; ^

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 '"^ ^ 

# •.p-neiTo

^ RECEIVE D Scot t R
. Morri s •:A l :. 3 ^OHi"ATiG

i • ^ »- 1 V 1 ^ 1^ ^ FA A Offic e of Regiona l Counse l ; ,. : ' CPtRA

l A'M S MA

P | 5 2flt t 160 1 Lin dAve. , S WUi-Ar^

. Renton , Washington9805 7 - 5 -- n ^ h P \

- ^^ , ^cARIN G DOCKF T Telephone : 425/227-141 7 --'-- J ^ ^

- ^- ' - ' ^ R^VVUrV C 1 Facsimile : 425/227-1007 UNITE D STATE S O FAMERIC A

FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADIM1NISTRATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C

.
I n th e Matte

r o f FEDERA L EXPRESS , INC

.

. 

### FA A DOCKE

T NO

. CP09NM001 0 DMS NO

. FAA-2009-072 1 FA A Cas e No
. 2007NM70015 6 COMPLAINANT' S REBUTTA L BRIE F

INTRODUCTIO

N Responden

t make s thre e genera

l arguments :
3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 a . th e transportatio n vmiqu e ORM-Drriarking s that

wer e locate dnex t

t o th e scannin g ba

r document s place do n th e bo x b y it s employee s o r agent s wer e not

sufficient t o plac e it s personne l traine di n hazardou s material s (hazmat ) t o recogniz e tha t th e bo x was ahazmat shipment

. b

. th e ORM- D markin g was confiising ; and , c . th e propose dsanctio n i s no t appropriate

. ARGUMEN T A

. Th e transportatio n uniqu e ORM- D markin g i s sufficient t o provid e Responden t

with th e requisit e knowledg e tha t

th e shipment s containe dhazardou s materials

. Complainan t

largel y refer s th e Administrativ e Law Judg e (ALJ ) t o it s original brie f

COMPLAINANT' S REBUTTA L BRIE F- CP 0 9NM0010 , 2007NM0015 6 FEDERA L EXPRES S Pag e 1 o f

8 SCOT T R
. MORRI S , FA A ATTORNE Y
TEL : 425.227.1417 ; FAX : 425.227.100 71

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 Respondent' s argumen t i s a n interestin g one . First , let' s assum e fo r argument' s sake , ther e i s credibl e evidenc e i n th e recor dthat th e shipper , not

aFederal Expres s (FedEx ) driver , loade dint o
afreight containe r th e ORM- D shipments

. Th e Responden t i s stil l responsibl e fo

r th e action s o f

th e shippe r whe n i t delegate s i t

responsibilitie s t o that

entity

. Responden t

ignore s it s independen t obUgatio n t o inspec t

th e shipmen t

prio r t o placin g i t

aboardit s aircraft

. Se e 4 9 C.F. R§ 175.30

. It

canno t escap e liability b y delegatin g loadin g function s t o thos e tha t i t accept s shipment s from. An d i f Responden t

ha s delegate dth e authority t o conduc t th e pre-inspection , i t

ha s provide dn o evidenc e tha t it s agent s wer e properl y trained

. Responden t assert s withou t

any underlyin g facts , that th e shippe r ha s neve r previousl y offere dhazardou s material for air transportation

. I

t seem s tha t

on e woul dexercis e eve n greater cautio n toward s ashipper unde r thos e circumstances

. Further , th e disclaime r

i s onl y t o air

transport
. Responden t

i s remarkabl y silen t

abou t whethe r th e shippe r previousl y ha doffere dhazardou s materia l fo r groun dtransport
. 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 B
. Th e ORM- D markin g i s atransportatio n uniqu e markin g tha t i s not confusin g an dRespondent' s effort s t o chang e arul e that i t disagree s with i s irrelevant

. Complainan t

agai n relie s primaril y o n it s original brief

. Responden t

devote dpage s i n it s repl y brie f arguin g genericall y abou t th e ORM- D markin g itsel f an dho w i t

i s confusing

. Respondent' s Brie f at 5-7

. What

Responden t

canno t escap e are th e fact s o f thi s case : th e testimon y o f th e Agent s an dth e photograph s o f shipments. ' I n thi s case , th e transportatio n uniqu e markin g i s literall y inche s fromth e documen t Responden t

use s t o proces s
eac h shipment

. Th e markin g i s i n bol dletterin g with arectangl e aroun dth e letter s ORM-D

. Ther e coul dnot b e amor e compellin g exampl e o f bein g place do n notic e tha t thes e package s ar e tellin g th e carrier that th e content s o f

thos e package s containe dhazardou s materials

.

COMPLAINANT' S REBUTTA L BRIE F- CP09NM0010 , 2007NM0015 6 FEDERAL EXPRES S Pag e 2 o f

8 SCOT T R
. MORRIS , FA A ATTORNE Y
TEL : 425.227.1417 ; FAX : 425.227.100 71

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 Respondent' s effort s t o chang e aregulatio n ar e no t mitigatin g whatsoeve r

i n th e contex t

o f it s obligatio n t o compl y with th e regulation s tha t exis t at th e tim e o f

th e incident

. Responden t i s t o b e commende dfor

it s effort s t o participat e i n th e proces s o f developin g o r

modifyin g regulations

. However , Respondent' s objection s t o th e ORM- D provision s o f th e hazardou s materia l regulation s d o not equat e t o a"widely-know n problem. " There ar e man y occasion s where th e regulate dobjec t t o th e rule s implemente db y th e regulators

. Regulator s mus t balanc e th e interest s o f

al l partie s no t jus t thos e tha t

objec t t o provision s tha t

arguabl y impac t

acorporation' s busines s model

. Respondent' s argumen t

that i t shoul dreceiv e credi t

for it s regulatory activis mwoul dsubjec t th e Agenc y t o awel l know n trap - tha t o i regulator y captur e - whereb y aregulato r draw s s o clos e t o thos e with who mi t

deal s o n adail y basi s tha t i t end s u p elevatin g industry' s privat e interest s abov e it s ow n regulatory mission.' ^ Responden t forget s that

th e publi c a

t large , no t jus t larg e corporations ,
ar e th e stakeholder s here

. 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 Complainan t challenge dth e requirement s o f inspectin g ORM- D material s whe n i t wa s fu-s t proposed , bu t

wa s overrule di n th e rulemakin g process . I n 2006 , th e Pipelin e an dHazardou s

^ Picture s ar

e wort h athousandwords

. Se

e Exhibit C- 3 photographs

. ^ Fo r amor e thorough discussion o

f thi s phenomenon , se e MALCOL M L
. SPARROW , TH

E REGULATOR

Y CRAFT : CONTROLLIN

G RISKS , SOLVIN

G PROBLEMS , AN

D MANAGING COMPLIANCE3 5 -36,6 3 - 6 4 (2000)

. ' PHMSA' s respons e t

o industries ' comment

s o n thi s issue were : Section 175.30(d

) excepts material s classedas ORM-D fromth e inspection requirements

. I n the NPRM , w e proposedto remove thi s exception

. Material s reclasseda s ORM- D shouldb e subjec

t t o the inspection requirements o f § 175.30(b ) an

d(c ) to ensur

e al l package s containing hazardou s material s ar

e i n prope r condition fo

r transportatio n aboar

daircraft

. ATA ; UPS ; Association o

f Ha2ma t Shippers (AHS) ; an

dFedE x Expres s as

k PHMS A t o leave the exception providedi

n § 175.30(d

) fo r consume r commoditie s an

dno t remove i t a s proposed

. AT

A state s removin

g the exception woul

dresult i n inconsistency wit

h th e ICA O acceptanc e procedure s mpar t 7 ; 1.1.1(b) fo

r simila r shipments unde

r Packing Instruction 910

. AT A suggests PHMS A provide dno safet

y justification fo

r removing the exception , noting the brea k dow n an drebuilding aunit loa ddevic e (ULD ) containing ORM-D material s provide s mor e opportunit

y t o damag

e thos e packages

. I

n addition , AT

A suggests remova

l o f th e exception couldlea

dt o internationa

l consistency an

dcompetitive issue s wher

e foreign operator s will offe r thei r customers expedited processin g while U.S

. carrier s wil l hav e to spen

dmor e tim e processing thei

r package s individually

.

COMPLAINANT' S REBUTTA L BRIE F- CP 0 9NM0010 , 2007NM0015 6 FEDERA L EXPRES S Pag e 3 o f

8 SCOT T R
. MORRIS , FA A ATTORNE Y TEL : 425.227.1417 ; FAX : 425.227.100 71

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 l e 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 Materia l Safet

y Administratio n (PHMSA ) ~ th e regulator s —balance dth e interest s o f industr y an d th e general publi c an dmad e th e followin g determination : "Today' s fransportation environmen t als o warrant s inspectio n o f material s reclasse da s ORM- D t o ensur e th e safet y an dsecurity o f

th e hazardou s materiei l shipment

. Inspectio n i s on e o f th e onl y means availabl e t o ensur e package s containin g hazardou s material s ar e u i prope r conditio n for

transportatio n aboar daircraft. " 7 1 Fed

. Reg
. 14586,1459 2 (Mar

. 22,2006)

. C

. Th e propose dsanctio n i s appropriat e an dsupporte db v th e evidenc e an dth e Administrator' s sanctio n guidance

. Complainan t

agai n relie s primaril y o n it s original brie f Responden t

initiall y argue s tha t

aConsume r

Commodity , ORM- D i s not subjec t t o any regulations. " I t

misstate s th e regulations

. Se e 4 9 C.F.R

. § 172.316,172.700

. T o gai n th e benefit s
o f usin g th e ORM- D marking , th e shipmen t mus t stil l mee t th e exceptio n criteri ase t

fort h i n 4 9

2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 C.F.R

. § § 173.150-173.156 , eve n for rail , highway , o r

wate r mode s o f transportation

. Responden t

argue s that

th e Administrato r

misapplie dit s sanctio n guidanc e becaus e i t considere dth e Ethy l alcoho l solutio n i n th e package s marke dORM- D a s aRis k Categor y B rather tha n aRis k

Categor y C

. Responden t

argue s that

th e guidanc e onl y refer s t o "materials " an dsinc e thi s materia l was a

n ORM- D i t

qualifie s for

th e lowe r risk category
. It s positio n i s illogical

. Followin g Respondent' s logic , i f ashippe r offere dan Explosive , Divisio n 1.1 , but marke di t a s a n

UPS an dAH S als o commen

t ther e i s n o inciden t histor y t o justif y remova l of th e exception an

dthe increasedhandlin

g coul dlea dto greate r cost s fo r U.S

. operators an

dincreaseddamage s durin

g handling

. W e disagree wit

h the commenters an

dar e adopting the proposa

l t o remove the exception i

n § 175.30(d ) fo r material s classeda s ORM-D

. 7 1 Fed

. Reg
. 14586 , 14592 (Mar

. 22 , 2006)

.

COMPLAINANT' S REBUTTA L BRIE F- CP 0 9NM0010 , 2007NM0015 6 FEDERA L EXPRES S Pag e 4 o f

8 SCOT T R
. MORRIS , FA A ATTORNE Y
TEL : 425.227.1417 ; FAX : 425.227.100 71

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 I B 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 ORM-D , Responden t apparentl y believe s tha t

th e violator , woul db e entitle dt o th e mimmu mweigh t

o f asanctio n becaus e i t

was marke da s such

. Thi s i s no t th e inten t o f th e guidance

. A violato r

onl y receive s th e benefi t

o f th e lowe r risk categor y i f i t meet s th e criteri ao f

th e lowe r risk categor y at th e tim e it' s offered

. Fo r

example , th e sanctio n guidanc e provide s "i f ther e i s mor e than on e typ e o f hazardou s materia l involve di n ashipment , us e th e hazardou s materia l i n th e highes t risk category. " Exhibi t C-10 , pag e 10-6 , Guidanc e Note
. Th e guidanc e mus t b e understoo di n th e contex t o f th e mod e that i s bein g regulate d~ th e air mode

. I f thi s shipmen t

coul dhav e flown b y air

a s an ORM

D-Ai r i t woul db e considere daRisk Categor y C

. However , th e ver

y packagin g o f

thi s shipmen t disqualifie di t

fo r transport b y air, " increasin g th e risk o f harm , an dtherefore th e increas e i n th e risk category
. Th e Administrato r i s i n th e bes t

positio n t o interpre t

it s ow n guidance

. A s lon g a s th e Complainant' s interpretatio n o f it s ow n guidanc e i s reasonabl e i t i s entitle dt o deferenc e o f tha t interpretation

. Chevro n v . Nat' I Resource s Defens e Counse l 46 7 U.S

. 83 7 (1984)

. 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 Responden t

attempt s t o argu e certai n factor s tha t th e Administrato r

ha s clearl y state d

ar e not mitigating

. Complainan t remind s th e court

tha t alac k o f aprio r violatio n history i s no t mitigatin g a s a n unblemishe drecor di s th e expecte dnorm . See , e.g. , Pon y Expres s Courie r Corporation , FA A Orde r 94-1 9 (Jun e 22 , 1994)

. "Th e fac t tha t n o damag e occurre da s a resul t o f th e shipmen t

i s no t amitigatin g factor. " 4 9 Fed

. Reg
. 19445 , colum n 3 , para . 3

. Responden t

erroneousl y argue s tha t

Complainan t

di dnot conside r tha t Responden t receive dsom e erroneou s informatio n abou t th e shipments

. Respondent' s Brie f a t 11

. Despit e it s argument , Complainan t di dconside r

th e fac t tha t someon e othe r

tha n Responden t

prepare d

* Fo r thi s shipmen

t t o b e authorizedfo

r transpor t i n ai r commerce , the inne

r packaging bottle s wer

e requiredto have apositiv e mean s acros s the screw-type ca p to preven

t movement
. 4 9 C.F.R

. § 173.27

. Se e Tr
. a t 3 2 - 34 , an

dTr
. a t 48 , line s 2-8

.
COMPLAINANT' S REBUTTA L BRIE F- CP09NN0010 , 2007NM0015 6 FEDERA L EXPRES S Pag e 5 o f

8 SCOT T R
. MORRIS , FA A ATTORNE Y
TEL : 425.227.1417 ; FAX : 425.227.100 71

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 th e shipmen t

an dtha t Responden t

was no t th e shipper

. Tr
. at

63 , line s 7-19. ^ Not e tha t thi s testimon y i s inmiediatel y prio r t o th e testimon y referenc e b y Responden t i n it s brie f Complainan t

balance dtha t

informatio n with th e fac t tha t thi s ai r carrie r accepte dan d transporte dashipmen t

clearl y marke dORM- D an don e caimo t transport ashipmen t

marke d ORM- D i n ai r

commerc e - afac t

commonl y kno w i n th e aviatio n industry

. Responden t correctl y point s out

i n it s brie f

tha t th e shippe r

i s primaril y responsibl e fo r complyin g with th e hazardou s materia l requirement s for any shipmen t

i t offers

. However , Responden t ha s an independen t

duty unde r

th e regulation s i n it s acceptanc e an dtransport rol e i n ai r

commerce . Se e 4 9 C.F.R

. Par t

175

. Finally , Responden t want s place do n adifferent footin g unde r

th e regulation s becaus e i t

"handle s mor e hazardou s material s / dangerou s good s shipment s pe r da y tha n an y carrie r

i n th e world.... " Respondent' s Brie f a t 12

. Responden t

ha s mad e thi s argumen t befor e an di t

ha s bee n properl y rejected

. I n th e Matte r o f Federa l Express , FA A No
. 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 CP09GL000 4 (May 5,2010) , 201 0 WL 184381 5 (hiitia l Decision r

Finally , Responden t

seek s credi t

for it s meage r

correctiv e actions

. Reiteratin g policies , distributin g jo b aids , an dactuall y requirin g it s personne l t o physicall y sca n al l shippin g label s i s th e leas t

on e woul dexpec t

o f an ai r carrie r t o correc t

th e problem s associate dwith thes e shipments

. An y correctiv e actio n b y Responden t mus t no t jus t correc t aproblem , bu t

mus t

^ Q : I s the violato

r the manufacture

r of the hazardou s materia

l i n thi s case . A : No ; i t i s not
. Q : Ok

. Didsomeon

e othe r tha n the violator

prepar e the shipmen

t fo r transportation ? A : Th e shippe r wouldhave prepare dthe shipmen t fo r transportation

