Befor e the . Unite d State s Departmen t o f .Transportatio n Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio nAU G" 2j ^

I nth e matte r o f EMPIR E AIRLINES , IN C FAADocke t No . CP09NM00b: 9 .j s FDM S No . FAA-2009-058 6 7 " '--^C ; e n-^^^:y D 

## • Qoii : s r Complainant' s Repl yBrie f ZD- , 

## Va : 29 n Pursuan t t o sectio n13.233(e ) o f th e Rule s o f Practic e fo r o ^ o FA ACivi l Penalt yActions , 14 C.F.R . § 13.233(e) , th e Complainant , Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n("FAA") , file s thi s brie f i nth e appea l o f th e Initia l Decisio no f Administrativ e La wJudg e ("ALJ" ) Richar d C . Goodwi nregardin g FAADocke t No . CP09NM00q9 . Statement-of—the-Gase— — Th e Complainant' s statemen t o f th e cas e an d fact s ar e se t fort hi nit s Appea l Brief , whic hwa s file d o nJun e 22 , 2011 . Issu e Whethe r th e AL J correctl ydetermine d tha t Empir e Airlines , Inc . ("Empire" ) violate d 4 9 C.F.R . § § 175.3 , 175.30(a)(2) , an d 175.30(a)(3) . Argumen t Th e AL J correctl ydetermine d tha t Empir e violate d 4 9 C.F.R . § § 175.3 , 175.30(a)(2) , an d 175.30(a)(3) . Empir e advance s tw o chie f argument s i nsuppor t o f it s ques t fo r th e reversa l o f th e ALJ' s findin g tha t i t violate d Hazardou s Materia l Regulatio n("HMR" ) section s 175.3 , 175.30(a)(2) , an d 175.30(a)(3) . First , Empir e argue s tha t Federa l Expres s ("FedEx '

wa s Empire' s independen t contracto r • fo r acceptin g an d loadin g^hazardou s m_ater_ials_(J'HA2MAT" ) ..aboard..aircraf t operate dby . Empire .

Buildin g o nthi s assertion , Empir e aver s tha t "[p]as t preceden t an d the plai nlanguag e o f Par t 17 5 expressl yallow s fo r a n independen t contracto r relationshi p fo r acceptin g hazardou s materia l tha t limit s th e liabilit yo f th e ai r operator. " Empir e Ap . Br . a t 2 , 8-13 . Empir e add s i t "wa s no t responsibl e fo r it s independen t contracto r (i.e. , FedEx ) whe nth e latte r improperl y accepte d carg o unde r § 175.30(a) " an dwhe nit s relianc e o nFedEx' s action s wa s reasonable . Empir e Ap . Br . a t 2 , 13-16 . Empir e als o argue s tha t whil e a n"ai r operato r mus t stil l ensur e tha t th e hazardou s materia l complie s wit hth e requirement s -of—§—1-7-5—

3 0-(-a-)—i-nc-1-ud-i-ng—proper—shi-ppi-ng—papers~and-mark-ings-,-^i—the

fact s o f thi s cas e establis htha t Empir e reasonabl yrelie do n FedEx' s acceptanc e an d loadin g activitie s t o ensur e regulator y compliance . Empir e Ap . Br . a t 2 , 7-13 . Empire' s argument s ar e base d o nfault yanalyse s o f applicabl e regulations , FA

ADecisionmake r precedent , an dth e fact s o f thi s case . Contrar yt o Empire' s assertions , th e AL J properl yfound tha t Empir e violate d HMR ' sections'175.3 , 175.30(a)(2) , an d 175.30(a ) (3 ) . ^

^ Empir e fail s t o accuratel ystat e th e applicabl e standar do f revie wo f th e FA

ADecisionmaker . Whil e Empir e correctl y reference s 1 4 C.F. R§ 13.233(b)(1 ) i nconnectio nwit hth e FA A Decisionmaker' s revie wo f AL J factua l findings , i t add s tha t th e "FAA' s factua l determination s ar e conclusiv e i f the yar e supporte d b ysubstantia l evidence. " Empir e Appea l Br . a t 6 (citing 4 9 U.S.C . § 46110(c)) . Th e substantia l evidenc e standar do f-. —.-„-..i

v--Neithe^ r the.HMRs . no r precedent . absolv e Empir e o f it s obligatio nt o compl ywit h4 9 C.F.R . § § 175.30(a)(2 ) and . (3) , and sectio n175.3 .

• Empire' s contentio ntha t certai nterm s o f HMRpar t 17 5 i n conjunctio nwit hpreceden t absolv e i t fromit s obligatio nt o compl ywit hth e HMR s i s withou t merit . I nadvancin g it s contention , Empir e cite s 4 9 C.F.R . § § 175. 1 an d175.3 0 fo r th e propositio ntha t "ai r carrier s . . . ma ycontrac t ou t acceptin g and . loadin g service s t o independen t contractors. " Empir e Appea l Br . a t 8 . E^mpir e the ncite s I nth eMatte r o f Federal

- Express , FAA Orde r No . 2002-2 0 (Aug . 5 , 2002) , recon . denied , FA AOrde r No . 2003- 2 (Ma

y6 , 2003) , fo r th e propositio ntha t a nai r carrie r 'i-s—not—responsible—for-compl-yi-ng—wi-trh—the—HMRs—when—i-t—hi-res-a n independen t contracto r t o perfor mth e function s designate dbyth e regulations . Arevie wo f th e ver ysam e regulation s o nwhic hEmpir e relies , a s wel l a s relate d HMRs , indisputabl yestablishe s tha t aircraf t operator s lik e Empir e hav e a nindependen t an dnon-delegabl e responsibilit yt o compl ywit hth e HMR s an dcanno t shif t thi s revie wfo r factua l determination s i s applicabl e t o a judicia l revie wo f a nadministrativ e decision . 5 U.S.C . § 706(2)(E) . Indeed , sectio n4611 0 set s fort hthe authorit yo f court s o f appeals , an d subsectio n(c ) o f tha t sectio nstate s tha t "[f]inding s o f fac t b yth e . . . Administrator , i f supporte db y substantia l evidence , ar e conclusive. " 4 9 U.S.C . § 46110(c) . Similarly , whil e Empir e correctl yreference s 1 4 C.F. R § 13.233(b) {2) , i t add s tha t "federa l agenc ydecision s mus t no t b e arbitrary , capricious , a nabus e o f discretion , o r otherwis e no t i n accordanc e wit hlaw. " Empir e Appea l Br . a t 7 . Thi s standard , too , i s applicabl e t o a judicia l revie wo f a nadministrativ e decision..

- 5 U.S.C . § 706(2 ) (A) .-responsibility , throug h.an yformo f .contractua l _relationship.

__.To^ _ th e exten t tha t Empir e assert s tha t i t ca ncontrac t awayit s responsibilitie s vi a independen t contractors , thi s assertio ni s contrar yt o lawan d policy . A s a threshol d matter , th e HMR s i ngenera l plac e th e onu s o n th e carrier s o f HAZMA T t o compl ywit hHMR s applicabl e t o them . Specifically , sectio n171.2(f ) provide s tha t " [n] o perso nma y transpor t a hazardou s materia l i ncommerc e unles s th e hazardou s materia l i s transporte d i naccordanc e wit happlicabl e requirement s o f . . . [HM

Rsubchapte r C ] . . . . " 4 9 C.F.R . § 171.2(f) . Thus , th e burde ni s o nHAZMA T carrier s t o ensur e regulator ycomplianc e 'independent—from-contractua-1—arrangements—for^the—per-formance-o f HMR-require d functions . Th e onl ybasi s fo r absolvin g a carrie r fo r failin g t o compl ywit ha nHM Rapplicabl e t o it s mod e o f transportatio ni s wher e th e carrier , reasonabl yrelie s o nincorrec t informatio nprovide d byth e offero r o f HAZMAT o r a prio r carrier . 4 9 C.F.R . § 171.2(f). ^ Ther e i s n o provisio ni nth e HMR s tha t relieve s a carrie r fromcomplyin g wit ha nHMRpursuan t t o a

