FAA Proposes Civil Penalties Against Two Companies | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-05.06.24

Airborne-NextGen-05.07.24

Airborne-Unlimited-05.08.24 Airborne-FlightTraining-05.09.24

Airborne-Unlimited-05.10.24

Tue, Feb 10, 2015

FAA Proposes Civil Penalties Against Two Companies

Both Allegedly Violated Hazardous Materials Regulations

The FAA has proposed civil penalties of $54,000 and $96,800 against two companies for allegedly violating Hazardous Materials Regulations.

The FAA alleges that on June 26, 2014, an employee of Rheem Manufacturing Co. of Atlanta, GA offered to FedEx three undeclared shipments containing a total of 19 metal cans of flammable paint for air transportation from Laredo, Texas, to Heber, CA. Two of the three packages leaked in transit

The FAA alleges that the packages were not declared to contain hazardous materials and the materials offered were not properly classed, described, packaged, marked, labeled and in proper condition for shipment under the hazardous materials regulations. Further, the FAA alleges that Rheem did not provide emergency response information with the package and did not ensure its employees had received required hazardous materials training.

The proposed fine against Rheem is $96,800

In a separate incident, the FAA is proposing a $54,000 fine against Amazon.com of Seattle, Wash. The FAA alleges that on Feb. 5, 2013, Amazon offered to UPS a package containing a handgun cleaning kit for air transportation from Las Vegas to Pueblo, CO. The kit included a 2-ounce plastic container of flammable, corrosive liquid, which workers at the UPS sort facility in Louisville, KY discovered was leaking.

Investigators determined the shipment was not accompanied by shipping papers to indicate the nature or quantity of the hazardous material. The FAA also alleges the shipment was not marked, labeled or packaged in accordance with the Hazardous Materials Regulations, and that Amazon did not provide required emergency response information.

Both companies have 30 days from receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letters to respond to the agency.

FMI: www.faa.gov

Advertisement

More News

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (05.09.24)

"Fly-by-wire flight, coupled with additional capability that are being integrated into ALFA, provide a great foundation for Bell to expand on its autonomous capabilities. This airc>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (05.09.24): Hold Procedure

Hold Procedure A predetermined maneuver which keeps aircraft within a specified airspace while awaiting further clearance from air traffic control. Also used during ground operatio>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (05.09.24)

Aero Linx: B-21 Raider The B-21 Raider will be a dual-capable penetrating strike stealth bomber capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear munitions. The B-21 will form th>[...]

Airborne 05.03.24: Advanced Powerplant Solutions, PRA Runway Woes, Drone Racing

Also: Virgin Galactic, B-29 Doc to Allentown, Erickson Fire-Fighters Bought, FAA Reauthorization After dealing with a big letdown after the unexpected decision by Skyreach to disco>[...]

Airborne-NextGen 05.07.24: AI-Piloted F-16, AgEagle, 1st 2 WorldView Sats

Also: Skydio Chief, Uncle Sam Sues, Dash 7 magniX, OR UAS Accelerator US Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall was given a turn around the patch in the 'X-62A Variable In-flight>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2024 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC