I. This appendix sets forth the guidelines PHMSA uses (as of October 2, 2013) in making initial baseline determinations for civil penalties. The first part of these guidelines is a list of baseline amounts or ranges for frequently-cited probable violations. Following the list of violations are general guidelines PHMSA uses in making penalty determinations in enforcement cases.

The baseline penalty amounts in Part II are used as a starting amount or range appropriate for the normal or typical nature, extent, circumstances, and gravity of the probable violations frequently cited in enforcement reports. PHMSA must also consider any additional factors, as provided in 49 U.S.C. 5123(c) and 49 CFR 107.331, including the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of a violation, the degree of culpability and compliance history of the respondent, the financial impact of the penalty on the respondent, and other matters as justice requires. Consequently, at each stage of the administrative enforcement process, up to and including issuance of a final order or decision on appeal, PHMSA can adjust the baseline amount in light of the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

As part of this analysis, PHMSA reviews the factors outlined in the next section, Miscellaneous Factors Affecting Penalty Amounts, the safety implications of the violation, the pervasiveness of the violation, and all other relevant information. PHMSA considers not only what happened as a result of the violation, but also what could have happened as a result of continued violation of the regulations. As a general matter, one or more specific instances of a violation are presumed to reflect a respondent's general manner of operations, rather than isolated occurrences.

PHMSA may draw factors relevant to the statutory considerations from the initial information gathered by PHMSA's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety Field Operations, the respondent in response to an exit briefing, ticket, or Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV), or information otherwise available to us. We will generally apply the specific statutory factors that are outlined in the next section, Miscellaneous Factors Affecting Penalty Amounts, in the following order:

1. Select the appropriate penalty amount within a specific baseline or range, with appropriate increases or decreases depending on the packing group or material involved and other information regarding the frequency or duration of the violation, the culpability of the respondent, and the actual or potential consequences of the violation.

2. Apply decreases for a reshipper or carrier that reasonably relied on an offeror's non-compliant preparation of a hazardous materials shipment.

3. Apply increases for multiple counts of the same violation.

4. Apply increases for prior violations of the HMR within the past six years.

5. Apply decreases for corrective actions.

6. Apply decreases for respondent's inability to pay or adverse effect on its ability to continue in business.

A person who either receives hazardous materials from another company and reships them (reshipper), or accepts a hazardous material for transportation, and transports that material (carrier), is responsible for ensuring that the shipment complies in all respects with Federal hazardous materials transportation law. In both cases, the reshipper or carrier independently may be subject to enforcement action if the shipment does not comply.

Depending on all the circumstances, however, the person who originally prepared the shipment and placed it into transportation may have greater culpability for the noncompliance than the reshipper or carrier who reasonably relies on the shipment as received and does not open or alter the package before the shipment continues in transportation. PHMSA will consider the specific knowledge and expertise of all parties, as well as which party is responsible for compliance under the regulations, when evaluating the culpability of a reshipper or carrier. PHMSA recognizes that a reshipper or carrier may have reasonably relied upon information from the original shipper and may reduce the applicable baseline penalty amount up to 25 percent.

A main objective of PHMSA's enforcement program is to obtain compliance with the HMR and the correction of violations which, in many cases, have been part of a company's regular course of business. As such, there may be multiple instances of the same violation. Examples include a company shipping various hazardous materials in the same unauthorized packaging, shipping the same hazardous material in more than one type of unauthorized packaging, shipping hazardous materials in one or more packagings with the same marking errors, or using shipping papers with multiple errors.

Under the Federal hazmat law, 49 U.S.C. 5123(a), each violation of the HMR and each day of a continuing violation (except for violations relating to packaging manufacture or qualification) is subject to a civil penalty of up to $102,348 or $238,809 for a violation occurring on or after December 30, 2024. As such, PHMSA generally will treat multiple occurrences that violate a single regulatory provision as separate violations and assess the applicable baseline penalty for each distinct occurrence of the violation. PHMSA will generally consider multiple shipments or, in the case of package testers, multiple package designs, to be multiple occurrences; and each shipment or package design may constitute a separate violation.

PHMSA, however, will exercise its discretion in each case to determine the appropriateness of combining into a single violation what could otherwise be alleged as separate violations and applying a single penalty for multiple counts or days of a violation, increased by 25 percent for each additional instance, as directed by 49 U.S.C. 5123(c). For example, PHMSA may treat a single shipment containing three items or packages that violate the same regulatory provision as a single violation and apply a single baseline penalty with a 50 percent increase for the two additional items or packages; and PHMSA may treat minor variations in a package design for a package tester as a single violation and apply a single baseline penalty with a 25 percent increase for each additional variation in design.

When aggravating circumstances exist for a particular violation, PHMSA may handle multiple instances of a single regulatory violation separately, each meriting a separate baseline or increase the civil penalty by 25 percent for each additional instance. Aggravating factors may include increased safety risks, continued violation after receiving notice, or separate and distinct acts. For example, if the multiple occurrences each require their own distinct action, then PHMSA may count each violation separately (e.g., failure to obtain approvals for separate fireworks devices).

The baseline penalty in the List of Frequently Cited Violations assumes an absence of prior violations. If a respondent has prior violations of the HMR, generally, PHMSA will increase a proposed penalty.

When setting a civil penalty, PHMSA will review the respondent's compliance history and determine if there are any finally-adjudicated violations of the HMR initiated within the previous six years. Only cases or tickets that have been finally-adjudicated will be considered (i.e., the ticket has been paid, a final order has been issued, or all appeal remedies have been exhausted or expired). PHMSA will include prior violations that were initiated within six years of the present case; a case or ticket will be considered to have been initiated on the date of the exit briefing for both the prior case and the present case. If multiple cases are combined into a single Notice of Probable Violation or ticket, the oldest exit briefing will be used to determine the six-year period. If a situation arises where no exit briefing is issued, the date of the Notice of Probable Violation or Ticket will be used to determine the six-year period. PHMSA may consider prior violations of the Hazardous Materials Regulations from other DOT Operating Administrations.

The general standards for increasing a baseline proposed penalty on the basis of prior violations are as follows:

1. For each prior civil or criminal enforcement case—25 percent increase over the pre-mitigation recommended baseline penalty.

2. For each prior ticket—10 percent increase over the pre-mitigation recommended baseline penalty.

3. If a respondent is cited for operating under an expired special permit and previously operated under an expired special permit (as determined in a finally-adjudicated civil, criminal, or administrative enforcement case or a ticket), PHMSA will increase the civil penalty 100 percent.

4. If a respondent is cited for the exact same violation that it has been previously cited for within the six-year period (in a finally-adjudicated civil, criminal, or administrative enforcement case or a ticket), PHMSA will increase the baseline for that violation by 100 percent. This increase will apply only when the present violation is identical to the previous violation and applies only to the specific violation that has recurred.

5. A baseline proposed penalty (both for each individual violation and the combined total) will not be increased more than 100 percent on the basis of prior violations.

PHMSA may lower a proposed penalty when a respondent's documented corrective action has fixed an alleged violation. Corrective action should demonstrate not only that the specific deficiency is corrected but also that any systemic corrections have been addressed to prevent recurrence of the violation.

The two primary factors that determine the reduction amount are the extent and timing of the corrective action. In other words, PHMSA will determine the amount of mitigation based on how much corrective action a respondent completes and how soon after the exit briefing it performs corrective action. Comprehensive systemic action to prevent future violations may warrant greater mitigation than actions that simply target violations identified during the inspection. Actions taken immediately (within the 30 calendar day period that respondents have to respond to an exit briefing, or upon approval of Field Operations) may warrant greater mitigation than actions that are not taken promptly.

PHMSA may consider a respondent's corrective action to assess mitigation at various stages in the enforcement process, including: (1) AFTEr an inspection and before an NOPV is issued; (2) on receipt of an NOPV; or (3) after receipt of an NOPV. In order to reduce a civil penalty for corrective action, PHMSA must receive satisfactory documentation that demonstrates the corrective action was completed. If a corrective action is of a type that cannot be documented (e.g., no longer using a particular packaging), then a respondent may provide a signed affidavit describing the action it took. The affidavit must begin with the affirmative oath “I hereby affirm under the penalties of perjury that the below statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief,” in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746.

Generally, corrective action credit may not exceed 25 percent. Mitigation is applied to individual violations and fact patterns but should not be considered to be automatic reduction. Thus, in a case with two violations, if corrective action for the first violation is more extensive than for the second, the penalty for the first will be mitigated more than that for the second. If a respondent has previously committed the same violation, however, as determined in a finally-adjudicated civil, criminal, or administrative enforcement case or a ticket, PHMSA will not apply any reduction for corrective action.

In determining the appropriate civil penalty reduction, PHMSA will consider the extent to which the respondent corrected the violation and any risks or harms it created, the respondent's actions to prevent the violation from recurring, improvements to overall company practices to address a widespread compliance issue, and how quickly the corrective action was performed. In general, PHMSA will apply the following reductions for corrective action, subject to the facts and circumstances of individual cases and respondents. If a respondent has given full documentation of timely corrective action and PHMSA does not believe that anything else can be done to correct the violation or improve overall company practices, we will generally reduce the civil penalty by no more than 25 percent. As noted above, a 25 percent reduction is not automatic. We will reduce the penalty up to 20 percent when a respondent promptly and completely corrected the cited violation and has taken substantial steps toward comprehensive improvements. PHMSA will generally apply a reduction up to 15 percent when a respondent has made substantial and timely progress toward correcting the specific violation as well as overall company practices, but additional actions are needed. A reduction up to 10 percent is appropriate when a respondent has taken significant steps toward addressing the violation, but minimal or no steps toward correcting broader company policies to prevent future violations. PHMSA may reduce a penalty up to 5 percent when a respondent made untimely or minimal efforts toward correcting the violation.

PHMSA may mitigate a proposed penalty when a respondent documents that the penalty would either (1) exceed an amount that the respondent is able to pay, or (2) have an adverse effect on the respondent's ability to continue in business. These criteria relate to a respondent's entire business, and not just the product line or part of its operations involved in a violation. PHMSA may apply this mitigation by reducing the civil penalty or instituting a payment plan.

PHMSA will only mitigate a civil penalty based on financial considerations when a respondent supplies financial documentation demonstrating one of the factors above. A respondent may submit documentation of financial hardship at any stage to receive mitigation or an installment payment plan. Documentation includes tax records, a current balance sheet, profit and loss statements, and any other relevant records. Evidence of a respondent's financial condition is used only to decrease a penalty, and not to increase it.

In evaluating the financial impact of a penalty on a respondent, PHMSA will consider all relevant information on a case-by-case basis. Although PHMSA will determine financial hardship and appropriate penalty adjustments on an individual basis, in general, we will consider the following factors.

1. The overall financial size of the respondent's business and information on the respondent's balance sheet, including the current ratio (current assets to current liabilities), the nature of current assets, and net worth (total assets minus total liabilities).

2. A current ratio close to or below 1.0 may suggest that the company would have difficulty in paying a large penalty or in paying it in a single lump sum.

3. A small amount of cash on hand (representing limited liquidity), even with substantial other current assets (such as accounts receivable or inventory), may suggest a company would have difficulty in paying a penalty in a single lump sum.

4. A small or negative net worth may suggest a company would have difficulty in paying a penalty in a single lump sum. Notwithstanding, many respondents have paid substantial civil penalties in installments even though net worth was negative. For this reason, negative net worth alone does not always warrant reduction of a proposed penalty or even, in the absence of factors discussed above, a payment plan.

When PHMSA determines that a proposed penalty poses a significant financial hardship, we may reduce the proposed penalty and/or implement an installment payment plan. The appropriateness of these options will depend on the circumstances of the case.

When an installment payment plan is appropriate, the length of the payment plan should be as short as possible, but may be adjusted as necessary. PHMSA will not usually exceed six months for a payment plan. In unusual circumstances, PHMSA may extend the period of a payment plan. For example, the duration of a payment plan may reflect fluctuations in a company's income if its business is seasonal or if the company has documented specific reasons for current non-liquidity.