11/03/2010 10:24 FAX 2024935142 

11/33/2818 07:29 4252271007 

FAA •> DMS 

ANM7 

1 

-2. 

3 

4 

s 

« 

7 

0 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

1-4 

15 

16 

17 

18 

15 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2a 

29 

3U 

Jl 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

3Q 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

•4 4 

45 

4ff 

47 

49 

49 

50 

51 

^2 

53 

Scorr R. MORRIS 

FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 

1601 LlMDAvcSW 

RENTON, WASHmCTON 98057 

TELEI>irONE: 425.227.1417 

FACSIM[LE-. 425.227.1007 

21002/015 

PAGE 02/15 

DEPARTMENT OF 

:l'.;4SP0nTAJ!0N 

? " S OPERATIONS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D-C. 

Tn the Matter of: 

FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET CP10NM0008 

FAA Case No. 2008NM7OO20S 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0792 

Judge: Richard C. Gocld^vin 

To: Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Motion for Decision, OR in the aUernative, Motion for Summary Judgment hereafter 

limiting tiie hearing to a determination as to the appropriate sanction 

Pursuant to section 13.21 S(f)(5) of the Federal Aviation Administiation'a (FAA's) Rules 

of Practice in Civil Penalty Proceeding, 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(f)(5), the Administrator of the FAA 

files this Motion for Decision. 

Introduction 

This Court should grant this Motion for Decision because there are no genuine issues of 

material fact and FAA is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. This case involves numerous 

hazardous materials (hazmat) shipments where there were cnors in the shipments shipping 

papers, inaccurate or incomplete Notices to the Pilot in Command, improper identification of the 

location of hazmat that aboard aircraft, improper labeling of a Unit Load Device (ULD), and 

multiple instances of improper acceptance. These shipments were transported by Federal 

Express on multiple flights during the period May throtigh September 2008. None of the above 

facts arc in dispute. 

Coniplainant's Motiori ftr Decision 

[yi The Matter of Federal Express-CP10NM0008 

Pa^c 1 of 7 

SCOTT R. MORRIS, FAA ATTORNI:,Y 

TEL; 425.227,1417; FAX: 425.227.1007 
n/03/2010 10:24 FAX 2024935142 

11/03/2010 07:26 4252271007 

FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

0003/015 

PAGE 03/15 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

B 

3 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

32 

23 

34 

25 

26 

27 

za 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

jjfi 

37 

3S 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

41, 

45 

4« 

47 

43 

49 

SO 

51 

53 

53 

Procedural Background 

On September 10, 2010, the Agency issued a Complaint in this case. On October 8, 

2010, Respondent Answered the Comp.labt, admitting to all of the factual allegations, except 

those contained in Part II, munbers 4, 7,16, 26, Further, Respondent admits to all of the 

violations, except those contained in Section TTI (2) and (3). Paragraphs 2 and 3 only concern the 

sanction amount proposed in the Complaint. 

General Facmal Background 

Federal Express Corporaiion ("FedEx") is an air carrier that is authori,zed to cany cargo 

as well as a business entity that regularly offers, accepts, or transports hazardous material. See 

Complaint 11,1 and Answer. It holds an air canier certificate issued under Part 119 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (FARs) and is authorized to conduct operations under Part 121 of the 

FARs. Se& generally, 14 C.F.R. Part 121. It has operating revenues of $100,000,000 or more,' 

(Complaint II., 2, and Answer). On August 22, 2008, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

Hazardous Material Special Agent Donald Stiger conducted an audit of the 90-day Notice to 

Pilot in Command (NOPIC) file of the FedEx facilities in Portland, Oregon. During this 

inspection, the Agent discovered numerous discrepancies with numerous pilot-in-command 

notifications for hazmat shipments being transported in air commerce by FedEx over this time 

period- See Complaint 11.3 - 21, Answer, and Exhibit A. On September 2-3, 2008, Special 

Agent Debra Portin went to the FedEx Lake Oswego facility to conduct a shipping paper audit. 

During her audit she discovered several acceptance and transport violations. See Complaint 

n.45, Answer, and Exhibit B. Finally, on September 24-25, 2008, during the course of inbound 

flight inspections at the Portland FedEx facility, Agent Stiger discovered additional NOPIC 

^ According to Federal Express' 2010 Annual Report, its operating revenue was approximately 535,497,000,000. 

Complainant's Motion rpriP«ci?ion 

In the Matter ofh'ftderal Express-CPlONMOOOfi 

Page 2 of7 

SCOTT R, MORRrS, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: 42S.227.1417; FAX: •12,5.227.1007 
11/03/2010 10:24 FAX 2024935142 

11/B3/2010 07:28 4252271007 

FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

0004/01 5 

PASe 04/15 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

e 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

26 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

3e 

39 

40 

41 

42 

•13 

44 

IS 

46 

47 

4B 

49 

BO 

51 

52 

53 

violations as well as improper acceptance and transportation violations. See Complatint 11.22-44, 

Answer, and Exhibit A. 

ARGUMENT 

A. Motion for Decision Standard 

Pursuant to 14 CF.R. § 13.218(f)(5), "(t]he administrative law judge shall grant a party's 

motion for decision if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, matters 

tliat the administrative law judge has officially noted, or evidence introduced during the hearing 

show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the party making the motion is 

entitled to a decision as a mauer of law," 

D. Introduction 

TITJC Respondent has admitted all of the salient facts in tlie Complaint as well as admitted 

that the violations contained in the Complaint. This case boils down to whether the S299,900 

sanaion requested by the Agency is warranted as the facts are really not in dispute. The only 

facts not admitted are either established by the attached affidavits or surplusage not required to 

establish the violations. 

C. Federal Express should be assessed $299,900. 

A person who knowingly violates the statute or regulations pertaining to the 

transportation of hazardous material "is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty 

of at least $250 but not more than $50,000 for each violation." 49 U.S.C. § 5123(a).^ When 

determining the amount of a civil penalty, Congress has dictated that the following factors be 

considered; (1) the nature, circumstances, extern, and gravity of the violation; (2) the violator's 

' The siatute that governs the transponation of hazardous inaicrial is 49 U.S.C. § 5101, ct ."ieq. 

ComplainoTiis Motion for Decision 

In the MintcT of Federal EKprcs.<:- CPl ONMOOOS 

P!i5:e3 of? 

SCOTT R, MORRIS, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: 425.227.t4l7; FAX: 425,227.1007 
11/03/2010 10:24 FAX 

11/03/2010 87:28 

2024935142 

4252271007 

FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

§1005/015 

PAGE 05/15 

1 

3 

4 

5 

s 

7 

B 

9 

10 

la 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

le 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

3S 

36 

37 

36 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

•15 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

Si 

52 

53 

degree of culpability, history of violations, and the ability to pay; and (3) other matters that 

justice requires. 49 U.S.C. § 5123(c). 

To guide the FAA's prosecutorial discretion, the Agency developed penalty guidelines to 

aid the application of the statutorily defined penalty considerations and "to promote a relative 

consistency in determining civil penalties for violations of the Dcparttnent of Transportation 

Hazardous Material Regulationsf.]" FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix C (October 1, 2007) 

(hereafter Sanction Gtiidance). F/^A's use of the sanction guidance table to determine the 

appropriate civil penalty normally should not be disturbed unless other factors justify tlie 

reduction of an otherwise reasonable assessment. Trans World Airlines, Inc., FAA Order no. 98-

11 (June 16,1988). Under the penalty guidelines, air carrier and other aircraft operator violations 

are divided into subcategories that correspond with subparts of the FIMR. 

Because Federal Express had an operating revenue of greater than $100,000,000 in 2009, 

it falls into Group 1 of tlie Air Carrier matrix. Sanction Guidance, at para. 9(a)(1). As such, they 

arc considered a Category E offender for sanction purposes. Id. at Figure C-1 (page 13). 

However, FedEx has a violation under 49 C.F.R, 172.400. The Sanction guidance directs that 

one is to use the main matrix for this violation. In FedEx's case, one uses the OfJender Category 

D for this violation,^ 

FedEx has committed the following violations: 

a. 175.33(a)(1) on two (2) separate occasions; 

b. J 75.33(a.)(I)(i) on fifteen (16) separate occasions; 

c. 175.33(a)(l)(ii) on three (4) separate occasions; 

* Respondent, i n it s Answer admitte d tha t i t ±fi a buaines e entit y tha t 

regularl y offers, accepts, o r craneports haeardou s material - S«e Complaint, 

Part 11(1) and Answer. 

Complainant's Motion for Decision 

In the Matter of Federal Express - CP) ONMOOOS 

Page 4 (vf 7 

SCOTT R. MoRRrs. FAA AITORNF-V 

TTiL: 425.227.]*! 7; FAX: 425.227.1007 
11/03/2010 10:25 FAX 2024935142 

ll/UJ/-.dW10 07:28 4252271007 

FAA * DMS 

ANM7 

@1006/015 

PAGE 0&/15 

1 

1 

3 

4 

5 

S 

7 

3 

9 

lu 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

19 

1? 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

2S 

17 

2 9 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

46 

49 

SO 

51 

52 

53 

d. 175,33(a)(9) on one (1) occasion; 

e. 175,33(a)(10) on five (6) separate occasions; 

t. 175.30(a)(2) on nine (9) separate occasions; 

g. 175,30(a)(3) on one (2) occasions; and, 

h. 172.400(a) on one (1) occasion 

The sanction range for the 175,30 violations for a Group I air carrier is 35,000 - 32,500 

per violation. Id. For the NOPIC violations (175.33), the sanction range is $5,000 - 16,200 per 

violation. Id. Since the ULD in the complaint only contained the Cargo Aircraft Only label and 

had not indication whatsoever of the various kinds of hazmat contained in it, this is considered an 

undeclared hazmat under offender Category D. The sanction range is thus 55,000 - 13,000, 

In this case the Administrator's guidance provide in this case an aggregate sanction range 

of $205,000 - S 19,000. This is calculated as follows: the sanction range for the eleven improper 

acceptance and transportation violations is $55,000 - $357,500. The sanction range for the 29 

NOPIC violations would be S\45,000 - 469,800. And the sanction range for the improper label 

violation is $5,000 - 13,000. The mid-range sanction for these violations was $512,000 so the 

$299,900 is at the bottom end of this range even prior to considering any aggravating or 

mitigating factors. 

This case demonstrates a systemic failure on the part of FedEx in the proper use of the 

NOPIC and arguable demonstrates a systematic failure concerning proper acceptance and 

transportation of hazardous material. If is conceded liiat FedEx ships daily a high volume of 

haz;ardoxJS material. However, volume does not justify or excuse violations, especially persistent 

ones. And the speed one moves packages as part of a business model is not a defense to missing 

errors or committing errors on shipping papers. Funher, given the systemic nature of the 

Complainant's Modon for Decision 

In ctie Matter of Federal Express-CPlONMOOOR 

Page 5 of? 

SCOTT R. MOA.RIS, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: 425.227.1^17; FAX: 425,227.1007 
11/03/2010 10:25 FAX 2024935142 

11/03/2010 07:28 4252271007 

FAA * DMS 

ANM7 

gl007/015 

PAGE 07/15 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

g 

7 

e 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

IS 

17 

IB 

19 

30 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

2£ 

27 

26 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

35 

37 

36 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

-IS 

46 

47 

48^ 

l i 

SO 

51 

SI 

53 

violations in this case and the nineteen (19) civil penalties assessed against FedEx by the FAA 

over the five year period prior to these violations, the requested $299,900 civil penalty should be 

considered more than reasonable. 

There arc additional factors that the ALJ should consider in determining if the $299,900 

is appropriate in this case, FedEx with revenues in the billions is by any definition a large 

company. The cm\ penalties against large corporations "need to be correspondingly laiger to 

achieve the same deterrent effect" in relation to smaller companies, See Toyota Sales, USA, Inc., 

FAA Order 94-28 (September 30, 1994). A civil penalty of this size will provide the adequate 

bite necessary to impress upon FedEx that these are not merely paper errors. Finally, deference 

should be given to the Administrator's proposed sanction. "[A]n administrative agency is entitled 

to substantial deference in assessing the civil penalty appropriate for a violation of its regulations: 

The agency's choice of a sanction is not to be overturned unless it is unwarranted in law or witliout 

justification in fact," NL JndusP-ies Inc. v. Dept. of TransportaUon, 901 F.2d 141, 144 (D.C Cir. 

1990). 

Conclusion 

The FA A respectftiUy requests that this Court grant the above Motion for Decision. If 

any fiirther litigation is warranted, the pleadings dearly establish that it should be limited to the 

sanction to be imposed in this case. 

Respectfully submitted this 3 / day of November 2010. 

R. Morris 

FAA Attorney 

Complainant's Motion for Decision 

In the Matter of Federal Express - CP10NM0008 

Pagefiof 7 

SCOTT R. MCUlfiJS. FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: 425.227,1417; FAX: 425.227,1007 
11/03/2010 10:25 FAX 2024935142 

11/03/2010 07:28 4252271007 

FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

11008/015 

PAGE 00/15 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

B 

$ 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

le 

17 

IB 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

2€ 

27 

23 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

3S 

3iS 

37 

3e 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

4(S 

47 

48 

49 

SO 

51 

52 

S3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Complainant's Motion for Decision has been served via 

facsimile and certified mail - Return Receipt Requested this date, to the following: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

OfQce of hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Rm El 2-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: 202.366.2139 

FAX; 202.366.7536 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

FAX: 202,493.5020 

Cynthia Chandler-Snell 

Federal Express Coiporation 

3620 Hacks Cross Road 

Building B, 3'" Floor 

Memphis, TN 38125 

TEL: 901.434,8361 

FAX: 901,434.8283 

Dated this 3^^ day of November, 2010. 

5/WA L. STEPHENS . . 

Office of Regional Counsel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

425.227,2164 

Complainatit's Motion for Decision 

In the Matter of Feder&l Express-CP I ONMOOOS 

Page 7 of 7 

SCOTTR, MORRIS, FA/> ATTORNEY 

TEL: 425,227,1417; FAX: 425.227.1007 
11/03/2010 10:25 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS i009/015 

ANM7 PftSE as/15 11/03/2010 37:28 4252271007 

EXHIBIT A 

Scorr R, MORRIS 

FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 

]60lLrNDAVE„SW 

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 

TELEPHONE: 425.227.1417 

FACSIMILE: 425.227.IOO7 

IINITED STATES OP AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of; 

FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET CP I ONMOOOS 

FAA Case No. 2OO8NM7O0208 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0792 

Judge Goodwin 

DECLARATION 

I, DONALD STIGER, declare under penalty of peijury the following: 

1. I am a Federal Aviation Administration Hazardous Material Special Agent assigned to the 

Portland Hazardous Materials Field Office in Portland, Oregon, 1 have worked for the Foicral 

Aviation Administration for 13 plus years, I have held a Pilot Certificate. I have worked in the 

area of hazardous material enforcement for over 20 years, 

2. On August 22, 2008,1 discovered, during an audit of the 90 day pilot-in-command 

notification record system (Dangerous Goods System - Aircraft DG Manifest) at the FEDERAL 

EXPRESS, INC, (FDEA), cargo sort facility, Portland International Airport (PDX), 5159 NE 

Comfbot Road, Portland, Oregon 97218, that FDEA was in violation of the following several 

Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs). 