^ Sectio n171.2(f ) contain s a second sentenc e tha t provides : Eac hcarrie r wh o transport s a hazardou s materia l i ncommerc e ma yrel yo ninformatio nprovide d byth e offero r o f the hazardou s materia l o r a prio r carrier , unles s the carrie r know s or , a reasonabl e person , actin g i nth e circumstance s an d exercisin g reasonabl e care , woul dhav e knowledg e tha t the informatio nprovide d byth e offero r o r prio r carrie r i s incorrect . . • 4 9 C.F.R . § 171.2(f) ._^. ^ ..-Contractual , arrangement , and , give n_the

_ absenc e o f suc h^.language , _ i t woul d b e inappropriat e t o constru e the HMR s a s such . - (Compar e Federa lExpress , FA AOrde r No . 2002-2 0 a t * 5 (wher e th e FA A Decisionmaker , strictl yreadin g th e HAZMA T governin g statut e an d HMRs , rejecte d th e Complainant' s argumen t tha t th e lawrequire d HAZMA T trainin g o f .independen t contractors , statin g tha t " [i] t i s inappropriat e t o rea d int o th e statu e o r regulatio na requiremen t fo r trainin g o f independen t contractor s tha t i s no t specifie di n eithe r place")) . Th e applicabilit ysectio nt o par t 175 , whic happlie s t o th e carriag e o f HAZMA T byaircraft , indicate s tha t ai r carrier s ar e —i-ndependent-1-y—responsible—for—complyi-ng-wi-th—regulations—in—that — •part . Par t 17 5 "applie s t o the offering , acceptance , and transportatio no f hazardou s materia l i ncommerc e byaircraf t

. . . . " 4 9 C.F.R . § 175.1(b) . Par t 17 5 i s applicabl e t o "an y perso nwh o performs , attempt s t o perform , o r i s require dt o perfor man yfunctio nsubjec t t o [HM Rsubchapte r C ] . . . . " Jd . Suc hperson s includ e "ai r carrier s . . . an dthei r . . . contrac t personne l (includin g . . . loadin g an dunloadin g personnel )

. . . . " 4 9 C.F.R . § 175.1(b)(1 ) (emphasi s added) . Th e us e o f th e conjunctiv e "and " i nsectio n175.1(b ) indicate s tha t th e requirement s o f par t 17 5 independentl yappl yt o a nai r carrie r notwithstandin g whethe r i t elect s t o contrac t th e performanc e o f function s specifie d i nth e HMR s t o "contrac t personnel.. "^Conversely , ^nothing. , i n_th e .applicabilit ysectio_n . to..par t 175__. .

serve s a basi s t o absolv e a carrie r o f it s responsibilit yt o compl ywit hth e HMR s throug hcontrac t o r an yothe r for mo f barte r Tha t sectio n175. 1 applie s independentl yt o aircraft . operator s an d contractor s i s eviden t fro mregulator yhistor y pertinen t t o sectio n175.1 . I n2004 , th e Departmen t o f Transportatio n("DOT" ) acknowledge d tha t sectio n175.1(b ) warrante d clarificatio na s t o th e applicabilit yo f par t 175 . Prio r t o th e aforementione d clarification , sectio n175. 1 provide d tha t "[t]hi s par t prescribe s requirement s . . . applicabl e t o aircraf t operator s transportin g hazardou s materia l aboar d . . . -ai-rcra-f-t^ " 4-9-G-^F-^R-;—§^1-7-5^1—(-2- 0 04-)- ; T-he-DOT—amende d sectio n175. 1 t o provid e tha t par t 17 5 applie d to , amon g others , "ai r carrier s . . . an d thei r . ' . . contrac t personnel. " 6 9 Fed . Reg . 65294 , 6529 5 (Nov . 10 , 2004) . Th e purpos e o f thi s amendmen t

wa s t o mak e i t clea r tha t par t 17 5 applie d t o ai r carrier s an d t o person s wh o ar e no t ai r carrier s bu t perfor mth e sam e functions . Th e DO T stated : W e believ e ther e i s som e confusio nover , th e applicabilit yo f th e HMR , specifically , par t 17 5 [, ] t o person s wh o ar e no t ai r carriers , suc ha s freigh t forwarders . .Althoug hth e languag e o f § 175. 1 refer s t o aircraf t operators , par t 17 5 als o 

### applie s t o person s wh o ar eno t

direc t ai r carrier s bu t perfor mthes efunctions . 6 9 Fed . Reg . a t 6529 5 (emphasi s added) . Accordingly , section ' 175. 1 i s no t intende d t o allo wa nai r carrie r t o contrac t

ou t it s regulator yresponsibilities . Rather , it s purpos e i s t omake. , clea r .tha t ja nair.c_arrier , an d person s i t use s t o P^^for mair ^ carrie r function s relate d t o th e transportatio no f HAZMAT , ar e responsibl e fo r complyin g wit hth e HMRs . Empir e wa s charge d wit hviolatin g sectio n175.30(a)(2 )

an d (3) . Thi s sectio nprovide s that : [n] o perso nma yaccep t a hazardou s materia l fo r transportatio naboar d a naircraf t unles s th e aircraf t operato r ensure s tha t th e hazardou s materia l i s . . . (2 ) Describe d an d certifie d o na shippin g pape r prepare d i n duplicat e i naccordance ' wit hpar t 17 2 o f [subchapte r C ] o r a s authorize d b ysubpar t C o f par t 17 1 o f [subchapte r C ] . . . [and ] (3 ) Marke d an d labele d i naccordanc e wit hsubpart s D an d E o f par t 17 2 o r a s authorize d b ysubpar t C o f par t 17 1 o f [subchapte r C ] . . . . 4 9 C.F.R . § 175.30(a)(2 ) an d (3) . Th e plai nterm s o f thi s regulatio nproscrib e persons , whic hwoul d see mt o include ' contractors , fro macceptin g HAZMA T fo r ai r transportatio nunles s th e aircraf t operato r ensure s tha t th e HAZMA T meet s th e requirement s a t subparagraph s (a)(1 ) an d (a)(2) . Nonetheless , th e baselin e requiremen t fo r thi s regulatio ni s impose d o n"th e aircraf t operator, " wh o mus t "ensure " tha t th e HAZMA T meet s th e provision s a t subparagraph s (a)(1 ) an d (a)(2) . Thus , whethe r th e perso nacceptin g th e HAZMA T i s th e ai r carrie r o r a nentit y contracte d b yth e ai r carrier , th e ai r carrie r i s th e entit y -responsibl e fo r ensurin g complianc e wit h175 . 3 0 (a ) (2 ) an d (3).- ^

^ Empir e concede s thi s poin t i nit s appea l brief . Fo r example . Empir e state s tha t "[tjh e ai r operato r mus t stil l ensur e tha t th e..B,eypn

d .that. , .even.i f th e "p_erson " acceptin g HAZMA T has

_contracte d t o d o s o wit hthe aircraf t operator , section s 171. 2 (f ) and 175.1(b ) mak e i t clea r tha t the ai r operato r i s independentl y responsibl e fo r complyin g wit hsectio n175.30(a) . Acontracto r ma yals o b e liabl e fo r violatin g sectio n175.30(a) , bu t a contractua l arrangemen t alon e doe s no t absolv e th e carrie r fo r violation s committe d byth e contractor . Regulator yhistor yrelatin g t o sectio n175.3 0 support s th e Complainant' s positio ntha t anaircraf t operator' s responsibilit y t o compl ywit htha t sectio ni s independen t andnon-delegable . Th e firs t versio no f sectio n175.30(a ) provide dtha t "[n ] o perso nmay -aecept-a—ha-zardous—material—for^transpo r ta t ion-aboard_an-ai r craft — unles s th e hazardou s materia l [meets , amon g othe r requirements , thos e relate d t o shipping'paper s andmarkings]. " 4 9 C.F.R . § 175.3 0 (1976) . Th e DOT.state dtha t thi s sectio n"[s]pecifie s th e responsibilitie s o f aircraf t operator s wit hrespec t t o acceptin g hazardou s materia l shipment s fo r transportation. " 4 1 Fed . Reg . 15973 , 1598 8 (Apr . 15 , 1976) . •-"I n2006 , the DO T amende d th e firs t sentenc e o f sectio n175.30(a ) t o se t fort hth e languag e i neffec t a t the tim e o f th e violation s i nthi s cas e (an dcurrentl yi neffect) . Nothin g i nth e regulator yhistor yt o thi s amendmen t indicate s tha t a n

hazardou s materia l complie s wit hth e requirement s o f § 175.30(a ] includin g prope r shippin g paper s an d markings. " Empir e Appea l Br . a t 14 ...aircraf t operator_c.ould . absolv e . itsel f ,o f its..long-.s_tandin g responsibilit yt o compl ywit hsectio n175.30(a ) bycontrac t or . otherwise . T o th e contrary , th e preambl e to-th e fina l rul e focuse d o nclarifyin g wha t constitute s a "knowing " violatio no f a n aircraf t operator . 7 1 Fed . Reg . 14586 , 1459 2 (Mar . 22 , 2006 ) ("[a ] carrie r knowingl yviolate s the HMRwhe nth e carrie r accepts o r transport s a hazardou s materia l wit hactua l o r constructiv e knowledg e tha t a packag e contain s a hazardou s materia l no t properl ypackaged , marked , labeled , o r describe do na shippin g pape r a s require d b yth e HMR") . Earlie r thi s year , th e DO T implemente da fina l rul e -establishing-procedures—in—connection-with—the-enhance d— — enforcemen t authorit yconferre d b yth e Safet yan dSecurit y Reauthorizatio nAc t o f 2005. . Th e DO T agai nemphasize dth e carrier' s independen t responsibilit yt o compl ywit h sectio n175.30 :

- Ai r carrier s i nparticula r bea r responsibilit yfo r acceptin g declare d shipment s o f hazardou s materia l i nviolatio no f 4 9 CF R175.30 , whic hrequire s ai r carrier s t o conduc t a n inspectio nensurin g tha t th e shipmen t is , amon g othe r things , withi nquantit ylimitations , accompanie dbyshippin g paper s tha t properl ydescribe d th e material , an di s marked , labele d and package d i naccordanc e wit hth e HMR . A nai r carrier' s failur e t o conduc t a prope r inspectio ncoul dresul t i na violatio no f 4 9 CF R175.3 0 o r 175.3 , whic hprohibit s anai r carrie r fromofferin g o r acceptin g fo r transportation , o r transportatio naboar d a naircraft,.hazardou s material s tha t ar e no t prepare d fo r shipmen t i naccordanc e wit h4 9 CFRpar t 175 .1 0

.. . .76.Fe_d. . ...Reg. . ^ at...1157_0,._11_ 5 81_.(M.a. r ^.2,

_2.01_1)..__.. . Simply . p_u^^ ^ sectio n175.3 0 impose s upo naircraf t operator s a dut yt o ensur e complianc e with , amon g othe r HM R requirements , thos e relate d t o shippin g papers , markings , an d labeling . I nit s appea l brie f i n thi s matter , th e Complainan t argue d tha t Empir e ha d a n independen t an d non-delegabl e dut yt o compl y wit h4 9 C.F.R . § 175.33(c)(3) . Se e Complainant' s Appea l Br . a t 13-21 . Th e Complainan t base d thi s argumen t o n th e plai n languag e o f sectio n175.33(c)(3 ) a s wel l a s othe r salien t factors , includin g Empire' s genera l maintenanc e manua l ("GOM") , relevan t

cas e la wregardin g th e non-delegabl e characte r o f ai r carrie r —regul-ator-y—Gompl-iance—responsi-bi-l-ity-,—and—publ-ic—pol-icy-.—Al-though

thes e factor s wer e discusse d i n th e contex t o f - th e sectio n175.33(a ) (3 ) allegatio ni n thi s case , the yar e n o les s significan t -i n connectio nwit hEmpire' s non-delegabl e dut yt o compl ywit hth e provision s o f section s 175.30(a ) (2 ) an d (3 ) . A revie wo f thes e factor s als o reveal s tha t Empire' s relianc e o n th e Federa lExpres s case , whic hi s the.linchpi n o f its

- effor t t o avoi d regulator yresponsibility , i n misplaced . Empire' s GOMshow s tha t Empir e wa s awar e o f it s independen t responsibilit yt o compl ywit hpar t 175 . Indeed , th e GO Mprovide s tha t it s employee s "ar e responsibl e fo r complianc e wit hal l provision s o f th e Hazardou s Materia l Regulation s . . . . " C-1 11 1

.^^_8_ . -I

nth e contex t o f .accepting an dloadin g HAZMAT , Empire'.s. _ GO Mstates : Thi s Hazardou s Material s Operation s Manua l shal l b e followe d byeac hcrewmembe r an d perso nperformin g o r directl y supervisin g anyo f th e followin g jo bfunction s involvin g any ite mfo r transpor t o nboar d .. . a naircraft : acceptance , rejection , handling , storag e incidenta l t o transpor t .. . o r loading . C-1 1 a t 8." * Th e GO Mspecifie s that : Loadin g an d unloadin g o f D O [i.e. , dangerou s goods ] i s handle d b yFedE xram p personnel . Durin g loadin g th e D Gi s separate d fromothe r freigh t s o th e crewmembe r ma yaccomplis h th e pre-loa d inspection . .. . Acrewmembe r mus t supervis e th e loadin g o f DG . C-1 1 a t 41 . Empire' s GO Mcomport s wit hth e sectio n175.30(a ) requiremen t tha t a s th e aircraf t operato r Empir e mus t independentl yensur e th e prope r description , certification , marking , an d labelin g o f HAZMA T shipments . Consisten t wit hth e provision s o f th e GOMan d th e requirement s o f sectio n175.30(a) , Mr . Mill s acknowledge d tha t Empir e fligh t crew s ar e responsibl e fo r inspectin g HAZMAT befor e i t i s loade do na naircraf t operate d b yEmpire . Tr . 188-189 . Nothin g i nEmpire' s GO Msuggest s tha t i t ma yavoi d responsibilit yfo r regulator ycomplianc e throug h contract . Applicabl e FA

ADecisionmake r cas e lawfurthe r support s th e conclusio nthat.Empire' s responsibilit yt o compl ywit h

" * Amon g othe r HMRprovision s tha t Empir e employee s ar e require dt o follo war e thos e relatin g t o shippin g documents , certification , marking , an d labeling , which.shado wrequirement s o f sectio n175.30(a)(2 ) and(3) . C-1 1 a t 9-12 .1 2

..sectio n1.7.5.._ 3 0.(a_ ) .(2)„.and..(3)..cannot..be..delegated.pursuant.,t o a _ contractua l arrangement . Chie f amon g th e case s standin g fo r the propositio ntha t a nai r carrier' s dutie s ar e non-delegabl e i s I n t h eMatte r

o f Alask aAirlines , FA AOrde r No . 200 4 (Oct . 4, . 2004) . A s note d i nth e Complainant' s appea l brief , i nAlask aAirlines , th e FA ADecisionmake r conclude d tha t Alask a Airline s ("Alaska" )

wa s responsibl e fo r fault ymaintenanc e performe do nAlask a aircraf t b yit s contractor s notwithstandin g whethe r Alask a kne w or , throug hth e exercis e o f reasonabl e diligence , coul dhav e known o f th e violation . Th e FA ADecisionmake r relie do n1 4 C.F.R. . § 121.363 , whic hstate d tha t ai r carrier s wer e "primaril y ~-responsibl-e—for-^—:—:—the—airworthiness-of—i-ts—ai-rcraf-t^^—and—cou-ld

no t avoi d thi s responsibilit ythoug hcontractua l agreement s wit h othe r entitie s fo r th e performanc e o f maintenance . 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.363(a ) an d (b) . I nconnectio nwit hhe r rulin g i nAlask aAirlines , th e FA A Decisionmake r state d tha t "anai r carrier' s duties , whic hinclud e a statutor ydut yt o exercis e th e highes t possibl e degre e o f care , ar e non-delegable. " FA AOrde r No . 2004- 8 a t 6 (footnote s onfiitted ) . Sh e reasone d tha t " [t]he rational e i s on e o f publi c polic y- - i t i s tha t the dutie s o f commo ncarrier s ar e to o importan t t o permi t themt o transfe r the mt o someon e else. " Id . (citation s omitted) . Th e sam e rational e i s n o les s applicabl e i n th e contex t o f th e instan t case . Tha t ai r carrier s ensur e1 3

.complianc e . wit hthe . provision s a t sectio n17 5 . 3 0 (a ) (2 ) an d(_3 ) _is_ critica l t o aviatio nsafety . Th e purpos e o f thes e requirement s ar e communicativ e i nnatur e and ar e designe dt o provid e HAZMAT informatio nt o personne l wh o handl e th e materia l i nai r transportatio ns o tha t appropriat e measure s ca nb e take nt o ensur e th e saf e transportatio no f th e materia l andeffectiv e emergenc y response , i f necessary . See , e.g. . I nth eMatte r o f Pau lA . Carr , FA AOrde r No . 98-2 ' (Mar . 10 , 1998 ) (setting fort hthe safet y rational e o f markin g an d labelin g requirement s fo r HAZMAT i nai r transportation ) . Th e fact s o f thi s cas e suppor t th e Complainant' s positio n —that^Empi-re—is—independently—responsible—for—comply.ing-wit h section s 175.30(a)(2 ) and (3) , a s wel l a s sectio n175.3 . I t i s indisputabl e tha t Empir e i s a naircraf t operato r i nthi s case. ^ Richar d Mills , Empire' s directo r o f qualit yassurance , agree dtha t Empir e wa s solel yresponsibl e fo r operationa l contro l ove r al l it s aircraft , Tr . 186 , whic hwoul dinclud e fligh t 8677-22 . Empir e fligh t 8677-2 2 transporte d a shipmen t containin g 2 4 bottle s o f Nexiumhan d sanitizin g gel , whic hi s classifie da s a HAZMA T .unde r th e HMRs , Tr . 47-49 , 54-58 , C- 1 a t 1-2 . Th e prope r shippin g nam e fo r thi s materia l i s ethanol/alcoho l solution s o r ethanol . I t carrie s identificatio nnumbe r UN1170.

- I t i s i n hazar d clas s 3 and packin g group III . Tr . 55-56 , 57-58 , C-9 .

^ A n"operator " i s define d a s " a perso nwh o control s th e us e o f a n aircraft , vessel , o r vehicle. " 4 9 C.F.R . § 171.8 .1 4

Thi s shipmen t wa s prohibite dfromai r transportatio ndu e t o th e absenc e o f positiv e mean s t o secur e th e bottl e cap s a s require dby 4 9 C.F.R . § 173.27(d) . Tr . 49-50 , 55 . Th e materia l safet ydat a shee t fo r th e ge l indicate d a flammabilit yo f "3 " an da flashpoin t o f 7 4 degree s Fahrenheit. ^ Tr . 58 , C- 9 a t 2 . Th e ge l i s considere d "flammabl e du e t o alcoho l content. " C- 9 a t 2 . Handler s ar e cautione d t o "[a]voi dcontac t wit hignitio nsource s sinc e th e produc t i s flammable. " C- 9 a t 2 . Empir e transporte d the ge l withou t th e requisit e shippin g paper s an d th e prope r markin g fo r ai r transportatio na s require d b ysectio n175.30(a)(2 ) and (3) . Tr . 50 . Th e tw o boxe s ha dth e markin g "ORM-D . C- 1 a t 1-2 , Tr . 49 . T o hav e been-authorize dfo r ai r transportatio nth e shipmen t wa s require dt o hav e bee nmarke d "ORM-D-Air. " Tr . 49-50 . Empire' s imprope r carriag e o f a shipmen t containin g a flammabl e ge l no t authorize dfo r ai r transportatio n jeopardize d th e safet yo f Empir e fligh t 8 6 77-2 2 an dcoul dhav e produce d catastrophi c consequences . I t wa s Empire' s responsibility , a s a nai r carrie r require dt o exercis e th e highes t standar do f care , t o ensur e complianc e wit h sectio n175.30(a)(2 ) an d (3 ) b yrejectin g th e shipment . Tr . 64-5 , 99 , C-1 1 a t 12 . Further , th e plai nterm s o f sectio n175.30(a)(2 )

and (3 ) indicat e tha t suc hcomplianc e wa s non-delegable . Whil e a

^ Th e flashpoin t o f a HAZMA T i s th e minimumtemperatur e a t whic ha liqui d give s of f vapo r withi na tes t vesse l i nsufficien t concentratio nt o form a nignitabl e mixtur e wit hai r nea r th e s'urface o f th e liquid . 4 9 ClF.R . § 173..'12 0 (c)~ .1 5

carrie r - - suc ha s Empir e --i s fre e t o retai ncontrac t personne l fo r th e performanc e o f HAZMAT-relate d functions , the action s o f

suc hpersonnel , byth e plai nterm s o f sectio n175.30(a) , canno t shiel d th e carrie r fromregulator yviolation s fo r th e failur e t o ensur e tha t HAZMA T i s properl ydescribe dan dcertifie d(a s require d bysectio n175.30(a ) (2)) . and marke dandlabele d(a s require d b

ysectio n175.30(a ) (3). ) . Empire' s attemp t t o distinguis hprio r case s decided.byth e Decisionmake r tha t hol d ai r carrier s t o th e highes t standar do f care , includin g Alask aAirlines , i s wid e o f th e mark . Empir e argue s tha t Alask aAirline s i s inapplicabl e t o thi s cas e becaus e Alaska_Airline s involve d 1 4 C.F.R. . § 121.363 , whic hstate s tha t ai r carrier s ar e "primaril yresponsibl e fo r th e airworthines s o f it s aircraft. " Empir e Appea l Br . a t 20 . Empir e notes, ' i n contrast , tha t sectio n175.30(a)(2 ) an d(3 ) allow s a nai r carrie r transportin g HAZMA T wh o has.reasonabl yrelie do nincorrec t informatio nprovide d bya noffero r o r a prio r carrie r o f th e HAZMA T t o avoi d liabilit yfo r a violatio no f tha t sectio no n accoun t o f suc hreliance . Empir e Appea l Br . a t 21 ; se eals o 4 9 C.F.R . § 171.2(f) . Empir e doe s no t challeng e th e paramoun t reaso nAlask a Airline s i s applicabl e t o th e instan t case , i.e. , tha t ai r carrier s ar e hel d t o th e highes t standar do f car e and , a s such , thei r regulator yimpose d dutie s canno t b e delegated . I nfact .1 6

Empir e acknowledge s thi s principle , statin g tha t "ai r carrier s must - exercis e th e highes t degre e o f safety, " althoug hi t seem s t o asser t tha t this ; standar d doe s no t appl ywher e a n independen t contracto r accept s HAZMA T fo r a carrie r o r a carrie r take s reasonabl e method s t o ensur e .complianc e wit hsectio n175.30(a ) . Th e fac t tha t Empire' s responsibilitie s canno t b e delegate d throug hcontract , however , override s th e base s Empir e set s fort h i nit s effor t t o distinguis hAlask a Airlines . Tha t Alask a Airline s wa s "primaril yresponsible " unde r sectio n121.36 3 fo r ensurin g th e airworthines s o f it s aircraf t and coul d no t avai l itsel f o f a reasonabl e relianc e provisio ni n a requlatio n-(suc

ha s sectio n171.2(f) ) doe s nothin g t o weake n Alask aAirlines ' contro l ove r th e instan t case . Bot hAlask a Airline s an d th e instan t case ' ar e a testamen t t o decidin g case s base d o n th e plai nlanguag e o f regulations . I nAlask aAirline's , th e Decisionmake r recognize dtha t th e applicabl e regulatio n- - sectio n121.36 3 - - comporte dwit hth e statutorily-base d precep t tha t a carrie r i s hel dt o th e highes t standar d o f car e and tha t it s dutie s canno t b e delegate dthroug h contract . Alask aAirlines , 2004- 8 a t * 7 ("[s]ectio n 121.36 3 doe s no t provid e tha t ai r carrier s ar e primaril yresponsibl e fo r maintenanc e excep t whe nth e hir e a n entit yindependentl y certificate d b

yth e FA

At o perfor mthei r maintenance") . I n thi s case , a s discusse d above , the.plai nlanguag e o f th e applicabl e1 7

HMR s establishe s tha t Empire , a s th e ai r carrie r tha t transporte d th e HAZMAT i nquestion , i s require d t o compl ywit h section s 175.30(a)(2 ) an d (3 ) notwithstandin g whethe r i t contracte d wit hanothe r entit yt o perfor macceptanc e andloadin g duties . Th e plai nlanguag e o f th e HMR s recognize s a singl e exceptio nt o a nai r carrier' s violatio no f thes e sections , i.e. , whe nth e carrie r reasonabl yrelie s o nincorrec t informatio n provide d byth e offero r o f HAZMAT o r a prio r carrier . 4 9 C.F.R . § 171.2(f) . I ncontrast , ther e i s n o provisio ni nth e HMR s tha t relieve s a carrie r fromcomplyin g wit ha nHMRpursuan t t o a contractua l arrangement . Thus , unles s Empir e wa s abl e t o sho w tha t i t reasonabl yrelie d o nincorrec t informatio nfroma noffero r o r prio r carrier , i t i s liabl e fo r th e violation s allege di n connectio nwit hfligh t 8677-22 . A s wil l b e discusse dbelow , th e fact s establis htha t Empir e canno t avai l itsel f o f th e reasonabl e relianc e defense . I naddition . Empir e assert s tha t FedE xwa s a "prio r offeror " that

- wa s primaril yresponsibl e fo r regulator ycomplianc e i nthi s case , apparentl yt o sugges t tha t primar yresponsibilit yi s aki nt o sol e responsibility . Empir e Appea l Br . a t 21 . FedEx , however , wa s no t a noffero r a s th e termi s define da t 4 9 C.F.R . § 171.8 . A s state d a t sectio n171.8 : Acarrie r i s no t a noffe r whe ni t perform s a functio n require d b

ythi s subchapte r a s a conditio no f acceptanc e o f a hazardou s materia l fo r transportatio ni ncommerce . .. . o r

_. whe ni t transfer s a hazardou s materia l t o anothe r carrie r fo r1 8

continue d transportatio ni ncommerc e withou t performin g a pre-transportatio nfunction . 4 9 C.F.R . § 171. 8 (def . o f "Perso nwh o offer s o r offeror") . I n anyevent , Empir e base s it s contentio no na DO T HM Rinterpretatio n se t fort ha t 6 3 Fed . Reg . 30411 , 3041 2 (Jun . 4 , 1998) . I n actuality , th e DO T state d i nth e interpretatio ntha t the offero r "bear s th e primar yresponsibilit yfo r a hidde nshipment. " Jd . a t 30412 . A s wil l b e discusse d below , th e shipmen t i nquestio n coul d no t reasonabl yb e construe d a s a hidde nshipment . Regardless , eve ni f a noffero r ma yb e i nviolatio no f HMR s relate d t o th e prope r declaratio no f a shipment , a carrie r i s liabl e fo r failin g t o tak e al l reasonabl e measure s relatin g t o th e inspectio n o f a shipmen t i naccordanc e wit hsection s 175.30(a)(2 ) an d(3) . Empire' s attempt s t o distinguis hothe r case s i nwhic hth e Decisionmake r conclude d tha t a carrie r i s hel dt o th e highes t standar d o f car e ar e hollow . Thes e case s ar e a s follows : I nth e Matte r o f WestAi r

Commute r

Airlines , FA

AOrde r No . 96-1 6 (Ma y3 , 1996 ) ; I nth eMatte r o f USAir , orde r

o nrecon. , FA

AOrde r No . 92-7 0 (Dec . 17 , 1992) ; an dI nth eMatte r o f Empir eAirlines , FA AOrde r No : 2000-1 3 (Jun . 8 , 2000 ) {''Empir e2000-13") . Empir e narrowl yread s thes e case s t o sugges t tha t the y"d o [ ] no t addres s • issue s o f acceptanc e byindependen t contractor s unde r th e HMRo r spea k t o th e reasonabl e method s b ywhic ha nai r operato r ma y 'ensure ' pursuan t t o § 175.30(a ) . . . . " Empir e Appea l Br . at.17 . Empir e als o suggests , tha t the relationship s betwee n1 9

th e differen t contractin g partie s i nWestAir , USAir , andEmpir e 2000-1 3 constitut e a materia l differenc e betwee nthos e cases.an d th e instan t case . Whil e WestAir , USAir , an dEmpir e2000-1 3 ar e no t necessaril yo nal l fours , the yar e persuasiv e i nth e resolutio no f th e instan t cas e i nfavo r o f th e Complainant . I nUSAir , th e Decisionmake r denie d USAir' s petitio nfo r reconsideration , reaffirmin g it s findin g tha t USAi r violate d 1 4 C.F.R . § § 121.153(a)(2 ) an d 91.1 3 base do nit s operatio no f a n aircraf t tha t ha d bee ndamage d durin g a pushbac k operation . Th e Decisionmake r conclude d tha t USAi r wa s o nnotic e o f the damag e sinc e a contrac t pusliback operator , wh o sa wth e damag e occur , wa s _USAir.Ls_Jlagent^servant_._: : FA AOrde r No . 92-7 0 a t 2-3 ; se e.als o I n t h eMatte r

o f USAir , FA

AOrde r No . 92-4 8 a t 9 (1992) . Significantly , th e Decisionmake r alternativel yrejecte d USAir' s argumen t tha t i t wa s no t responsibl e fo r th e failure s o f th e pushbac k operato r sinc e th e operato r wa s a nindependen t contractor . Th e Decisionmake r stated : Eve ni f Elsinor e [the companyperformin g th e pushbac k operation ] i s a nindependen t contractor , a s . . . [USAir ] claims, . . . [USAir ] woul dstil l b e responsibl e fo r Elsinore' s negligen t acts , becaus e . ' . . [USAir ] i s unde r a dut yt o perfor m

it s pushbac k operation s wit hcar e . . . . ' Ai r Carrier s hav e th e dut yt o perfor mthei r service s wit hth e highes t possibl e degre e o f safet yunde r th e Federa l Aviatio n Ac t ... . I f Elsinor e wa s a nindependen t contractor , . . . [USAir ] woul d remai nresponsibl e fo r it s act s o r omission s becaus e th e dut yo f car e t o protec t other s i s non-delegabl e2 0

FA AOrde r No . 92-7 0 a t 4 (citation s omitted) . Thus , contrar yt o Empire' s implicatio ntha t th e decisio ni nUSAi r turne donl yo nth e concep t tha t Elsinor e wa s USAir' s agen t (Empir e Appea l Br . a t IB) , th e Decisionmake r mad e i t clea r tha t whethe r th e corporat e relationshi p wa s on e o f agenc yo r tha t o f a nindependen t contractor , th e carrie r - - whic hi s hel dt o the highes t standar d o f car e --i s ultimatel yresponsibl e fo r complyin g wit hth e regulations . ' Th e Decisionmaker , i nEmpir e2 0 00-13 , i ndicta , reiterate d th e USAi r

holdin g regardin g ai r carrie r responsibilit yi nth e contex t o f violation s involvin g maintenanc e discrepancies. ^ Th e _Decisionmaker_reiecte d Empire' s argumen t - - simila r t o th e on e tha t th e carrie r make s i nthi s cas e - - tha t i t wa s "entitle dt o rel yo nth e service s performe d byCohai r [i.e. , a repai r station]. " FA

AOrde r No . 2000-1 3 a t *6 . Th e Decisio nstated : Whil e unde r th e regulations , a nai r carrie r ca narrang e wit h othe r person s t o perfor mmaintenanc e o nit s aircraft , th e carrie r canno t delegat e awayit s primar yresponsibilit yfo r th e airworthines s o f it s aircraft .

^ Specifically , th e Decisionmake r conclude dtha t Empir e ha d violate d 1 4 C.F.R . § § 43.13(a ) and121.376(b ) whe nit s maintenanc e contractor , wit hEmpire' s knowledge , performe da nunauthorize d aircraf t repair .2 1

FA AOrde r No . 2000-1 3 a t * 6 (citing 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.363). ®Th e Administrato r adde d tha t "[a]llowin g a nai r carrie r t o delegat e it s primar yresponsibilit yfo r th e safet yo f it s aircraf t woul d no t serv e th e publi c interest. " Td . Whil e it s tru e tha t thi s case , lik e Alask aAirlines , reference dth e "primaril y responsibility " languag e o f sectio n121.363 , th e overarchin g consideratio ni s tha t a nai r carrie r mus t perfor mit s dut yt o th e highes t standar d o f care . A s th e Decisionmake r observe di nAlask a Airlines , i t i s thi s statutor yprovisio ntha t inform s th e "primaril yresponsibility " languag e o f sectio n121.363 . I nWestAir , th e Decisionmake r hel d a nai r carrie r - - WestAi r ._i^responsibl e fo r violatin g a Federa l Aviatio nRegulation ' ("FAR" ) requirin g th e presenc e o f a nairpor t groun dsecurit ycoordinator . WestAi r presente d th e defens e tha t it'ha dentere dint o a contractua l agreemen t wit hanothe r ai r carrie r - - Unite dAirline s

- - t o provid e th e groun d securit ycoordinato r fo r WestAi r and . tha t thi s agreemen t remove d WestAir' s obligatio nt o compl ywit hth e relevan t regulation . Th e Decisionmake r rejecte dthi s argument , stating : Whil e i t ma yb e tru e tha t WestAi r ha dever yreasonabl e expectatio ntha t Unite dwoul d hono r it s contractua l obligations , and tha t i t ha d n o knowledg e o f th e failur e t o

^ I nadditio nt o citin g 1 4 C.F.R . § § 121.363(a)(1 ) and(b ) a s suppor t fo r thi s proposition , th e Decisionmake r als o cite d1 4 C.F.R . § 121.379(a) . Th e latte r sectio ngenerall yallow s fo r contractin g the performanc e o f maintenance , preventiv e mairitehance , ahd^ alterations . ' ' . " '" " ~ '2 2

hav e a groun d securit ycoordinato r present , WestAi r remain s respohsibre " for " the'-'se""curit yviolation s at " issu e . ^ -

- . . FA AOrde r No . 96-1 6 a t *3 . Th e Decisionmake r state dtha t eve n WestAir , i nit s brie f t o th e Decisionmaker , observe dtha t a carrie r i s hel d t o th e highes t standar do f care . Id . H e concluded : A s th e lawjudg e pointe dout , a nai r carrier' s responsibilitie s ar e to o critica l t o permi t i t t o transfe r it s obligation s t o another . I t make s n o differenc e tha t WestAir' s relianc e wa s o nanothe r carrier . Jd . Significantly , th e Decisionmake r reache dthi s conclusio n withou t relyin g o na regulator ysectio nholdin g a nai r carrie r primaril yresponsibl e fo r regulator ycomplianc e (e.g. , sectio n121.363) . Th e gis t o f WestAir , USAir , an dEmpir e2000-13 , a s wel l a s Alask aAirlines , i s tha t i f a hair ' carrie r i s responsibl e "for complyin g wit ha nFA Ri t ma yno t delegat e thi s responsibilit y throug hagreemen t wit hanothe r entit yb ycontrac t becaus e a nai r carrie r i s hel d t o th e highes t standar do f care . A s previousl y state d i nthe Complainant' s appea l brie f i nthi s matter . Congressiona l recognitio ntha t ai r carrier s ar e t o perfor mdutie s wit hth e highes t possibl e degre e o f safet yi nth e publi c interest ' i s a long-standin g policy

- and commo nlaw-base dconcep t tha t i s no t limite d t o ai r carrie r activitie s conducte dpursuan t t o th e FAA' s governin g statute . Complainant' s Appea l Br . a t 18 . Rather ,2 3

give nth e broa d underpinning s o f the principal , i t applie s t o th e carriag e o f HAZMA T i nai r commerc e a s well . Empire' s suggestio ntha t I nth eMatte r o f Federa lExpress , FA AOrde r No . 2002.-20 , i s a t al l applicabl e t o thi s cas e constitute s a gros s misreadin g o f tha t case . Empir e argue s tha t Federa lExpres s stand s fo r the principl e tha t a nair . carrie r i s no t responsibl e fo r complyin g wit hHMR s relatin g t o the imprope r offe r o r acceptanc e o f HAZMA T wher e thes e activitie s wer e performe d bya nindependen t contracto r t o th e ai r carrier . Empir e Appea l Br . a t 9-10 . I nFedera lExpress , Scharf f Internationa l Courie r an dCargo , _S^^A^_ ( "Schar f f" ) , a courie r operatin g i nLima , Peru , accepte da bo xo f hazardou s materia l an d delivere dth e bo xt o America n Airlines'fo r internationa l tra'n'sportatio" n"b yair".' ' "FedE x' " " ' ' independentl ycontracte d fo r Scharff' s services . Prio r t o deliverin g th e bo xt o America nAirlines , a Scharf f employe e place d the bo xi na courie r bag , coverin g th e require dlabeling , marking , and shippin g papers . Becaus e th e bo xwa s hidde ninsid e th e bag , America nAirline s personne l coul d no t se e th e dangerou s good s labe l o r th e orientatio narrow s o nth e box . Th e America nAirline s fligh t lande d i nMiam i an d a FedE xemploye e too k th e bo xt o custpms , wher e th e HAZMA T wa s detected . Th e Decisionmake r found tha t th e shipmen t violate d the HMR s i na numbe r o f ways , includin g tha t th e shipmen t wa s "hidden " give ntha t th e courie r ba g covere d2 4

th e require d labeling , marking , an d shippin g papers' . FA AOrde r . No . 2002-2 0 a t *1 . Th e Decisionmaker , however , reverse dth e ALJ' s determinatio ntha t FedE xwa s responsibl e fo r th e violations . Th e Decisionmake r engage di na two-pronge danalysi s i n findin g tha t FedE xwa s no t responsible . First , the Decisionmake r found

- tha t "th e recor d doe s no t suppor t a findin g tha t Federa l Expres s wa s actin g a s a nai r carrie r a t th e tim e th e hidde n shipmen t wa s offere d i nai r transportation. " FA AOrde r No . 2002-2 0 a t *2 . Th e Decisionmake r adde dtha t "th e standar do f

car e applie d t o ai r carriers , a s wel l a s case s statin g tha t a nai r carrier' s dut yo f car e ma yno t b e delegate dt o a nindependen t contractor , ar e accordingl yinapplicable. " Id . (citing Empir e 2000-1 3 and USAir ) . Second , afte r findin g tha t FedE xwa s no t acting ' a s an ' ai r carrie r o f "th e HAZMAT'i nquestion , the " " ' " "" Decisionmake r found tha t FedE xwa s no t liabl e fo r th e action s o f Scharf f --a nindependen t contracto r t o FedEx . FA AOrde r No . 2002-2 0 a t *3 . Sinc e Empir e wa s actin g a s a nai r carrie r i nthi s case . Federa lExpres s provide s n o suppor t fo r Empire' s argument . A s th e Decisionmake r i nFedera lExpres s stated , "anai r carrier' s dut yo f

car e ma yno t b e delegate d t o a nindependen t contracto r . . . . " FA AOrde r No . 2002-2 0 a t *2 . No t onl ydoe s Federa lExpres s no t suppor t Empire' s argument , i t actuall yrun s contrar yt o i t an d ultimatel ysupport s th e Complainant' s positio ntha t Empire , a s a n2 5

ai r carrie r o f HAZMAT i nai r commerce , wa s responsibl e fo r th e HM R violation s allege d i nth e complain t andfoundestablishe dbyth e ALJ . Empir e ma yhav e constructe d a busines s mode l whereb yi t relie d o nFedE xfo r th e loadin g o f HAZMAT aboar dEmpir e aircraf t pursuan t t o a contractua l agreement . Nonetheless , Empire , a n FAA-certificate d ai r carrie r solel yresponsibl e fo r the operationa l contro l o f it s aircraft , coul dno t contrac t awa yit s non-delegabl e responsibilit yfo r complyin g wit h section s 175.30(a)(2 ) an d (3) , an dsectio n175.3 . Whil e " [a ] t ' • commo nlaw , a principa l generall yi s no t responsibl e fo r a n _indep.endent contractor' s act s o r omissions,' " Federa lExpress , 2002-2 0 a t *3 , Empir e clearl ywa s responsibl e t o preven t th e ^ac5ceptahce ' an d carriag e o f "noh-complian t HAZMAT aboar dth e ' aircraf t i t operates . Thi s i s eviden t frombot hth e plai n languag e o f sectio n175.30(a)(2 ) an d(3 ) an dEmpire' s HAZMA T GOM. ^ Unde r thes e circumstances , th e arrangemen t betwee nEmpir e an d FedE xregardin g th e loadin g o f HAZMA T aboar dEmpir e aircraf t

^ Empir e assert s tha t "Althoug hEmpir e ha dth e righ t t o 'supervise ' th e acceptin g and loadin g process , nothin g i nth e recor dindicate s tha t thi£ 3 righ t extende d int o directin g th e detaile dphysica l perfozTTianc e o f FedE xExpres s personnel. " Empir e Appea l Br . a t 11 . Empir e i s require d t o independentl ycompl ywit hth e HMRs . Presumably , Empir e ca nchoos e a variet yo f way s t o achiev e suc h compliance , includin g workin g wit hFedE xpersonne l t o ensur e tha t non-complian t HAZMAT i s no t loade daboar dEmpir e aircraft . Tha t approac hwoul d see m t o b e a naspec t o f th e supervisio no f th e loadin g proces s require d b yEmpire' s GOM . C-1 1 a t 41 . I nany event , th e fac t remain s tha t Empir e i s independentl yresponsibl e fo r complianc e wit hth e HMR s allege d i nthi s case :2 6

resemble d a nagenc yrelationshi p sinc e Empir e wa s require dt o preven t personne l fromacceptin g non-complian t HAZMAT shipment s o n it s behal f an d transportin g thos e shipment s aboar dit s aircraft . Further , wer e a catastroph e t o occu r aboar dfligh t 8677-2 2 du e t o the non-complian t shipmen t o f Nexiumhan dsanitizin g gel . Empire' s attemp t t o blam e FedE xfo r th e regulator yviolation s intende dt o preven t suc ha noccurrenc e woul drin g hollow . Simpl yput , a nai r carrie r i s no t allowe d t o avoi d regulator yaccountabilit ythroug h contract . Empire' s failur e t o fulfil l it s regulator y responsibilit yresulte d i nit s violatio no f section s 175.30(a ) (2 )

and (3 ) and 175.3 . 2 . Empir e faile d t o establis htha t i t reasonabl yrelie do n a hidde nshipmen t loade d o nit s aircraf t byFedEx . Citin g 4 9 C.F.R . g 171.2 ^ Empir e take s the positio ntha t it s "reasonabl e reliance " o nth e action s o f FedE xwarrant s a findin g tha t Empir e di d no t violat e section s 175.30(a)(2 ) an d(3) . Empir e Appea l Br . a t 2 , 13-16 . Empir e suggest s tha t severa l factor s suppor t it s position . I t assert s tha t th e shipmen t o f Nexiumhan d sanitizin g ge l wa s no t accompanie db yshippin g paper s and , thus , th e pilot' s knowledg e tha t th e packag e containe dHAZMAT wa s compromised . Empir e Appea l Br . a t 16 . Empir e con j ecture s tha t th e boxe s wer e no t groupe d wit hothe r HAZMA T b yFedE xpersonne l a s i s require d fo r HAZMA T shipment s andwer e place do na loadin g bel t i na manne r tha t obscure d th e "Consume r Commodit yORM-D " marking . Empir e Appea l Br . a t 16 . Empir e conclude s tha t unde r thes e2 7

circumstances , i t "too k reasonabl e step s t o fulfil l it s 'ensurin g mandate ' suc ha s supervisin g o r monitorin g th e acceptanc e proces s consisten t wit hth e FAA-approve d Genera l Operation s Manua l . . . an d bein g awar e o f perceptibl e fact s unde r it s control . " Empir e Appea l Br . a t 2 . Empir e di d no t presen t sufficien t evidenc e i nsuppor t o f it s contentio ntha t i t reasonabl yrelie d o nFedEx' s action s tha t resulte d i nEmpire' s carriag e o f a hidde n-shipment . T o th e exten t tha t Empir e claim s i t di d no t violat e section.175.30(a)(2 ) an d(3 )

an d sectio n175. 3 becaus e i t relie don.FedE xt o performth e function s require d bythos e sections . Empir e present s a positio n _i n_the_,nature__o f a naffirmativ e defense- . Apart ywh o ha s asserte d

a naffirmativ e defens e ha s th e burde no f provin g th e affirmativ e defens e . 1 4 C .F.R . § 1 3 . 2 2 4 ( cV . "A naffirmativ e de"fens e i s ~'~[a ] defens e tha t introduce s ne wmatter , which,-eve ni f th e . . . allegation s ar e true , constitute s a defens e t o th e complaint . A n affirmativ e defens e goe s beyon d th e mer e denia l o f th e allegations. " J nth e Natte r o f Interstat e Chemica lCo. , Inc. , 2002-2 9 (Dec . 2 , 2000 ) (citatio nomitted) . Empire , o f course , doe s no t disput e tha t th e shipment s o f th e Nexiumhandsanitizin g ge l wer e no t accompanie d b yshippin g paper s an dwer e no t marke di n accordanc e wit hth e HMRs . Empir e als o doe s no t disput e tha t the package s wer e accepte d and transporte daboar dit s aircraf t i nai r commerce. • Rather , Empir e assert s tha t i t coul dno t reasonabl y2 8

hav e bee ninforme d o f th e content s o f th e package s containin g th e ge l becaus e FedE x"faile d t o provid e anyshippin g paper s o r informatio nt o Empir e tha t hazardou s materia l wer e bein g accepte d

and loade d ont o Fligh t 8677-22. " Empir e Appea l Br . a t 19 . Whethe r o r no t Empire' s defens e i s construe da s a n affirmativ e defense , i t faile dt o produc e sufficien t evidenc e t o suppor t it s positio ntha t th e AL J erre di nfindin g i t i nviolatio n o f section s 175.30(a)(2 ) an d (3 ) and175.3 . Th e mos t critica l componen t o f Empire' s contentio ni s tha t th e shipmen t o f Nexium han d sanitizin g ge l constitute d a "hidde nshipment. " Empir e Appea l Br . a t 15-16 . Empir e relie s o nFedera lExpress , 2002-20 , _to_suggest_that_th e shipmen t o f th e ge l wa s a "hidde nshipment. " Empir e assert s tha t i nFedera lExpres s th e Decisionmake r "determine d tha t th e package s wer e 'hi~dde nsliipmenfs" ' even""though~ ~ ther e wer e inconspicuou s dangerou s goo d. . . label s o nth e outsid e nea r th e ai r carrier' s affixe dshippin g labels. " Empir e Appea l Br . a t 10 . Empir e appear s t o analogiz e th e Decisionmaker' s hidde nshipmen t discussio ni nFedera lExpres s t o th e instan t cas e wher e "Consume r Commodit yORM-D " marking s wer e printed.o nbot h end s o f the packag e containing , th e ge l andit s conjectur e tha t th e boxe s wer e place d o na loadin g bel t i na manne r t o obscur e th e "Consume r Commodit yORM-D " marking . Empir e Appea l Br . a t 16 . Th e packagin g fo r th e Nexiumhan dsanitizin g ge l differed

significantl yfrom th e shipmen t involve di nth e Federa lExpres s2 9

case . Th e Decisionmake r i nFederal ' Expres s accuratel ydescribe d th e shipmen t a s " a 'hidde nshipment, ' give ntha t th e require d labeling , marking , an d shippin g paper s wer e hidde ninsid e th e courie r bag. " FA

AOrde r No . 2002-2 0 a t *1 . Sinc e th e shipmen t wa s conceale d i na courie r bag , anyindicatio ntha t i t wa s HAZMA T wa s trul yhidde nfromAmerica nAirline s - - th e carrie r tha t transporte d th e hidde nshipment . I ncontrast , th e package s containin g th e Nexiumhan d sanitizin g ge l coul d no t reasonabl yb e construe da s a hidde n shipments . A s Agen t Stige r testified , the boxe s containin g th e ge l wer e marke d "Consume r Commodit yORM-D."^ ° Tr . 49 . Thes e marking s wer e no t i nsom e obscur e location . Rather , Agen t Stige r testifie d tha t th e marking s wer e o nbot hside s o f eac hbox ; on e • suchrmark"ing o neacln^boxwa s nea r th e shippi"hg^laber : CT~a t ~ 1-2 , C- 8 a t 2 , Tr . 49 . Th e placemen t o f the marking s wa s consisten t wit hHMRrequirements , whic hprovide , i npart : Eac hnon-bul k packagin g containin g a materia l classe da s ORM- D mus t b e marke d o na t leas t on e sid e o r endwit hthe ORM- D designatio nimmediatel yfollowin g o r belo wth e prope r shippin g nam e o f th e material . 4 9 C.F.R . § 172.316(a) . Agen t Stige r state dtha t th e packages , themselves , ar e usuall yoffloade d on e a t a tim e fro ma conveyanc e

^ ° Th e AL J foun d Agen t Stiger' s testimony"credible. " Initia l Decisio na t 2 .

^ ^ Tha t th e marking s wer e nea r th e FedE xlabel s o neac hbo x suggest s tha t theywer e no t i na difficult-to-fin dlocation . Tr . "49 , C' 8 a t 2, " " 4 . " ' " " "3 0

t o th e aircraf t wit hth e Empir e pilo t observin g suc hactivity . Tr . 52 . Ha d th e Empir e pilo t fo r fligh t 8677-2 2 properl y supervise d th e loadin g proces s a s require db yth e GO Man dHMRs , h e woul d hav e notice d th e conspicuou s "Consume r Commodit yORM-D " marking s o nbot hend s o f eac hbox . Indeed , th e purpos e o f a markin g i s t o communicat e t o thos e involve di nth e transportatio n o f HAZMAT th e fac t tha t th e packag e contain s HAZMAT . Acarrie r ignore s suc hmarking s a t it s peril . Th e evidenc e i s fa r to o tenuou s t o sugges t that , the "Consume r Commodit yORM-D " markin g wa s blocke d fromth e vie wo f th e pilot . Empir e baldl ystate s tha t "th e FedE xExpres s personne l loa deac h _aircraft_by_placin g boxe s longitudinall yo nrolle r leadin g t o th e aircraf t an d providin g n o apparen t visua l cue s a s t o marking s o n Th e end s of~th e package. " Empir e AppeaF^r . a t b . i nsuppert~~o' f thi s contention , however . Empir e merel yrelie s o nMr . Mills ' genera l testimonytha t th e boxe s ar e "typically " place dend-to-en d v;he nthe ytrave l t o th e bel t loade r an dtha t thi s woul dhav e mad e i t difficul t fo r a pilo t t o se e th e "Consume r Commodit yORM-D " markings . Tr . 181 . Empir e di dno t presen t th e testimonyo f th e pilot-in-comman d o f fligh t 8677-2 2 o r o f anyon e presen t durin g th e loadin g o f fligh t 8677-2 2 t o stat e ho wth e boxe s wer e actuall y place d o nth e loadin g belt . Whil e Mr . Mill s goe s o nt o stat e tha t th e pilo t ha d "no cu e a t al l tha t thos e particula r boxe s migh t contai nanythin g bu t grandmother' s cookies, " Tr . 181 , th e evidenc e3 1

reveal s tha t th e boxe s ha d appropriatel yplace d"Consume r Commodit yORM-D " markings , whic hindicate dtha t th e boxe s containe d HAZMAT . Tr . 181 . I nanyevent , Mr . Mills , lik e Agen t Stiger , testifie d tha t th e boxe s ar e "handloaded " o nth e •aircraft , Tr . 181 , se e als o Tr . 52 , a nactivit ytha t woul dgiv e a pruden t pilo t ampl e opportunit yt o inspec t th e outsid e o f boxes . "' ^ I t i s tru e tha t th e shipmen t o f Nexiumhan dsanitizin g ge l

wa s no t accompanie d b yshippin g papers, a s Empir e asserts . Th e evidenc e i s les s tha ncertai ntha t package s containin g th e ge l wer e no t separate d from non-HAZMAT. . Notwithstandin g th e absenc e o f shippin g paper s and th e conjectur e tha t th e package s wer e no t .grouped_with_othe r .HAZMA T packages , th e marking s o neac hendo f

eac hbo xwer e sufficien t t o communicat e t o a reasonabl ypruden t Empir e pilo t tha t th e shipment s a t issu e contained~HAZMAT^t]Ta" t wa s prohibite d t o b e transporte d byair . Thi s i s especiall ytru e sinc e Empir e ha s charge d it s pilot s t o supervis e th e loadin g o f HAZMA T aboar d a naircraf t an dEmpir e i s require db y sectio n175.30(a ) t o inspec t HAZMA T shipments . Areasonabl e Empir e pilo t actin g unde r th e circumstance s o f thi s cas e shoul d hav e knowntha t HAZMA T shipment s marke d"Consume r Commodit yORM-D "

^ ^ It . i s troublin g tha t Empir e attempt s t o hid e behin dconjectur e tha t th e boxes " wer e conveye d o na bel t loade r i na manne r tha t obscure d th e "Consume r Commodit yORM-D " marking . Empir e wa s no t a helples s bystande r durin g th e loadin g process . I t wa s th e FAA-certificate d ai r carrie r tha t wa s proscribe dbyregulatio nt o allo wthe loadin g o f package s o nit s aircraf t tha t wer e prohibite d fromai r carriage . ' ' ' " ~3 2

ar e forbidde nfromtransportatio nbyair . Ha dEmpire , throug hit s pilot , exercise d reasonabl e care , i t woul dhav e spotte dth e "Consume r Commodit yORM-D " markings . "Thi s shoul dhav e triggere d

a ninquir ya s t o whethe r th e shipmen t complie dwit hHAZMA T requirements . Empir e coul d hav e reasonabl ybee nexpecte dt o hav e prevente d th e ge l frombein g loade d aboar dfligh t 8677-2 2 sinc e th e shipmen t wa s prohibite d fromai r transportatio ndu e t o th e absenc e o f positiv e mean s t o secur e th e bottl e caps . Tr . 49-50 , 55 . Empire' s contentio ntha t i t ca nb e absolve do f thes e violation s o nthe groun d tha t i t reasonabl yrelie do nFedEx' s _fal.lures__oyerlook s tha t Empire , itself , wa s i na positio nt^ _ ensur e regulator ycompliance . Empire^ s GO Mfo r HAZMAT provide s tha t Empir e crewmember s ar e responsibl e fo r compTianc e wit hal T ' th e provision s o f the HAZMA T regulation s regardin g th e acceptanc e o f HAZMAT . Tr . 98 , C-1 1 a t 8. . Whil e FedE xma yhav e performe dth e loadin g o f HAZMA T (C-1 1 a t 41) , th e GO Mprovide s tha t Empir e pilot s ar e responsibl e fo r supervisin g th e loadin g o f HAZMA T aboar d aircraf t operate d b yEmpire . Tr . 52 , 66- , 100 , C-1 1 a t 41 . Thi s supervisio nrequiremen t i s consisten t wit hsectio n175.30(a) , whic hrequire s Empire ' t o ensur e tha t HAZMA T se t t o b e loade d aboar d Empir e aircraf t confor mt o HM Rrequirements , includin g thos e relate d t o shippin g paper s andprope r markings . Acceptin g Empire' s argumen t tha t i t i s no t liabl e fo r th e violation s cite d3 3

i nthi s cas e woul d absolv e it , an d anycarrier , fromcomplyin g wit hHMR s wher e i t contract s ou t HMR-mandate dresponsibilitie s notwithstandin g th e existenc e o f marking s tha t pu t the carrie r o n notic e a s t o th e existenc e o f HAZMAT . Surely , th e HMR' s di dno t inten d suc ha result . 

### I Conclusio n Th e AL J properl yconclude dtha t Empire' s failur e t o properl y inspec t HAZMA T shipment s place do nit s aircraf t warrante da i findin g th e Empir e violate d section s ll75.3 , 175.30(a)(2) , and I 175.30(a)(3) . 

## I Th e Complainant , therefore , request s tha t th e Decisionmake r ..a f f irin. . th e finding_in_this

_regard. . . ' L. . _.__ _ Respectfull ysubmitted , Pete r J . Lync h Assistan t Chie f Counse l fo r Enforcement , AGC-30 0

'fWttA^ , By : Jaipe s A . Barr y Senio r Attorne y Enforcemen t Division , AGC-30 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Tel : (202 ) 267-819 8 Fax : (202 ) 267-510 6 Dated : Jul y27 , 201 13 4 Certificat e of l Servic e I herebycertif ytha t o nthi s date ' I hav e place di nth e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dreturn-receipt, ' a copyo f th e Complainant' s Repl yBrie f i nth e cas e o f Jnthe Matte r o f Empir e Airlines , Inc. , FA ADocke t No . CP09NM0009 , addresse dto :

I Gle nP . Wicks , Esq . ; Roncerver t D . Almond , Esq . | Th e Wick s Group , PLL C ' 121 5 17^ ^ Street , NW{ Sumne r Annex , Fourt hFloo r j

- Washington , D C 2003 6 : I naddition , I herebycertif ytha t o nthi s dat e I hav e place d i nth e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dreturn-receipt , th e origina l an d tw o copie s o f th e foregoin g documen t to : Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio ni 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W' Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2'wiOO O " Wash i ng t on , DTCT~2"0"5"9" 1 Attn : Appellat e Docke t Clerk , AGC~43 0

, 2 0 1 Dated : Jul y27 , 201 1