Get in touch

555-555-5555

mymail@mailservice.com

logo

"But it Was Just Spray Paint!"

Stewart Lapayowker • October 9, 2017

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently issued proposed civil penalties ranging from $63,000 to $91,000 against three companies for alleged violations of Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). One such violation was for failing to properly mark a box containing two 12-ounce cans of spray paint.  http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=16794&omniRss=press_releasesAoc&cid=102_P_R

Applicable Hazardous Materials Regulations are complex and require the proper marking, labeling, and packing of hazardous materials in addition to proper training of employees that ship hazardous materials and recordkeeping.

Violations and civil penalties are common, largely due to the fact that many companies are unaware that they are improperly shipping hazardous materials and are subject to the FAA’s jurisdiction for doing so. To make matters worse, because many of these companies do not understand the FAA enforcement process, they unwittingly aid the FAA in making its case against them.

Typically, a company finds out that it has violated HMR by receiving a telephone call or letter from the FAA seeking information about the shipment. At this point, unaware that the information they provide will likely be used against them in the FAA’s subsequent enforcement action, the company provides an explanation or written statement that often indicates that they have likely violated additional regulations. Believing that their cooperation in the matter has resolved the issue and absolved them of any wrongdoing, the company is often shocked to later receive a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty (NPCP) for its violations of HMR. Given that penalties for violations of HMR may range from $10,000 – $50,000 per violation, just one improper shipment could lead to a penalty in excess of $100,000.

Very often, companies often do not appreciate the adversarial nature of this process, which is why they seldom benefit from admitting to violations of HMR or dealing directly with the FAA. Instead, it is advisable to discuss the issue with counsel experienced with enforcement proceedings relating to HMR prior to submitting any response to the FAA’s request for information.

By Lapayowker Jet Counsel April 1, 2024
Mr. Lapayowker appeared on a recent episode of The Pay & Proxy Podcast, titled Corporate Aircraft Use – The Latest Trends & IRS Audit Plans. With the Wall Street Journal highlighting a significant increase in personal use of corporate aircraft in recent years, and the IRS initiating an “aircraft audit” program to scrutinize whether companies… The post Stewart Lapayowker Appears on The Pay & Proxy Podcast first appeared on Lapayowker Jet Counsel.
By Stewart Lapayowker October 20, 2020
An offer to purchase an aircraft customarily includes a variety of terms, chief among them the purchase price that the buyer will pay and a list of technical delivery conditions (inspections current, airworthiness directives complied with, complete records, etc.). During the pre-purchase inspection, the inspection facility performs an independent evaluation of the aircraft and issues… The post Delivery Conditions: Fundamental Assumptions that an Aircraft Buyer Assumes When Agreeing on Price first appeared on Lapayowker Jet Counsel.
More Posts
Share by: