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-12.01.25

AirborneNextGen-
12.02.25

Airborne-Unlimited-12.03.25

Airborne-FltTraining-12.04.25

AirborneUnlimited-12.05.25

AFE 2025 LIVE MOSAIC Town Hall (Archived): www.airborne-live.net

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-FAQ: Dave Juwel's Aviation Marketing Stories -- ITBOA BNITBOB

Dave Juwel's Aviation Marketing Stories ITBOA BNITBOB ... what does that mean? It's not gibberish, it's a lengthy acronym for "In The Business Of Aviation ... But Not In The Busine>[...]

NTSB Prelim: Rutan Long-EZ

The Pilot Attempted Several Times To Restart The Engine And Diverted To Long Beach Airport/Daughtery Field On October 20, 2025, about 1603 Pacific daylight time, an experimental am>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (12.05.25): Hazardous Weather Information

Hazardous Weather Information Summary of significant meteorological information (SIGMET/WS), convective significant meteorological information (convective SIGMET/WST), urgent pilot>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (12.05.25)

"The latest development underscores the government of Malaysia’s commitment in providing closure to the families affected by this tragedy..." Source: From statements made by >[...]

Airborne-Flight Training 12.04.25: Ldg Fee Danger, Av Mental Health, PC-7 MKX

Also: IAE Acquires Diamond Trainers, Army Drones, FedEx Pilots Warning, DA62 MPP To Dresden Tech Uni The danger to the flight training industry and our future pilots is clear. Dona>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2025 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC