Gulf Wide Safety Systems, Inc.

Current as of source date Government source

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety AdministrationOfficial agency material

Decision paragraph 1On March 27, 1998, the Chief Counsel issued an Order to Gulf Wide Safety Systems, Inc. (Respondent) assessing a penalty in the amount of $11,000 for a violation of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR).#

Decision paragraph 2The Order found that Respondent knowingly represented, marked, and certified DOT exemption cylinders as having been successfully retested in accordance with the HMR, when Respondent failed to retest the cylinders, did not hold a retester's identification number (RIN) issued by RSPA, and marked another company's RIN on the cylinders.#

Decision paragraph 3The Order modified the $15,850 civil penalty originally proposed in the May 30, 1997 Notice of Probable Violation (Notice).#

Decision paragraph 4By letter dated April 20, 1998, Respondent submitted a timely appeal of the Order.#

Decision paragraph 5The seriousness of this violation justifies the $11,000 penalty assessed in the Order.#

Decision paragraph 6Respondent failed to provide any additional information in support of its appeal. As noted in the Order, most of Respondent's expenses "to improve the quality and standards of our company" appear to have been necessary to obtain its RIN and legally engage in cylinder retesting and related operations, or constituted "start-up" costs of a new company that began operations in 1995, according a Dun & Bradstreet report. These expenditures do not warrant a reduction of the penalty assessed in the Order. 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 $11,000 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.#

Decision paragraph 7The Order of March 27, 1998, is affirmed, and the appeal is denied.#