Below we share some of our top 2021 success stories with you.

Successfully Mitigated Liquidated Damages Claims 

• For failure to timely refile rejected entries subject to AD/CV duties:
  • After DTL’s strategic involvement CBP substantially mitigated approximately $5 MILLION in claims down to $26,365.00, successfully saving our client over $4.7 MILLION dollars
  • Our client received 36 liquidated damages notices from CBP totaling over $567,000. After Diaz Trade Law’s successful negotiation with CBP, all 36 cases were canceled by CBP, saving our client $over $567,000!!
• CBP sent our client a liquidated damages claim in the amount of $150,000. As a result of Diaz Trade Law’s successful petition, CBP mitigated the liquidated damages claim down to $1,500!
• CBP issued a liquidated damages claim in the amount of $50,000.00. After DTL successfully petitioned CBP, the claim was cancelled!
• CBP issued a liquidated damages claim in the amount of $36,033.00. After DTL successfully petitioned CBP, the claim was mitigated to $360.33 (the best potential mitigation!).

CBP Detention Assistance 

• Mere days after being retained, Diaz Trade Law successfully assisted in negotiating with CBP and numerous trademark owners proving that our clients detained goods (collectively valued over $1,000,000.00) were legitimate, receiving either consent TM holder, and/or convincing CBP to release legitimate merchandise that should not have been detained.
• After CBP detained our client’s electronic merchandise to verify admissibility with the Department of Transportation (DOT)
  • CBP released the electronic goods after DTL proved the merchandise, LED driving lights, were eligible for an “off road” use exception and DOT providing such confirmation.
• After CBP detained our client’s electronic merchandise to verify the validity of a trademark on the product packaging.
  • Diaz Trade Law proactively communicated with the trademark holder and CBP, who, with the authorization of the trademark holder, permitted the importer to manipulate the merchandise and import the goods saving our client from a costly and lengthy seizure case that potentially exposed our client to CBP penalties.
• After CBP detained our client’s electronic merchandise to verify the validity of a trademark on the product packaging.
  • After Diaz Trade Law’s immediate involvement in arguing the product was “confusingly similar” and not counterfeit, DTL persuaded CBP to apply the relief afforded to “confusingly similar” seized merchandise and ultimately CBP permitted the exportation – which is relief that is rarely granted for detained products. DTL saved our client from a seizure case and potential penalties.
• CBP detained 28 containers of our client’s cargo.
  • Diaz Trade Law successfully negotiated with CBP to permit the goods to be reexported and avoid substantial demurrage expenses.

4647 Responses 

• CBP issued our client a CBP Form 4647 – Notice to Mark, because its electronic car accessories labels had both a country of origin marking and a “Designed in the USA” claim (in separate locations on the label).
  • After 48 hours of Diaz Trade Law’s successful escalation and negotiation with the Electronic Center of Excellence and Expertise, CBP granted a rarely used marking waiver permitting the merchandise to be imported as is, saving our client both money and time.
• CBP issued our client a CBP Form 4647 – Notice to Mark, because over 1,000 electronic car accessory units did not bear a country of origin marking.
  • Diaz Trade Law successfully and efficiently guided our client through the marking process. Ultimately, the goods were marked and authorized for distribution within recording timing – less than 10 days from the issuance of the 4647, saving our client both money and time.
• CBPO’s at Port Everglades detained two of our client’s shipments and issued two separate CBP Form 4647s – Notices to Mark because the imported merchandise valued at $98,744.00 did not bear a country of origin marking.
  • Diaz Trade Law successfully and efficiently guided our client through the marking process. Ultimately, the goods were marked and authorized for distribution with record timing – within 7 days from the issuance of the 4647, saving our client both money and time.
• Diaz Trade Law successfully assisted our client in responding to CBP’s Notice to Redeliver (CBP Form 4647) and provided CBP confirmation that the intellectual property rights displayed on the goods was authorized and our client’s merchandise was released in record timing!

Successfully Assisted Numerous Importers Battle Alleged Intellectual Property Rights Violations

• Our client’s merchandise was seized by CBP due to an alleged trademark violation.
  • After Diaz Trade Law’s successful petition, CBP issued a decision authorizing our client to relabel and export its legitimate merchandise.
• CBP detained several shipments of our client’s cargo for both Country of Origin (COO) and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) reasons.
  • Diaz Trade Law advocated for our client and within less than one week convinced CBP to release our client’s legitimate merchandise detained at numerous ports of entry nationwide.
• Our client’s designer handbags were seized by CBP due to an alleged counterfeit violation.
  • After Diaz Trade Law’s successful petition, proving that the handbags were legitimate, CBP released our client’s legitimate merchandise.
• CBP detained our client’s goods valued at $98,744.00 for an alleged IPR validation.
  • Our firm immediately communicated with the appropriate CBP CEE and submitted evidence supporting the legitimacy of the imported goods requesting their immediate release. The CBP CEE agreed with our request and recommended the local port release the shipment, saving our client from a costly and lengthy seizure case.
• Diaz Trade Law successfully negotiated with CBP on behalf of an aftermarket car part importer to permit the exportation of goods detained for alleged IPR violations, saving the importer from a costly and lengthy seizure and potential penalty.
• Our client imported electronic merchandise which contained a trademark-violating processing system.
  • After Diaz Trade Law’s successful intervention, Diaz Trade Law received authorization from the trademark holder to permit the violative components to be removed and destroyed, and the larger shell merchandise to be imported in its current form. CBP agreed to these terms, and issued a disposition order authorizing the manipulation and release of the goods as Diaz Trade Law had requested.

Successfully Mitigated Penalty Actions Issued by CBP to our Clients 

• For importing noncompliant Wood Packaging Material:
  • $91,714 mitigated to 3% of penalty to $2,751.42, saving our client $88,962
  • $69,900 mitigated to 3% of penalty to $6,990, saving our client $60,000
  • $28,478 mitigated to 10% of penalty to $2,847, saving our client $25,631
  • $27,857 mitigated to 10% of penalty to $2,786, saving our client $25,071
  • $19,980.00 mitigated to 10% of penalty to $1,998, saving our client $17,982
• For filing incorrect Electronic Export Information (EEI)
  • $14,194 mitigated down to $500 (the best possible relief)!
  • $14,194 mitigated to 10% of penalty to $1500, saving our client $12,694

CBP 28 / CBP 29 Responses / CBP Investigations and Rejections

• Our client received a CBP 28 for a U.S. Australia Free Trade Agreement verification.
  • After Diaz Trade Law filed a successful response proving the imported goods were eligible for preferential duty-free treatment, CBP closed the 28 with a positive CBP 29 (Notice of Action).
• Our client received a CBP 28 Request for Information from U.S. Customs to verify GSP eligibility.
  • After Diaz Trade Law submitted a substantive response proving the GSP claim was valid, CBP issued a CBP 29 determining that the merchandise qualifies for GSP and no duties are owed to CBP!
• Our client received a Request for Information (CBP 28) from CBP.
  • Diaz Trade Law filed a 28 response which included a Prior Disclosure. The 28 was closed out, and the disclosure was accepted by CBP resulting in no 1592 penalties being issued to our client.
• CBP physically inspected our client’s cargo at the time of entry and identified that the commercial invoice and packing slip submitted to CBP did not include one model number included in the cargo. Diaz Trade Law immediately negotiated with CBP to accept an updated invoice and packing list. CBP accepted and released the complete cargo with no further enforcement action taken, saving our client costly demerge fees and other expenses.
• CBP rejected and refused an importation of tires because CBP alleged the importer did not have a right to make entry. After three uphill battles with CBP and DTL’s strategic recommendation to change the import transaction model, the importer was successfully able to act as IOR and its merchandise was admitted into the US.

USTR/China Tariffs

• Diaz Trade Law assisted over 100 importers in filing complaints with the Court of International Trade challenging Section 301 tariffs imposed for imported goods under for List 3 and List 4a, requesting full refunds.
• Diaz Trade Law filed numerous exclusions for goods subject to the Section 301 List 3 and List 4. USTR agreed and granted our client’s exclusion!
• Numerous clients that were subject to 301 duties used Diaz Trade Law to actively monitor 301 exclusions to ensure they were notified when refunds were a possibility. Diaz Trade Law assisted with not only actively monitoring the relevant exclusions, but also interpreting the applicability, and fighting for refunds via the Protest or PSC process. CBP has accepted numerous Protests, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of refunds were sent to our clients!
• As a result of Diaz Trade Law’s closely monitoring Section 301 China tariff exclusions, Diaz Trade Law found an applicable exclusion for our client to use and filed two Protests with CBP requesting that CBP refund the China tariffs paid. Our client’s protests were approved by CBP, resulting in a refund of $64,678.00.

Export Compliance and Enforcement Mitigation Assistance

• Diaz Trade Law is actively assisting exporters:
  • Vetting proposed export transactions
  • Providing voluntary self-disclosures to Census and OFAC
  • Developing an effective export compliance plan
  • Developing export compliance training
  • Mitigation and corrective action
  • Presenting export report cards to clients based upon an analysis of ACE data
  • Analyze export trade data
  • With mitigation of export seizures and penalties
• Our client needed urgent assistance to ensure it understood the requirements to properly export hazardous materials. Diaz Trade Law successfully and expeditiously secured Competent Authority Approvals for the hazardous material from the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) as well as the Competent Authority of Turkey and Finland.

OFAC/FAA/HSI 

• Our client’s incoming wire payments of $842,918.92 from Venezuela were blocked by its U.S. bank for possible violations of U.S. sanctions laws.
  • After Diaz Trade Law filed a specific license application with the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), OFAC issued a specific license authorizing the legitimate funds to be unblocked and returned to our client.
• Our client was being investigated by FAA as a result of a hazardous materials incident.
  • As a result of Diaz Trade Law’s successful involvement, the FAA closed the matter with an informal action!
• Our client was being investigated by HSI for possible criminal liability.
  • After Diaz Trade Law’s intervention, HSI closed its investigation into our client.

 Protests

• Diaz Trade Law successfully assisted our client in filing two Protests with CBP. These approvals saved our client over $600,000!!
• After Diaz Trade Law’s successful Protest of CBP’s AD/CVD bills, our client’s protest was approved by CBP, saving our client over $200,000!!

Binding Rulings

• Diaz Trade Law successfully requested and received binding rulings for numerous clients confirming:
  • the correct country of origin for its prospective imported merchandise.
  • the correct harmonized tariff schedule (HTSUS) for its imported merchandise.
  • both the origin of their merchandise and appropriate CBP country of origin marking
  • the applicability of a free trade agreement.

Assisted Numerous Importers in Filing Prior Disclosures and Voluntary Self-Disclosures Accepted by CBP 

• Diaz Trade Law successfully submitted a perfected prior disclosure for underlying classification, valuation, quantity, and 301/China tariff errors. While reviewing ACE data, we identified offsets for the duties owed to CBP. Ultimately, CBP agreed with our assessment and accepted our prior disclosure and tender, resulting in a refund of over $25,000 to our client and ensuring no future penalties would be assessed for our client’s past importing errors.
• After discovering Electronic Export Information (EEI) filing errors made by one of our clients, Diaz Trade Law assisted our client in proactively filing a Voluntary Self-Disclosure (VSD) with the U.S. Census Bureau and assisting our client in fixing all past errors. The VSD filing was accepted and resulted in the U.S. Census Bureau closing out the matter without penalties being assessed.
• On behalf of a client, Diaz Trade Law filed a voluntary disclosure with the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), disclosing potential sanctions violations.
  • Diaz Trade Law worked proactively with OFAC and received this “No Action letter” with no penalties assessed to our client.
• Diaz Trade Law successfully assisted our client in filing a Voluntary Self-Disclosure (VSD) with the U.S. Census Bureau for violations of the Foreign Trade Regulations.
  • Diaz Trade Law proactively worked with the Census Bureau and corrected past filing errors. The VSD was successfully closed out with no penalties assessed.
• Diaz Trade Law successfully assisted our client in filing a Prior Disclosure. CBP accepted the prior disclosure with no 1592 penalties being assessed!

Bonded Warehouse

• After Diaz Trade Law’s successful application, our client’s Bonded Warehouse Application was approved!
• After its bonded warehouse was activated by CBP, our client realized it wanted to change the total square footage. Diaz Trade Law successfully assisted our client alter its customs bonded warehouse space.

Successfully Assisted Numerous Importers in Various Seizure Cases 

• CBP seized our client’s vehicle after believing it could have been used to import illegal substances. After Diaz Trade Law’s successful petition proving our client’s innocence, CBP released the vehicle with no penalty assessed
• $20,868.81 of our client’s currency was seized by CBP. After Diaz Trade Law’s successful petition, $19,868.81 was returned to our client!
• $15,795 of our client’s currency was seized by CBP. After Diaz Trade Law’s successful petition, $14,795 was returned to our client!
• $12,157.95 worth of jewelry was seized by Customs after our client failed to declare it. After Diaz Trade Law’s successful Petition, CBP released the jewelry within 22 days.

Awards

• In 2021, Diaz Trade Law founder Jennifer Diaz was again Chambers ranked in International Trade: Customs – USA – Nationwide

Publications

Key publications written by Diaz Trade Law in 2021 were:

• Bloomberg Law, Introduction to U.S. Export Controls: Part 2, November, 2021.
• Bloomberg Law, Protecting Intellectual Property Rights in China, October 2021.
• Bloomberg Law, Incoterms 2020, May 2021.
• Bloomberg Law, Submitting Voluntary Self-Disclosures to Bureau of Industry & Security, May 2021.
• Bloomberg Law, Submitting a Voluntary Self-Disclosure to Census, April 2021.
• Bloomberg Law, Submitting a Voluntary Self-Disclosure to OFAC, April 2021.
• Bloomberg Law, U.S. Customs Targets Use of Forced Labor, January 2021.
• Customs and International Trade Bar Association, An Overview of China’s New Export Controls Regime,
• Customs and International Trade Bar Association, COVID-19’s Impact on 2020 Trade Flows,

Customized Training Programs & Webinars

Key compliance programs taught by Diaz Trade Law in 2021 were:

• Intellectual Property Rights and Customs – Amazon Brand Registry
• CTPAT Program: Is CTPAT a Right Fit
• Successfully Navigating the U.S. Customs Detention and Seizure Process
• How to Navigate FDA Enforcement Action: Detentions, Warning Letters, and Import Alerts
• Requests For Information (CBP Form 28) and Prior Disclosures
• How to Build and Maintain an Effective Import Compliance Plan
• How to Build and Maintain an Effective Export Compliance Plan
• Importing Food in Compliance With U.S. FDA and Surviving A FSVP Audit
• Importing Medical Devices in Compliance With U.S. FDA
• 6 Months In – Insights on Biden & Congress on Trade
• Is it a Cosmetic, a Drug, or Both? FDA Enforcement Actions
• ACE: Auditing Your Export History
• ACE: Auditing Your Import History
• Introduction to Export Controls
• Importing 101 – Introduction to U.S. Customs
• Anti-Circumvention / EAPA / Dumping Duties & the Spreadability of Cases (Coated Paper)
• Other Trade Remedies 101 – Every Administration has a Favorite!
• Basics on AD/CVD
• Cleaning for Covid-19 – Importing Cleaning Products: Who Regulates You?
• Forecasting the Next 4 Years of Biden on Trade

Diaz Trade Law values you and appreciates your trust in us to be your Customs and International Trade Law Expert! Contact us at info@diaztradelaw.com to schedule your consultation or customized training today.

BIS

• BIS Publishes Report on Effect of Uranium Imports on National Security
• BIS Publishes First Military End User List

Bloomberg

• Bloomberg Law – Introduction to U.S. Export Controls: Part 2
• Protecting Intellectual Property Rights in China
• Incoterms 2020
• Submitting Voluntary Self-Disclosures to Bureau of Industry & Security
• Submitting a Voluntary Self-Disclosure to Census
• Submitting a Voluntary Self-Disclosure to OFAC
• U.S. Customs Targets Use of Forced Labor

Customs and International Trade Bar Association 

• New CITBA Article – An Overview of China’s New Export Controls Regime
• COVID-19’s Impact on 2020 Trade Flows

China

• OFAC Issues Clarifying Guidance on Communist Chinese Military Companies Sanctions
• Hong Kong’s Initiates Dispute Regarding U.S.-Origin Marking Requirement
• CBP Issues WRO on Cotton, Tomato, & Downstream Products Made in Xinjiang
• Future of First Sale Rule in Question

Crypto

• OFAC Targets Russian Crypto Platform
• Why China’s Cryptocurrency Miners are Moving to Texas

Covid-19

• Recent Government Data Indicates that Florida Trade is Rebounding Fast Despite Pandemic Hit

Export

• What are Routed Export Transactions?
• Understanding the Computer Export License Exception (APP)
• Understanding the GOV Export License Exception
• Vegas Woman Charged with Iran Sanctions Violations
• Do’s and Don’ts of Filing a Commodity Jurisdiction Request
• Understanding Strategic Trade Authorization
• Building a Strong Export Compliance Plan
• Commerce Department Issues Rule Securing Digital Supply Chains Against Foreign Adversaries

Import/CBP

• UK Joins Kimberley Diamond-Trading Process
• FTC issues a Record Breaking $1.2 Million Penalty
• Customs Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Broker Continuing Education – Comments Open
• Comment Now – CBP Proposed Rule on Country of Origin Determination for Imports under USMCA
• 9801.00.10: Updated Requirements for Returned Goods
• Customs Valuation 101
• Breaking News – New Federal Law Expands Furniture Flammability Testing Standard

AD/CVD

• New Antidumping Petition Against Imports of Certain Honey Products
• New AD/CVD Petition Against Imports of Certain Chinese Mobile Access Equipment

Buy America

• Biden Executive Order Strengthens Buy American Government Procurement Laws

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Trading in Wildlife? You May Need a License

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

• FDA Seeks Public Comments on Proposed Final Order for OTC Sunscreen Safety
• FDA OPENS NEW FSVP PORTAL FOR IMPORTERS
• FDA Further Extends UFI Flexibility For Food Facility Registrations
• OTC Drug Manufacturers are Required to Pay FDA Facility User Fees by May 10, 2021
• FDA Import Alert on Mexican Hand Sanitizer
• Comment on FDA’s Proposed Rule – French Dressing

USITC

• An Introduction to Safeguard Investigations

OFAC 

• Between a Rock and a Hard Place – Conflicting U.S. & EU Sanctions Policies Towards Iran
• OFAC Sanctions & Licensing
• The CAPTA List – An Introduction
• Treasury Imposes Further Sanctions on Iran
• Trump Administration Designates Cuba State Sponsor of Terrorism

Section 301

• Want Your 301 Exclusion Back? Comment Now!
• Potential Relief from China Tariffs Coming
• 301 Exclusion Extensions for COVID-19 Related Products
• Proposed 25% Tariffs on Section 301 Digital Service Taxes – Comment Now
• USTR Announces Special 301 Review – Comments Due January 28
• US Imposes Additional Tariffs on EU Goods
• USCIT Invalidates 232 Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum Derivatives

Podcasts

• 3-Part Podcast Miniseries – Importing, Exporting, and AD/CVD

Trade Snapshots

• Customs and Trade Law Snapshot
• Customs and Trade Law Weekly Snapshot

USDA 

• Understanding Organic Equivalency Arrangements
• USDA National Organic Program – Enforcement & Compliance Overview

Webinar

• Want Customs to Police Your IPR at all 328 Ports of Entry?
• Customs Classification – A Key Component of an Import Compliance Manual
• Keysight Technologies Pays $6.6M to State Department for Export Violations
• Food Importers: How to Import Food Compliantly & Survive a FSVP Audit
• Don’t Let FDA Target Your Medical Device Company
• Insight on Last 6 Months of Biden/Congress on Trade
• Diaz Trade Law Invites the Trade Community to Two Free Webinars this Summer!
• Don’t be a Target, Learn Best Practices to Mitigate FDA Enforcement
• ACE: Auditing Your Export History
• ACE: Auditing Your Import History
• Exporting 101 – Introduction to Export Controls
• Anti-Circumvention, EAPA, Dumping Duties & the Spreadability of Cases
• Cleaning for COVID-19 – Importing Cleaning Products: Who Regulates You?
• REGISTER TODAY! NEI Accredited Webinar Importing 101 – Introduction to U.S. Customs
• Biden Administration Commits to Modernizing Regulatory Review

If you have any questions on the topics above, contact us at info@diaztradelaw.com.

In fact, every day HAZMAT shippers are slapped with penalties issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)–and the penalty amounts sometimes reach seven figures or more.  

If you think “well, I made only one mistake–I won’t get caught,” or if you think you can talk yourself out of getting a penalty like you do a speeding ticket, think again.  When the FAA investigates an incident and issues a penalty, you can bet what you think is just one violation will quickly become multiple violations. 

FAA regulations require proper marking, printing, labeling, describing, packing, and classifying HAZMAT. Also, there is another set of regulations for the training of employees and recordkeeping of shipments.  Understanding the FAA’s policies and procedures in HAZMAT penalty cases is a necessary first step to mitigating what can be exorbitant penalties.

The FAA issues the penalties for violations of the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) found at 49 CFR Parts 171 to 185 pursuant to the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law, 49 U.S.C. Sections 5101 to 5127.  The FAA penalties have increased from $10,000 to now $50,000 for each violation of the HMR that occurred after August 10, 2005.  It is common for the FAA to issue a penalty for hundreds of thousands of dollars against a company for illegally shipping, or even attempting to ship, a HAZMAT on an aircraft, including shipments provided to FedEx, UPS, or DHL.  Penalties are often issued against any shippers, including Fortune 500 companies and even foreign companies shipping cargo to the United States. Penalties may be issued by the FAA if the HAZMAT is not packaged, marked, classed, described, documented, or in condition for shipment as required by regulations. 

The FAA HAZMAT Penalty Procedures

The most common scenario occurs when an undeclared HAZMAT shipment is provided to an airline, and the airline reports the suspected violation to the FAA.  An FAA Special Agent with extensive experience in HAZMAT is immediately dispatched, and the Agent conducts an inspection and investigation of (a) the shipper, (2) the freight forwarder, and/or (3) the airline.  The Agent often interviews, and obtains written statements, from persons involved in the incident.  The Agent then submits a Report of Investigation to the nearest FAA legal office, called the Office of the Regional Counsel for review by its lawyers. The FAA lawyers then decide whether or not the violation should result in a written warning or a civil monetary penalty, and if so, what the amount of the penalty should be, and to which individual or company should the penalty be issued. 

The FAA attorney then formally issues a “Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty” against the company or person who shipped or attempted to ship the HAZMAT. The Notice is usually addressed to the President or CEO of the company, and it specifies the facts and circumstances of the violation, cites the applicable sections of the HMR, and concludes with a demand for payment of the civil penalty. 

