07/29/201 1 07:5 8 FAX 202193514 2 FA A • > OM S 01001/03 1



### . " v'-'^f^^EN T OF UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TILVNSPORTATION'.5';Y:!SP0RTATI0 N 

### FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N ' ^ ' '• " •" ' *-' ' tRATlOiV S I n th e Matte r

ol : EMPIR E AIRLINES . INC . 

### 2^ 1 M L 

### 2 q A S : 0 5 FA A DOCKET CP09NM0OO9 FA A Cas e No . 2007NM70015 5 DM S No . FAA-2009-05l:l 6 

# RECEIVE D Administrator , Federa l Aviatio n AdmiDistration : 

### JU L 2 e 201 1 REPL Y BRIE F Pui-suan t r o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.233(d ) unde r ih e Rule s of

Practic e fo

r FederaTAviafit Administratio n (FAA ) Civi l Penalt y Actions , 1 4 C.F. RPar

t 13 . Empire Airlines . Inc . ("Hmpire") , b y an

dthroug h undersigne dcounsel , hereb y files thi s Repl y Brie f respons e to the brie f of Complainant . STATEMEN T O FTH E CAS E O n July 27 , 2009 , Complainan t issue dacomplain t

assessin g acivi l penalt

y o f $20,00 0 fo r ceitai n violation s of

the Hazaidou s Material s Regulation s (TIMRi , 4 9 CF Rpart s 171-lSO . including ^ 175.3 . 175.30(a)(2) , 175.30(a)(3) , and175.33(c)(3). ' The particula r legukiiio n a

i issue , § 175.33('c)(3t

- require s Th e aircraf t operato r to hav e the infonmaiion retaine di n the notic e t o th e pilot-in-comman d(NOPIC ) b e readil y accessibl e a t the airpo n o

f departure an

dthe intende dairpor

t o f aiTiva l for the duratio n o

f the flii;h t leg. " Thi s informatio n include s th e locatio n o f hay.ardou s material s aboar dIh e aircraft . Si-c 4 9 C.F.R . ! i 175.33(a)(4) .

' Th e FA A als o iiiiUiuov

J piut-Ccdiii^ S ugniris i Fi;dE.i t Expres s i.

^ cc^nncclu di v th e .sam

L undurlyin-. ' laciua ] irLinSat-iHin.' ; :i

r ivvu e her e 2n dth e la w judg e tr»undvinbtioii s for 4 9 C.F.R . § § 175. 3 an dl75.30(ii) . •S'cc ' FA A Docke t No . CK>'..»NM*X>iaDM S No . l'AA-20'jy-0721.1'A A Cub c Nu . 2(»07NM700I56 . FedE x Expie.V5 di dnor appeal . -Thi s Repl y Brie f

jddre.v.SL-. s i.ssuc ^ o f

la w an df.ic

T cnncernin g hligh i 867S-22 . rh e allege dviolatio n o f 175.33(e;i(3) . sndadiujiini^n i «\'<JWI ] pL:nijli ) issu e raise db y Cunipltiinan i i n il ^ Appeb ! Brief . I n a.separate , hut rclaic dappeal , o n Jun e 22 , 2011 , Empir e Tile d.in appea l brie f

unde r 1 4 C.F.R . 6 13.233(d ) reqtiesiin g reversa l o f ih c ALJ \Initia l Decisio n a s i i relaic s lu violauon ^ 014 9 C.F.R . § § \15.? . an d175..^f>uX2 ) an d(3") . Therefore , ihi. s Repl y Brie f doe s no L subsmntivel y lepea i ih e aiguJiiem s se t fonl i therei n with regar dle

- ihe^ e regulaiion s un dEmpir e Righ i Rn77-22 .07/29/201 1 07:5 8 FAX 202a935l<1 2 FA A - OM S 0002/03 1



### Empii' C dispute dthe Complainant' s allegation s an drequeste dahearing . See Respondent'. s An.sweran dStatement of Affirmativ e Defense s (Sept . 16 . 2009) . The Admini?;rrative La

w Judg e ("ALJ" ) RichardC . Goodwi n .se t the hearin g i

n thi s matte r

for, an di t wa. s hel do

n October 2 6 an d27 , 2010 . Order

Continuin g Cas e an

dNotic e of

Hearin g Date^ (Jun . 22 , 2010) . O n Marc h 28 , 2011 , the A U issue dthe Initia l Decision , which foun

dtha t Empire ha

d violate d! j 175.3 , an

d175.30(a)(2)-(3; . bu

t tha t the Complaiiiiin

t ha dfaile dt o prov e the allege d§ 175.33(0(3, 1 violation . Th e AL J als o assesse datotal civj l penally o f $12,000 . The issue s i

n dispute specificall) ' relate t o Flight 8678-2 2 an

dthe relationshi p an

drole s o f Empire an dFedEx Expres s i

n makin g accurate notic e t o the pilot-in-comman d(NOPIC ) informatio n readil y accessibl e a t th e airpor t o f arrival locate di

n Medford , Oregon . STATF\fEN T O FTH E FACT S Empir e i s a n air cairie r certificate dunder

1 4 C F.R . Par

i 11 9 tha t provide s supplemental or feede r airlin e servic e fo

r Federal E.xprcs s ("FedEx Express" ) pursuant L O acuniraci . (Tr . a

t 168 ; Exhibi t

C-11 ; Exhibi t

C.-16 . An.swe

r a t 1) . Empir

e operation s ar

c exclusiv e t

o the FedE

x Expres s networ

k wit h Empir e providin g acces s t o rura

l area s fro mFedE x Expres s hu

b airports . (Tr . a t 168 ; Tr . a

t 186) . FedEx Expres s use s Empir e to acces. s rura

l markets , such a.

s th e Medfor

d area , insteado

f dedicatin g FedE

x Express' s trun

k aircraft . (Tr . a

t 133-134) . Empire' s corrmiercia

l feede r operation s ar

e completel y dependent

upo n an dexclusiv e t o FedEx Expres.s . (Tr . a

t 168) . Empire , however , pay s an dtrain s it s employees , includin g crewmembers , an

dprovide s the

mwit h uniforrrks . Tr . 169-170 . Empir e als o retain s operationri l contro l o f the aircraft , bu

t FedE x Expres s own s the aircraft , which bot h display the FedEx Expres s log o an

ddenote Empire' s role . (Tr . a t 68 ; Tr . a t 149-150 : Tr . a

t 186 ; Exhibi t

C-16) . Th e aircraf

t utilize db

y Empire ar

e liste do n Empire' s FAA-issue doperation s .specifications .07/29/201 1 07:5 8 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - QM S 0003/03 1



### (Exhibi t C-13) . T*ursuan i l o it s contrac t

wit h Empire , FedEx Expres s undertake s ccrifii n pre-tiansportaiio n function s includin g acceptin g an dloadin g services . (Tr . a

t 132-134) . Empire doc s no t physicall y accep t

or loa dcarg o andrelie s upon the instrumentalities , tools , facilities , and employee s o f

FedE x Express . (Tr . a

t 30 , 16-22 ; Tr . a

t f 33-136) . Whe

n aFedEx Expres s mai n fligh t land s a t the FedEx Expres s statio n a i Portland , Oregon , FedE

x Expres s employee s offiua d the carg o usin g FedEx Expres s unit loa ddevice s (ULDs ) an

dbrin g the carg o t

o aFedEx Expjes s sortin g facility . (Tr . a

t 51) . I f the carg o i s destine dfo

r a n Empire aircraft , ihen FedE x Expres s employee s plac e the carg o i n FedEx Expres s cart s tha t aj c tugge db

y FedE x Expres s employee s t o the Empir

e aircraft . (Tr . a

t 51-52) . Onc e a

t the aircraft , the FedE

x Expres s personne l loa

d eac h aircraf

t b y usin g FedEx Expres s roller s leadin g lo th e aircraft . fTr . a t 51-52 : Tr . a

t 175-176 ; Tr . a t lBl-182) . Unde r Empire' s FAA-approve dGenera l Operation s Manual ("GOM") , th e Empire crewmcmber

supci"v'ises th e FedEx Expres s accepting , processing , transponing , an dloadin g process . (Exhibi t

C-111 . Empire' s GOM . Appendi x G , require s tha t FedEx Expres s employee s actuall y separate ihc hazardou s materia l fro mother freigh t s o tha t the Empire crcwmembc r

ma y accomplis h the pre-loadin.speciion . (Tr . a t 66 ; Tr . a t 187-189 . Tr . a

t 197-198 : Exhibi t

C-ll) . I n executin g thi s separatio n task , the FedEx Expres s loadin g personne l utiliz e inform.irio n previousl y entere dinto FedE x Expres s clecitoni c hazardou s materia l trackin g system . "AuioDG. " (Tr . a

t 140-144 1 Only FedEx Expres s employee s hav e acces s t o Auto DO . (Tr . a t 146. ) Only FedEx Expres s employee s traine di n th e us e o

f the Auto D

G syste mca

n update the database . (Tr . a

i 146-147) . Empire employee s do no t hav e acces s t o AuioD G and . therefore , canno t correc t databas e discrepancie.s . (Tr . a t 149 : Tr . a

l 175) . Onc e the hazardou s material s ar c separate dfro

mother freight , FedE.x Expres s employee s present the Empire crewmember

wiih a n07/29/201 1 07.5 9 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - DM S ©004/0 3



### AutoD G manifes t

s o tha t the pilo t tna y sun-'e y th e content s of

the lis t agains t the separate d packages . (Tr . a

t 173 ; Exhibi t

C-3 ; E.xhibi

t C-11 . C-11-41) . Unde r it s GOM , Empir

e als o maintain s o

n hoar dthe aircraf

t apaper form , the Feeder Aircraf t Loa dContro l Sheet

("LoadContro l Sheet") , which note s th e locatio n of

hay.ardou s material s aboar

dthe aircraf

t o n the right-han dsid e o

f the document . (Tr . 28-29 ; Exhibi t C-3) . Th e Loa dConm':> l Sheet ma y serv e a s the NOPI C or

i n conjunctio n wit

h the AutoD G Manifest . {Exhibit C-11 , C-11-41) . Th e conicnt s of the LoadContro l Sheet

are no t compute r generate dan

d the fom i mus t b e filledout

b y handb y the FedE

x Expres s D G .specialist . (Exhibi t C-3) . Whe

n completed , bot

h the Empir

e crewmember

an dFedEx Expres s D G specialis t certif y th e content s o f the document . (Exhibi t

