager. Tr. 123. 

Drymiller also testified to the factors that are considered when a civil penalty is proposed 

fot' violating the FHMR. Tr. 124. One ofthe aggravatil1g factors DrylIliller testified to 

was the severity ofthe hazardous materials bein& shipped. rr. 125. Drymiller explained 

that the shipments contained flammable liquids and solids, both are categorized by the 

FAA as being high risk. The improper acceptancB and transportation of high risk 

hazardousmaterlals is considered an aggravating factor when detennining sanction. Tr. 

125. Further he stated that a shipment offiammable liquids in non UN-specification 

packaging could have a tendency to leak an.d cause a fire aboard an aircra.ft with 

catastrophic results. Tr. 125-126. With regard to sanction, Drymiller testified that he 

considered the violation history of Fed Ex. Tr. 125. He stated that a violation history 

.shows a trend of non-compliance with the FHMR and is considered an aggravating factor. 
02/18/2010 09:35 FAX 2024935142 FAA .. OMS 008/0. 

~008/022 02/04/2010 15:29 FAX 841 264 7498 FAA RES COUHSL AGL7 

7 

Tr. 126. DrymHler explained that the proposed oivil penalty $182~500 was not the . 

maximwn allowedby law in that the maximum is $350,000. Tr. 127. 

n. ARGUMENT; 

Liability attaches in eases arising under the FHMA under the following 

circumstances prescribed in 49U.S.C. §5123(c): 

'L •• •Aperson acts knoWingly when. 

(A) the person has actual knowled~ofthe faots giving rise to the violation; or 

(B) a reasoDible person sewin the citcums'tA!!.c~ and exercising reasonable 

care would have that knowledge." 

The DOT regulations put the burden on Fed Ex (the acceptor and air carrier) to 

p:roperly transpon hazardous materials. The Code ofFeder.al Regulations. at 49 C.P.R. 

§175.1 (b) prescribes in relevant part that this part applies to the offering, acceptance, and 

traruportation of hazardous materials in commerce by aircraft. tOt from or within the 

United States, and to any aircraft ofUnited States Registry anywhere in air commerce .. .it 

applies to any person who performs, attempts to perform any function subject to this 

subchapter, including - air carriers, indirect air carriers, and freight fOI"W'arders and their 

fight and non,flight employees, agents, subsidiary and contract personnel (including 

cargo, passenger, and baggage aeceptanoe, handling, loading and llPloading personnel). 

Additionally. 49 C.F.R §175.3 prescribes that a lw:ardous materia.l that is not preparj~d 

for shipment may not be offered or aGcepted fOT transportation or transported aboard an 

aircraft. 

Fed Exshould have been highly alert to the fact that it. as the acceptor, it had to 

make sure that the hazardous material shipments were properly packaged and marked 

before they were accepted into air commerce and transponed. In this ce.se~ Fed Ex 
REB COUNSL AGL7 

+ OMS 009/0 

009/022 

02/18/2010 09:36 FAX 2024935142 FAA 

02/04/2010 15.29 FAX 847 294 7498 FAA 

8 

accepted and transported several shipments in air commerce that were not packaged (md 

marked in accordance with the FHMR. 

The FAA has proven that Fed Ex violated the FHMR when they accepted and 

transported severa! shipments of hazardous material that were not properly packa.ged or 

properly marked. These violations were proven by the testimony or the Cherice 

McDaniel, the FAA hazardous material specialist who discovered the violations during a. 

routine inspection oftbe fed Ex transportation hub and the exhibits entered into 

evidence~ She testified to the improper packaging and markings on each one ofthe 

shipments and explained the significance ofeach violation. 

There was no testimony at the hearing or any other evidence presented that th': 

FHMR were notviolated by Fed Ex. In fact. Complainant's Exhibit 5 that was admitted 

into evidence was a letter written by Fed Ex, explaining how each ofthe violations 

occurred. The general explanation was that the viol&tiollS occurred because ofmistakes 

made by various Fed Ex. employee3. At no time before 01' during the hearing did Fed :Ell; 

deny that the violatians occUlTed. In fa.c~ during the hearing there was testimony from 

David Littlejohn, Fed Ex.~s dangerous goods advisor. that he did not dispute the tact that 

the packages were not in UN~ specification boxes when they should have been or that the 

overpack marking WeB properly on the shipment as required. Tr. 195·198 

Therefore~ the FAA has proven that Fed Ex violated the FHMR and should bel 

proposed a civil penalty in accordance with the law. 

IV. Civil PellailY 

A. penalty Calculation 

The FAA is seeking a penalty ot'S182,500. The current FAA policy we.nt into 

~ffect on April 21, 1999. (priortothattiIne a "to1ality ofthe circumstances" approach 
02/18/2010 08:38 FAX 2024935142 FAA .,. OMS 

02/04/2010 15:30 FAX 847 294 7496 fAA REB COUNSL AGL7 

9 

was used.) The policy is published as Change 26 to FAA Order 21 SO.3A and in the 

Federal Register at 7l Fed. Reg. 285178 (Attached), Under this policy) a civil penalty is 

determined by analyzing the statutory factOf$ present in 49 U.S.C. 521 3 (a) including the 

natu:re~ ciTcumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, the degree ofculpability ofthe 

violator, any history ofpast violations, the ability to pay. any effect on the ability to 

oontinue to do business7. and other matters as justice may require. The statutory factors· 

are then given a specific weight to determine the aggregate weight of the case. Finally, B 

matrix is used to f'wther narrow the penalty range, 

Under 1:hJ:l current policy. the first category of factors (nature, circumstances, 

extent. and gravity ofthe violation) analyzes the nature ofthe material itself and the 

potential dangers it presented. This case involved numerous .t1ammable liquids and 

flammable solIds. Under the current policy this material is classitied as a "Category A" 

material carrying a "maximum" final aggregate weight. The hazardous material that was 

accepted and transported was not in the proper paokaging which could lead to the 

packaging being compromised. This is further aggravation and shows the gra.vity ofthe 

violation. 

Next. the policy requires the:: FAA to consider the violator's degree of culpability. 

Fed Ex is one ofthe world's largest shippers. Fed Ex accepts and places into air 

commerce ten ofthousands ofhazardous material shipments each day. They have 

extensive training programs and systems put into place to accept and transport haZardous 

ma.terial. Due to their knowledge and expertise in the area ofacceptance and 

transportation ofhazardous materials their degree of culpabUity is high. In addition. the 

sheer volume ofhaz:nrdous materials placed into air commerce by Fed Ex expands their 

Culpability. It stands to reason that due care is necessary and expected with each 
02/18/2010 08:38 FAX 2024935142 FAA oj, DMS ~Oi 

011/
 02/04(2010 15:30 PAX 847 294 749B FAA REG caUHSL AGL7 

10 

shipm.ent and mat the more hazardous material pla~ed into air commerce the more likely 

a hazardous material accident will oceur. 

Violation history is also a factor in detennining the culpability .of the violator. 

Fed Ex has an extensive violation history. Tr. 93. During the hearing, McDaniel testified 

that when looking at only acceptance violations, Fed Ex had fifteen (15) from the years 

2004-2007. The outcome of the violations were that seven (7) were civil penalty actif)DS 

and eight (8) were administrative actiollS. Tr~93~ 

The final aggrega.te weight ofthe case was detennined to be maximum. After 

assigning an aggregate weight of maximum to the case, the next step is to refer to the 

penalty matrix. The highest maximum amount .allowed by law is $50.000 for each of the 

seven (7) Shipments. The FAA would have been justified in oh()osing the maximum of 

the range for seven violations in the8llccpt8nce group, which would produce the am01Ult 

0($350.000. The 'FAA considered the corrective action taken and the severity ofthe 

violations along with the aggravating factors and assigned a penalty of $32,500 per 

shipment violation, which yielded a penalty of $182,500. 

R.espondentne'V'er alleged that it does not have the ability to pay the proposed 

civil penalty of S182,SOO. 

Respondent's ability to pay is not in dispute in this case. AlthQugh ability to pay 

is one ofthe statutory factors, this factor cannotacoura~ly be considered until 

Respondent raises the issue. It is in the nature of an aff11':lnative defense, which must be 

proved by responden.t. See, In the Matter ofDominion Concepts. Inc., FAA Order No .. 

2005-4, (March 10, 200S), at 10, n. 16). 
02/18/2010 09:38 FAX 2024935142 FAA .. OMS 14ll012/022 

02/04/2010 .15:30 FAX 847 2847499 FAA REG C~U"SL AGL7 ~0121022 

11 

This issue was raised in In the Matter ofNorthwest Airlines, Ine., FAA Order No. 

90-37 (November 7, 1990), That case aoknowledges his Honor'S position that this· 

statutory factor only applies to. hazardous materials cases because it is in the language of 

the Act. However, the Administrator stated in No;ahwest that"[t)hi5 decision should not 

be read as requiring the prosecutor at a hazardous material case hearing to offer evidence 

on each o~the specified considerations." (at 14). For example, ifRespondent does not 

raise th& issue of "other matters as justice may require", which could include many 

factors that complainant could never know, complainant cannot prescmt eviden~ on that 

statutory factor. Complainant therefore~ is not required to present evidence on 

Respondent's ability to pay when Respondent did not wish to raise thaI issue as an 

affirmative defens~. 

V. CONCLUSION 

The transportation ofhazardous materials is inherently dangerous. A ha2MdollS 

material is defined in the HMRs as l'a substanoe or material that the Secretary of 

Transportation has determined is capable of posing an 1.Ulfeasonable risk to health;. safety, 

and property when. transported in cotnJ:nerce". and has been so designated. 49 C.P.R. 

§171.8, Therefore, acceptorS and transporters of inherently dangerous mat~rials such as 

hazardous materials have a very high duty ofQare. 

This case involves flammable liquids that were packaged in fiberboard boxes that 

had not been tested to ensure that the boxes could maintain their integrity during the 

ttansportation ofthe hazardou~ material. The UN-specification boxes are incredibly 

important because they are manufe.ctured and tested to withstand many type$l of dama,ge 

that routinely occurs in the transportation system. The$e safe guards are not in place 

When a. nonwdesaipt fiberboard box is used ZLS packagina. Many types ofthings can and 
~~~~~~~~~~~--... 

02/18/2010 09:3B FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS III 0 13/022 


III 01:3/022
 F~A REa COUNSL A8L7 02/04/20'0 15:30 FAX 841 294 74sa 

12 


do happen to damage pack.aging whichwilllea.d. to the exposure ofthe hazardous 

material. In addition, the missing overpack marking is significant because the markil1.g 

tells all the people handling th~ shipment that the packages inside the overpack are 

correctly packaged. marked, and labeled in accordance with the FHMR. When this 

marking is missing those handling the shipment do not have-this verifioation. 

As explained in detail above,R.t!spondent had the knowledge, or if it exercised 

reasonable care, would have had know]edge that these shipments did not comply 'With the 

hazardous materials regulations. Under the circumstances. the proposed civil penalty is 

generous. 

WHEREFORE, Com.plainant requests the Administrative" Law Judgeto fix the civil 

penalty at the rl;quested amoWlt of$182,500. 

Respectfully submitted this day ofFebruary1 2010. 

Attomey 

Offiee ofthe Regional Counsel 
02/18/2010 08:3B FAX 2024835142 FAA .. OMS 141014/022 

iii 0 14/022 02/04/2010 15'30 FAX 847 294 7458 FAA REG COUNSL ASlT 

13 

CERTIFICAIE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Post·Hearing Brief of Closing Argum.ent bas been mailed 

by Federal Express to the following: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 


Administrative Law Judae 


Oftke ofHearings, M-50 


Room 5411 


U. S. Department of Transportation 


400 Seventh Street, SW 


Washington, DC 20590 


FAX: (202) 366-7536 


And by CERTIFIED MAIL to: 

Attorney 1. Mark Hansen 

. Federal Express Lead Counsel 


3620 Hacks Cross Road 


Building B, 3rd Floor 


Memphis. Thl' 38125 


FAX: 901-434-8283 


TEL: 901-434-8583 


Hearing Docket 


FAA. AOC400 


600 Independence Ave., SW 


Room 2014 


Washington, DC 20590 


FAX: (202) 493-5020 


TEL: (202) 385-8229 

02/18/2010 09:38 FAX 2024935142 FAA .;. OMS ~015/022 

02/04/2010 15:30 FAX 847 294 74~9 FAA REG COUNSl AGL7 ~015(022 

Tuesday, 

May 16,2006 

Part m 

Department of 

Transportation 

Federal Aviation· .A.dm.ini5uatJon 

14 CF1t Part 13 

B.c.visions to the Civil Penalty Inflation 

AdJusuuenc RUle and Tables; Final Rule 

ATTACHMENT 

02/18/2010 09:38 FAX 2024935142 FAA .. OMS 141018/022 

~ o1S/022 02/04/2010 15:30 FAX 847 294 7498 FAA REG COUNSL ~aL7 

28518 Federal Register/Vol 11, No. 94lTuBsday. May 16,2006/Rules and Regulation!! .. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORl'A110N 

Fe.,eral Aviation Admin,atratlon 

14 CFA Pert 13 

[Dock., 1'010. FA.A-2002-11463j Am.nClme"« 

No.1$-33l 

"'IN ZlZo-..,2 

R9vr,Ionll 10 Il'Ie Civil Penalty InfJ.tJ~" 

Adjustment Rule and Tab... 

AG&lCV: Federal ....'ll'iation ....dmi.nUltt$tion (FAA), DOT, 

ACTlOHl P'illIl1l'\\le. 

8UMM&Jf1: This lInal rule updatee 

Infunnation in thE! FAA's ragulatiDlU \;In 

certain c1v11 monetary penalnci 

authorized for "IQ]4tions of statutes and tlt~uletlons w& enforce in lI.~cordanctl . 

with legillla.tioll enacted ginca the last 

"pdat!). 'l'he rule also illcludeu 

references tc adtli!:ionell'lnd revised 

stat\ltel and regulations. In additi,m.. we rule makss inflatlon·baoed. adjustments 

to civil penQltles whaM) indicawd. 

FJnallY,it makoti a teeh!l1cal correction 

to conl'orm regulatory llilJ'l8\lage on the infiati.o~ adjustment proce1l6 to tho 

provisiQm of the ~ppliellble statute. 

bATES: This amendment bEu.ome, 

effeeuve JunelS, 2006. 


FOR FURTHliA INFOflMATjON CONTACT! 


Joyce Redol. Office of the Cbs.r 


COllnsal, Enforcement Division, AGC30(), Federal Aviation Aliminilltt!l.tion, 


800 ImJepend.ence Avenuo, SW•• 


WashingtoD, DC ~OS9tl ~elElp.b.one (202) 


267-3137; [oc:dmile (2021 267-5106; e­
 mail joyc8.rerlos@fao..gQv. 


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMA.110N: 

Availability of'llulemaldng Documents 

You can get 10'11 e:lec~on1c (lOpy llsinS 

'!he Internet by: 

(1) Searchll\l the Department of TrGn~portat1on'a elewcmic Docket 

l'danasement System (DMS) Wob pase 

(http://dm6.dol..gov/ee(m;hJl visitin.g the 

FAA's Rell'l.lllltloru and Policies Web 

page at http;llwww,foo.(Jt:lv/ 

rlllll/}gfioll.l..!}()l;cies/: or (2) Accaa'i~ the COVOInlTl(ltlt 

Printlns Offlc9 s Web page at Jlltp:11 

www.gpoC1ccess·sovlfrlilldex.htmJ. YU\l cliln also gel" copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation 

Adminietr:diotL, Office of Ru\emaking, 

ARM-1, 800 In.:iep'llidell!;e AV'snue, 

SW.• Washington, DC ZOS91. Of by 

c3niIl~ (202) 2Ci1-9680. Make !niTa to 

identify the amendment number or docket number ofthia fUlemllldng. 

Anyune ueble to search the 

eleC'a'Onic form of 1111 comments 

received Into any of OUt doclc.ts by th. 

Dame ofthtl Ind.ividl.L8 I lIubmitting the 

comment (or &Jgn1ng the c;omnur.nt. if 

submitted on b.lh,ll oIlUl 8Soociation, 

bus1neall, labor union. etc.), You may 

review DOT'! oomplete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal aegistat' 

published on.AprH 11, ~OOO (Volume. 

65, Number 701 Pages 19477-78) or you 

mllY vi,it htlp:l/dms.dot·fJov. 

Small BUI*D&9~ R.egulatory £Jafv~meDt 

Fainlese Act 

T'he sm$ll BusinllSs R'iullltOfY 

Enforcement Fall'a61JS Act (EBREF'A) tlf 

1996 Ttlquires FAA to CQZl\ply with 

small vntity requests for inrormf.ti .. u or advice about compliancE! with ,tatutes 

and regulations within it, j1.lriadtctlon. 

Therefor\}, Iln.y small ~ntltythllt luu a qU~8tionreg"l'dl"& lhi, document may 

contact th&[r lecal FAA offiCial, Qr the 

peirson listvd I.Ind.or FOR FURTHER 

I~FOAMATION CONtACT. Yo" can find our 

mOr$ IIbout SBREFA on tho lntemet at 

ou. ,ite. h.~tp:llwww.fa(J.g~vl 

l"9guiationl"poJicifnll'ul.unakJngl 

flbre_act/. 

AuthOrity for This ltl1l.amaki:.o.g 

The Flu\'s autbority to issue rules 

I'eglildin.g IIviation safety is found In. 

Title 49 of the Ultited Stat~s Code. 

Subtitle I, section loa describes thQ 

.u.tho:rhy of the FAA Adm1n\strator. 

Subtitle YD. Av!.atlon Programs, 

deseribes 1n more detail the scope of the 

agency's 6utAority. 

BackgrQUDd 

ApplicabJe StafuteS' 

The Federal Civil Pen.alties '"O!ltion 

AdJuslmllrit Act of leOQ (Adjustment 

Act). pubUe Law (Pub. L) 101-410. 113 

&m!lnded. by the Dobt Collection 

fmproveEnlllnt ACt 011996 (Collection 

Act). Public Law 104"'Ul4, which is 

codified at 26 U.S.C. 2.461 noto, requires 

FQdllll:'alllllll.ncles to adjUlltth& minim1.lm 

and maxUnum Ilmo1.lnts of civil 

monetvy penalties for illflation to 

pr~serve their deterrent impact, Under 

those law., each agency had to make an hutial inflationary IlQ;u,tmcmt lor aU 

applicabl. eJv1l. mOMlary penalti99. and 

make a further adjustment Qf lhe 

panalU", at le&£1 onee every 4 years. 

l'rior FAA Rulemok'n~ 

In 1990 (81 FR 67445; December 20, 

19ge), we !1ddealNbpa" H, Civil 

MQn.ewy Penalty Infi&tioll. AIlj\J5trnent. 

to 14 CPR put 13. We adjusted the 

maximum civil pOInvolty amoullt!! for 

vl(llelioA' of the.statutell. l'eplations. 

and ordGl'S Wei Clnfotee in accordance . 

witb. part 13, In 1997, we mllde somo 

mlnQr I:DlTealClns; that amen.4ment WIIS 

No. 13-28 (62 FR 4114}.ThB first 

J\.Ihpert H applied to violations that 

occumd on or after January 22, 1997. 

In Amendment No, 13-31, {Ilsuea by 

the Admlni!Jtrator on December 27, 

2001.. and pUblished in tho IPldcrnl Ilegis~r on February 11, 20()2 (67 FR 

6.'364). we made our second Adjustment 

of civil mo!:!.etary pell.e.hiell l,md9r th.. 

IItatutes described 8-bolle. To the original 

811bp.trt fI, ........ added adjust!!tl !;ivil 

monetary p.naltle~ for viDlations that 

occurred on or after March 14, 2OQ2, 

.Recent Stt:ltutolY ChC2"ges 

On December 12, ZQO~, tbe PreSident 

sigJUod into law the "Vbion 100­

Century of ,A:viationReellthorization 

Act," Public Law 108-116 (Vision 100). 

Vision 'lOO made several chtlngs.(l to the 

FAA's aUr.hority to assess civil pimahills. 

Viaioll. 100: 

1. ~Q$et several or tht!Fh/I.'S civil 

mOll&tary pennlLy amO\lnts for some 

violators. 

2.. Inqii!i!ged CGtt8ln. maxiTll.unJ eM] 

monetary penalties In 48 U..~,C. 46301, 

3. Re"ieed portions of section 4(1301 

to create apecitic maxh'll\\1'1\ civil 

mon.tsry penalty amounts for 

indlviduab !!Ind small btlPme5S 

concerns. 

4. l!\edesignated portiO:'Ul tlf aeelLon 

'1:6301: e.,., section 46301(01)(5) wa$ 

red$tlignated as 19c~ion 46301(a)(3). 

~. Added a new, mandatory elvU 

penalty, 40 U.S,C. 4flS19. fol:' permanent 

!;losure ot an atrport without providing 

the FAA ,uffjcient notice. 

On August 10, 200i. th, Preeident 

signed into IIIW the Slife, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient TUrlaport&tion :!qulty 

Act: A Legacy {gr Users (SAFETEA-LU), 

Pu'blie Law 1M-59, 119 Stat, 1111. Title 

VII ofSAF!TEA-LU.lhe Hazardous 

Materials saf$ty and Security 

RGQl.lthorization Act of 2005, rev1aed 

paragraph (al(l) of 49 u.s,a. 51Z! 

6111\..rI11y to increase to $50,000 th~ 

maximum civil pS!1lI.lty for a VIolation of 

49 U.S.C: chapteT SI, or a :regulation. 

order, special permit. or approvallseued 

thcrwhdor. Howev&r, Title ~I cr~ated 

an eXCQptlon to th:at muimurn by 

providing that. if It violation resulta in 

death. serious iHn85S. at ItIJv,re injury to 

any person, elr lub.sW'ltI.1I1 d"structlon of 

p.I'eparty. the Secr.~lIry of 

Tl'liillsportation may increase the amount 

of the civil pene.\ty for such ·,iollltion to 

not more' than $100,000. 

Under Title vn of SAF'E'TEA-LU the 

gensl'lIl minimum oi"a petlll1ty fer 1\ 

vIDlation of 49 U.S.C. chl'rpt~r 51, or "­

regulation, a~def. special petmit, or approval issued thereuuder WilS' set at 

$250; however, the minimum oivil 

penalty lor a he~dou, rna1erlaJs 

t.nini'l'l8 violJulon Watt increased to 5450. 
02/18/2010 09:37 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS 	 ~017/022 

~ () 17/022 02/04/2010 15:30 FAX 847 294 7498 FAA REG COU~SL AGL7 

Federal Regi8ter/Vol. 71, No. 94JTuesday, May 16. lODB/Rulee and RogulationR 28519

- Thi$,ftI.lJlImr::king 

InUght or the stat\:! tory ch8l18G~ made 

by Vision 100 and SAFETEA-Ll), we 

are mat:mg a vuiety of changes to 14 

CFR part 13, subpart H. whIch dellCl'1bl'!I 

the Civil penalty inflation adju,tm~nt 

process Ilnd t.he civil penalties [hat 

apply tl> various violations. 

Subpnrt li il:!.c:orpQl'at.es a Table One. 

which specifie, thv ma)(imllm and 

minimuIn clvil penalty an1ountll1l"lat 

apply to viollltJons under 411 U.S.C, 

chapter 463 and 49 U.S,C, 47S31 that occ~ll'!ld prlor to December 12, 2003, 

and to violauonB under 49 V.S.C. 

chapter 61 that occurred prior to August 

10, 20005. Table On~ &180 inel~de& 

reIe:etlC05 to certain sections fhat were not included in thl) provir;rl.l3 

rulemaldng4 on pan 13, subpart H. 

SIOlCtiOns 471)28 through 4'530 ofTiUs 

49 prohibit the operation of certain 

aircraft w'hlm those aircraft do not 

comply with the Stage 1 noise levels 

(S89 14 CPR part CIt, subpart 1). Section 

41531 of Title 49 provideG that a person 

violllt1l1g OM ofthose s.tatutory 

provisions la 8\1bjeQ\ to the same civil 

penally 8Mounn an.d proced'lJ.Ns undet 

chapter 463 as a paZ'Bon violating .•eetlon 

44'01(a) or (b). or any of aection$ 

44702"""""'716. We ere /!oIIlO adding 

hif.renee (0 section 46301(a)(5) 

(redesignated as section 48301(&)(3) by 

Vl!!lOa lUO), which pertains to the 

peMlty for divBlslon of Q'ltiation 

revenues. 

For 811.Je of using the tables, the 

column "Civil mon'tElI}' penalty . do,cnptlon," contains abbffilviated 

desoriptions and ttl orefore mey not be 

illl inelul'dve oi1he types ofvioloatiorul 

~overtd. For exam!?1a, although 49 

l).$,C. 46318ls .cl.eacribed as . 

"inte:ferezi.ce with cabin or flight Crill""," 

violation. of thl' ..Clio!!. .:all. ..1so 

inyaJ'IIQ assaults on pau5~m@ef8. It Is 

McenarY to reed tully the United Stat~!I 

Code provisiQ1ls cltecl in the first . 

column of tha tshle$ to understand tba 

1iXtlInt af viQlation~ that are !ubjGot to 

the various civil penaltisalb1ed in the 

tables. 

Table Two specifies the new QlnOunt! 

of civil monetlll'Y penel tielillet or rQset 

in Vblon 100, whicb apply tQ violatlons 

tha1 oocur on or ,ftel' December It. 

2003, lIa well as some inflation 

",djustmenu that are discussed below, 

Vision 100 pre\tid.ed for. gGl'Ieral civil 

psniilty of U5,OtlO, JJWcimum. for a 

violation of mOlt of the sections in Title 

49 tha.t we enforce. includini ~lIe 

regulations promu1sated or order. 

issued Wl.d"r authority of tholle IIDCtiOI'lS. 

(49 U.S.C. 46301(e)(1)(JI.) and (B).) (Note 

t'hat Section 46301 d"", no~ sddl'llall 

violations of th., harr.Bl'dous materials 

provisions under 49 U.S.C. cluipte.t 51. 

and tha 0525.000 maximum civil pliln~lty 

dOll3 not apply to suchviolllti~lU.) 

Section 4630.te.l(l) provides for 1\ 

maximum p$nalty oU1,1.00 fest vlol~ti.ol'l.s by an. In.dividual or small but:i~IJ& concern. 

However, Vision 100 aho contamed a 

new parasrlilph (al(S) in SEdion 4e301, 

which sets a maximum civil penalty 

ampunt of oSlO,OOO for individuals and 

small b~inelli oonOElrna brviolatiom of 

statutory provisiollll listed ill paragraph 

(a)(5)(A)(i), or II, regulation prescribed Ot 

order issued under tlloce ~t~tut(Jry 

provistDM. Paragraph. (iI.)(S)(A) provides an eXCGptioD for "an a.!nn.ah servihg 119 an airman;" the moxirnum penalty for 

such m<UvldlUlls Is $1,100. Whlla 

section 46301{a)(l)(A) eontaJ.n.g s 

number ofprovisions not included In 

section 46301(11.)(5)(1'0.)(1), the provislon9 

cited in (a}(5)(A)(i) almost completely 

overlap with the provisions cited in 

section 46301($)(1)(1\) 1l~at are enforced 

by til'! FAA, (An example of a differom:;c 

ill tbat Bection 4E1301(oJ(1)(A) includes 

i9 U,S.C. 44716(,,), while section 4~30:l(a)(5)(A}[l) does DD't..) The result Ie 

that there Bl'e only tw~ tYPOIi of 

El)l;CflptiOl'1& to the :610,000 statutory clvll 

penalty liabi1i~y for individuals and 

IImllll buslne&sea: First, If the alleged 

violator i9 iJR airm.an sQntngas an 

airman; and second, If lh. baSi' tor rhe 

Vlolatlld proV'1slon Is cited in section 

46301.(a){1)[A), but not cit~d in IlBCtlOIl. 

46301(1I)(S)(A) (e.g., .9 U.S.C. 44716(8», 

The changes dUll to th. llew language 

In .~O*'!1$ 46501(.11)(1) alld (5)(A), end 

deacribed abovQ, ere Laid Ollt in the 

following tabLg. and also Z'"fI~Qtgd in 

T4bleTwo: 

Is the "iolaled f)rovlsJol1 IQ !he Ylolate<! plO\l1.eioo 1 Whoal ill the

cited in 49 U.S.C. alio cIted In 49 U.S.C. maximum pen46301 (a) (1 )1 46301 (.1)(5)(A)1 alty amQunt?

Person not an individual or small business coftC$rn ................................. 
 Yll~ .. ..............._.......... Yes "'"............................... 
 $25,000

".(DOn not an IMil/idust or small buslnaea CQnl;'em .............m................. 
 V"I .......................... "... No ...." ... " .......................... 
 25,000

Airman serving as an airman ..................... " .."'.................. ........... "........ 
 V•• "............................. Yel!! .....,.............................. 
 1,'00 

AIrman serving al art :!1ItlT\S" ..........".......................................................... Ves .......................... "... No ................."'................ . 
 1,10D 

.ndivkNdl not an airman S81'Y~nQ 018 airman .................... ,......................... Yell , ....... "'.."................ Yes ....................... " .......... . 
 10.000

IndMd .... 1nglltll airman $lI1IlVing as airman ........... , .......... "'................. ".. Yes ............................. " Nc. ...............00"'•••••_._••••.• 
 ','00 Small buslnaGa concern ............................................................ "'.............. Yell ...."'....... "'.............. Yes ................. , ....... " ......... , 10.000 


Srnah bUO;n.G''' eonum n~~.~ ••,,.,,.,,u...... , ........._......_~ __......."'.~i'~II' ... I ••• u ••••_ ..~n'....' Yes ..,... A~.~ ..._ .... ,~~,.~".'lt~'jl.t Nc ...._.. ,~.~~ •.,.'.. I ••• 'U~ ............. 1,'00 


Bas~d on a ruJlwin!lBtion adjustment, 

discussed b41ow. the $10,000 max\mum 

peoalti.oll li{ltl\,d I.Il thta table will become. 

$11,000. This acljulJtment is re£lected In 

Tab1.. Z. 

Section 46301(a)(5)(B) liats ml:lrimum 

civil penaltt" fot S};)eoifie typ9& of 

violations by individual. end small 

bl.lsinei$ con(:amll m almlan acting as an ai:tman is not afforded II lOWQl' 

ma:dmum penalty un.det these pro~illiQn'. Tb.e cr;lverad viola:ltans 

Illelude those l.Inder 49 U.S.C. 

4IJaOl(Il)(1) related to the ttansportatio-n 

of hazardous materlah (Title 14 ofthe 

C;-R), tegistration or recordation under 

49 V.S.C. chipte, ..U, !hI!! lim.itath'Jn in 

49 U.S.C, 4e718(d) 011 coIl&trucdon or 

establiElhmeut of landfills, snd the 

prohiblt1Ol:\ b'l 4'" U.S.C. 44726 on un.aIe disposal oCllle-limited llirr;:rvft 

parts. As Bet by Copps. 'n VildQn 100, 

. Ihe maximum penalty for violationII of 

thesa l'N)vision. DCcU!rlng OD. or aitar 

Pecember 12, 2003 until (insert ...lfDctive 

date of rule] h $10.000. :Based Oil a new 

inflation adjusmumt, discuS6ad below, 

let. Ylolatloft. occurring after the 

effective dll~e of the rule. the mllximum 

penalty ill $11.000. 

We er~ liIdd.il:lg A.t&!&renceto section 

46319, which providos fot II mandatary 

civil pmwty for eac:h public agenoy (hilt 

p4ansnen.t1y closes IIA atrport llsted 1\'.\ 

the r:tI.Uonal plan of Integrated airports 

without providing the notifiol)tion 

luqulnd l:Iy that !Dctlon.. When the 

provision became effective on Oe(;emCl::r 

1Z. ;Z003, the PO:tl:lity was $10.000 per 

day. ElsaI'd on a. neW illOatilon 

adjustment, as of (insert date ofthe day 

after the e~cti\le date]. the plln.alty is 

511 101;)0 ~Br day. 

Table Two also incl'Udef lOitatioft.s to 

t.bs lISCtiOn.S not previousl), induded in 

previoull lulem,kil':lBI in put 13, Ilubpart 

H. i.e., 49 U.S.C. 47S2e throl'L8h 4'S:!I<I, 

'"531. and 4&S01(&)(3), iorDllnly section 

46301(a)(5).

Vuton 100 did not chanse section 

46S01(b): tb.o.t section Gtill :>plicifiea a 
02/18/2010 09:37 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 	 ~018/022 

~ 018/022 02/04/2010 15:31 FAX 847 294 7488 FAA RES COUNSL ABL7 

28520 Federalllesilit9r1Vol. 71. No. 94 I Tuesday, Mey 16. 200e/Rulesand Reg1.l1ation6 

civil pellalty nQt 10 exceed 5:2,000 for 

tqmpering with, dlsablins. or dQstroying 

a lavatoxy smoke ala:rm device On an aircraft pro\'iding air transportation or intrastate airtranaponation. In the 1997 

inflation adjuBt:rnl!lnt, We increlSed that m~~1",l:Ull to $2,200. Table Two lists 

that previously adjusted maximum. 

We an> I;rJdillg I( nb19 Three to reflect 

the current maximuM and minimwn 

civil penalties Wlder 49 U.S.C. 5123(a) 

(or a violation of one ofthe b8~vdou$ 

material, trantportatlo1'l. laws, Or iii 

regulation, order, special permit, or approv!ll isrnlld thereunder. The 

mQ;l(im1.lm 101vil penlllty generally is 

S50,000 foreacli violation on or ;It'ter 

AtlS...:st 10, ZOO:!, We are 11.150 including 

themaximl.lIn civil penalty amoYnt of 

$100,000 for 8 huardous materials 

violatio.u whore the re~ult 111 d~lIth, 

serious illness or seveI'$ injury to a per'on, or robnUltlal deetrUction of 

property. That maximum will a160 apply 

only tQ Q violqtion on or after August 10, 

2005. 

In TlIbl9 T!u:8e. ""e ue leaVing tha 

minimum civil monetary penalty und91' 

49 U,S,C, 5123(;1) fo'!' a Violation at $Z50, 

except all provided for ;l trQinins 

violation. f!sc;aulle the Congress 

spedfically chose to il:\er~all(l tho 

minimum penalty fol':' a training 

viola.tion, but did nol do :.10 fur lLIly athar 

hazm.at Violation. we have cont'l:uded 

thllt thll; mill1rAUI;1 penalty haa been 

"'["eset" to 5250. ThQ Sl450 mini=~m 

ci....il penalty applies only to It hazmat 

trainIng vlolaiion <;In or IIft'ill AugU&t 10, 

200:;. 

Civllt'enaUy In8attOl) Adjustment 

Method o/CalcuMicfl 

Under the rules ill part 13. subpll:rt H, 

wbich im.J>~,.n.lO!ld U,0lI req\,ll~.m•.Ilts of 

the hdjustment Act. as amended by th~ 

ColI&eftO!!. Act, we d~ermjne the 

int1ation adjl.lstment for nch applicable 

civil penalty br increaSing the 

. maxim1.lm ~ivi penelcy or rlnge of 

minimum and lll8ximum civil penalty 

by thl!! "cost.of-livinS _dju!Jtment" 

(COLA). Each such inerailAe is l'Qund.ed 

ott. li8 dellcribed ill sel!tion 13.305(6) ot 

p8l"t 13. Section 5(b) t)fthe Adjustment 

J\c:t and section 13.305(b) define the 

"C'OlIt-of-livins adjustment" a.a "thi 

percentage (i(any) for eaeh civil 

monetary penalty by which the C~ftP'-1mer PdQ!! !J:J.de:.: (CPI) for the 

month of Juna of the (:aJ.~ndar year 

precedins the adjustment QXCQ4ilds the 

CPI for tho month of June of the 

calendar year in which the e1'l'lQ\1llt of 

such civil penalty WIlS last .et Or 

adNetad pursuant to law:' 

Thus, locthi, rulemaklng, wgloolr:..d 

at the.1ncrell.se (if any) of the CPt ofJUILfJ. 

2005 QV.r th. CPt's of June of the 

calenda.r years fur each ofthe lasc 

penalty SQttings or Bdjuutlnent3. We 

calr:l.llatad thepetcantage of ~6.ch 

mC1'.Qflge. multiplied. tha.corr$llponding 

lut£OlIf or adjulted penalty by tha 

percenta,g9 lncr ..,., .pplt~d the 

appropriate roundinS-off number. and 

added each ro1.lnCl4d nurnbeno the last 

,el or adjusted peruJlty. If anincrea8(1 

was rounded to zero. thlil Jut lUlt Cl~ 

adjust~d penalty remained the !lame. 

The CPT for Juna, 2005 (u.e month of 

Juna of the calendar year preceding 

t.hE!,e edj1J.!ltxnants) ......6$ 194.5. 'The CPI 

fur the month of )unQ of tl..o calendar· 

yeM' in which !he amount of each civil 

monetuy penlll,y was last 4&1 or adjl,l.8t16d varies. dep$nding Ol'l.u... 

plni~l.r pto'lbloa. They are QS 

follows: 150.3 for J\lneUum 172.4 for 

Jun& 2000; and 183.7 for June 20D3. 

Section 13.305(a) ohh. FhA'! 

rlSl11lltlonJI describes tho rounding-off 

n.umbefll. An increpe detexmmed under ~.ction 13.905(&) Is rounded to the 

nearest: 

(1) Multiple oU1D In thflC.:IIie of . 

penilltieslen than or eq:1.l11 to .5100; 

(:z) Ml.lh.1ple of 5100 in.the CIiSEI "f 

penaltiei gr9attt thal:J $100 but less thall or equal to $1,000; 

(3l M1.Iltipleof $1.000 in the cllse of 

penalties greatCll' than $1.000 but lellS. 

than or equal to 510,000; 

(4) Multiple of$5,000 in the cue or 

peDllltLlIIJ greater than S10.000 but leslI 

tho SlOO,{)OO;

(6) M\)ltipla of$10,000 in the casEl of 

penaltiQs gflilatQr tbQ!\ $100,000 but len 

lh.cm or egual to S200,OOOj 

(6) Multiple of $25,000 i.n the CilSIll of 

pOTIIIltle, tToot"r than $100,000. FlnaIJyI regardlull oftn(ll"Ol,mding fonn~la, an 1%\1[161 adjustment to 0 

pEinal ty Ie limited to 10 parcent. With 

Nspeo::tto the 10 percent limitation. tbi, 

rul. 111,0 emends 14 CP"k l!UO!S(C) by 

deleting the last sentence in that 

1'IiIlagraph and revbll%\g the rel!\aindec of 

the pa:rsgrapb to conform to the actual 

lansullga of socUon 6 to 28 U.S.C. 24-61 

note. The last 'entenceof 14 CFR 

HI.aoa(e) l:ru:orroctlystlltes. "[t]his 

limitation BPI>lle9 only to the initial 

adjustment. effective an January 21, 

1 9Q7:~ Section e of tho iIItDtute ill.llot 

Ilmiud to tho. initial adjustment made on thBt priculu data; it appJiva III w4illl 

to lb., l"IUallldlUlJtment madf: to I civil 

penlilty p~()vlsion enacted af'Wl' J_nulilry 

21. 1997, e.g .. 49 U.S.C. 48318. 

Re6u/ts I'llCdicWlJri01lI1 for Inflation 

Adju!>tmelll 

In prepari.nB this I'$vbioSl to ~ubp"rt 

H, we reViewed all the clvil monetary 

plmulty P",VldlOll5in the rAA's st8tute6 

and applied the1nflatlon adlustment 

and rOl;lndil:'lS'off formulae described . above. We concluded that one pTQvtsion 

Il.Qt rE!aet by Congress in Vil>ion 100 or SAFETJ;;A-l.U ill ready [0 be adjusted, 

i;e.. 49 U.S.C. 4G3HI from B maximum 

l'&M.lty of $25 ,000 to $27,SOl). In 

addition.pevmlll prQvislons rElse! in 

VL!:lon 1.00 an; IlUbject to adjusunent. 

These proll.isiona IrQ ,,~ O./),C, 

46301(u)(5)(A). 46301(a)(5}[B)(i-iv). and 

49 U.S.C.46319. These IIrC bei.ng taiaed 

from amax1mumof$10,OOClto $11,000. 

None ofthe provLci<m1l Affo'~16a by 

SAFi.1'EA-LU are ready.to be adiullud. 

l.ntornarfona/C"mpatibilfty 

In k8C!pl:ll.g with U,S. obligations 

under the Convention on rrllarnationaJ 

Civil Avl&tion. it is FAA pe,lic¥, to 

eomply with IntQrftQtionul Civil 

Aviation Organization (lCAO) Stall\iB'cda 

and Rvc;ommi:lru.ied PracticO>l to tbe 

maximum extent pnu:ticabJ,II. Th'" 'FAA 

dlltlmnll'1ed that !hera 8r(I no lCAO 

Standards and Recommend eel Practices 

mit correspond to these fe£,'lliations. 

Pap8l"Work &"dU(;t.iOD Acl 

Th"re 3te no current or nil.... req1.lirV1lllllnts for information collection 

B.alloQiated with \:hi, amllMtIl.6ht. 

GOod Cause 

I find good cause exists und~r 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(3){BJ "fthe 

Adm1:alstrative Procedures Act for 

adoption ofthi$ fiuil rule without prtl>f 

notice and comment. Thls l'1.I.le 

efftlctu",te, the Intent altha Fe-deral 

CMI Penaltie5 Inflation Adjustment Act 

to allo~ for le8,..l~r adjl.l.tment. for 

Inflation, of civil monetary p$na1ti~5 

and to maintain the dotorrll.l\t oElae! or 

civil monatElry penalties and promote 

CQmplianQ8 with. dlo bow. '!'ho innation 

adju8t.m1il1l.t$ to penalties UIllder mis rule 

apply Q fOl'm\ll. mandated by Congre$s. 

It would not be in thG publi.c inter!;!" tl) 

delay th"se 6dju.glmellu 1:a order to 

:ti!(;stve pubUc comment. In any event, 

a.uch delay would not sllow the FAA to 

develop any blu!s to ch<llli') th" mothod 

Ul IlppTication of tIle mand"tory 

inflfiltioa adjlutmlilnb, 

Executive Order 12866 &n.d~ POT 


kl!lulBlOry Poli<:les and Procedures 


Executive Order 12866, ReB1.dlto:ry 

l'laan.ing and Review. direetslhe FAA 

to ~eiS8 both the c06ta endbenefiu of Iil Nli\iulatory changa, We a.relnot allowed 

to Pl'OPOSEI or adopt Ii regulBtion unless Wei make II r~asol\&d d~tennillstion that 

the benefitll of thJ: inllinded regulation 

justify its cOBle. In thb rule, we have 

adopted civil monetary penalty limits u 

,et forth in logJalation. We haVE! not 

made IIny other ad.jl.lstments to the 

IUnlts 011 cJvil penalties we prosecute, 
02/18/2010 09:37 FAX 2024935142 FAA '" OMS ~ 019/022 

raJ 019/02:.:: 02/04/2010 15:31 FAX 947 294 1488 FAA REG COUHSL AB~1 

Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 94/Tueada.y, May 16. 2006/ltules and Regu];Jtlol'lll 28521 

Thus, whatever economic impact thi.s 

regulation h9.Q i~ due solely to 

laglelltiol'l. enacted by the Cougl'UIl, 

which determined that th. b.mflfits of 

the chllD.ges d&9cdbed inthl6 rule justify 

the cosb. Thus, thi' u nIlt a "'iflll1ficllnt 

regulstoty action" as d~filled in the 

Order, and we heve not prepll.rt:d i. 

"regulatory .Impact lU1.IIlys1s," Similarly, . we hay!;! not pfllparali _ "'nIgulatory 

8Valv.ation," which is the writbm cost! 

bElnofit amaly:is ordinarily required fo'!' 

all r\l).cmaking proposals under the DOT 

Regulatory Polieies and Procedure!!. 

Ec:oftomic Evalua.tion 

Changes to Federal rflgUlation. must 

undergo senral economic analY$&$. 

Fir$t, l:!xecuUve OTder 12866 db.CUi that 

each Fed9I'B1 a~ncy shill. propOllll or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned. 

datlilrmination tha~ tho benefit:! of tb.e 

intel'lded Tugulations JU9lify its com, 

SOllend. the RE/&W4tory Flexfbllity Act 

of 1960 roqui:res ag9noio8 to analy:z:s the 

*,col'l.omic impact ofregulatory eha.n.ge3 on small entiti.es. Th1rd, the Tl'ade 

Agreements A~ (19 U.S.C. 2531-2593) 

prohibits .agenclJla from setting 

standards that cn:ate unneClueary 

obatlleles to the foreten commorce of the 

Untted. States, In devalopins u,S. 

stl:mc!uds, this Tred. Act reqUiteI! 

agencies to corusider international 

,tQl).dard, and. wh&re appropriate. that 

they bo the btuis of U.S. standan;lp, And 

fourth, the Unfunded Mandatee Reform 

Act of 1995 requires agencias to pnpare a written as,e~mllnt of the costs, 

belaQ£its, and other effects of 'Proposed or fmal ru1<18 that include a Fedaral 

m$fl.date Ubly to r$fll.I)t in the 

o:.:penditul'l'l by State, local, or tribal govamm~ntll, in the aggregll\9. Ot by the 

private sector, of$100 million or mora, 

in Ilny one ye8l' (adjv.sted for intl,,'tion). However. for regUlations with an expeeted minimal impact, the aboveapecified IIllalYIlI\I& an not tequi:red. DOT 

Order 2100.5 proscribeR policiel flD.d 

procedurea for simplification, an.lysis. 

and r9VIew of regulations, ifit ilJ 

d81ermined that the expected 1m1>Gc:t is 

80 minimel that the. PI'(Jpo:f!ll does Mt 

wenabt a full 8VQIWltioD., n st9toment to 

that effect and. the bllilis for it is 

inc;lu.cled in the proposed reSullllLon. 

Since this flna1l'ule only identlIi99 £he 

increase in pell6ltlell &9 required by th9 

Debt Collection Imprvvament Act of 

1996, thQ iml'act of this ruletnaklng is 

minimal, 

RepJatory l'Jexibllity Acl 

Determination 

Th. RQ~uletQry Flexibility Act of 1980 

lRF/I.) cl!tabUahes "q, a prinCiple of 

regulatory lIIsuanca that lI.gCl~cies shall 

ondeavor, coml~\.,n~ with the objective 

of \he rule QJl.Q oC ilpplicable &lIltutoes,to 

fit regulqtory and Informational . requlramantl to the sCIIle of the 

b.isin"3s, o.rgani~tions, and 

governml)ntl.l ,urisdictions subject to 

t1w l$gulotion," To Bchl&"~ that 

principle, the I\c:t requires as&nc:ies to 

solicit and c;Ons1d~ fle;rible regulatory 

proposel, ilnd to explain the ratlonalu 

for their actlons. Th. Act COVGrlll • wide 

nnl?6 of I/T1'l!iU entitles, lncludlng smell 

bUSInesses, not·for·profit organizations 

ond amall governJnental jllrisdlctloll.ll. 

However, if an lI.Beney determines that Q propolled Of fic.a.l rule is IlCIt expected 

to havQ II lllBnific8nt economIc 1mpa.ct 

011 Il substantial number of Imlall en~ttl4ill. 8ection 60:.;(b) oftbll 19BO a.c1 

ptovid.9s Ihat the head of the agency 

may aO certify and & regulatory 

flexibility Itllalysis is not reqUired, Th$ 

(;!lrtiflcetion mu~t include I) 6tatement 

p'rovldiJ'lg tb,Q factuel basis for this 

o.elerminltion. and the reasoning should 

be dell!, 

Thill action simply identifies the dvil 

mon.teI)' penalties fOl'violetions ofth. 

statutory and. regulabmr provbiom w. 

enforce. Th, p~ndty amount~ ere those 

specified by statute or c::&lIed for under 

tha inflation aclju~tment st.:ttutea, and 

the informauon in thla rule i.!i required 

by Ihe Debt Colltlc.tion Improvement Act 

of 1006, Conaequllntly, we cert.lfy lhat 

th.t5:rule will not have a 'i.snificant 

econamlc impact on a substantial 

number of sIIiall entities. 

Intema.tioual Trade ImpacL A.M.5II1ept 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

prohibit, Federal a.genclas from 

eng>Dg In any sland8l'd$ Of ~.lated 

activiti." that aaote \ll'\.neeesIlIU'Y 

oln{acie9 to the ioraign COmrrterC9 afthe 

United SUlCiS. L&gitirnqte domestIc 

objac.uves. such u safety, lU'e not 

con.sidered unnecessary o'bEtaclea. Th, 

statute aleo l"IIquirlll. us to con$~clllt 

1ntematl(>n818tandllrdll and, where 

appropriate. mat they b8 the Oasis for 

U,S. ltandards. In additlon. C::On!~istent 

with the I\dtnlllisttation', belief ill. the 

gQJI.snd 6uP4'riority and desirability of 

free trade, It \5 che policy of the 

Administration to remove "r dimInish 

to the exton" feasible, barriers to 

international trade, including both 

hanioml ..frecting the export of American 

goods and servlce,. to forvisn counttle.8 

md olll'ti.ers aff'9cUnS !he import of 

.fo.reign 8t1od~ and services inlo the 

United St~t8B. 

In I!.ccordanQe with the above $tatUte 

and polley. we haVG alle$Sed the 

por.entialeffeet Gf this final Nle to be 

negl1gible. Thil rule only sl.Imme:ti7;$S 

civil monetary penaltle", e.stablbhad by 

legialetion, for vlola'Clonl of safety 

proVisions that .pply equ&lly to 

domG,Ue lind foreign entitiSi: tb.etefore, we haVG det&rmi.ned that thi3 rule win 

not f\\Isult in !!In Impact on iIl.tllrnetionlll 

uadl'l by companies d.Qill.e busine96 in or 

with the United Slates, 

ixl'lCutlvI'IOrd • .r lS132, FedlUalism 

The FAA hu analyzed this £inal :rule 

und.:lr tho prlncipltls IlI1d. criteria Q! 

ExeeutivG O.~.r 13132, P'ed!;lTalillm, The 

FAA deter.mined thet this ac:uoIl.would 

not have a a\lbstantial direct effect on the. States, or tl~e relationship be\WI)lJn 

mEl Nationlll Govermnllnt and the StlJl68. 

or on the distribution of power and 

re8poll3ibiliue£ alUQIli I;ho varioull 

leval, of gOV1)rnn1Q 1'lt, Therefore, the 

FAA luI determined. that this final rule 

doe& not hava f.d.enlbm im];llicaUons, 

UDf\l.ilded Mlltd.a~1I Worn. Act 

Tltlll II oUhe Unfunded Mudstes 

Relorm Act of 1995 nqu1r~.s each 

Federal agonc;y UI prapa~ a written 

statement aue$sing tlie affects of a.ny 

Federel mandata In II propelled or final 

agency rule that may rt'6ult In an IlIxpelldituTe or S10/) million or more 

(adjusted annuall)l for Inflntion) I:n. any one yu:r by ~ate. 100000l, and tribal 

goveIl~nutnts, in the ~ga.t", or by the 

private sector. The FAA currently U:.lII8 

an inflation-adjusted value vfSUO.7 

million in lien of 5100 mllllon. Since 

this final :rule o .. ly .ld.entifie,s the 

increase in penaltiee M req'uired by the 

Debt Collection 1mpr:ovemeu~ Act of 

1996, it does not contain suoh a 

mllndete. The requirements 01 Title ndo 

not apply, 

plain E.ugUth 

Exec;utln Order 12.866 (51:! FR 51735, 

Oct. 4, ;UJl3S) :require, clItch ag(jncy to 

write resulationtl that arC! simple and 

Ilasy to I'!del'5tsIld. We irlv\le )'Our 

comm&t\U on how to make thQle 

regulatioD$ I)aai&rto understand. 

including answers to questions auc.h. u 

the fullowing! 

• Ar& th!l requiramQnts in the 

rag"'latl.on,s. cielU'ly stated1 

• Do the regulations ~ontain 

')):l.:tiIlCElBsarv teeh:nical I ang1.ll,se or jugon that lnt.:lrfe:ree w1tll their clcrity! 

• Would the regulations J>o ttssier to 

-understand if they wElre diVided inl0 

more lbut shonerJ sectione; • Ii ths dssoipticn In th~3 prQ;,mbll) 

helpful in UndS1'6U1nding tbe final rule7 

PleasG Bend your comments ~o the 

address sp~mcd in the AtlDRI!SSE6 

sac1ion. 

Lid atSub,B<.U in 14 eFR Ji'n.rI13 

Adminis1::tativo practice lind 

proced\l.l'll, Ait transportadon, 

}itl2le.rdoull m:l.Wla!s transportation. 
02/18/201009.38 FAX 2024935142 FAA .,. OMS 020/022 

141 o20/02/! FAA REa aOUNSL AGL1 02/04/2010 15:31 F~X 841 294 1498 

28522 Fed8ral Reg'-ter IVai. 71, No. 94 I Tuesday. May 16, 200S/Rules ondRcgulations 

lnvelltil5lltlons, Law onforcemol'lt, Authurl!),! 111 U.S.C, /i001. Z8 U.S.c. 2461 (c:) LI'mitation (1) initiaJ adjustment 

Penalties. (nole): 0\9 U.S,C. 10s(sl. 51Z1-nZ4. 4011:1- The initiel adjustment of a eivll 

40114,44103--+410e, 4470Z0044'03. 4410tl­ #\onetary penalty undi)f this subpart The Ainen.dment 44710.9.?13,4471~.4~7~5,4$lO~-4el10, does nOt exceed 10 percent o!tha civil 

461101-4.6316. 46318, .465f1l-'l1!l502., <\-:;li04.­ • In coftaiQeratiol1 of tM foregoing. the penalty amQ1.lnl. 4&S07.47108,47111,'7122.4'3~S,4'531 Federl! AvIation t\dmini&tration ..7S3:z. (d) Inflation adjustment. Mi.nimum Q,rI)liu\ds put 'l3 of Title 14, Code of and maximum ~tv\l moneUlty penEllt1es Federal Resu!atlons .~ follows: • 2. Amend § 13.3D5 by revi&lnr; within the jUl"isdlc;tiOIl of the F,."A ate 

~ART 13-INVES11GAT'VE AND pafilgraph, (c) and (d) to read as follows! adjuated for in fl"t!on ~$ follQws; 

ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES MiriimuJn an.d Mv;in\um Cl....,1 , 1'.Sti Coat oJllYlng ld)uIIlments 01 chili Pellaltles-Adjullted lor InflCJ.tion, • 1, Revise the authority citQUon. for part monehlry ptlnaltl.e • 

.. 13 to J'fid as followl/: " * 

TABU; 1.-TABLE OF MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM CIVIL MONI!!TARY PENALTY AMOUNTS FOR OERTAIN VIOLATIONS BeFORE 

DECEMBER 12, 2003, AND FO~ HAZARDOUS MATERIALS VIOLATIONS BEFORE AUGUST '0, 2006 . 

United Slales OIXlIl 

cilaliQn Ciyil monetary penalty description 

Minimum 

penalty 

amount 

NeW a~l~ed 

I'IIll'\Imum 

penalty 

amount 

Maximum panally llmounl when lUI $01 or IIc1JuG\9d ","",!.Illn! 1<1 111<0' 

4§ U.S.C. 51m(a) ............. 

49 u.a.c, 46301 (80)(1) ....... 

49 U.S.C. 46301(11)(2) ....... 

49 U.S.C. 49301(0)(;;)(A) •. 

49 V.S.C, 4tl301(a}(3)(8) u 

49 U.S.C. 4ElS01/a)(3)(C) .. 

49 U;S.C. 4e301(1iI)(3)(D) .. 

4~ U.S.C. 46!301(8J(S) ....... 

4S U.S.C.46301(~) ......... _ 

49 U.S.C. 4e302(a) ........... 

48 U.S.C. 4e303 ............... 

49 U.S.C, 46.918 ............... 

4$ U.S.C. 47631 t .............. 

Violation Qf h6.Zill'doUS malerials Iran!~· 

tallon law. regulation, or order, 

Violation Linder 49 U.S.C, 463D1(a)(1) ' ... ". 

Viol&tion under 49 U.S.C. 463Q1 (a)(2)(A) 

or (EI) by B person cparllln9 an aircraft 

lor Itle transport"lion 0' PIlSllOhGelS or PJQpeny lot ~penSBliOfI (GlcePI an 

airman ,e~lnll as an Ilrman). 

Viola~ot1 under 48 U.S.C. 4&30'(_)(1) (14­

lal&ll to the transpottallon of tIa;m1'(10US 

malerlal$. 

Vlolallon relillad to 111.· re"I&tr&lion or rec· ordallOFl under 41;l O.S.C. eh&l'~t 441 of 

an aircraft not used 10 I)rovide air \rans· 

pal'l&tlon. 

Violation Q' 49 U.s.e. 447111(4) fliillati~ 10 

lirni'tllllon 01'1 oo"''''lrlJetion or Olll&b 1IIhment of landlllla. 

Vlollnlcn of 49 U.S.C.4412S ,.Ial/na to 

the sale dI6PIJC<!' cf life.flmltllld ai~~1 

parlll. 

Violallon 0149 u.s.Q. 47101(b) (IX I"Y &la. 

IIW111'1Ce ma.de under such saglion) or 49 

U.S.C. 4n33. 

Tampering will'! B ,moke alarm (jevlee ..._. 

KnOwingly proYldlng fal&8 In/ormation 

1I1XJ\i~ alleged violation InvOlving th. 3peci.1 aircraft juri3dlctlon 01 the United 

Stat". 

Ca~lng B conQeBllct dangerous Wlapon 1 

Interferen!;1 wlI:h eabln 01' 11111)1'11 crew ......... 

ViolatIOn QI 49 U.S.O. 47528-47530, Qr 

ragulation prElsctibtd undOr lnoee sec· liona, reladng 10 U'lt prQl'Ilbltlon of I:Il'or. 

II,llnll oartsin eirc;rah: not compl~ with 

atage 3 nDI8& levell. 

$250 per 

vlolalion, 

faelsln 

1890. 

N/A ........... 

N/A. ........... 

NlII ....H ..... 

NlA ........... 

N/A ........... 

NlA ........... 

NlA .~I1""!U 

NlA .., .... ~_ 

NlA ...._ .... 

NtA ......... - NtA ...w ..... 

WA ........ 10 •• 

Samo ....... 

N/A ........... 

N/A ........... 

Nt" ........... 

MIA .. \l,,~ .... 

NJA ....._.... 

WA ........... 

NtA ........... 

N/A ........... 

NfA .." ....... 

NlA 'Hn~' ••• t 

NlA ......... _ 

N/A ......... ,. 

$30.000 per vIolation, adJUSled 31'3/02. 

$1,100 per lllolal;gn. aajU!lls.d 1121/1997. 

$11,QOO pfr vjOlaUon. adjUGUld 112.111957, 

511,000 per YIolfJlk)n, adjuste(J 112.1/1997. 

$11,000 perllloialion. adjUGled 1/211'1997. 

$10,000 per vlolallon, set 1019/1996. 

510,000. &or 4J5/2000. 

In~re... IIbo""" olhelWl.e appliCable maxilT)lIm amount n01 10 oxc;oed 3 Ilmas !he 

amount 01 rt;Nenues Ihal eto uoad In vlolalion of IUch $Qc~on. 

$2,200. a<ljtJl!ted 11211199,'. 

$11,000, 8dju~ted 1121/1997. 

$11.000, adjlJSled 1121/19117. 

S2S,OOI), sst 4/51'3000. 

$0. 49 U,liI.O. 45301(~)(') ancl (a)(2). 

atlolle. 

'The FAA proeor<;!.Ites \1401111.,.,5 Under this sQc!lan thaI OCCl.ll1$d tlelONi ~f\I''Y 1', 2002. 
02/18/2010 09:38 FAX 2024935142 FAA -+ OMS ~021/022 

~02~n<::, --oiio4/2~~~ '5~ff'FA" B4fZ3a 74S8 FAA REa COUNS~ A6L7 

Faderal Reeie.ter{Vol. 71. No. 94/Tu.sday, May 18, 2Q(]6/Rule~ and RiSulatio2ls 28523 

* 

TABLE 2.-TABLE OF MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM CIVIL MONETAAY PENAL"" AMOUNTS FOR CEFlT.A.JN VIOLATION';; OCCURFlING 

ON O~ AFTEFI DeCEMBER 12. 2003 

Units.:! Slates Code ella­ MInimum Notw or maximum penQlt,' lion pimally amoun! amoun' 

4{11 U.S.C. 46301 (a,)(1) .. V1olallon by person olhar !hEln inoMdUl1 NlA .......,. 
 $25.000 per vjQllllon, reset 1211212003 No ehiln;e. 

or small buslne&G concern ohd.r 49 

v.e.c. ~301(11)(1}{A) or (8). 

49 U.&.C. 46$01(1)(1) •• Violallon by IIIlrrmm serving lUi airman NlA ......... 
 $",00 per '#ICllatlon. ralle! 1211212003" Nq '::haf'\G~. 

,,"Clor 49 U.S.C. 4t30, (1iI)(1 )(A) or (B) 


(but not c;oyo~ by 46301 (a)(S)(A) or 
 (B»). 

Violation by Individual or smlll tnl.&InBSI! NlA ......... 
 $1.100 per vlolal1Cln, res&11V12l.2003 .. No I#lange. 

concem under 49 u.s,e. 

4t'iS01 (11)(11(A} or (B) (bo,jT nol COlIcrea 11'1 4630' (8)(5). 49 U.S.C. 4El301 (8)(3) •• NlA ......... 
 Incrall.. above oIhGJ'Wi.. applicable No ,:hS.nge. assurance ftlGde under sUCl'l $lIIollon) 

Violation ot 49 U.S.C, 47101(b) (or any 

rnuJmum 3moUnt not 'Q e:oceaoO 3 

ot 4& U.S.C. 47133. Urru!I' U,e amount 0/ rGllanu$1/. !hat 

are u~r!ld 11'1 violal'''n Df aLII::" s8eOOn. 

49 U.S.C. NlA ......... 
 $10,000 per vlola!lon, reeet 1211212003 $11,000 per viola· 

48301 (a)(6)(A). 

V!Q'lIdol'l by en lndMdual or small !:Iuillion.! 

IhQ ae an airman) lll'ldi!ll' 49 U.S.C. 

46301(a)(5)(A)(I) or (ji>. 

nn, COftCem (al£C&JJt II" airman ~I'V. 

S, 1,000 per viola· 

46$()1 (a}(5){SJ(IJ. 

49 U.S.C. VIQI!1Hon by an .Individual or small busi. NlA ......... 
 $10,000 per viOlation, I'I.Ipt 12112J2003 

lion.' 

4Q01(1I)(') relate;! Ie lhe tciiln$por· 

talion of huardoU(l mat<lrials, 

ness eonoem under .49 U.S.c. 

$11 .ClOO perviol<\­

.46301 (a)(5)(8)(II). 

49 U.S.C. Vlolal!on by an Individual or $1'1'111.11 bUili­ NJA ......... 
 $10,1)00 per vlolatlon, nMlet , 211212003

ness c:oftC&m r&laled 101M I'tIglslra.· t;OI'l.l

lion or I\iOOrd~IiQrl under 49 U.S.Co 


oh&.pfer 441, 01 an aJn::ralt nor used TO 


prOVkle air trl:lnupOr1a\Ion. 


4$ V.S.C. $1 1,OQO per viQ\g46301 (a){5)(B)(iii). 

Violalien by an InaNi"".! Qf Imall bus!­ NlA ......... 
 $10,COO per ."IOlallon, r'l.Iet 12112/2003

Msa COilcem gl 4!! U.S.e. 44718(d) 111)0.' 

relBII1'l9 It) limitation on CX)l\Mfuellon or establlshm.nl of landfills. 

4!i1IJ.S.O. Vlolllllon by an Individual or ttl'llil bUlli­ NlA ......... 
 ;10,000 per IIIQlal1o,.., Mle' i 2/1 2/2003 $1' .000 per viola· ~$()'(a)(5)(a)(iYl· neSS' c.on~m 01 49 U.S.C. 44725 ,. l"ln.1 

IELting to lhe Mle aisl)Oll1 of ure-Ilmited a1reral'l pari •• -4, U.S.C, 46301(b) ..... .. HlA .......... 
 S2,200 per VIOIaliQI'I. adjuslild 1121/1997 NIo chan"e. 

49 U.S.C. 48302 ......... .. Tampering wiUla smokll I'arm CI$\<lce •• KnOWingly provIding fa1s9 InformaliOrl N/A ......... 
 $T1,Ooo I>er v/elation. adjuslQo 1/2" Nil ,;nange. 

abtlut alleged vlotal/on ImolYln; Ihe 1$'7. s~$c:lal eircrafl jl.lrilldictl4n of the 


United 5tale&. 


4" U.S.C. 46318 .......... . 
 Imeriarane. wilt> co:>bin aT !lIght C:!'eW ..... N/A ......... $26,000 per 'lfoJ!lllon, set 4/512000 ....... 
 SZ7,!iOQ per violaIi_m.l! 

49 U.S.C. 46319 .......... . NlA ......... $10,000 per d4Y, $ot 'V'212003 ........... $11.000 per 08>'.1 pro\ll~lng iulligen. nolki. 

49 V.S.C, 4701 .......... . 

Perman.nt doGlirlI 0' ~n &lrpor1 wlthou' 

VIolation 01 49 U,S.C. 47$28--47530. or N/A ......... See ~ u.S.O. 4630'(<il}(1) ano NClI~MOI'Ige, 

r09ulalion prescrlbs" or ~t Iall4.led (a)(S)(A). abolN;l. 

under tI'IOs.e l!Iecllons,relallng to Ihe 

I)l'Ohibition 0' opera~I"O OOqlrr alr<:raff 

nol complylnll with stage 3 nclso I ..... 

els. 

, The rnaldmum 1>&"1111' l\;It 0. violadon trom 1211VilOO3 ...,...11 &'1OJ:!OOe Ie $10.000. 

2 Ttl" ~;mum penalty 'or a vlolatiQ" from 41$12000 umll 511 Simi ill :52$,000. 

T A8LE 3.-TABU; OF MINIMUM AND MA)(JMUM CIVIl.. MONETARy PeNALTY AMOUNT'S FOA HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

VIOLATIONS OCCURFUNG ON OR A"!:R AUGUST 10, 2005 

Uniled Stakes Code cilation ' CMI mon.'ary penalty descrlpllon MInimum j)enallV arnol.lnl Maximum pe.nalty amOLlnt 

49 U.S,C. S123(a}: 

Subparagraph (1) ......... ' Vlolallon. (If hazardous material; " .... spo/tl.llcn law, $250 f)9f "i"latiol'l, reset 8/ $50,000 pllr vlolallon, set 

!'e9'lIaUon. r>rder••Plelal permll or approval--gt"" 1012005. 81101.20015. OiEil 

$lIbparull'l'Ilph (2) ......... Violalion 01' hl:l.~ materials Iranspol1a!lQn I...... $250 per vlolllilon, ,..et &I S,OO,OOO par v1016110", &e~ 

raslJl~tion. order, special pom'lil or approvaJ-resut.c 1012006. 81101200.5. 

In deatM••aRous IlIne.aa, severe IIIJIlIY, Ot IlJl!IslBntlal 

ptoP&rty d.'tru~on, . 
02/18/2010 09:38 FAX 2024935142 FAA .. OMS 141 022/022 

02/04/2010 15:2' FAX 847 2S4 7498 FA~ REB COUNSl AGl7 I4J 022/022 

28324 Federal Raglster/Vol. 71. No, 94 I TuesOay. ~y 16. a006/R1l1e6 and Regulations 

TABLE 3.-TAeLE OF MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM OIVlLMONeTAFiY PeNALTY AMOUN'I'S FOR HAZAl'lCOUS MATEFlIAlS 


V,OlATIONS OCCURRING ON OR AI=TER AUGUST 10, 2005-Continued 


Unlto<l SblU Co~ I;:ilalion Civil rnon.tary pOnlity d$$criplion Mlrllmum penallY II'I'irIUnl I·Maximum penally amount 

SUtlpatDgteph (3) ...... ,.. V~latlon of h.IQOW matefialfJ 1l1iIn$pol1llllon law. $450 p8t viglatigJ\. IIliIt Sf \1 SSO.ClClO per violation. I:QI 

regulallon, order, sPIICIIl.I parmit or approvaHrlIin- 10/2005. 6I10~OOS, 

iflg ";ol,.kioli 

1s9Wld in Washill!JtOn. DC, Dn AF'rtl 25,

2aae. 


Marion C. Blaby, 


Administraror. 


[PR boo;, 06....$2.4 FLIed 5-15-04; er4S Ql'E\J 


BIU.ING CODE 4411l>-1a-J'