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

Eagle X-Ray of Texas, Inc.

Company Name:
Eagle X-Ray of Texas, Inc.
Enforcement Order Type:
Decisions on Appeal
Case Number:
95-125-RMS-SW
Report Date:

On January 8, 1997, the Chief Counsel issued an Order to Eagle X-Ray of Texas, Inc. (Respondent) assessing a penalty in the amount of $5,800 for three violations of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). The Order found that the Respondent knowingly offered for transportation in commerce special form radioactive material without being registered with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as a party to the NRC package approval(violation No. 1), and without maintaining a complete safety analysis (or an International Atomic Energy Agency Certificate of Compliance) for this material, (violation No. 2). The Order also found that Respondent failed to provide the required training to its "hazmat" employees and maintain training records. The Order reduced the $8,700 civil penalty originally proposed in the May 19, 1995 Notice of Probable Violation, and further provided that Respondent could pay the total $5,800 penalty in 25 monthly installments of $232 each. By letter dated January 27, 1997, Respondent submitted a timely appeal of the Order. It was 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 $5,800, payable in 25 monthly installments of $232 each, 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 January 8, 1997, is affirmed and the appeal is denied.