C-3 ; Tr . a

t 29 ; Tr . a t 179-180) . I f th e loadpositio n o f

ihe hazardou s material packag e change s fro mwhat i s liste do n th e Loa dContro l Shcci . ihe FedE

x Expres s D

G .ipecialis r

ca n correc t an diniiiL dth e chang e wit

h a pe n an dthe Empir

e crewmember

the n certifie s thi s change . (Exhibi t C-11 , C-11-42) . Empire ha s n o acces s to AutoD G or the abilit y t o chang e o r

updat e the system . (Tr . a

t 80-81 ; Tr

. 146

- 149 ; Tr . a t 175 ; Exhibi t

C-11) . However , FedEx Expres s procedure s require tha t it s employee s updat e the AutoD G every.tim e ahazardou s materia l shipment

change s conveyance s s o tha t emergenc y responder s ca

n hav e current

databas e acces s to the infoniiatio n upo n request . (Tr . 143) . Onc e entere dbefoi e take-off , thi s informatio n ma

y b e printe dan

daccesse da

t adown-lin e statio n i n the for mo f a n Inboun dDangerou s Goo d(DG) Alert . (Tr . a t 23-25 ; Exhibi t

C-2) . O n Augus t 22 , 2007 , FA

A agent s conducte da

n inspectio n a

t th e FedE x Expres s facilit

y a t Medford . Oregon . (Ti . a

t 17 ; Tr . a t 94 : E.xhibi

t C-1) . The KA

A agent s requeste dtha

i FedE x Expres s personnel produc e certai n informatio n relate dto tw o flights , includin g Fligli l S678-2 2 operate db y Empire , ("fr

. a t 19 ; Exhibi t

C-2) . Upon the arriva

l of Fligh t i>678-2 2 fro mPortland ,07/29/201 1 07.5 9 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - DM S 0005/03 1



### Oregon , th e FA

A agent s observe dth e offloadin g of the aircraft , aCessn a208B , b y FedE x Expres s personnel . (Tr . a

t 26-27) . Th e F A A agent s sought

t o determin e whether

thei r observation s durin g oflloadin g corresponde dwit

h th e informatio n provide db y FedEx E.xpres s a i the down-lin e .station . (Tr . a t 19) . The FA A agent s reviewe dFedEx Expres s Inboun dD G Aler t fo r Flight 3678-22 . (Tr . 21

- 22 ; 45 . Exhibi t

C-2) . The Inboun dD

G Aler t fo r fligh t 8678-2 2 indicate dtha

t certai n hazardou s material s - specifically , corrosives , aClas s 8 hazardou s materia l - were onboardthe aircraf t locate di n th e main deck . lExhibi t C-2 ; Tr . a t 23) . Th e Inboun dD G Ale n als o indicate dtha t n o hazardou s material s were locate di n the pod s or

lower deck of the aiicrafi . (Exhibi t

C-2 ; Tr . 24) . However , when the FA

A specia l agent s observe dthe offloadin g o f Fligh t 8678-22 , th e corrosiv e materia l wa s locate di

n Ho dC (Tr . a

t 26-27 ; Exhibi t

C-4) . Befor e Flight 8678-2 2 deparic dfo

r Ponland , Oregon , an

dfollowin g ihe pie-boar d inspection , the Empir

e crewmember

requeste dtha

t the corrosive s b e move dfro mthe mai n deck t o th e pod . (Tr . a

t 29-30 ; Tr . a

t 81-82 ; Tr . a

t 162-163 ; Tr . a

t 191-192;) . Th e Fe dE

x D G specialis t made ahandwritte n note updatin g th e LoadContro l Sheet , which wa s consisten t wit h th e procedure s .se

t fort h i n Empire^ s GOM . (Tr . a

t 179-180 ; Exhibi t

C-11 , C-11-42) . Specifically , the Li^a

dContro l Shee

t fo r Fligh t 8678-2 2 wa s marke dto sho w tha t the corrosive s ha dbee n loade dint o Po dC . (Exhibi t C-3 ; Tr . a t 28-29) . Empire the

n expecte dthe KedE

x Expres s D G speciali.s t

to enter thi s ne w informatio n int

o th e AutoD G system . Tr . a

t 179 : Tr . a

l 192-I93 y Th

e AutoD G .syste

mwa s no t update ddurin g th e cours e of the fligh t and , therefore , th e Inboun dD G Aiei

T reviewe db y the FA

A agent s reflecte dincorrec t informatio n o n th e locatio n oi f the corro.sives . (Exhibi t

C-3 : Tr . a

t 32 ; Tr . a t 179-180) . The actua

l lociuio n o

f th e corrosive s aboar

dFligh t 8671 ^ -2 2 wa s liste do

n the Loa dContro l Sheet , known to the Empire crewmember

onboardthe aircraf

t an dFedE x Expres s D

G specialis t

a t Portland , Oregon , hut

no t07/29/201 1 07:5 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ QM S 12006/03 1



### readil y accessibl e o

n documentatio n a

t ihc intende dairpor

t o f arrival . Medford . Oregon . (T r a i 31-32 : Tr . a

t 81-82 ; Tr . a

t 162-163 ; E.xhibi

t C-3) . TH E ADMINISTRATIV E LAW .lUDGF/ S INITIA L DECISIO N Th e AL J dismi.ssedthe violation s o f § 175.33(c)(3 ) afte

r carefully reviewin g the circumstance s involve di

n the ease. ' Initia

l Decision , a

t 4 . Th e AL J note dtha

i evidenc e demonstrate dtha

t Empir e crewmember

decide dprio r

to takeof f fro mPortlan dto mov e th

e corrosive s to Po

dC afte r bein g originall y locate di n th e main deck . Id . a

t 3 . Tiie FedEx Expres s D O specialis t

i n Portlan dnoic dthe movemeni o n the Loa dContro l Sheet

an dthe pilo t signe dof f o n the chang e an

dw.^ s given acop y of

th e form . Id . Bu

t n o computer

entr y i n the AutoD G system , exclusivel y controlle db y FedE x Express , wa s entered . Id . As aresul i th e update ddat a o n the locatio n o

f the corrosive s wa s not

scntdown-Jine . Id . Tha

t i s wh y Ih c record s ch

c FA A ageni s obtaine da

t th e airpor t o f arrival , Medford , reflecte dthe oldlocaiio n of th e ha7ardou s material . Id . Unde

r such circumstances , the air carrier canno t b e hel dliabl e I'o

r "ever y failur e of performance " tinde

r § 175.33(c)(3) . Id . a

t 4 . Th e AL J recognize dtha

t Empire' s lespon.sibihi y fo r complianc e under

th e HMRcanno t b e delegate da s aresul t

o f it s elevate ddut

y o f care . Id . ("the highes t

possibl e degre e o

f care") . However , th e AL

J interprete dthi. s elevate ddut y o f care withi n the fact s o

f thi s ca.s e an dth e contex t o f the liMR , includin g it s requirement of con.structiv e knowledg e an dallowanc e fo

r ih c exercis e o f reasonabl e care . Id . (citin g 4 9 C.F.R . § 171.2(f)) . I n thi s case . Empir

e possesse dawrilten recor dof the change . Id . Moreover , FedEx Expres s routinel y performe dth e tas k Empire relie dupon . Id . Therefore , th e A U held : "[I] t was reasonabl e to a.'^.'^um

e tha t th e necessai y computer

entr y als o woul dbe mad

e i n du e cours e b

y the FedE x officia l responsible. " Such circumsiancc s do no t create adut

y t o mvestigate furthe

r and the concomitan t

knowledg e o

f wha t a n investigatio n woul dhav e revealed . Id. . [VV(^reover , the07/29/201 1 07:5 9 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - QM S 0007/03 1

regulatio n di dno t

requir e tha i Empir e undertak e overl y burdensom e o r greatl y inconvenien t step s t o ensur e compliance . Id . Afte r reviewin g th e totalit y o f th e circumstances , othe r civi l penalt y actions , an dFA A penalt y guidelines , th e AL J assesse dacivi l penalt y o f $12,000 . Suc h apenally , eve n i f lowe r tha n th e .S20,000 . appropriatel y reflecte dth e natur e an dexten t o f th e ris k t o ai r transportatio n Safet y create db y Empire , whil e givin g appropriat e weigh t t o othe r salien t factors . Id . a t

I L Amon g othe r

considerations , ih e A U foun di t niifigaiin g tha t

Empir e relie do n incorrec t informatio n fro mth e prio r offeror(s ) - missin g shippin g papers . Id. , a t 10-11 . Additionally , Empir e wa s "[IJackin g awarning " that hazardou s materia l wa s o n boar dth e aircraft . Id . STANDAR D O FREVIE W Th e FA A decisionmake r review s issue s o f

fact s an dla w whe n considerin g a n appea l an d ma y affirm , modify , o r

revers e th e initia l decision , mak e an y necessar y findings , o r reman dth e cas e fo r an y proceeding s tha t

th e FA A decisionmake r determine s t o b e necessary . 1 4 C.F.R . i i 13.233 . Th e specifi c fact s underlyin g asituatio n mus t b e derermine dbefor e th e lega l standar d ma y b e correctl y applied . Hlakemor e v . Coleman . 70 1 F.2 J 96 7 {D.C . Cir . 1983 1 Th e ALJ' s finding s of

fac t mus t b e uphel di

f supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an d substantia l evidence . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.233t'bi . A n agency' s factua l determination s ar e conclusiv e i f the y ar e .-iupporte db y substantia l evidence . 4 9 U.S.C . § 46110(e) ; ie c als o 5 U.S.C . § 706(2)(E l (court s mus t

.se t asid e agenc y action s whic h ar e "'unsupporte dby substantia l evidence") . Substantia l evidenc e i s suc h relevan t evidenc e a s areasonabl e min dmigh t accep t a s adequat e l o suppor t

aconclusio n takin g int o accoun t whateve r

i n th e recor dfairl y deiraci s fro m it s weight . Icke s v . FAA , 29 9 F.3 d260 . 26 4 (3 dCir . 2002 ) {citation s an dquotatio n mark s omitted) . Ultimaiely , th e agency' s decisio n mus t provid e asatisfactor y explanatio n tha i draw s a rationa l connectio n betwee n th e fact s foun dan dth e choic e made , dr y ofSnnt aMonic av . /-"A.^,07/29/201 1 0 7 5 9 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - OMS @|008/03 1



### 63 1 F.3 d550 . 55 4 (D.C . Cir . 2011 ) (cilin s Moto r Vehicle Mfrs . Ass' n v

. Stal e Far mMut . Auto . In s Co. , 46 3 U.S . 29 , 4 3 (U.S . 1983 ) an d4 9 U.S.C . § 46110(c)) . The ALT'S conclusion s of

la w mus t b e uphel di

f made i n accordanc e wit

h applicabl e law , precedent , an

dpubli c policy . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.233(b.) . Mor e generally , federa

l agenc y decision s mus t noi b e arbitrary , capricious , a n abus e o f discretion , or

otherwis e not

i n accordanc e wit

h law . 5 U.S.C . § 7(J6("2)(.'\) ; se e als o Garve y v . NTSB , 190 F.3 d571 , 57 7 (D.C . Cir . 1999) . A federa l agenc y decisio n i s arbitrar y an dcapriciou s i

f the agenc y ha s relie do

n factor s which Congres s ha s no t intende di

t l o consider , entirel y failedt o consider a n important

aspec t of th e problem , offereda n explanation ' fo

r it s decisio n tha

t mn s counter

t o th e evidenc e befor

e the agency , or

i s s o implausibl e tha

t i t coul dnot b e a.scribcdt

o adifferenc e i

n vie w or th e produc t

of agenc y experti.se . Moio r

Vehicl e Mfr^ . Ass'n. , 46 3 U.S . a

t 43 . ARGUMEN T 1 . Th e ALJ' s findin g tha t Empir e lacke dconstructiv e knowledg e an dexercise d rea.sonabl e car e unde r

§ 175.33(c)(3 ) i s supporte db y substantia l evidenc e an di s consisten t wit h applicabl e law , precedent , an dpolicy . The ALJ' s dismis.sa

l o f violation s under

§ 175.33(c)(3 ) i s supporte db y apreponderanc e o f substantial evidenc e an

dconsisten t

wnh applicable , law , precedent , an dpolicy . A preponderanc e o

f substantial evidenc e demonstrate s tha t Empir e lacke dconsiruciiv e knowledg e an dexercise dreasonabl e car e when executin g it s function s under § 175.33(c)(3) . The .MJ' s analysi. s n f Empire' s lack

o f constructiv e knowledg e an dtheexerci.s e t)

f reasonabl e care under

§ 175.33(c)f3 ) i s consistent

wit h applicabl e law , precedent , an dpolicy . I

t is Complainan t

tha i i s mistakenl y interpretin g a

n ai r carrier' s elevate d.standar

dof care to preclud e a

n analy.si s of constRictiv e knowledg e when determinin g liabilit y under th e HMR . Par

t of thi s confusio n stem s froji i the fac t tha t the knowledg e of

a n ;u r carrier' s independent

contractor s i s no t

\ automaticall y impute dt

o ihe ai r carrie r under th e HMR . Eve

n i f ihe FA A decisionmaker consider s Complainant' s line reasoning , the precedent cite dto suppor

t Complainant' s impositio n07/29/201 1 07:5 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A - OM S @1009/03 l



### of liabilit y i s substantiall y differen

t fro mthe circumstance s o

f Empire' s action s an

d responsibilitie s under

§ 175.33(cK?)

- Therefore , the KA A decisionmaker

shoul daffir

mth e fmding tha

t Empire di dnot

violatio n § 175.33(c)(3) . a. A preponderanc e orsubstanCia J evidenc e demoastrafc s ihai Empire }iicke d con.su-uetiv

e knowledg e andexercise dreasonabl e care when executin g it s function s under

i > 175.33(cK3) . Th e dut y o f care exercise db y the ai

r operator , ihe reasonablenes s o f it. s eCfort , must b e mea.<ure db y th e precis e circumstance s involve dan dwithi n th e applicabl e regulator y context . FA A V . Federa l blxpfes s Corporavion , FA A Docke t No . CP0iNM00]5 , 200 2 FA A LEXI S 57 0 (Oct . 31,2002Kat*10(nrm^/J^//7€viJ . Paque t Cruises , inc. , 1(^9^.2

A 169 (2 Cir . 1983) : Pros.ser . Th

e La w o f Jon s § 34 , p . 18 1 (4t

h cd . 1971)) . I

n a n enforcement

proceeding , suc h a

n inquir y i s alway s involve s aquestio n o f fact , t o b e determine db y th e fact-finder . See 6 3 Fed . Reg . 30411 , 30412 . Becau.s e innumerabl e fac t pattern s ma

y exist , i t i s not practicabl e t o set

fort h alis t of specifi c criteri at o gover

n whether or no t a n ai r carrie r ha s sufficien

t constructiv e knowledg e unde r

aparticula

r regulatio n t o suppor

t aviolation . Id . I n thi s case , whe

n determinin g whether

Empire exerci.sedit s dut

y of care , the AL l thoroughl y examine dili e relationshi p o f the actor s i

n the chai n of

custody an

dwithi n th e precis e regulator y contex t o f the HM Ran d§ 175.33(c)(3) . Th

e recor dadequatel y suppon s th e ALJ' s conclusio n tha

t Empir e took reasonabl e action s withi n the chain o f custody t o carr y it s burden of c-^ Q unde r the particula

r circumstance s ot

§ 175.33(c)(3) . Par t 17 5 applie s to the transportatio n o f hazardou s material s i

n commerc e aboardaircraft . Sectio n 175. 1 noic s tha

t Subchapter

A o f Par t 175 applie s to ai

r carrier s an dtheir

contrac t personnel , includin g hadin g personnel . Thus , Par i 175 acknowledge s tha

t ai r carrier s do not

ac t alone i n the chain.o f

custody o

f ha/.ardoi) s mioterial. s an

dn)a y contrac j ou i ccrta'm^crvice.-

i t o independent

contraciors , includin g function s require dunder § 175.33 .07/29/201 1 08:0 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A- DM S 1^010/03 1

Sectio n 175.3 3 require s tha t whe n hazardou s nidiciia l i. s transporte db y air . acop y o f th e shippin g pape r

mus t accompan y th e shipmen t durin g transportation , an dth e aircraf t operato r mti.s t provid e th e pilot-in-comman do f th e aircraf

t writte n informatio n relativ e t o th e hazaidou s material s o n boar dth e aircraf t (i.e. . th e NOPIC) . Th e particula r regulatio n a

t i.s.sue . 5 175.,33(c)(3) , require s th e aircraf t operato r t o hav e th e infonnario n retainedi n th e NOPI C b e readil y accessibl e a

t th e airpor t

o f depaitur e an dth e intende dairpor t o f arriva l fo

r th e duratio n o f th e fligh t leg . Thi s informatio n include s th e locatio n o f hazardou s material s aboar dth e aircraft . 5V. ? 4 9 C.F.R . § 175.3?(aK4) . Importantly , th e regulatio n doe s no t precisel y proscrib e ho w th e ai r operato r ma y rela y o r mak e th e NOPI C mformatio n "readil y accessible " a t th e intende dairpor t

o f arriva l (i.e. . th e downlin e station) . (Tr . 80-81. ) Whe n firs t proposin g thi s requirement , DO T di.savowe d mandatin g iha t

ai r carrier' s u.s e acomputerize dtrackin g syste man dsuggeste dth e us e o f a referenc e phon e numbe r fo r obtainin g informatio n containe di n th e NOPIC . 6 7 Fed . Reg . 6669 , 6671-667 2 (Feb . 13 , 2002) . Durin g th e final mlemaking , instea do f proscribin g specifi c method s o r technologica l means , DO T stresse dtha t ac.cessibiliry o f

informatio n fro masourc e othe r tha n th e crewmembe r

onboar dth e aircraf

t wa s centra l U

) satisfyin g th e agency' s concerns . 6 S Fed . Re g 14341 , 14343(Mar . 25.200.3) . DO T explaine dtha t

th e ai r carrier' s dut y unde r

§ 175.33(c ) require dtha t airport s o f arriva l "mus t

onl y hav e th e mean s availabl e t o retrieve" ' NOPI C informatio n suc h tha t thi s dat a ca n b e receive dan dtransmitte di n a"timel y manner " t o emergenc y responders . 6 8 Fed . Reg . 14341 . 14343-14344 . Fo r cxitmplc . wirh facsimil e machine s an demai l capabiliiies , ai r carrier' s ca n easil y .stor

e th e infonnario n mth e airpor t o f departur e an dthen , whe n necessary , transim i i t 10 th e airpo n o f

arriva l ver y quickly . Id .

1 007/29/201 1 0 9 0 0 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - OMS @i011/03 1

Whe n considerin g th e standar dcar e require dunde r § 175.33(c)(3) . i t

i s als o helpfu l t o revie w wha t

DO T deeme dnon-mandaior y o r exceedin g th e standard . DO T wa s particularl y mindfu l o f

th e resource s o f

smal l operators . Id . Th e agenc y observe dtha t acompute r

trackin g .sysfe mwhi/ e no t

m.inciator

y woa/ denhanc e rh e rransmissro n ofliHzai'ciou: ^ maic&dl inSonn-diio n an dwa s a

n acceptabl e metho dof

compliance . Id . DO T stresse dtha t nothin g i n th e rul e requires , however , tha t

an aircraf

t operato r ha s t o fa \ever y NOPI C l o it s final destinatio n befor e afligh t takes-of f o r lands : i n othe r words , n o writte n recor da t th e airpor t

o f arriva l i s necessar y t o achiev e compliance . Id . DO T furthe r suggeste dtha t

retainin g personne l a

t both airport s o f amva l an ddestinatio n whil e a n aircraf t i s i n fligh t excee dth e standar do f

car e required . Id . Consisten t

wit h thi s regulatoi y context . Empir e complie s wit h th e NOPI C an dshippin g pape r requiremeni s o f

i j 175.3 3 throug h amulti-layere dsystem . First , Empir e crewmember s physicall y luainta monboar dth e aircraf t th e Loa dContro l Sheet , whic h note s th e locatio n o f hazardou s material s liboar dth e aurcraf t o n th e right-han dsid e o f th e document . (Tr . 28-29 ; Exhibi t C-3) . Unde r

Empire' s GOM , th e Loa dContro l Shee t i s define da s follows ; Thi s dual-purpos e formshow s th e amoun t an dlocatio n o f

al l loade dcarg o an dth e clas s an dlocatio n o f

D G loade do n th e aircraft . Th e Loa dContro l Shee t ma y h e use d a s th e notiftciiiio n o f

PI C o r i n conjunctio n wit

h the . AutoD G Manifest . T f ih e Loa d Contro l Shee t

i s withou t

a n AutoD G Manifest , the n th e Shipper' s Declaratio n mu.s t als o b e wit

h th e Loa dC(mtro l Sheet . Th e Loa dContro l Shee t an dShipper' s Deelaration(s ) contai n th e informatio n require dpe r HM R175.33 . (exampl e i n GO M Chapte r 15) . (T:xhibi t

C-11 , C-11-41 ) (emphasi s added) . Th e content s o f

th e Loa dContro l Shee t ar e no t compuie r

generate dan dth e formmus t b e fille dou t b y hand . (Exhibi t

C-2) . Whe n completed , bot h th e Empir e crewniembe r an dFedE x Expres s D G speciali:; t

certif y th e content s o f

th e document . (Exhibi t C-3) . Second , mOlder

T o fulfil ! it s NOPI C requirements . Empir e contract s v'-ii h FedE x Expres s an duriti7.e s th e AutoD C system . iTr . 80-81) . Empire' s ai r tran.sporlalio n ser\'ice s ar e wholl y dependen t

upo n bein g afeede r

airhn e i n FedE x Express' s large r network . (Tr . a

t 133-140. )07/23/201 1 08:0 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A- DM S . 12012/03 1



### AutoD G i s FedE

x Express' s electroni c automate ddangerou s good s manifestin g syste man d simila r t o th e computer

trackin g envisione db

y DO T a s enhancin g th e tran.srnissio n of NOPI C information . (Tr . a

i 140-142) . Befor e loadin g feede

r aircraft , FedE

x Expres s personne l separate an dloa dhazardou s material base do

n informatio n entere dinto the AutoD G System . (Exhibi t C-11 , C-11-41 ; Tr . a

t 66 , Tr . a t 187-1R9 ; Tr . a

t 197-198 : Tr . a

t 140-144) . Onc e the hazardou s material s ar e separate d fro mother freight . FedEx Expres s employee s present the Empir

e crewmember

wit h the AuioDC

i Manifes t s o iha t the pilo t ma y sur\'e y th e content s of

the li.s t agains t th e separate dpackages . (Tr . a t 173 : Exhibi t

C-3) . Th e separatin g an

dloadin g of

hazardou s materia

l b y FedEx Expres s i s performe ds o tha

t th e Empire crewmember

ma y accomplis h th e pre-loadinspection , i^xhibi t C

ll,C-n-4r) . Third , durin g thi s pre-boar dinspection , i

n the cas e of

adiscrepanc y or

change , Empi? e take s activ e measure s t

o ensure tha

t hazardou s material s informatio n i s accuratel y communicated . Fo

r example , Empire' s GO

M expressl y allow s tha

t i f the loa dpositio n o

f ihe hazardou s material packag e change s fro mwha t i s liste do n the Loa dContro l Sheet , the FedE x Expres s D G speciiilis t

ca n correc t an dinitia l the chang e (wit

h apen l an

dthe Empire crewmember

then certifie s thi s change , (^xhibi t C-11 , C-11-42) . Thes e procedure s als o allo w anothe r perso n t o pcifor

mthe pre-boardinspectio n an dthen provide the Empire crewinember wit h written notification , which i s kep t wit h (h e Empir e crewmember

durin g the flight . (Exhibi t C-11 , C- 1 1-20

) (Pilot-in-Conuiian dNotification) . Empir e ha? ; n o acces s U ) AutoD G or

th e abilit y chang e the AutoD G manifest . (Tr . a t 156) . Only FedE

x Expres s personnel tha

t ar e traine di n the us e o

f AutoD G ca

n acces s an

d updat e Ih e system . (Tr . a

t 146 : Tr , a

t 149) . Therefore , a

n Empir e crewmember

ca n only reques t an dexpec t tha t FedEx Expres s personne l mak e change s to AuioDG . (Tr . atl79 ; Tr . a t )92-]9-3) . 1 207/29/201 1 080 0 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - DM S ©013/03 1



### Accordin g to FedE

x Expres s procedures , it s employee s update ihe AutoD G ever y time a hazardou s material shipment change s conveyance s s o tha t emergenc y responder s ca n hav e curren t databas e acces s l o th

e informatio n upo n request . (Tr . 143) . Finally , unde

r it s contrac t

a s afeede r airlin e exclusivel y withi n ihc FedEx Expres s network . Empire benefit s fromth e pre.scnc e o f HedE x Expres s personne l a

t eac h of th e location s wher e Empire depatt s andarrives . (Tr . 51-52" . Tr . 144-148 : Tr . 168) . Give n tha t FedE v Expres s employee s loa

dEmpire' s aircraf

t an dsig n of f o n the LoadContro l Sheet , emergenc y responder s ca n contac t aFedE x Expres s employe e a

t a n airpor t of depaitur e to determin e informatio n concernin g hazardou s materia l o n boar dEmpire aircraft . (Tr . 174-175 ; Tr . 190-193) . Here , whe n FedE x Expres s personne l wer

e loadin g Flight

8678-2 2 a

i Ponland , OR , the Empire crewmember

requeste dtha

i th e positio n of

th e corrosive s b e change dto Po dC fro mthe mai n deck of th e aircraft . (Tr . 29-30 ; Tr . Si-82 ; Exhibi t C-1 ; Exhibi t

C-3) . I n accordanc e wit

h th e GOM , th e FedE

x Expres s D

G specialis t

the n note dth

e chang e i n 'pe n an dink " o n the Loa d Contro l Sheet . (Tr . 179-lRO) . The Empir e crewmember

then certifie dthi s chang e i n locatio n b y executin g th e document . (Exhibi t C-3) . Tlius . the Empire crewmember ha daccurate an

d verifiednotificatio n a s to the locatio n o f the corrosive s o

n boar dthe aircraft. . (Exhibi t

C-3 ; Tr . a

i 28-29 ; Tr . 162-163) . Thi s entire proces s t o update to the LoadContro l Sheet wa s consisten t

wit h Empire' s FAA-approve dGOM . (Exhibi t C-11 , C-11-42 , Tr . at

. 179) . The Empir

e crewmember

then requeste dtha

t the FedEx Expres s D G specialis t updat e AutoD O t o reflec t the re-positionin g o f

the hazardou s material . (Tr . 191-192. ) The FedE x Expres s D G specialis t

agree dto enter

the ne w info i inatio n into the electroni c trackin g system . (Tr . a r )92 h Thi s woul densur

e tha t the AutoD G systemwoul dreflec t accurat e data , whic h woul dhe readil y accessibl e a t the FedEx Expres s faciht

y i n Medford , OR . (Tr . a

t 192-193) . Despite thi s agreement , the FedExpre s D G specialis t failedt o updat

e AuioDG . (Tr . 21-25 : 1 307/29/201 1 080 0 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - OM S g]014/03 1

Exhibi t C-2. ) A s aresult , th e Inboun dD G Aler t reviewe db y th e FA A specia l agent s w.i s no t consisten t

wit h Loa dContro l Shee t (th e NOPTC ) o n boar dth e aircraft . (Tr . a t 24 ; Tr . a t

36 ; Exhibi t C-2. ) A. S th e A U determined , thes e circumstance s substantiall y suppor t atiadin g tha t

Empir e exercise dreasonabl e car e and . therefore , lacke dconstructiv e knowledg e o f violatin g 4 9 C.F.R . § 175.33(c)(3)." ' (Initia l Deci.sion , a t 4-5. ) h i fact , becaus e th e FedE x Expres s D G specialis t a t th e aii-por t o f departur e (PorUaud ) wa s awar e of th e correc t

information , h e coul dhav e faxe do r emaile dthi s informatio n t o th e airpo n o f arriva l (Medford ) upo n th e reque.^ i o f appropriat e authorhies . (T r

a t 29-32 ; Tr . 179-180) . Thi s i s simila r t o th e solutio n DO T deeme dexceede d th e mandator y requirement s o f § 175.33(c)(3) . 6 8 Fed . Reg . 14341 . 14343-14344 . Mor e generally , unde r

it s Gi) M an dth e i

j 175.33(c)(;3 ) Empir e wa s no t require dt o physicall y supervis e th e enterin g o f dat aint o AuioD G an dcoul dinstea dreasonabl y rel y o n FedE x Express' s affirmatio n an dpas t practic e t o updat e th e AutoD G system . Empir e too k activ e an dreasonabl e mea.sures , wiihi n th e ai r carrier' s control , t o communicat e accurat e hazardou s m:iteria l informatio n wa i readil y accessibl e a t th e down-lin e station . I n contrast , ther e i s no t substantia l evidenc e tha i Empir e shoul dhav e know n u r ha dareaso n t o kno w tha t FedE x Expres s woul dno t

d o a s promised . Empir e pos.sesse da n ol dan dobsolet e AutoD G manifest . (Exhibi t C

3 ; Tr . 35-36) . However , followin g th e change , ther e wa s n o ne w informatio n availabl e t o Empir e that

th e FedE x Expres s D O specialis t woul dno t

uphol dhi s en do f

th e agreemen t

t o updat e AutoDG . A

n investigatio n o f

th e availabl e informatio n an dmateria l woul dno t brin g t o iigh r th e compuie r

omissio n b y th e FedE x Expres. s D G specialist . Ther e wa s nothin g t o lea d Empir e t o suspec t

that FedE x Expres s woul dno i follo w it s routin e compan y procedure s l o updat e AutoD G followin g th e chang e i n conveyance . (Tr . a t 143 ; Tr . a

t 179) . Complainan

i ha.s no r .ilJege diha t Empir e h.n l JCIUH I knowJedp e ci'ih h vjoihtion . 1 407/29/201 1 08.0 0 FA X 202433511 2 FA A- DM S [^015/03 1

Accordin g t o Complainani . thi s l>T> e o f searchin g reasonabl e car e analysi s i s "mcntless " becau.s e Empir e i s a

n ai r carrier . Complainant' s Appea l Bnef , a t 13 . However , Complaint' s propose dstric t

impositio n o f

liabilit y i s wha t

ignore s applicabl e law , precedent , an dpolicy . b . Th e .MJ^ s analv.<^i

s o f Empire' s lac k

o f constructiv e knowled^^ e an dexercis e o f reasonabl e car e unde r

J ; 175.33(0(3 ) i s consisten t wjr h applicabl e law , precedenr . an dpolity . Th e HM Rrecognize s iha t ther e ma y b e variou s actor s withi n th e chai n o f custod y o f

a hazardou s material s shipmen t an daccount s for

th e variou s factua l circumstance s involvin g prio r offerors , initia l ai r

carriers , an dthei r

contractor s an dagents . jt".^(j. , 4 9 U.S.C . § 171.2 . Man y o f th e difficul t

question s o f

liabilit y unde r

th e HM Raris e alon g th e chai n o f custod y whe n th e action s o f

athir dpart y ar e th e caus e fo r non-perforrnance . bu t

th e ai r carrie r o r offero r i s unawar e o f

th e fact s givin g ris e t o thi s violation . Se e generally , 6 3 Fed . Reg . 3041 1 (Jun . 4 , I9y8_( . Unde r

suc h circumstances , ai r carrier s .suc

h a s Empir e ar e permitte dt o exercis e reasonabl e car e unde r

§ 175.33(e)(3 ) an dth e HMR . Thi s conclusio n i s consisten t wit h applicabl e .statutes , regulations , forma l inierprelalions . polic y guidance , an denforcemen t precedent . 'fh e Hazardou s Material s Transponatin n Ac t (Hazma t Act) , 4 9 U.S.C . § 510 1 e t seq. . i s th e basi c statut e regulatin g hazardou s material s tran.^poriaiio n i n th e Unite dStates . I n orde r fo r (iahihi y t o b e impose dunde r Haz.ma t Act , aperso n mus t

"knowingJy " violat e ih c statur e an d correspondin g regulations , orders , o r exemptions . 4 9 U.S.C . § 5123(a) . A perso n act s knowingl y whe n th e perso n ha s actua l knowledg e o t th e fact s givin g rise t o th e violation ; o r area.sonabl e perso n actin g i n th e circumsiancc s a t han dan dexercisin g reasonabl e car e woul dhav e that knowledg e (-constructiv e knowledge") . Id . ( n short , throug h constructiv e knowledge , th e Hazma t Ac t mtrodiicc s th e exerci.^^

e o f reasonabl e cure analysis .

1 507/29/201 1 08:0 0 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - DM S ^016/03 1

Thi ^ constructiv e knowledg e requiremen t i s eviden t

i n th e Ha7.ma

t Act' s legislativ e history . Congres s authorize dDO T l o asses s civi l penaltie s agains t aperso n vvh

o kne w abou t

th e ac t tha t constitute daviolation , bu t may hav e bee n unawar e o f th e law . I n th e Matte r o f TC I Corporation , FA A Orde r No . 92-7 7 a t

9 , n . 1 3 (Decembe r

22 , 1992) . A s note db y fh e FA A Administrato r

i n TC I Corporation , th e conferenc e repor t accompanyin g H.K . 15223 , whic h w-a s late r enacted , cleari y incorporate s th e constructiv e knowledg e test : "(4).. . tha t acivi l penalt y ma y b e impose don h upo n prou/tha t th e defendan t

knowingl y committe dth e ac t whic h constimte s th e violatio n (i t i s no t necessar y t o sho w that

h e kne w th e ac t

constitute da violation).,. " Id . (quotin g S . Con f Rep . No . 1347 , 93r dCong. , 2 dSess. , reprinte di n 197 4 U.S . Cod e Cong . & Ad . New s 7669 , 7686) . Th e Hazma t

Act' s constructiv e knowledg e tes t i s linke dt o th e concep t o f reasonabl e relianc e i n th e HMR . Fo r example , 4 9 C.F.R . § 171.2(b ) state s tha t eac h offero r

ma y rel y o n informatio n provide db y anothe r offeror , unles s tha t

offero r know s or , area.sonabl e person , actin g i n th e circumstance s an dexercisin g reasonabl e care , w'oul dhav e know'ledg e tha t th e informatio n provide db y th e othe r offero r i s incorrect . Thi s pruicipl e i s reiterate di n § 171.2(f) . a< ; not e b y th e AU , whic h stale s tha t eac h carrie r

wh o transport s ahazardou s materia l i n commerc e ma y rel y o n informatio n provide db y th e offero r o f th e hazardou s materia l o r aprio r carrier , unles s th e carrie r know s or . areasonabl e person , actin g i n th e circumstance s an d exercisin g reasonabl e care , woul dhav e knowledg e tha t th e informatio n provide db y th e offero r o r prio r carrie r i s incorrect . Se e Initia l Decision , a l 4 . I t shoul db e note dtha t

ai r carrier' s lik e Empir e reasonabl y rel y o n suc h regulator y languag e whe n draftin g th e content s o f FAA

approve dGOM . (Exhibi t C-11 , C-11-9 ) (describin g circumstance s whe n Empir e ca n rel y o n mformatio n o f

prio r offerors/shippers) .

1 607/23/201 1 08.0 1 FAX 202493514 2 FA A . DM S 0)017/03 1

I n 1998 . th e DO T issue daforma l inierprciatio n o f th e HM Rconcernin g th e responsibilitie s o f

acarrie r whe n acceptin g hazardou s material s fo r transportatio n i n commerce . 6 3 Fed . Reg . 30411 . Tli e DO T affirme dtha t acarrie r mus t "knowingly " violat e th e HM Rwhe n th e carrie r

accept- s o r

transport s ahazardou s materia l with actua l o r constructiv e knowledg e tha t th e shipmen t

doe s no t compl y with th e HMR , 6 3 Fed . Reg . 30411 , 3f)412 , A n ai r carrie r ma y no t ignor e readil y apparen t fact s that

indicat e non-complianc e wit h th e HM Rsuc h a s eithe r (1 ) a shipmen t declare dl o contai n aha^.ardou s materia l i s no t properl y packaged , marked , labeled , placarded , o r

describe do n ashippin g paper , o r (2 ) ashipmen t

actuall y contain s ahazaidou s mareria l governe db y th e HM Rde.spii e th e fac t that i i i s no t marked , labeled , placarded , o r describe do n ashippin g pape r a s containin g ahazardou s material . Id . Al l relevan t fact s mus t

b e considere dt o determin e whethe r o r no t areasonabl e perso n actin g i n th e circumstance s an d exercisin g reasonabl e car e woul drealiz e th e non-complianc e wii h HM Rrequirements . Id . DO T specificall y acknowledge s ihat acarrie r "regardles s o f

th e mod e o f

transportation " mayb e "irtil y innocent " unde r

4 9 U.S.C . § 5123(a ) i f

suc h carrie r

lack s th e requisit e knowledge . Id . FA A guidanc e materia l regardin g hazardou s materia l enforcemen t als o incorporate s th e exercis e o f

reasonabl e car e analysis . Orde r 2150.3 B contain s policies , procedures , an d guideline s for

th e FAA' s complianc e an denforcemen t program . Appendi x C of Orde r 2150.3 B serve s a s th e "Sanctio n Guidanc e fo r Hazardou s Material s Enforcement " (ih e "'Saneiio n Guidelines") . Accordin g t o th e Sanctio n Guidelines , onl y a"knowin g violation " o f th e HM R ca n leadt o acivi l penidiy . Se c al.s o 6 4 Fed . Reg . 19443 , 1944 4 (Apr . 21 , 1999) . A perso n act s knowingl y whe n th e perso n ha s actua l knowledg e o f th e ("act s givin g ri.s e t o th e violation ; o r a reasonabl e perso n actin g i n th e circumstance s an de.n.ercisin g reasonabl e car e w-oul dhav e tha t knowledge . Orde r

2150.3B , Exhibi t

C . C- 2 (cilini ; 4 9 U.S.C . § 5123(a)) .

1 707/29/201 1 08:0 1 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - QM S 0018/03 1

Pas t HM Renforcemen t

preceden t

furthe r indicate s tha t

FA A mus t

revie w th e dut y o f car e exercise db y th e ai r operator , an dih e reasonablenes s o f it s effort , agains t

th e precis e circumstance s involved . FA A v . Federa l Expres s Corporation , FA A Docke t No . CP01NM(X)15 . 200 2 FA A LEXI S 57 0 (Oct . 31 , 2002) . a t * W (citin g Rainc v v . Paque t Crime..'^ . Inc. , 70 9 F.2 d 16 9 ( 2 Cir . 1983,) : Prosser , Tli c La w o f Tort s § 34 , p . 18 1 (4t h ed . 197 1 f) . Accordingly , eve n wit h a n elevate d.standar do f

care , th e basi c principl e behin dth e carrier' s dut y remain s unchanged : i t

i s wha l i s requiredo f

an y entit y charge dwith alegal duty

- i.e. , th e conduc t o f a "reasonabl e man " o f

ordinar y prudenc e unde r th e particula r

circumstances . Id . c . ComBJainan i i.s^misiakenl y interpretin g a n ai r carrier' s elevaie dstandar do ( car e l o preclud e an analysi s o f

constructiv e knowledg e whe n determinin g liabilii v unde r th e HMR , Th e Federa l Aviatio n Ac t o f 195 8 charge s ai r

c-arncr s wjr

h th e dut y t o provid e .servic e wit h th e "highes t

possibl e degre e o f

car e i n th e publi c interest. " 4 9 U.S.C . § 44701(d)(r)(A ) (promulgatio n o f

regulation s an dstandards) ; 4 9 U.S.C . § 4470 2 (issuanc e o f certificates) . Ba.se d o n liti s principle . Complainan t ha s mainiaine dtha t

ai r carrie r responsibilit y fo r

function s suc h a s airworthiness , securit y an dmaintenanc e canno t b e delegated . Se e generall y I n th e Matte r

o f U S Air . Inc. . FA A Orde r

No . 92-70 , 199 2 FA A LEXI S 35 2 (Dec . 21 , 1992. ) (airworthiness) ; I n th e Matte r o f Vf'estAi r Commuter,V\M:n^Ct^O . 9(>-\fi , 199 5 FA A LEXI S 34 2 (Ma y 3 , 1995 ) (security) ; I n th e Matte r o f Empir e Airlines , FA A Olde r No . 2000-13 , 2(X)0 FA A LEXI S 64 8 (Jun e 8 , 2000 ) (maintenance) ; an dI n th e Matte r o f Alask aAirlines , FA A Olde r 2004-8 , 200 4 FA A LEXI S 90 5 lOci . 4 , 2004 ) (maintenance) . I n inierpretin g an dapplyin g thi s precedent , however . Complainan t i s creatin g an absolut e standar do f

liabilit y fo r

ai r carrier s unde r

th e Ilazma i Ac t

an dHM Rtha t

preclude s deicroiinarion. s o f

con.srructiv e knowledge . I n support . Complainan t quote s dict ai

n Ala.^k a Airline r tha t i f applie di n accordanc e wit h Complainant' s theor y woul drende r th e ^'knowledge "07/29/201 1 08:0 1 FA) ( 202493514 2 FA A - DM S ^019/03 1

requiremen t

meaningless . Complainant' s Repl y Brief, a t 2 1 (." aholdin g tha t

lac k o f knowledg e alon e exempt s ai r

carrier s fro mrespon.sibilit y coul dprovid e ai r carrier s with incentiv e t o loo k th e (Uhe r wa y an davoi dal l knowledg e o f maintenanc e proprieties..,") . I n ihi s case . Complainan t conclude s tha t

sinc e th e informatio n o n certai n pape r wor k a t th e intende dairpor t

o f arriva l wa s no t

complian t

unde r § 175.33('a»(3) , the n Empir e automaticall y violate d< ? 175.33(a)(3) . 5t;<

? Complainant' s Repl y Brief , a t 26-30 . Th e lega l an d factua l inquir y i s over . Issue s o f rea^ionabl e reliance , cxerci.s e o f reasonabl e care , an d constructiv e knowledg e ar e meritles s sid e show s whe n determinin g i.ssuc s o f fac t an dla w unde r th e HMR . Consideratio n o f th e flexibilit y DO T offere dt o ai r carrier s i n th e origina l rulemakin g i s discarded . A

n ai r carrie r canno t unde r an y circumstance s escap e o r transfe r liabilit y fo r

a, violatio n o f

th e HM Reve n whe n a

n ai r carrie r exercise dth e utmos i car e t o preven t th e violatio n an dha dn o knowledg e o f th e fact s givin g ri.sc l o th e violation . Complainant' s theor y o f ai r carrie r liabilit y unde r

th e HM Rma y b e summarize da s follows : "non-delcgabl e duty " i s equivalen t

t o 'strictly-impose dhabilily. " Stric t liabilit y generall y refer s t o th e principl e tha t aperso n i s liabl e fo r

har mt o person s o r propert y stemmin g fro ma n activity , regardles s o f

arinding nf

fault , du e t o th e dangerou s natur e o f th e activity . I

n othe r words , on e wh o carrie s o n a n abnonnall y dangerou s activit y i s subjec t t o liabilit y fo r

har mresultin g fro mih c activit y eve n i f h e ha s exercise dth e utmo.s t car e t o preven t th e harm . Warrte r

v . Norfol k

& W . R. Co. , 75 8 F , Supp . 370 , 37 2 (W.D . Va . 199j ) (citin g Re.siaiemen t

(Second ) of

Ton s § 51 9 (1977)) . Liabilit y i s impose dregardles s o f whethe r th e person' s behavio r

wa s reasonabl e unde r

th e circumstances . Restatemen t (Second ) o f

Toit s ! i 519 , cmt . b (1977) . A perso n canno t b e determine dt o b e "trul y innocent " an dfre e fro mliabilit y du e t o dangerou s natur e o f th e activit y iisel f

Restatemen t

(Second ) o f

Tort s § 519 , cmt . d ("1977) .07/29/201 1 08:0 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A. DM S 2)020/03 1

However , th e existenc e o f anon-delegabl e dul y doc s no t translat e t o strictl y imposin g liabilit y devoi do f

an y analysi s o f

whethe r acommo n carrie r

exercise drea.'^onabl e car e unde r th e .specifi c contex t

involved . C f

Karub av . Delt aAi r

Lines . Inc. , 199 1 U.S . Dist . LEXI S 420 4 (S.D.N.Y . Apr . 2 , 1991 ) (ai r carrier' s dut y t o pas.senger. s an dexercis e o f reasonabl e care) : Raub e V . Am . Airlines , Inc. . 53 9 F . Supp . 2 d1028 , 103 5 (N.D . 111 . 200S ) (ai r earne r no t "absolut e insurer* ' o f

th e safety o f

it s passengers ) (citatio n omitted) ; Andemn n v . Lore.ntzen , 16 0 F.2 d17 3 (2 dCir . N.Y . 1947 ) (maritim e vessel' s non-delegabl e duty , include s reasonabl e car e analysis) . Th e degre e o f

car e require di s alway s tha t wliic h i s reasonable , bu t th e applicatio n o f

rea.sonabl e change s wit h th e circumstance s o f eac h particula r

case . Catalin aCruise s v . Lun a(I n r e Catalim i Cruises) , 13 7 F.3 d1422 , 142 5 (9t h Cir . Cal . 1998 ) (emphasi s added) . Th e construcijv e knowledg e an dexerci.s e o f reasonabl e car e analysi s unde r th e Hazma t Ac t an dHM Ri s mor e simila r t o th e doctrin e o

f negligenc e iha

n siric i liability . Under

negligence , liabilit y i s impose dfo

r th e failur e t o d o wha

t art:a.sonabl

e an dprudent perso n woul dordinaril y hav e dort e under th e circumstance s o

f the siiuaiion . R.R . Co . v . Jones , 9 5 U.S . 439 , 441-44 2 (U.S . 1877) . Th e duly i s dictate dan

dmea.sure db y (h e faciua l conte.v t andthe standar

desiabli.shedb

y la w fo r th e protectio n o f other s agains t

unrenbonabl e li.s

k of harm . Restatemen t

(Second ! o f

Toit s § 28 2 (1977) . Th e standar do f

conduc t i s tha t o f areasonabl e ma n unde r lik e circumstances . Restatemen t (Second ) o f Ton s i j 2S 3 (1977) . Thi s standar dprovide s sufficien t flexibilit y an dleewa y t o permi t du e allowanc e t o b e mad e fo r al l o f di e particula r

circumstance s o f

ih e cas e whic h ma y reasonabl y affec t th e conduc t

required . Re.statemen t

(Second ) o f

Ton s * ; 283 , cmt . c (1977) . Th e .searchin ainquir y o f negligenc e int o th e dut y an dconduc t o f areasonabl e ma n unde r lik e circum.stancc s i s analogou s t o ih c proces s o f definin g "constructiv e knowledge " an d deierminin g th e exercis e o f reasonabl e car e unde r

th e Hazma t

Ac t an dHMR . h i definin g isiructiv e knowledge , th e FA A mus t measur e th e knowledg e areasonabl e perso n woul dhav e con : 2 007/29/201 1 08:0 1 FAX 202493514 2 FA A- DM S 021/03 1

i f actin g i n th e ciicumsiancc s a t han dan dexercisin g reasonabl e care . 4 9 U.S. C § 5123(a) . A subsequen t

offero r o r carrie r wh o transport s ahazardou s materia l i n commerc e ma y rel y o n informatio n provide db y th e offero r o f th e hazardou s materia l o r aprio r carrier , unles s th e carrie r o r offero r know s or . areasonabl e person , actin g i n th e circumstance s an dexercisin g reasonabl e care , woul dhav e knowledg e iha i th e informatio n provide db y th e offero r o r prio r carrie r i s incorrect . 4 9 C.F. Ri

j 171.2 . Al l relevan t

fact s mu.s t

b e considere dt o detemnin e whethe r o r no t a rea.sonab k

perso n actin g i n th e cireum.stance s an dexercisin g rea>;onabl c car e woul drealiz e th e non-complianc e wit h HM Rrequiremenis . 6 3 Fed . Reg . 304 1 1 . 30412 ; FA^ \v . Federa l Expres s Corporation . FA A Docke t No . CPOlNMOOl5 , 200 2 FA A LEXI S 57 0 (Oct . 31 , 2002) , a t * 1 0 (ciTin g Raine y v

. Paque t Cruises . Inc. , 70 9 F.2 d16 9 ( 2 Cir . 1983) ; Prosser , Th e La w o f Ton s ( j 34 . p . 18 1 (4th ed . 1971)) . Complainant' s theor y canno t b e correc t

i f eve n a n ai r earne r ha s ih e opportunit y t o b e determine d'"trul y innocen f unde r 4 9 U.S.C . § 5123(a ) vi,he n lackin g fh

e requisit e knowledge . 6 3 Fed . Reg . 30411 , 3041 2 Moreover . FA A preceden t cleari y show s tha t

a n ai r carrie r doe s no t automaticall y assum e liabilit y fo r

violation s o f

th e HMR , suc h a s whe n a n ai r carrie r rea.sonabl y relie s o n an independen t

contractor . I n th e Matte r o f Aer o Cominenie . S.A. . FA A Orde r No . 2003-8 , 200 3 FA A LEXI S 432 , =^=2

2 (Sept . 12 , 2003 ) iciiatio n omitted) . d . Th e knowledg e o f

a n ai r carrier' s independen t

contractor s i s no t

autoinaticall y impute dt o th e ai r

carrie r unde r th e HMR . Th e FA A decisionmake r ha s actuall y considere dcircum.stance s involvin g anon delegabl e responsibilit y an dconstruciiv e knowledg e a s it relate s t o a

n ai r carrie r an dit s independen t

contractor . HM Renforcemen t preceden t

demonstrate s tha t

liabilit y i s no t automaticall y transferre dbetwee n an ai r carrie r an dit s independen t

contractor . I

n contras t

t o Complainant s implici t

objective , th e knowledg e of a n ai r caiiier' s independen t

contractor s i s no t automaticall y impute dt o th e ai r carrie r unde r th e HMR . 2 107/29./201 1 08.0 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A - DM S §]022/03 1

Wit h respec t

t o acceptanc e o f

hazaidou s material , th e FA A Administrato r ha s reviewe d whethe r a n ai r carrie r i s liabl e for

th e action.' : o f

it s independen t

contractor . I n th e Mane r o f Federa l E.xpress , KA

A Orde r No . 2002-2 0 (Aug . 5 , 2002) , reconsideratio n denied . FA A Orde r No . 2003-2 , 200 3 FA A LEXI S 19 4 (Ma y 6 . 2003) . I n Federa l Express , th e counc r servic e faile d t o provid e T

O th e ai r carrie r an y informaiion . mcludin g an y shippin g papers , tha t th e shipmen t involve dhazardou s materials . Id . a t 3 . Th e "ke y question " wa s whethe r th e ai r carrie r wa. s responsibl e fo

r th e courier' s imprope r

offe r an dacceptanc e o f

hazardou s material s i n ai r transportation . Id. , a

t 5 . Th e FA A Administrato r hel dtha i th e courie r

wa s i n fac t

a n independen t contracto r

(a s oppose dt o ageni ) and , therefore , liabilit y coul dno t b e transferre dt o th e ai r carrier . Id , a t 9 . Th e FA A Administrato r foun dthat

ih c courie r

wa.^ an independen t

connacro r

becaus e th e courie r ha dcomman do f

it s employee s (hire dan dfire dit s ow n personnel) , supplie dit s ow n instrumentalitie s an dtool s (vehicles) , exercise dct>ntro l ove r th e wor k an dspac e (determine dit s ow n routes) . Id . a

t 7 . 10 . Th e principa l ai r cartie r di dno t hav e powe r

l o contro l th e "detaile d physica l performance " an d"day-to-da y operations " of th e courier . Id . a i 7- 8 (citin g Unite d Stare s v . Orleans , 42 5 U.S . 807 , 81 4 (1976 ) (quotatio n omitted)) ; .\e e ah c Kesiaiemen t (Second ) o f Agenc y ? j 220(2 ) (1958) . Similarl y i

n Aer o Continente . th e b.^ A Administrato r considere daca.s e wher e ther e wa s n o evidenc e indicatin g tha t th e ai r carrie r ha dactua l knowledg e o f th e fact s givin g ris e t o th e vioJaiio n o t

th e HMR . I n th e MorrerofAer o Coruinente , S.A. , FA A Orde r No . 2(->03-8 , 200 3 FA A LEXI S 432 . ^^2

2 (Sept . 12 , 2003) . Th e FA A Administraio r acknowledge dth e ai r

c^nrier s ha dcertai n non-delegabl e dutie s an dconsidere dth e questio n o f whethe r th e .^i r carrie r shoul db e hel dresponsibl e fo r

th e action s toke n b y athir dpart y i n ligh t o f th e fac t tha t th e ai r carrie r ha d delegate damhont y t o th e pari y t o secur e certai n aircraf t parts . Id . Th e issu e o f liabilit y cam e07/29/201 1 08:0 1 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - QM S [a023/03 1

dow n t o whethe r

th e thir dpart y wa s a

n agen t o r independen i contractor . Id . Th e FA A Administrato r

hel dtha t th e knowledg e o f

a n ai r carrier' s agen t

o f th e underlyin g fact s ca n b e imputed , an ai r

carrie r wil l no t b e hel dliabl e fo r

it s independen t

contractor . Id . (ciiin g I n th e Matte r o f Federa l Express , FA A Orde r No . 2002-2 0 (Augus t

5 . 2002) . reconsideratio n denied , FA A Orde r

No . 2003- 2 (Ma y 6 , 2003)) . Thi s preceden t

stem s fro magenc y law ' wher e employer s ar e no t responsibl e fo r

thei r independen t

contractor'. ^ act s o r

onussions . Wilso n v

. Goo dHumor , 75 7 F.2 d1293 , 130 1 (T).C . Cir . 1985) . A

n independen t

contracto r

ha s adut y t o hi s employe r t o ac i with astandar do f car e an dwith th e skil l whic h i s standar di n th e localit y for th e kin do f

work whic h h e i s employe dt o perfor mand , i n addition , t o exercis e an y specia l skil l tha t h e has . £.^. , Re.statemen t (Second ) o f y\gcnc y § 37 9 (1958) . A n independen t

contracto r

i s aperso n wh o contract s with anothe r t o d o sometliin g fo r

him , bu t wh o i s no t

controlle db y th e othe r

o r subjec t t o th e other' s right

t o contro l wit h respec t

t o hi s physica l conduc t i n ih e performanc e o f

th e undertaking . Id . a

t § 2(3) . I

f a perso n ha. s th e righ t

t o coniro l onl y "th e resul t o f th e work " b y anothe r

person , an d"'no t

th e means " b y whic h it

i s accomplished , a

n independen t

contracto r

relationshi p exists . I n th e Matte r o f Aer o Confinenie , S.A. . FA A Orde r No . 2003-8 , 200 3 FA A LEXI S 432 , *2 3 (Sept . 12 , 2003) , citin g I n r e Coupo n Clearin g Service . Inc. . II S F3 dlOOl . 109 9 (9i h Cir . J997) . I n contrast , a n agenc y relationshi p exist s whe n th e principa l ha s th e authorit y t o contro l th e detaile dphysica l performanc e an dday-to-da y operation s o f th e entit y actin g o n it s behal f Id . I n thi s ca.sc . Empir e wa s als o no t legall y responsibl e becaus e FedE x Expres s .serve da s a n independen t

contracio r

o f Empir e fo r

makin g NOPI C informatio n readil y availabl e throug h AuioDG . First , hedK

x Expres s hired , fire dan dtraine dit s ow n personne l (comman dpower) ; utilize dAutoD G an dit s ow n trackin g numbe r syste mfo r

carg o (instrumentalitie s an dtools) ; an d determine dth e metho dfo r accepting , processing , an dloadin g package s (exercise dcontro l ove r

2 307/29/201 1 0 8 0 2 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - DM S @|024/03 1

details ) (Tr . a

t 45-47 ; Tr . a l 51-52 ; Exhibi t C-7 ; Tr . a t

133-140 ; Tr . a

t 144-145 ; Tr . a

t 175-176 ; Tr . a t 182 , line s 6-16 ; an dse e generally . Answer) . Indeed , th e sortin g an dacceptanc e proces s fo r feede r airline s occurre da t

th e FedE x Expres s statio n i n Portland . Oregon , utilizin g FedE. v Expres s sortin g equipment , ULDs , carts , an droller s controlle db y FedE x Expres s employees . (Tr . a t 51-52 ; Tr . a

t 134-135. ) Ther e i s n o allegatio n implyin g o r recor devidencin g tha t

Empire , th e feede r

airline , oversa w th e day-to-da y operation s o f FedE x Express , th e principa l airline . Wit h regar dt o NOPI C information . Empir e ha dth e right t o certif y th e result s o f

th e Loa d Contro l Shee t

an dAutoD G manifest , bu t nothin g i n th e recor dindicate s tha t thi s right

e.vicnde d int o physicall y directin g th e FedE. x Expres s iX i specialis t t o ente r infonnaiio n int o AutoDG . (Tr . a i 80-81 ; Tr . a

t 146-149 : Tr . a

t 175 ; Exhibi t

C-11 , C-11-41) , Indeed , th e recor dindicate s tha t Empir e crewmember s coul donl y reques t iha t FedE x Expres s updat e th e AutoD G syste m followin g achang e i n locatio n o f hazardou s materials . (Tr . a t 179-180 ; Exhibi t

C-11 , C-11-42 ) Empir e di dno t

contro l th e AutoD G manifest , whic h coul dserv e a s par t o f th e NOPI C i n conjunctio n wit h th e Loa dContro l Sheet . (Exhibi t C-11 , C-11-41) . I n fact , onc e th e hazardou s material s ar e separate dfro mothe r freight . FedE x Expres s employee s presen t th e Empir e crewmembe r

wit h a n AuioD G manifes t

s o tha t th e pilo t ma y surve y ih e content s o f th e lis t again.stth e separate dpackages . (Tr . a t 173 ; Exhibi t

C-3 : Exhibi t

C-11 . C-11-41) . Empire' s writte n procedure s revea l tha t FedE x Expres s coul dpla y an independen t an d critica l lol e i

n fulfillin g th e NOPI C requirement , (Exhibi t C-11) , Empire\ s FAA-approve d GO M describe s th e NOPI C process , i n part a s follows : "...I f Th e PI C load s th e aircraft , tha t individua l mus t

pert'or mth e pre-boar dinspectio n required . I

f someon e othe r

tha n th e PI C load s th e aircraf t an dconduct s th e pre-boar d inspection , tha i per.^so

n shal l provid e th e PT

C wit h writte n notification . A cop y o f th e PI C notificatio n mus t

b e readil y availabl e t o th e Pl C durin g flight... " (E.\hibi l C- 1 K

C-11-20) .

2407/29/201 1 080 2 FAX 202483514 2 FA A - DM S 0)025/03 1

I n othe r words . Empire' s supervision , unde r th e FAA-approve dprocedure , coul db e contingen t

upo n an d.sub.sequent

t o FedE x Expres s personne l carryin g ou t th e pre-boar d inspectio n an dfilling-ou t th e writte n notificatio n - e.g. . th e Loa dContro l Sheel . A s noted , th e Loa dContro l Sheet , whic h a n Empir e crewmembe r coul dactuall y la y hi s hand s on . coul dserv e a s th e NOPI C (Exhibi t C-I L C-11-41) . I

f th e loa dpositio n o f

th e hazardou s materia l packag e change s fro mwha t i s liste do n th e Loa dContro l Sheet , th e FedE x Expres s D G .specialis t

ca n correc t

an dinitia l th e chang e with ape n an dth e Empir e crewmembe r the n certifie s thi s change . (Exhibi t C- 1 L C- 1 1-42) . I n sum . Empir e coul donl y contro l th e resul t o f FedE x Expres.s" s effort s t o provid e readil y acces.sibl e NOPI C informatio n a t th e airpor t

o f arrival . Empir e coul dno t direc t o r contro l th e mean s throug h AutoDG . Thi s i s no t agency . Sinc e FedE x Expres s wa s an independen i contracto r

fo r thi s purpcs c unde r

175.33(c)(3} , Empir e canno t b e hel dliabl e for

FedE x Express' s omission s i n thi s case . Se e I n th e Matte r o f Federa l Express , FA A Orde r No . 2002-2 0 (Aug . 5 , 2002) , reconsideratio n denied , FA A Orde r No . 2003-2 , 200 3 FA A LEXI S 19 4 (Ma y 6 , 2003) : se e als o I

n th e Matte r

o f Aer o Continente . 5.A. , FA A Orde r No . 2003-8 , 200 3 FA A LEXI S 432 , +2 2 (Sept . 12 , 2003) .

e . Preceden t

cite dt o suppor t

Complainant " s imposiuo n o f liabilit y i s substandall y differen t fro mth e circumstance s o f Empire' s action s an dresponsibilitie s unde r § 175.33CC-M3) . Complainan t

i s attemptin g t o appl y th e principl e o f non-delegabl e dut y t o HM R enforcemen t

amanne r

analogou s l o stric t

liability , foreclosin g a

n analysi s o f

reasonabl e care . A s noted , th e Hazma t

Ac t an dapplicabl e regulations , policy , an dpreceden t stan di n th e wa y o f

thi s fa r reachin g an dHawe dattemp t t o creat e ne w law . However , eve n i f th e FA A decisionm;dcc i woul dt o conside r

followin g Complainant' s propose dstandar do f liabilit y i t

woul db e inappropriat e t o d o s o base don th e fact s of thi s case . Th e preceden t cite db y Complainan t

i s 2 507/29/201 1 0 8 0 2 FAX 202483514 2 FA A . DM S I2|026/03 l

substantiall y differen t

an ddistinguishabl e Iro mEmpire' s action s an dresponsibilitie s unde r § 175.33(c)(3) . Unlik e thes e cases . Empir e di dno t fai l t o uphol dit s dut y o f reasonabl e car e unde r th e regulation s o r

hav e sufficien t

knowledg e t o suppor t

acivi l penalty . First , Empir e di dno t

ignor e an y readil y apparen t fact s o r hav e reaso n t o suspec t

tha t FedE x Expres s woul dno t updat e AutoD G a s agreed . (Tr . a t 179. ) Ther e wa s n o ne w informaiio n l o caus e suspicio n an dEmpir e coul dreasonabl y expec t tha t FedE x Expres s woul d kee p it s wor dan dfollo w it s routin e procedures . (Tr . a t 143 ; Tr . 192-193) . I n contrast , i n th e U S Ai r case , th e FA A decisionmake r wa s persuade dtha i th e ai r cairie r ha drea.so n t o kno w o f

th e airworthines s issu e du e t o alou dnois e hear db y th e pilot . I n th e Matte r o f U S Air . Inc . FA A Orde r No . 92-70 , 199 2 FA A LEXI S 352 . *2-* 8 (Dec . 2 L 1992) . Instea do f undertakin g an investigatio n o f

th e nois e t o uncove r

th e damag e sustained , th e pilo t unreasonabl y relie do n th e pus h bac k

operator' s affirmation . Id . a t *6-"^7 . Second , th e Empir e crewmembe r too k activ e measure s withi n hi s contro l t o mee t ih c ai r carrier' s obligation s unde r §175.33('c)(_3 l includin g certifyin g handwritte n update s t o th e Loa d Contro l Shee t

an drequestin g tha t

FedE x Expres s correc t

th e AutoD G system . (Tr . 179-180 ; Exhibi t C-3 , Exhibi t

C-11 . C-11-42) . I

n compariso n i

n th e WestAir

case , th e ai r

operato r relie d upo n anothe r

ai r carrie r fo r th e provisio n o f

certai n securit y services . I n th e Matte r

o f WestAi r Commuter , FA A Orde r

No . 96-16 , 199 5 FA A LEXI S 34 2 (Ma y 3 . 1995) . However , th e .^i r operato r di dno t lak e activ e step s t o supervis e th e securit y services , winc h woul dhav e reasonabl y le dt o th e discover y that th e securit y personne l faile dt o eve n show . Id . a t * 10 . Third , Empir e di dno t

hav e an y acces s t o controllin g informatio n concernin g ih e violatio n an dcoul dno t

becom e awar e of

th e failur e o f

FedE x Expres s t o updat e th e AutoD G system . (Tr . a t 80-8 1 :Tr . a

t 146-149 ; Tr . a

t 175 ; Exhibi t

C-11 , C-11-41) . I n comparison , i n th e Empir e Airline s cas e th e ai r

carrie r possesse dan dha ddirec i acces s t o th e inf<irmatJo n (maintenanc e

2 607/29/201 1 0 8 0 2 FA X 202433514 2 FA A- DM S 1^027/03 1

records ) tha t

accuratel y describe dth e flawe drepai r b y aPar t 14 5 station . I n th e Matte r o f Empir e Airlines , FA A Orde r No . 2000-13 , 200 0 FA A LEXI S 648 , *2 3 (Jun e 8 , 2000) . Moreover , employee s o f th e ai r carrie r testifie dactuall y seein g th e damag e prio r t o th e repai r

an d th e faulty repai r

itsel f Id. , a t *21 . Finally , th e HM Rprovide s flexibility t o yi r carrier s t o determin e th e reasonabl e method s t o carr y ou t

th e function s o f

§ 175.33(c)(3) . I

n contrast , i

n Alask aAirline s th e ai r carrie r wa s hel dresponsibl e fo r

th e maintenanc e deficiencie s o f it s independen t

contractor s because : (1 ) 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.36 3 provide s tha t carrier s ar e "^primaril y responsible " fo r maintenance ; (2 ) th e FA A ha dissue dguidLmc e emphasizin g tha t carrier s hav e ''unrestricte dan dunconditiona l responsibility " for

thei r independen t

maintenanc e contractors ; an d(3 ) on e o f th e ai r carrier' s operation s specification s require di t t o ^'ensure " tha t

it s contractor s performe dal l substantia l maintenanc e '\vithoutdeviation " accordin g l o it s maintenanc e program . Alask aAirlines . Inc. , T-\ A Orde r

2004-8 , 200 4 FA A LEXT S 905 , *2-* 3 (Oct . 4 . 2004) : se e als o I n th e Matte r o f Empir e Airlines , FA A Orde r No . 2000-13 . 200 0 FA A LEXI S 648 . *2 3 (Jun e 8 , 2000 ) (notin g tha t ai r carrier s ai c "piimai'ily " responsibl e fu r airwtmhines s an dciiin g 1 4 C.F.R . § § 121.36 3 an d121.379(a) ) I.Jnlik e th e airworthines s eases , ther e ar e n o expres s condition s o r restriction s o n ho w a

n operatin g carrie r

ma y rca.sonabl y compl y §175.33(c,l{3) . Durin g th e rulemaking , DO T studiousl y avoide dstric t

mandate s o n ho w t o mak e informatio n "readil y accesible " a t th e airpor t

o f arrival . Th e comment s o f

th e Nationa l Transportatio n Safel y Boar d(NTSB ) di dno t includ e aprescribe d metho do f

complianc e an dsuggeste dtha t rul e requir e tha t

th e ai r carrie r hav e th e "capability " t o provid e hazardou s mformntio n r o emergenc y tesponders . 6 8 Fed . Reg , 14341 . 1434 3 DO T followe dtha t

th e ^'readil y accessible' " requiremen t doe s no t mandat e communicatin g th e NOPI C informatio n i n wnlie n for m(faxing ) t o th e fma

l destinatio n prio r

t o eac h fligh t

o r landin g no r 2 707/23/201 1 08:0 2 FAX 202483514 2 FA A~ DM S 028/03 1



### doe s i t requir e a n airlin e to retai n staf

f a t bot h airport s durin g llight . 6 8 Fed , Reg . 14341 . 14344 . Instead , "readil y accessible " mean s tha t airport s o f arriva l "mus t onl y hav e the mean s availabl e to retrieve " NOPI C informatio n such tha t thi s dat aca

n b e receive dan

diransmilte di

n a"tjmely manner ' t o emergenc y responders . Id . Thi s ca n be accompli.shedthroug h individual faxe s or email s fio mth e ai

r carrier . Id . DO T notedtha t even thoug h acomputer

trackin g syste mwa s a

n accepiabl c metho do f

compliance , suc h asyste

mwa s no t

mandatory . Id . Mandatin g al l aircraf t operator s t

o instal l such asyste

mwoul d"greatl y disadvantag e smaller ai r carriers. " Id . Thus . DOT' S tlexibl e requirement unde r $ 175.33(c)(3 ) t o mak

e infonnaiio n "readil y acces.sible " doc s no

t alig n wit h Complainant' s view tha i a n ai r carrier mus t take al l essential and conceivabl e step s to ensur e compliance . Complainant' s Appea l Brief , a t 25-26 . Moreover , unlike the airworthines s case s cite db y Complainant , the languag e o f § 175.33(c)(3 ) doe^ no

t require tha

t a n ai r operato r mus t "ensure " tha

t informatio n i s mad

e readil y accessibl e "withou t deviation " t o the intende dairpor t o f arrival . Instead , Empir

e undertoo k

reasonabl e and permissibl e measure s t o ensure tha t accurate NOPI C informatio n wa s "'readily accessible" ' an d capabl e of bein g timely transmitte dan dreceive da

t the airpor t of arriva l under § 175.33(c)(3) . The Empire crewmember

certifie dthe handwritte n correctio n markin g the re-positionin g <.) f hazardou s material o

n the Loa dContro l Sheet , andthe

n requeste dtha

t the FedE x Expres s D G specialis t updat e AutoD G t o reflec t

thi s ne w information . Whe

n the FedEx E.x.pres s D G iipecialis t agico dto enter

the correc t

infonnaiio n into the AuioD G sysie mconsisten t wit h pas t practic e an

dpolicy , then Empire ha

dn o reaso n to kno w tha

t an y violatio n woul doccur . 11 . Th e ATJ's : decisLon t o reduc e th e civi l penalt y i s supporte db y substantia l evidenc e an dconsisten t

with applicabl e law , preceden t an dpolicy . A s noted . Empire i s appealin g the ver y finding s tha

t uudcrti e th e asses.smen

t o f the civi l penalt y subjec i to Complainant' s appeal . However , i n the alternative , an

dto the extent

liabilit y i s foun dfo r violation s § § 175. 3 and175.30(a)(2 ) an d(3) . Empire submit. s tha

t th e ALJ'. s decisio n 2 807/28/201 1 08:0 2 FA X 202483514 2 FA A- OM S 028/03 1

t o reduc e th e civi l penalt y i s supporte db y substantia l evidenc e an dconsisten t wit h applicabl e law , precedent , an dpolicy . Determinatio n o f

a n appropriat e civi l penalt y involve s anumbe r o f factors , whic h th e AL J di dwhe n a^ilcvlat'in g th e lotal . Th e AL/mus i weig h 'th e nature , circumstances , extent , an d gravit y o f th e violaiion[:i], " and , wit h respec t t o th e violator , "th e degre e o f culpability , an y histor y of

prio r violations , [and ] th e abilit y t o pay " a s well a s "othe r matter s tha t

justic e requires. " Se e 4 9 U.S.C . §5123(c) . Th e principa l element s i n thi s analysi s ar e th e natur e o f th e respondent' s conduc t

an dth e totalit y o f

th e circumstances . Se e Initia l Decision , a t 7 (citin g Envirosolve . LLC . FA A Orde r No . 2006- 2 (Febniar y 9 , 2006) , p . 13") . More-over , th e ALJ gav e du e consideratio n t o th e Sanctio n Guidance , whic h provide s th e FA A Administrator' s "genera l views " abou t th e civi l penalt y range s appropriat e for differen t type s o f violations . Id. , a t

8 (citin g Folsvm'. s Ai r

Service . Inc. , FA A Order-No . 2008- 1 1 (November6,2008) . 200 8 W L 4948488 , p . 13. ) No r ar e th e guideline s binding . Id . A n AL J i s no t require dt o follo w thi s Sanctio n Guidanc e a. s AU s ar e no t agenc y personnel . Id . (citin g FoUom's) . However , th e FA A Administrato r ha s asserte dth e powe r

t o impos e th e agency' s Sanctio n Guidanc e o n appea l i f a n A O assesse s acivi l penalt y tha t i s no t consisten t

wit h th e Guidelines . Id . (citin g Warhelon-' ^ Ai r Ventures . Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 2000- 3 (Febniar y 3 , 2000) . p . 20 ; Nfmhwes t

Airlines . FA A Orde r

No . 1990-3 7 (Novembe r 7 , 1990) , pp . 8-10) . I n thi s case , afte r

reviewin g th e totalit y o f th e circumstances , othe r civi l penalt y actions , an dSanctio n Guidelines , ih e AL J asses.sc dacivj l penalt y o f $12,000 . Ainon g othe r considcraiions , th e AL l foun di l mitigaijn g ihai Empir e relie do n incorrec t informaiio n frui n ih c prio r offeTor(s ) - missin g shippin g papers . Id. , a t 10-11 . Additionally , Empir e wa s "lllackin g a warning " tha t

hazardou s materia l wa s o n boar dth e aircraft . Id . Thes e factors , however , ar c exphcitl y liste di n th e Sanctio n Guideline s fo r consideratio n a s mitigatin g circumstances . Se e generally . FA A Orde r

2 1 5.306 ; Se

e als o 6 4 Fed . Reg . 1944 3 (Apr . 21 , 1999) .

2 907/29/201 1 0 8 0 3 FAX 202433514 2 FA A - DM S @]030/03 1

CONCLUSIO N Fo r th e reason s se t

fort h abov e th e ALJ di dno t er r i n dismissin g violation s unde r 4 9 C.F. R§ 175.33(c)(3;

j an dreducin g th e civi l penalt y sough t b y Complainan t

fro m$20,00 0 t o $12,000 . Therefore , Empir e Airlines , Inc . respectfull y request s tha i th e FA A decisionmake r uphol dth e Initia. 1 Decisio n a s i t relate s t o thes e tw o is.-^ues .

Respectfull y Submitted ,

Date dJul y 27 , 20 1 I . 'ick s icever t D . Almon d Th e Wick s Group , PLL C 121 5 17'''Street , N W Sumne r Annex , Fourt h Floo r Washington , D C 2003 6 Tel : (202)457-779 0 Fa-x : (202 ) 457-779 9 Courtne y E . Felt s Senio r Attorne y - Regulator y Affair s Federa l Expres s Corporatio n 362 0 Hack s Cros s Roa d BuildmgB,3"^Floo r Memphis , T N 3812 5 Tel : (901 ) 434-863 2 Fax : (901 ) 434-828 3 Counse l fo r

Empir e Airlines . Inc .

3 007/29/201 1 0 8 0 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A - DM S 031/03 1

CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t th e foregoin g documen t ha s bee n sen t

vi afacsimil e an dexpedite d courie r servic e to ; Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue . S W Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Fax : (202 ) 493-514 2 Tw o (2 ) copie s an dorigina l

Mr . Jame s A . Barry , Senio r Attorne y Enforcemen t

Division , AGC-30 0 Offic e of Ih e Chie f

Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Tel : (202- ) 267-819 8 Fax : (202)267-510 6 One(1)cop y

Mr . Scot t Mortis , Attorne y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l (ANM-7 ) 160 1 LindAve. , S.W . Renton , W A 9805 7 Tel : (425)227-141 7 F;^\ : (425 ) 227- 1 K) 7 On e (1 ) cop y

DatedJul y 27 , 201 1

Concever t D . AllSion d Th e Wick s Group , PLL C 121 5 17' ^ Street , N W Sumne r Annex , Fourt h Floo r Washington , D C 2003 6 Tel : (202 ) 457-779 0 Fax : (202)457-779 9 Counse l fo r

Empir e Airliner . Inc .

3 1