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-AffordableFlyers-11.20.25

AirborneUnlimited-11.21.25

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

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (12.01.25): Convective SIGMET

Convective SIGMET A weather advisory concerning convective weather significant to the safety of all aircraft. Convective SIGMETs are issued for tornadoes, lines of thunderstorms, e>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (12.01.25)

Aero Linx: United Flying Octogenarians WELCOME to a most extraordinary group of aviators, the United Flying Octogenarians (UFO). Founded in 1982 with just a handful of pilots, we h>[...]

NTSB Final Report: Remos Aircraft GmbH Remos GX

Pilot’s Decision To Attempt Takeoff With Frost Covering The Airplane’s Wings Analysis: The pilot of the light sport airplane was preparing to depart for a cross-country>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (12.02.25)

“We’ve paid for the cable line’s repair for the customer and have apologized for the inconvenience this caused them...” Source: Some followup info from an A>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (12.02.25): Coupled Approach

Coupled Approach An instrument approach performed by the aircraft autopilot, and/or visually depicted on the flight director, which is receiving position information and/or steerin>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

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