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

John K. Dussia

Company Name:
John K. Dussia
Enforcement Order Type:
Decisions on Appeal
Case Number:
98-215-SB-EA
Report Date:

On February 11, 1999, the Chief Counsel issued an Order to John K. Dussia (Respondent) assessing a penalty in the amount of $4,000 for two violations of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). The Order, which is incorporated herein by reference, found that Respondent knowingly offered for transportation in commerce two DOT specification 4DS cylinders containing compressed gas (bromotrifluoromethane pressurized with nitrogen) without describing this material on a shipping paper (violation No. 1), and without properly marking the outer box containing the cylinders (violation No. 2). The Order reduced the $6,000 civil penalty originally proposed in the January 29, 1998 Notice of Probable Violation (Notice). By letter received March 4, 1999, Respondent submitted a timely appeal of the Order. The Order of February 11, 1999, is modified to the extent of finding that, in violation No. 2, Respondent did not mark the outer packaging with the proper shipping name and identification number. I am setting aside the finding that Respondent did not mark an overpack as specified in those provisions. In all other respects, the Order is affirmed as being substantiated in the record and as being in accordance with the assessment. 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 $4,000 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 is affirmed and is therefore denied.