USA Banner

Official US Government Icon

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure Site Icon

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation Icon United States Department of Transportation United States Department of Transportation

Amarillo Testing and Engineering, Inc.

Company Name:
Amarillo Testing and Engineering, Inc.
Enforcement Order Type:
Decisions on Appeal
Case Number:
95-97-RMS/RMC-HQ
Report Date:

On September 17, 1996, the Chief Counsel issued an Order to Amarillo Testing and Equipment, Inc. (Respondent) assessing a penalty in the amount of $7,700 for three violations of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). (1): Respondent had knowingly: (1) transported in commerce a package containing radioactive materials without assuring that the package was in unimpaired physical condition and that each closure was properly secured and free from all defects (violation No. 1); (2): offered for transportation or transported in commerce reportable quantities of radioactive materials in special form that were either not accompanied by a shipping paper or were accompanied by a shipping paper that lacked required information (violation No. 2); and (3) allowed an employee to perform a function subject to the HMR when the employee had not been trained as required (violation No. 3). The Order reduced the $11,080 civil penalty originally proposed in the May 8, 1995 Notice of Probable Violation (Notice) and provided that Respondent could pay the $7,700 penalty in 35 monthly installments of $220 each. By letter dated October 7, 1996, Respondent submitted a timely appeal of the Order. Respondent provided additional financial information with its October 28, 1996 letter and further supplemented its appeal in a January 27, 1997 letter. I have determined that there is not sufficient information to warrant mitigation of the civil penalty assessed in the Chief Counsel's Order. I find that a civil penalty of $7,700 is appropriate in light of the nature and circumstances of these violations, their extent and gravity, Respondent's culpability, Respondent's lack of prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay, the effect of a civil penalty on Respondent's ability to continue in business, and all other relevant factors. The Order of September 17, 1996, is affirmed and the appeal is denied.