Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/part-107/subpart-D/appendix-A
Timestamp: 2014-12-21 12:50:57
Document Index: 713376568

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 107', 'art 107', 'art 107', 'art 107', 'art 107', '§ 172', '§ 172', '§ 172']

49 CFR Part 107, Subpart D, Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 107 - Guidelines for Civil Penalties | LII / Legal Information Institute
CFR › Title 49 › Subtitle B › Chapter I › Subchapter A › Part 107 › Subpart D › Appendix A 49 CFR Part 107, Subpart D, Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 107 - Guidelines for Civil Penalties
Pt. 107, Subpt. D, App. A
I. This appendix sets forth the guidelines used by the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (as of October 1, 2005) in making initial baseline determinations for recommending civil penalties. The first part of these guidelines is a list of baseline amounts or ranges for probable violations frequently cited in enforcement reports referred for action. Following the list of violations are general guidelines used by OHMS in making initial penalty determinations in enforcement cases.
$1,000 $500 each additional year.
a. § 172.504 table 1 materials
3. Failure to update a security plan to reflect changing circumstances
D. Notification to a Foreign Shipper: Failure to provide information of HMR requirements applicable to a shipment of hazardous materials within the United States, to a foreign offeror or forwarding agent at the place of entry into the U.S.
$1,500 to $7,500 (corresponding to violations by foreign offeror or forwarding agent).
15. Failure to indicate “Limited Quantity” or “Ltd Qty” following the basic shipping description of a material offered for transportation as a limited quantity
16. Failure to include “RQ” in the shipping description to identify a material that is a hazardous substance
17. Failure to include a required technical name in parenthesis for a listed generic or “n.o.s.” material
3. Failure to have the emergency response telephone number monitored while a hazardous material is in transportation or listing multiple telephone numbers (without specifying the times for each) that are not monitored 24 hours a day
1. Failure to mark the proper shipping name on a package or marking an incorrect shipping name on a package
2. Failure to mark the identification number on a package
4. Failure to mark the proper shipping name and identification number on a package
6. Failure to include the required technical name(s) in parenthesis for a listed generic or “n.o.s.” entry
9. Failure to mark a package containing liquid hazardous materials with required orientation marking
10. Failure to mark “RQ” on a non-bulk package containing a hazardous substance
2. Placing a label that represents a hazard other than the hazard presented by the hazardous material in the package
3. Placing a label on a package that does not contain a hazardous material
5. Placing a label on a different surface of the package than, or away from, the proper shipping name
7. Placing a label on a package that does not meet color specification requirements (depending on the variance)
a. Packing Group I (and § 172.504 Table I materials)
3. Offering a hazardous material for transportation in a packaging that has been successfully tested to an applicable UN standard but is not marked with the required UN marking
7. Offering a hazardous material for transportation after October 1, 1996, in an unauthorized non-UN standard packaging marked as manufactured to a DOT specification:
a. packaging meets DOT specification
8. Failure to mark an overpack with a statement that the inside packages comply with prescribed specifications or standards when specification or standard packaging is required
1. Failure to mark the package with the EX number for each substance contained in the package or, alternatively, indicate the EX number for each substance in association with the description on the shipping description
a. Div. 1.3 and 1.4 fireworks meeting the chemistry requirements (quantity and type) of APA Standard 87-1
2. Failure to mark the gross mass on the outside of a package of Class 7 material that exceeds 110 pounds
3. Failure to mark each package in letters at least 13 mm (1/2 inch) high with the words “Type A” or “Type B” as appropriate
4. Placing a label on Class 7 material that understates the proper label category
5. Placing a label on Class 7 material that fails to contain (or has erroneous) entries for the name of the radionuclide(s), activity, and transport index
6. Failure to meet one or more of the general design requirements for a package used to ship a Class 7 material
9. Failure to meet the additional design requirements of a Type A package used to ship a Class 7 material
173.412(b)-(i)
173.412(j)-(l)
11. Offering a DOT specification 7A packaging without maintaining complete documentation of tests and an engineering evaluation or comparative data:
12. Offering any Type B, Type B(U), Type B(M) packaging that failed to meet the approved DOT, NRC or DOE design, as applicable
15. Offering Class 7 material for transportation as a limited quantity without meeting the requirements for limited quantity
17. Offering Class 7 low specific activity (LSA) materials or surface contaminated objects (SCO) with an external dose rate that exceeds an external radiation level of 1 rem/hr at 3 meters from the unshielded material
18. Offering Class 7 LSA materials or SCO as exclusive use without providing specific instructions to the carrier for maintenance of exclusive use shipment controls
24. Exporting a Type B, Type B(U), Type B(M), or fissile package without obtaining a U.S. Competent Authority Certificate or, after obtaining a U.S. Competent Authority Certificate, failing to submit a copy to the national competent authority of each country into or through which the package is transported
3. Offering a limited quantity of a compressed gas in a metal container for the purpose of propelling a nonpoisonous material and failure to heat the cylinder until the pressure is equivalent to the equilibrium pressure at 130 °F, without evidence of leakage, distortion, or other defect
a. Packing Group I (and § 172.504 Table 1 materials)
2. Failure to keep complete and accurate records of IBC or portable tank retest and reinspection
3. Failure to make reinspection and retest records available to a DOT representative upon request
2. Failure to have a registration number or failure to mark the registration number on the cylinder
3. Marking another company's number on a cylinder
4. Failure to mark the date of manufacture or lot number on a DOT-39 cylinder
5. Failure to have a chemical analysis performed in the U.S. for a material manufactured outside the U.S./failure to obtain a chemical analysis from the foreign manufacturer
6. Failure to meet wall thickness requirements
7. Failure to heat treat cylinders prior to testing
14. Representing a DOT-4 series cylinder as repaired or rebuilt to the requirements of the HMR without being authorized by the Associate Administrator
1. Failure to remark as DOT 3AL an aluminum cylinder manufactured under a former exemption or special permit
3. Failure to have retester's identification number (RIN)
4. Failure to have current authority due to failure to renew a retester's identification number (RIN)
5. Failure to have a retester's identification number and marking another RIN on a cylinder
13. Failure to condemn a cylinder when required (e.g., permanent expansion of 10% [5% for certain exemption or special permit cylinders], internal or external corrosion, denting, bulging, evidence of rough usage)
17. Marking a star on a cylinder that does not qualify for that mark
18. Marking a “ ” sign on a cylinder without determining the average or minimum wall stress by calculation or reference to CGA Pamphlet C-5
23. Marking an FRP cylinder with steel stamps in the FRP area of the cylinder such that the integrity of the cylinder is compromised
1. Failure to give immediate notification of a reportable hazardous materials incident
2. Failure to file a written hazardous material incident report within 30 days following an unintentional release of hazardous materials in transportation (or other reportable incident)
3. Transporting explosives in a motor vehicle containing metal or other articles or materials likely to damage the explosives or any package in which they are contained, without segregating in different parts of the load or securing them in place in or on the motor vehicle and separated by bulkheads or other suitable means to prevent damage
a. Failure to have the required radiation survey record
b. Failure to have other required documents
III. Consideration of Statutory Criteria
A. These guidelines are used by the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS) in setting initial proposed penalties for hazmat violations. They indicate baseline amounts or ranges for probable violations frequently cited in enforcement reports and set forth general OHMS policy for considering statutory criteria.
B. The initial baseline determination partially considers the nature, extent, circumstances, and gravity of the alleged violation. That determination then is adjusted to consider all other evidence concerning the nature, extent, circumstances, and gravity of the alleged violation; degree of culpability; history of prior violations; ability to pay; effect of the penalty on ability to continue to do business; and such other matters as justice may require (a major component of which is corrective action taken by a respondent to prevent a recurrence of similar violations). In making a penalty recommendation, the baseline or range may be increased or decreased on the basis of evidence pertaining to these factors.
C. The following miscellaneous factors are used to implement one or more of the statutory assessment criteria.
IV. Miscellaneous Factors Affecting Penalty Amounts
1. A proposed penalty is mitigated for documented corrective action of alleged violations taken by a respondent. Corrective action may occur: (1) After an inspection and before a Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV) is issued; (2) on receipt of an NOPV; or (3) after receipt of an NOPV (possibly after it is solicited by an PHMSA attorney). In general, corrective action may reduce a penalty up to 25%. Mitigation may be taken into account in the referral memo or may be recommended prior to issuance of an Order by PHMSA's Chief Counsel.
2. The two primary factors in determining the penalty reduction are extent and timing of the corrective action. In other words, mitigation will be determined on the basis of how much corrective action was taken and when it was taken. Systemic action to prevent future violations is given greater consideration than action simply to remedy violations identified during the inspection.
3. Mitigation is applied to individual violations. Thus, in a case with two violations, if corrective action for the first violation is more extensive than for the second, the penalty for the first will be mitigated more than that for the second.
B. Respondents That Re-Ship
A shipper that reships materials received from another company, in the same packaging and without opening or altering the package, independently is responsible for ensuring that the shipment complies with Federal hazmat law, and independently may be subject to enforcement action if the package does not comply. Nevertheless, the reshipper is considered to have a lesser level of responsibility for compliance in those respects in which it reasonably relies on the compliance of the package as received. In most cases of this type, OHMS will discount the applicable baseline standard by about 25%. The specific knowledge and expertise of all parties must be considered in discounting for reliance on a prior shipper. This discount is applied before any consideration of mitigation based on corrective action.
C. Penalty Increases for Multiple Counts
Under the Federal hazmat law, 49 U.S.C. 5123(a), each violation of the HMR and each day of a continuing violation (except for violations pertaining to packaging manufacture or qualification) is subject to a civil penalty of up to $55,000 or $110,000 for a violation occurring on or after January 1, 2010. Absent aggravating factors, OHMS, in its exercise of discretion, ordinarily will apply a single penalty for multiple counts or days of violation. In a number of cases, particularly those involving shippers, an inspector may cite two or more similar packaging violations for different hazardous materials. For example, the inspector may cite the same marking violation for two or more packages. OHMS usually will consider those additional violations as counts of the same violation and will not recommend multiples of the same baseline penalty. Rather, OHMS usually will recommend the baseline penalty for a single violation, increased by 25% for each additional violation.
1. Mitigation is appropriate when the baseline penalty would (1) exceed an amount that the respondent is able to pay, or (2) have an adverse effect on the respondent's ability to continue in business. These criteria relate to a respondent's entire business, and not just the product line or part of its operations involved in the violation(s). Beyond the overall financial size of the respondent's business, the relevant items of information on a respondent's balance sheet include the current ratio (current assets to current liabilities), the nature of current assets, and net worth (total assets minus total liabilities).
2. These figures are considered on a case-by-case basis. In general, however, a current ratio close to or below 1.0 means that the company may have difficulty in paying a large penalty, and may justify reduction of the penalty or an installment payment plan. A small amount of cash on hand representing limited liquidity, even with substantial other current assets (such as accounts receivable or inventory), may warrant a short-term payment plan. Respondent's income statement also will be reviewed to determine whether a payment plan is appropriate.
3. Many companies are able to continue in business for extended periods of time with a small or negative net worth, and many respondents have paid substantial civil penalties in installments even though net worth was negative. For this reason, negative net worth alone does not always warrant reduction of a proposed penalty or even, in the absence of factors discussed above, a payment plan.
4. In general, an installment payment plan may be justified where reduction of a proposed penalty is not, but the appropriateness of either (or both) will depend on the circumstances of the case. The length of a payment plan should be as short as possible, but the plan may consider seasonal fluctuations in a company's income if the company's business is seasonal (e.g., swimming pool chemical sales, fireworks sales) or if the company has documented specific reasons for current non-liquidity.
5. Evidence of financial condition is used only to decrease a penalty, and not to increase it.
E. Penalty Increases for Prior Violations
The baseline penalty presumes an absence of prior violations. If prior violations exist, generally they will serve to increase a proposed penalty. The general standards for increasing a baseline proposed penalty on the basis of prior violations are as follows:
F. Penalty Increases for Use of Expired Special Permits
Adjustments to the base line figures for use of expired special permits can be made depending on how much material has been shipped during the period between the expiration date and the renewal date. If the company previously has been found to have operated under an expired special permit, the penalty is normally doubled. If the company has been previously cited for other violations, the penalty generally will be increased by about 25%.
[Amdt. 107-33, 60 FR 12141, Mar. 6, 1995, as amended by Amdt. 107-40, 62 FR 2972, 2977, Jan. 21, 1997; 62 FR 51556, Oct. 1, 1997; 65 FR 58618, Sept. 29, 2000; 66 FR 45180, Aug. 28, 2001; 68 FR 52848, 52855, Sept. 8, 2003; 69 FR 54044, Sept. 7, 2004; 70 FR 56090, Sept. 23, 2005; 70 FR 73162, Dec. 9, 2005; 71 FR 8487, Feb. 17, 2006; 74 FR 53185, Oct. 16, 2009; 74 FR 68702, Dec. 29, 2009]