U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

) 

) 

RECEI\/ED 

AUG 2 5 20!5 

H!=ARING DOCKET 

) FAA Docket No. FAA 2014-0864 

) (Civil Penalty Action) 

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 

Respondent. 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

) 

) 

) FDMS no. 2014-0864 

) 

ANSWER OF FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 

Respondent, Federal Express Corporation, by counsel, hereby answers the Amended 

Complaint of the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA" or "Complainant") in the 

like-numbered paragraphs, pursuant to Section 13.209 of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil 

Penalty Actions, 14 C.F.R. § 13.209, and asserts as follows. 

1. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Section I, paragraph 1 of the 

FAA's Complaint. 

2. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Section I, paragraph 2 of the 

FAA's Complaint. 

3. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Section I, paragraph 3 of the 

FAA's Complaint. 

4. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Section I, paragraph 4 of the 

FAA's Complaint. 
5. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Section I, paragraph 5 of the 

FAA's Complaint. 

6. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Section I, paragraph 6 of the 

FAA's Complaint. 

7. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Section I, paragraph 7 of the 

FAA's Complaint. 

8. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Section I, paragraph 8 of the 

FAA's Complaint. 

9. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Section I, paragraph 9 of the 

FAA's Complaint. 

1 0. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Section I, paragraph 1 0 of the 

FAA's Complaint. Specifically, Respondent denies that it "knowingly" accepted hazardous 

material for transportation by air in commerce when the material was not properly classed, 

described, packaged, marked, labeled, and in condition for shipment as required or authorized by 

applicable requirements of Subchapter C, of the Hazardous Materials Regulations, and demands 

strict proof thereof. 

11. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the FAA's 

Complaint. Specifically, Respondent denies tbat it "knowingly" transported hazardous materials 

for transportation by air in commerce when the hazardous material was not transported in 

accordance with the applicable requirements of subchapter C, of the Department of 

Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations, and demands strict proof thereof. 

12. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Section I, paragraph 12 of the 

FAA's Complaint. Specifically, Respondent denies that it "knowingly" accepted hazardous 
material for transportation aboard an aircraft when the hazardous material was not described and 

certified on a shipping paper prepared in duplicate in accordance with part 172 or as authorized 

by subpart C of part 171 of subchapter C, of the Department of Transportation Hazardous 

Materials Regulations, and demands strict proof thereof. 

13. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Section I, paragraph 13 of the 

FAA's Complaint. Specifically, Respondent denies that it "knowingly" failed to inspect 

hazardous material and denies that it placed it in a unit load device or a pallet prior to loading it 

aboard an aircraft. 

14. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Section I, paragraph 13 of the 

FAA's Complaint. Specifically, Respondent denies that it "knowingly" accepted hazardous 

material for transportation aboard an aircraft when the hazardous material was not marked and 

labeled in accordance with subparts D and E of part 172 or as authorized by subpart C of part 

171 of subchapter C, of the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations, and 

demands strict proof thereof. 

15. a. Respondent denies any and all alleged violations of section 171.2(e) of the 

Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 C.F.R. 

§ 171.2( e), and demands strict proof thereof. 

b. Respondent denies any and all alleged violations of section l71.2(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 C.F.R. 

§ l71.2(f), and demands strict proof thereof. 

c. Respondent denies any and all alleged violations of section 175.3 of the 

Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 C.F.R. § 

175.3, and demands strict proof thereof. 
d. Respondent denies any and all alleged violations of section 175.30(a)(2) 

of the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 C.P.R. 

§ 175.30(a)(2), and demands strict proof thereof. 

e. Respondent denies any and all alleged violations of section 175.30(a)(3) 

of the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 C.P.R. 

§ 175.30(a)(3), and demands strict proof thereof. 

f. Respondent denies any and all alleged violations of section 175.30(b)(2) 

of the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 C.P.R. 

§ 175.30(b)(2), and demands strict proof thereof. 

16. Respondent denies any and all allegations in Section III of the FAA's Complaint, 

and asserts that the penalty that the FAA seeks to impose is unduly harsh, unjust, and 

unsupported by the facts surrounding the allegations at issue in the Complaint. 

17. All other allegations not specifically addressed are denied. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

I. The facts set forth in the Complaint do not, as a matter of law, support a violation, 

in whole and/or in part, of the of the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials 

Regulations. 

2. The Complainant fails to state a claim warranting the proposed penalty. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, by counsel, respectfully requests the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge to enter an Order dismissing the Complaint with prejudice and entering judgment in 

favor of Respondent. 
Dated: August 24, 2015 

Respectfully submitted, 

F edera1 Express Corporation 

By:,G~ Atto~ for Respondent 

1700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Suite 950 

Washington, DC 20006 

(202) 393-9285 

greg.stofko@fedex.com 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing document has been sent via Federal Express to the 

following: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2Wl 000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Mr. James Archier, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

2601 Meacham Boulevard 

Fort Worth, Texas 76137 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-3 66-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX:202-366-7536 

Dated this 24th day of August, 2015. 

Ry~o~ A rney for Respondent 

1700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Suite 950 

Washington, DC 20006 

(202) 393-9285 

greg.stofko@fcdex.com 
Fec:Ex, 

Express 

August 24,2015 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Ave., NW 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Re: In the Matter of Federal Express Corporation 

FDMS 2014-0864 (FAA Case No. 2014SW700042) 

Dear Hearing Docket Clerk: 

Legal Department 

1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Suite 950 

Washington, DC 20006 

RECEIVED 

AUG 2 5 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

Please find enclosed an original and one copy of Federal Express Corporation's Answer to 

Complainant's Amended Complaint, which we are filing in the above referenced matter. 

Copies of this letter, motion and order are also being served via Federal Express on the FAA Office of 

Regional Counsel and the Administrative Law Judge assigned to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

':"~'CSSQORP~~~~N 

GregS~ 

Attorney for Respondent 

1700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Suite 950 

Washington, DC 20006 

202-393-9285 

greg.stofko({l)fedex.com 

Enclosure 

Cc: Mr. James Archier, FAA Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin