L'L.I 

•cTr'-i--^-':-TAI!Q;! RECEIVED 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JM. ] 2 2010 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

HEARING DOCKET 

) 

In the Matter of: ) 

) FAA Docket No. CPl 0SW0007 

Federal Express Corporation ) 

) FAA Case No. 2009SW700276 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER AND 

STATEMENT OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Respondent Federal Express Corporation (d/b/a FedEx Express) hereby answers, 

by counsel, the Complaint filed in this proceeding by Regional Counsel to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, and sets forth affirmative defenses to this civil penalty claim. 

Following the numbering of the sections in the Complaint: 

I 

The allegations contained in Section I of the Complaint are admitted. 

II 

1. In response to the allegations contained in Section II (1) of the Complaint, 

Respondent denies that it knowingly improperly accepted from Judith A. 

Osbom a one-piece shipment containing dangerous goods / hazardous 

materials. Respondent admits the remaining allegations contained in Section n 

(1) of the Complaint. 
2. The allegations contained in Section II (2) of the Complaint are admitted, but 

Respondent specifically denies knowledge of the contents of the package at 

the time of acceptance. 

3. The allegations contained in Section II (3) of the Complaint are admitted. 

However, in further response. Respondent states that not all batteries are 

regulated as dangerous goods / hazardous materials that would require 

identification markings or labels to indicate their presence inside of a box, and 

the shipper did not provide any identification markings or labels on the box to 

indicate the presence of regulated dangerous goods / hazardous materials. 

4. The allegations contained in Section II (4) of the Complaint are admitted, but 

Respondent states, by way of further answer, that the shipper did not provide a 

DG Shipper's Declaration for Dangerous Goods or any other paperwork to 

indicate the package contained dangerous goods. 

5. The allegations contained in Section II (5) of the Complaint are admitted, but 

Respondent states, by way of further answer, that the shipper did not provide a 

DG Shipper's Declaration for Dangerous Goods or any other indication that 

the information described in Section II (5) of the Complaint would be required 

for this shipment. 

6. In response to the allegations contained in Section II (6) of the Complaint, 

Respondent states that not all batteries are regulated as dangerous goods / 

hazardous materials. Respondent further states that the shipper bears the 
compliance burden to properly classify, identify, package, mark, label and 

declare a shipment as dangerous goods / hazardous materials, and the shipper 

did not provide any indication that the shipment contained regulated 

dangerous goods / hazardous materials. Respondent denies that the shipper 

"declared" the contents of the package, and specifically denies that any 

statement of the shipper was sufficient to shift the burden to the Respondent to 

make additional inquiry regarding the contents. 

7. The allegations contained in Section II (7) of the Complaint are admitted, with 

the clarification that the shipment was transported by ground only and did not 

enter the air transportation system. 

8. The Respondent denies knowledge of the extent of damage to the outer 

packaging. The remaining allegations contained in Section II (8) of the 

Complaint are admitted, and in further response, the Respondent followed all 

rules and regulations in notifying the Federal Aviation Administration of the 

shipment. 

9. The allegations contained in Section II (9) of the Complaint are denied. 

10. The allegations contained in Section II (10) of the Complaint are admitted, but 

Respondent states, by way of further answer, that the shipper did not provide 

any indication that the shipment contained regulated dangerous goods / 

hazardous materials. 

m 
1. The allegations contained In Section III (1) of the Complaint are denied. 

2. The allegations contained in Section III (2) of the Complaint are denied. 

1. The allegations contained in Section IV (1) of the Complaint are denied. 

2. The allegations contained in Section IV (2) of the Complaint are denied. 

3. All other allegations not specifically addressed are hereby denied. 

RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

1. The Complaint fails to state a claim warranting the proposed penalty. 

2. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Wherefore, Respondent, FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, respectfully 

requests that judgment be entered in its favor, and that the Complaint and civil penalty of 

the Federal Aviation Administration be dismissed with prejudice. 

' dayof July, 2010. 

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 

Cynthia Chandler-Snell 

Senior Attorney 

Federal Express Corporation 

3620 Hacks Cross Road 

Building B, 3"^ Floor 

Memphis, TN 38125 

(901)434-8361 

(901)434-8283 Fax 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Answer has been sent via Priority Overnight on 

this, the C[^ ^ day of July, 2010 to: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Ms. Ellyn Ponton 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Boulevard 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

Cynthia Chandler-Snell 

Senior Attorney 

Federal Express Corporation 

3620 Hacks Cross Road 

Building B, 3'^ Floor 

Memphis, TN 38125 

(901)434-8361 

(901)434-8283 FAX