The FAA offers the alleged violator some choices in a standard form attached to the Notice. Basically, your options are to (1) pay the penalty in full, (2) deny any violation and ask for a formal hearing, (3) make an offer of settlement, (4) ask for a telephonic and/or in-person informal conference with the FAA attorney to explain what happened and negotiate a lower, or no, penalty, or(5) allege financial inability to pay the penalty.  The form must be completed and returned to the FAA attorney within 30 days with the selection of one of the choices above, and officially identifying the name and contact information for the attorney representing the company which received the penalty from the FAA.

I have handled many FAA HAZMAT cases from all over the United States. I have also lectured extensively on the topic of “Mitigating Civil Penalties Issued by the FAA For HAZMAT Violations”, including at the Dangerous Goods by Air 2001 Conference & Exhibition (February 14, 2001) sponsored by the International Air Transport Association (IATA), Keeping Dangerous Goods Safe in a Secure World (May 1, 2003) also sponsored by IATA, and Dangerous Goods Symposium for Instructors (November 9, 2006), sponsored by Labelmaster.

In the many cases that I have handled, I have always requested an informal conference with the FAA attorney.  Requesting a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge should only be used when the FAA attorney is completely unreasonable in negotiating a settlement when there is a violation.  The FAA has issued a FAQ for attorneys unfamiliar with the formal hearing process regulated by 14 CFR Part 13.  Informal conferences give the company an opportunity to explain to the FAA its version of what happened and why it happened, and to allow the company, through its attorney, to present mitigating factors to reduce what otherwise may be a huge penalty.

Good Arguments to the FAA

The FAA has certain criteria set forth at 14 CFR Section 13.16(c)  that it uses to evaluate the amount of a penalty. They generally are categorized as:

(1) the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation;

(2) the degree of culpability, and history of prior violations, and the ability to pay; and

(3) “such other matters as justice may require”.

What is not stated is perhaps more important, and that is what corrective action has been taken by the company to prevent a recurrence of a similar violation.  The extent and timing of such corrective action are significant factors in successfully mitigating penalties.  A violation that occurred because of reasonable reliance on incorrect information from another source may be another successful argument.  Companies should always seek mitigation pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA).  Finally, companies should consult the current Hazardous Materials Sanction Guidance Matrix found at Appendix A to 49 CFR Part 107.

Bad Arguments to the FAA

The FAA assesses penalties against companies and persons who “knowingly” commit a HAZMAT violation.  Arguing that an employee of the company that illegally shipped the HAZMAT should not subject the company to the penalty is not a persuasive argument to the FAA attorney. Arguing that the airline did not know it had accepted the illegally shipped HAZMAT is equally unsuccessful because the FAA regulations require the shipper and the airline to exercise reasonable care, and therefore, it should have known that the shipment was an undeclared HAZMAT or has some other particular violation.

Concluding the FAA Case

After the informal conference has completed, and hopefully a reasonable settlement was achieved, the FAA attorney will issue a formal “Order Assessing Civil Penalty” which restates the agreed facts, the relevant sections of the HMR which the company admits to violating, and the amount of the agreed settlement penalty.   The penalty may be paid within 60 days to the FAA by electronic payment or paper check.

 Some Things to Remember

1.  Educate and regularly train employees on HAZMAT;

2.  Immediately get a knowledgeable attorney involved as soon as a HAZMAT incident occurs which could lead to an FAA investigation and penalty.  Communicating with the assigned Special Agent during the investigation, and then the attorney within the Office of Regional Counsel before the issuance of a penalty can be critical; and

3.  Take corrective action before the FAA issues its recommendations to do so.

With the penalties now $50,000 for each HAZMAT violation combined with more than 100 Special Agents within the FAA’s Office of Hazardous Materials, and a priority of the FAA to enforce hazardous materials regulations, 2009 and 2010 are very likely to be record years for collection of penalties by the FAA.