U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

•"•^'?A^'I^'•£^^ITP'• 

'^^l rra 22 A iQ: \2 

[N THE MATTER OF: 

COASTAL AIR TRANSPORT, INC. 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-1005 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

FAA CASE NO. 2010SO700037 

MOTION FOR DECISION ON THE PLEADINGS 

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, 

MOTION FOR HEARING ON SANCTION ONLY 

Complainant, by and through the undersigned counsel, pursuant to §13.218(0(5) of the 

Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. 13.218(0(5)), hereby files its Motion for Decision on the 

Pleadings or in the alternative, Motion for Hearing on Sanction Only. In support thereof, 

Complainant states the following: 

Motions for decision are analogous to motions for summary judgment under Rule 56 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e^., Horizon Air Industries, Inc., FAA Order No. 96-

24 at 6 n.3 (1996). Pursuant to this rule, the moving party has the burden of "identifying for the 

court the portions of the materials on file that it believes demonstrate the absence of any genuine 

issue of material fact." Elec. Ser\qce v. Pacific Elec. Contractors. 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 

1987). Inferences from the facts must be drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving 

parly. ]d. at 631. 
2. 

Section 13.209(a) of the Rules of Practice requires a respondent to file a written answer 

to the complaint, or file a written motion pursuant to §13.208(d) or §13.218(0(1-4) instead of 

filing an answer, not later than 30 days after service of the complaint. 

3. 

The complaint, which contained a paragraph informing Respondent he was required to 

file a written answer not later than 30 days after the date shown on the certificate of service, was 

filed on September 8, 2011.' As of this date. Complainant has not received a written answer. 

Therefore, Respondent has not met the filing deadline pursuant to Section 13.209(a). 

4. 

The 30-day deadline for filing an answer cannot be extended without a showing of good 

cause, in the Matter of Robinson, FAA Order No. 95-28 (1997). "A showing of good cause is 

mandatory. Without it, failure to file an answer by the deadline may not be excused." In the 

Matter of Atlantic World Airways. Inc., FAA Order No. 95-28 (1995). Moreover, Rule 13.209(0 

states that failure to file an answer without good cause shall be deemed an admission of the truth 

of each allegation contained in the complaint. See, e.g.. In the Matter of Larry's Flyint; Services, 

Inc.. FAA Order No. 98-4 (1998). Since Respondent has not filed an answer and has not shown 

good cause for its failure to file an answer, the allegations in the complaint should be deemed 

admitted. 

'PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to Title 14 CFR Section 13.209(a). you are required to file a written answer to this 

Complaint, or a written Motion to Dismiss if appropriate, not later than 30 days after the date shown on the 

Certificate ofSen'ice which follows. Sec page 8 of Exhibit 1 
5. 

As the allegations are deemed admitted, there remain no genuine issues of material fact. 

Consequently, Complainant is entitled to a judgment on the pleadings. See 14 C.F.R. 

§13.218(0(5). The Administrator has previously held that an order assessing civil penaUy shall 

be assessed when the respondent has failed to answer the complaint without showing good cause. 

FAA vs. Plavter. FAA Order No. 90-0015 (1990), aff'd, 933 F.2d 1009 (6'^ Cir. 1991). Thus, the 

only remaining issue is sanction. 

6. 

The complaint charged Respondent with sixteen (16) violations of the Department of 

Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) (Title 49 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations). In accordance with Section 5123(a) of Title 49 of the United States Code 

(Transportation) (49 U.S.C. § 5123(a)), Respondent is liable for a civil penalty not lower than 

$250, nor greater than $50,000 for each violation of the HMR. 

7. 

In determining the appropriate civil penalty, the FAA is required to consider the nature, 

circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation; with respect to the violator, the degree of 

culpability, any history of prior violations, the ability to pay, and any effect on the ability to 

continue to do business; and other matters that justice requires. See 49 U.S.C. §5123(c). This 

approach was reiterated on April 21, 1999, when Complainant published its Policy on 

Enforcement of the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR): 

Penalty Guidelines (Sanction Guidance). 64 FR 19443. 
As described in the Sanction Guidance, a weighting analysis was performed. A series of 

questions reviewing factors involving the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the 

violation, the violator's degree of culpability, and the violator's history of violations was 

answered. Each response was assigned a relative weight of minimum, moderate, or maximum. 

Based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, a final aggregate weight of 

MAXIMUM was assigned. 

Under the Sanction Guidance Matrix, Respondent was determined to be a Group IV, 14 

C.F.R. Part 135 Air Carrier.^ Under its Air Carrier program, Respondent is not authorized to 

transport hazardous materials in air commerce. However, on or about October 21, 2009, 

Respondent accepted a shipment of Gas Oil, a Class 3 Flammable Liquid, for air transportation 

on board a passenger aircraft. Respondent was alleged to have committed violations of the 

following subcategories - Improper acceptance of Hazmat for air transportation; Failure to 

inspect a Hazmat shipment properly; Failure to provide Hazmat training, maintain records of 

training, or meet minimum requirements for Hazmat training; Failure to notify FAA properly of 

incident/discrepancies in Haztnat shipment; and Failure to provide notice to the pilot-incommand. 

Based on the weighting analysis performed, an appropriate penalty was assigned for each 

of the applicable violations groups.^ The penalty amount for each violation group was then 

added together. Consequently, Complainant proposed an appropriate penalty in the amount of 

$59,600. 

In accordance with FAA Order 2150.3B, A Group IV air carrier is defined as an air carrier or commercial 

operator operating under 135 with no more than 5 pilots and no more than 5 aircraft. See Exiiibit 2, FAA Order 

2150.3B, Appendi.x Bat page B-3. 
In evaluating the extent and gravity of the regulations that are alleged to have been 

violated, a totality of the circutnstances approach is used to judge the potential consequences that 

might have resulted from failure to comply with the requirements of the HMR. Consequently, 

Complainant proposed an appropriate penalty in the atnount of $59,600. 

8. 

WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests that the Motion for Decision on the Pleadings 

be granted and Respondent assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $59,600. hi the alternative. 

Complainant respectfully requests the Motion for Hearing on Sanction Only be granted. 

Respectfully submitted this 2P' day of Febmary 2012. 

RAS^AjWN RICH GEORGE 

Acting senior Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

•* The MAXIMUM civil penalty for Group III and IV air carriers for Improper Acceptance, Failure to Inspect, and 

Failure to train is J16,200. is $5,500 for Failure to notify FAA and Failure to notify pilot-in-command. For a total 

civil penalty of $59,600. See FAA Order 2150.3B at Appendix C, page C-13. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion For Decision on the Pleadings or in the 

Altemative, Motion for Hearing on Sanction Only was mailed by Federal Express to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

DOT, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room El2-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

George Logan, Agent for Service 

Coastal Air Transport, Inc. 

. 1131 King Street, Suite 204 

Christiansted, St. Croix, VI 00820-4971 

and 

Michael Foster, President 

Coastal Air Transport, Inc. 

P.O. Box 3985 

Christiansted, St. Croix, VI 00822 

and the original and one copy via Federal Express to: 

Hearing Docket 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

"TP TIFFANY M. McfoOWELL 

Legal Assistant 

Dated 
U.S. Department Southern Region p 0. Box 20636 

of Transportation Office of the Regional Counsel Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

Federal Aviation (404) 305-5200 

Administration (404) 305-5223 FAX 

CERTIFIED - RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTEO 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2W1000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Re: In the Matter of Coastal Air Transport. Inc. 

FAA Case No. 2010SO700037 

Enclosed herewith please find a copy'of a request for hearing and the original and one copy of 

the Complaint in the above-referenced proceeding. 

The FAA requests that the hearing in this matter be held in the San Juan. Puerto Rico area, and 

expects that the hearing will last one day. 

Please address all communications for the FAA to the undersigned, at: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel. .ASO-? 

Southern Region 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

Telephone: (404) 305-5200. tacsimile (404) 305-5223. 

tOMM. '^4. G^iH 

RICHGIT'&RGE" ^ 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Enclosures 
CoaUalcAir u ran i port 

Eddie L. Thomas 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Southern Regional Office 

P.O. Box20636-ASO 

Atlanta, Ga. 30320 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 '! I'.i I : f \ / > 

800 Independence Ave SW j 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 g^p _ 2 / ; 

Washington, DC 20591 

! 1 

' I'.T:-t'l^',. ! (. ..: \.: ' 

Aug 30, 2011 • 'I ;'lf-<.N Hl.'iU'N 

Case« 2010SO700037 

Dear Mr Thomas, 

We apologize for the delay in answering your request for information from our conference. The 

research has taken mush longer than expected. We have discussed this action at length with many 

aviation professionals both inside and out of the Agency. Their response has been fairly consistant, in 

that this case should not have been filed. That a simple warning letter would have been sufficient. They 

also disagree with your Counsel in that the"small quantity, properly packaged "exemption is still in 

effect. We regularly observe "six pack" boxes of alcohol being transported on passenger aircraft. These 

boxes are not labeled "flammable liquid". 

The small fuel samples you mentioned were considerably smaller than these "six packs". They 

were not carried in the cabin or on the flight deck as you mentioned. They were confined to the 

approved cargo compartment of the aircraft. The pilot was advised as to their location and content. For 

such a minor incident, your proposed fine of $59,000 was not realistic for a small airline such as ours. 

We have been advised not to accept your suggestion of a reduced fine, as it would amount to 

admission of a serious offence. We once again ask that this case be dismissed. In the event you wish to 

continue. We hereby request a hearing on the above mentioned case. 

Sincerely, 

P.O. BOX 3985 • CHRISTIANSTED. U.S.V.I. 00822 • TELEPHONE (340) 773-6862 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERy\L AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

Coastal Air Transport Inc. 

Respondent. 

F.AA Docket No. 

Judge 

JUDGE NOT YET ASSIGNED 

COMPLAINT 

The Federal .Aviation Administralion (FAA). hy counsel, hereby files its Complaint, 

pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. 1 3.208), and slates as tbllows: 

1. On August 19, 2011, Respondent. Coastal Air Transport Inc. was advised through 

a Final Notice of Proposed Civil PenaUy that the F.A.A proposed to assess a civil penalty in the 

amount of $59,600. On .August 30, 201 1. the Agency .Attorney received a written request for a 

hearing from the Respondent. 

2. On or about October 21. 2009, Coastal .Air Tran.sport, Inc. (hereinafter Coastal 

Air) knowingly accepted for transportation by air and iransportcd aboard an aircraft a one-piece 

shipment consisting of a non-speciticalion fiberboard box containing hazardous materials on 

flight number 413 arriving at the .Alexander Hamilton .Airport (STX), Saint Croix. U.S. Virgin 

Islands. 

. 1 . The above-mentioned shipment was unnianifcsted on Coastal Air Flight #413 

4. On or about October 2i, 2009, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer 

discovered the above-described box on board Flight 413 at SIX in Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin 

Islands. 
5. The box contained two plastic bags labeled ''Ha^'matpac.'" which contained two 

bottles of approximately 750ml each labeled fuel oil UN//1993. 

6. The above described non-specification fiberboard box did not contain a MSDS, 

packing slips or any hazardous markings or warnings labeled on the box. 

7. At all times mentioned herein, the above-described shipment was not 

accompanied by a Shipper's Certification or Declaration of Dangerous Goods. 

8. .At all tiines mentioned herein, the above-described shipment was listed and 

described on ihe bill of lading. 

9. On or about October 21, 2009. Mike Foster of Coastal Air signed the bill of 

lading which described the above-referenced package. 

10. (a) L^iesel Fuel is classified as a hazardous material under the Department of 

Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) (49 C.F.R. § 172.101). 

(b) The proper shipping name of the materia! is Diesel Fuel, it is in Hazard 

Class 3. Packing Group III, and has an assigned identification number of NA 1993. fhe proper 

label is FLAMMABLE LIQUID. 

11. Coastal Air accepted the above-described shipment of hazardous material for 

transportation by air when the shipping papers did not include: 

(a) the proper shipping name prescribed for each material; 

(h) the hazard class prescribed for each material; 

(c) the assigned idenlification number prescribed for each material; 

(d) ilic packing group prescribed for each material; and 

(e) the toial quantity of each hazardous material. 

12. Coastal Air transported the above-described shipment aboard an aircraft uheri il 

was not accompanied by a copy of the required shipping papers. 

13. Coastal Air accepted the above-described shipment of hazardous maleriais for 

transportation by air when the shipper failed to: 

(a) certify that the materials were in accordance with the HMR (49 C.F.R. 

(b) §§ 171. el seq.) by printing the certification set forth in § 172.204(a) or tj 

172.204(c)(1) of the HMR; 

(c) prepare the required certifications in duplicate; 

(d) add the following statement to the certification: 

This shipment is within the limitations prescribed for 

passenger aircraft. • 
14. Coa.stal Ai r accepted the above-described shipment of hazardous materials for 

transportation by air when: 

(a) the outer container was not marked with the proper shipping name o f each 

hazardous material contained therein; 

(b) the outer container was not marked with the assigned identification 

number o f each hazardous material contained therein; 

(c) the outer container was not marked vvilh standard orientation markings on 

two opposite vertical sides o f the package with the arrows pointing in the correct upright 

direction; and 

(d) a "FLAMMABL E LIQUID " label was not affixed to the outer container. 

15. Coastal .Air carried the above shipment of hazardous materials aboard an aircraft 

and failed to provide written notification o f the hazmat to the pilot-in-command as early as 

practicable prior to departure. 

16. Coastal Air carried the above shipment o f hazardous materials aboard an aircrafi 

and failed to have emergency response infonnation, including an emergency response telephone 

number, immediately available to the pilot-in-command during Hight. 

1 7. Coastal Air accepted for transportation or transported aboard an aircraft the above 

shipment o f hazardous materials when it failed to ensure that each o f its hazmat employees was 

trained in accordance wit h the prescribed requirements as set forth in Section 175.20. 

18. By reason o f the above Coastal .Air Transport Inc. violated the following 

Department o f T ransportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (I'ilie 49 o f the Code of Federal 

Regulations): 

1. Section 171.2(a) in that Coastal Air accepted hazardous material for 

transportation aboard an aircraft in commerce when the material was not properly classed, 

described, packaged, marked, labeled, and in condition for shipment as required or authorized by 

applicable requirements o f this subchapter. 

2. Section 171.2(b) in that Coastal Air transported a hazardous material in commerce 

when the hazardous material was not handled and transported in accordance with applicable 

requirements o f this subchapter, or an exemption, approval or registration issued under this 

subchapter or subchapter A o f this subchapter. 
3. Section (75.3 in that Coastal Air accepted for transportation or Iransportcd aboard 

an aircrafi a shipment of hazardous materials not prepared for shipment in accordance with this 

subchapter. 

4 Section 175.20(a) in that Coastal Air did not comply with all applicable 

requirements in parts 106, 171, 172 and 175 of this chapter and failed to ensure each of its 

hazmat employees received training in relation thereto. 

5. Section 175.20(b) in that Coastal Air transported a hazardous material by aircraft 

when each of its hazmat employees involved in that transportation wa.s not trained as required by 

subpart ! 1 of part 172 of this subchapter. 

6. Section I 75.25 in that Coastal Air, engaged in for-hirc transportation of 

passengers, failed lo display notices of the requirements applicable to the carriage of hazardous 

materials aboard aircrafi, and the penalties for failure to comply with those requirements. 

7. Section 175.26 in that Coastal Air, engaged in the acceptance or transport of 

cargo for transportation by aircraft, failed to display notices, at each facility where cargo is 

accepted, to persons offering such cargo of the requirements applicable to the carriage of 

hazardous materials aboard aircrafi, and the penalties for failure to comply with those 

requirements. 

8. Section 1 75.30(a)(2) in that Coastal Air accepted hazardous material for 

transportation aboard an aircraft when the hazardous material was not properly described and 

certified on a shipping paper prepared in duplicate in accordance with Subpart C of part I 72 or 

as authorized hy §1 71.1 I of this subchapter. 

9. Section 1 75.30(a)(3) in that Coastal Air accepted hazardous material for 

transportation aboard an aircrafi when the hazardous material was not labeled or marked in 

accordance with Subparts D and E of part 172 or as authorized by §171.1 ! of this subchapter, 

and placarded (when required) in accordance with subpart F of part I 72 of this subchapter. 

10. Section 175.30(b) in that Coastal Air carried a hazardous material in a package, 

outside container. oro\erpack aboard an aircraft when the operator of the aircraft failed to 

immediately inspect the package, outside container, or overpack before placing it aboard the 

aircrafi. 

11. Section 1 75.30(e)(2) in that Coastal Air accepted an overpack containing 

packages of hazardous material and failed to take reasonable steps to establish that the proper 

shipping names, identification numbers, labels and special handling instructions appearing on (he 

inside packages are clearly visible or reproduced on the outside of the overpack. 

i 2. Section I 75.30(e)(3) in that Coastal Air accepted an overpack containing 

packages of hazardous material and failed to take reasonable steps to determine that a statement 

to the effect that the inside packages comply with the prescribed specifications appears on the 

outside o the overpack, when specification packagings arc prescribed. 
13. Section 1 75.33(a) in that Coastal Air carried a hazardous material subject to the 

provision of this subchapter in an aircraft and failed to provide the pilot-in-command at least the 

following information set forth in this paragraph in writing as early as possible prior to departure. 

14. Section 1 75.33(b) in that Coastal Air failed to have a copy of the written 

notification to piloi-in-command readily available to the pilot-in-command during flight and 

failed to maintain emergency response information required by subpart G of part 172 of this 

subchapter in the same manner as the written notification to pilot-in-command during transport 

of the hazardous material aboard the aircrafi. 

15. Section 175.35(a) in that Coastal Air failed to ensure a copy of the shipping 

papers required by § 175.30(a)(2) accompanied the shipment it covered during transportation 

aboard an aircraft. 

16. Section 1 75.85(a) in that Coastal Air carried a hazardous material subject to the 

requirements of this subchapter in the cabin of a passenger-carrying aircraft or on the fiight deck 

of any aircrafi. 

17 Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section 5123(a). Coastal Air'fransport Inc. is subject to a 

civil penally not lower than $250 ($450 for training-related violations), nor greater than $50,000 

($100,000 if death, serious illness, severe injury, or substantial property damage results), for each 

violation of the Department of 1 ransportation Hazardous Materials Regulations. 

18. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of $59, 600 is 

appropriate. 

WHEREFORE, the Agency, by counsel respectfully requests that the .Administrative Law Judge 

enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $59,600. 

Respectfully submitted this (J day of September. 20 gH 

RASHAW^ RICHXiEORGE 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counse 

PLEASE NOTE: 

Pursuant to Title 14 CFR Section 13.209(a). you are required to file a written answer to this 

Complaint, or a written Motion to Dismiss if appropriate, not later than 30 days after the date 

shown on the Certificate of Sen-'ice which tbllows. 
SEHIlEiCATLOFSERVlCE 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2\VI000 

^^'Jlbur Wright Building 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Coastal Air Transport (nc 

George Logan. Agem for Ser%M 

U 3I King Street, Suile 204 

Christiansted 

St. Croix. V] 00820-4971 

ce 

^ M. McDOWLLI 

Lega'l'T^ssistant 

Office ofihe Regional Counsel 

______S£M_8 2011 

Dated ^' — 

(original + i copy) 

IRegisiered Mai!) 

U - ^ 'Lo-7 ^ , (^ L//f- IAS 

, For dallvery Inftirmatfon v1«lt our w«tHita 8t www.u«ps.coin)i'. 

cr 

O 

• F S C I A L 

P Atago 

C«il6ed Foa 

Hotum Receipt Foo 

lEWOTBCnofi' Requirod) 

RwlricW DeI^•efy Foo 

(Ettorsoflwnt FieouifoiJt 

X)la) PoEiago S Foos 

PoSlmofV 

Stoar. /prW , ^ ' 

'Cty'SaioyziP'k' 

St 2006 l^;i-^5iT^Ti."u^^5T' Siei' Reverse for In'mtruciiors 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

( I) VIOLATIO N COMMITTE D BY U.S. AIR CARRIERS OR U.S. COMMERCIA L 

OPHRATQR. 

CLASSIFICATION OF AIR CARRIER AN D OPERATOR 

GROUP I - Each air carrier operating under pan 121 or part 135, with an annual operating 

revenue of $100,000,000 or more. Operating revenue is determined by reference to DOT's 

"Air Carrier Industry Scheduled Service Traffic Statistics Quanerly." See 

hUp://oslpxweb.dol izov/aviation/index.hlml. and click on "Airline Financial Review." 

GROUP 11 - Each air carrier or conunercial operator operating under part 121 with an annual 

operating revenue of less than Ifi 100.000,000, or under pan 135 with an annual operating 

revenue of less llian $100,000,000, if the 1 35 operator has 50 or more pilots and 25 or more 

aircmfl on its operations specifications. Operating revenue is dclemuned by reference to 

DOT'S ".Air Carrier Industry Scheduled Scr\'ice Traffic Statistics Quanerly." 

GROUP 111 - Each Lur carrier oi commercial operator operating under pan 135 with 6 to 49 

pilots or 6 U) 24 aircraft. 

GROUP IV - Each air carrier or commercial operator operating under pan 135 with no more 

than 5 pilots and no more than 5 aireraft. 

GROUP I - lar^e business conceni 

Maxunum $18,750-$25,000 

Moderate $10,000-$ 18,749 

Minimum $2,000-$9,999 

GROUP I - small business concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. 

§4630l(a)(5XA)): 

Maximum $8,250-$ 11,000 

Moderate $4,400-$8,249 

Minimum $l,100-$4,399 

GROUP I - small business concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(1)(A) 

or (B) but not under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum $850-$!,100 

Moderate $650-$849 

Minimum $500 $649 

GROUP 11 - large business concern: 

B-3 

EXHIBIT. 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

Deliberate Violation, or 

other sii^nincanl 

aggravation 

V I. Violation results in 

death, serious illness. 

severe injury, or 

substantial destruction 

of property 

LIIGAL-Upt o 

50.000 pci olVcnsc 

cyicgor)' fiKiy bo 

assessed 

CONSULt 

LlICiAL • Up to 

100.000 per 

uflcniie category 

may be assessed 

LEGAL - Uplu 

50.000 per oflerisc 

caicyur)' iiiav be 

assessed 

CONSULI" 

LEGAL - Up (0 

100,000 per 

olTcnse category' 

niav be assessed 

Lf^GAL-Upi o 

50,0(K) per oHense 

eategor)' may be 

assessed 

CONSULT 

LEGAL - Upn100.000 per ollense 

caiegor)' may be 

assessed 

LI^GAL • Up to 

50.00U per Ollense 

eaieyur)' may be 

assessed 

CONSULI 

LEGAL - Up to 

100.000 may be 

assessed 

h. *S3nctJons applicable to air carrier and commercial operator passengers and 

crew members. The range for the total civil penalty to be assessed, absent miugating or 

aggravating factors, is $250 (the stalulon.' minimum) to $ 1.000. 

AIR CARRIER AND OTHER AIRCRAFT 

OPERATOR VIOLATIONS 

Failure to comply with Parts 171, 172. or 173 

requirements of the HMR as an offeror of hazmat. 

Improper acceptance o f hazmat for air transportation. 

ti.e., quantity, labeling, marking, packaging, and 

shipping papers) 

See 49 C.F.R. §ij I 75.30(a)( 1) - (4) 

Failure to inspect hazmat shipment properly. 

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

Improper storage/securing of hazmat aboard aircraft. 

Failure to provide hazmat training, maintain records o f 

training, or meet minmium requirements for hazmat 

training (49 C.F.R.). 

Using untrained/improperly trained hazmat personnel, 

failure to retain hazmat training records (49 C.F.R.) 

Failure to notify FAA properly o f incident/discrepancies 

in hazm3t shipment. 

Failure to provide notice to the pilot-in-command. 

Other Part 175 violations. 

Intentional, deliberate, or other significantly aggravated 

violation 

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

substantial destruction of property. 

E. Grou p I & II 

A i r Carriers and 

Other Aircraft 

Operators 

Use main Matrix 

5.000-32.500 

10.000-32.500 

10,000-32,500 

10,000-32.500 

10,000-32,500 

5,000-16,200 

5,000-16,200 

5,000-16,200 

CONSULT 

LEGAL - Up to 

50,000 per 

ofTensc category 

may be assessed 

CONSULT 

LEGA L - Up to 

100,000 per 

offense categor)' 

may be assessed 

F. Grou p II I & IV 

Air Carrier s and 

Other Aircraf i 

Operators 

Usv: n^iin Matrix. 

2.500-16.200 

5,000-10,200 

5,000-16,200 

5,000-16.200 

5.000-16,200 

1,000-5.500 

1,000-5,500 

1,000-5.500 

CONSULT LEGAL 

- Up to 50,000 per 

offense category 

may be assessed 

CONSULT LEGAL 

- Up to 100,000 per 

offense category 

may be assessed 

EXHIBm 

C-13 

3