. Q : Ok

. S o tha

t woul db e mitigating , somewhat, i n thi s case ; i s tha

t correct ? A : Tha t i s correct
. ^ "Th e larg e numbe

r o f hazardou s material s carriedby Federa l Expres s carrie s wit

h i t aconcomitan

t responsibility

. The carrier' s obligation to confor mto the law s governing th e handling an dtransportatio n o

f dangerou s good s i s the sam e as an y othe r entit>'

. Whe

n i t fail s i n tha t duty , i t must answer . Th

e volum e of its operation s simpl

y i s besid e th e pouit. " Id. , a

t * 6

COMPLAINANT' S REBUTTA L BRIE F- CP09NM0010 , 2007NM0015 6 FEDERA L EXPRES S Pag e 6 o f

8 SCOT T R
. MORRIS , FA A ATTORNE Y
TEL : 425.227.1417 ; FAX : 425.227.100 71

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 excee dth e minimui n requirements

. Id

. at 19444 , colum n 3,1* ' ful l paragraph

. Respondent' s action s ar e not

th e kin do f

systemi c chang e that

th e Administrato r

require s i n orde r

t o lowe r a n otherwis e reasonabl e assessment
. See , e.g. . Seven' s Pain t & Wallpape r

Co. , FA A Orde r

2001

- 6 (May 16,2001) , a t

*6

. CONCLUSIO N Responden t

ha s provide dnothin g i n it s brie f tha t eithe r exonerate s i t

o f th e violation s o r mitigate s th e propose dsanction

. Complainan t ha s provide doverwhelmin g evidenc e o f th e violation s an ddemonstrate dareasonabl e basi s for it s propose dsanction

. Th e propose dsanctio n wil l achiev e th e deterren t effec t desire dan drequired

. A s th e self-proclaime dworld' s larges t hazardou s material ai r

carrier , i t i s importan t

tha t th e penalt y impose do n th e Responden t represent s somethin g greate r tha n simpl y acos t

o f doin g business

.

2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTE D thi s 7th da y o f March , 2011

.

^^cottRMorri s FA A Attorne y

COMPLAINANT' S REBUTTA L BRIE F- CP09NM 0 010 , 2007NM0015 6 FEDERA L EXPRES S Pag e 7 o f

8 SCOT T R
. MORRI S , FA A ATTORNE Y
TEL : 425.227.1417 ; FAX : 425.227.100 71

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E
I hereb y certif

y tha t th e foregoin g Complainant' s Rebutta l Brief , ha s bee n serve dvi aFacsimile an dCertifie dMai l thi s date , t o th e following :

Th e Honorabl e Richar dC

. Goodwi n Offic e o f hearings , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E

. Eas t Buildin g (jioun dFloor , R mEl2-32 0 Washmgton , D.C

. 2059 0 FAX : 202.366.753 6
Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Av e S W Wilbu r Wrigh t Bldg

. - Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D.C

. 2059 1 FAX : 202

. 493.514 2
Courtne y E
. Felt s Staf f Attomey , Federa l Express , Inc
. 362 0 Hack s Cros s Roa d Buildin g B , 3^*

^ Floo r 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 Memphis , TN 38125-880 0 FAX : 901.434.828 3

Date dthi s 7 * day o f

March , 2011

.

DAN A STEPH I

Offic e o f Regiona l Coimse l (ANM-7 ) Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 160 1 Lin dAve

. S W Renton , W A9805 7 TEL : 425.227.216 4 FAX : 425.227.100 7

COMPLAINAN T ' s REBUTTA L BRIE F 2007NM0015 6 FEDERA L EXPRES S Pag e 8 o f

8 CP09NM0010 , SCOT T R
. MORRI S , FA A ATTORNE Y
TEL : 425.227.1417 ; FAX : 425.227.100 7