3. Specifically, during my audit I discovered violations of 49 C.F.R. 175.33(a)(1) for incon-ect 

information on the Notice to Pilot-In-Command (NOPIC) concerning Flight S 807-14, on August 

14, 2008, concerning and package being transported by use of FedEx tracking number 7920 

9552 8956, 

4. I discovered violation of 49 C.F.R. 175.33(a)(l)(i) for tho following shipments as the NOPICs 

failed to have the additional description requirements required by 49 C.F.R. Sections 172.202 

and 172.203. 

Declaration of Donald Stiger 

Page 1 of 5 
11/03/2010 10:25 FAX 2024935142 FAA - DMS @010/015 

11/03/2010 07:2a d252271007 ANM7 P^GE 10/15 

Fli£lli. 

3604-22 

3604-15 

0406-12 

2807-09 

0406^25 

2807-12 

1807-n 

1807-02 

2807-28 

1807-24 

1807-20 

1807-13 

3604-07 

2807-07 

2807-31 

Date 

August 22, 2008 

August 15, 2008 

August 12,2008 

August 09, 2008 

July 25,2008 

July 12,2008 

M y 11, 2008 

July 02, 2008 

June 28, 2008 

June 24, 2008 

June 20, 2008 

June 13,2008 

June 07,2008 

June 07,2008 

May 31,2008 

Tracking #: 

8655 7809 2663 

8336 2546 2150 

8638 6564 6276 

8553 7638 3315 

8619 5162 2732 

8553 7638 3315 

8200 8465 6944 

8553 7295 4662 

8665 6571 3175 

8638 6564 6162 

8596 0153 1010 

8553 7295 4640 

8336 2546 2139 

8638 5915 1184 

8638 6029 0111 

5: I discovered a violation of 49 C.F.R. ]75.33(a)(lXii) for a shipment that was on Flight 1225-

12, on August 12, 2008, with tracking number 9770 2041 7736 because the NOPIC failed to list 

the EX number on the pilot-in-command notification when one was provided on the shipper's 

Declaration for Dangerous Goods. 

6. I discovered a violation of 49 C.F.R. 175.33(a)(9) for a shipment that was on Flight 1225-02, 

on August 2, 2008, because the written pilot-in-command notifications failed to have 

conformation that the package must be carried only on cargo aircraft (CAO). 

7, I diflcovered violations of 49 C.F.R. 175.33(a)(l0) for the following shipments because the 

written pilot-in-command notification failed to indicate that a hazardous material is being carried 

under terms of a special permit. 

Flight Date Tracking #: 

1225-09 August 09, 2008 9101 3080 4020 

1225-02 August 02,2008 9579 3909 4105 

Declaration of Donald Stiger 

Page 2 of5 
* nMS 01011/015 

11/03/2010 10:25 FAX 2024935142 FAA 

ll/03/2k)10 37:28 4252271007 ANM7 

1807-22 July 22,2008 91013080 1890 

1225-12 July 12,2008 9579 3909 2948 

1225-30 May 30, 2008 7919 0836 4947 

8. Ha2:ardous Material Special Agent Deborah Portin and I made photocopies of ail the 

hazardous materials shipping papers (Dangerous Goods Certifications) described above at the 

following origin FDEA stations on the dates transcribed on each respective shipping paper: 

FDE A Station Code-. MRIA 

43 44 N. Port Center Way 

Portland, Oregon 97217 

FDEA Station Code: HIOA 

6505 SW Rosewood Street 

Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 

FDEA Station Code: EUGA 

700 International Way 

Springfield, Oregon 97477 

FDEA Station Code: MFRA 

3600 Terminal Spur Road 

Medford, Oregon 97504 

FDEA Station Code: RDMA 

63245 Jamison Street 

Bend, Oregon 97701 

FDEA Station Code: CVO A 

201 SW Airport Road 

Corvallis, Oregon 97333 

FDEA Station Coder PDXA 

6756 NE Aldenvood Road 

Portland, Oregon 97218 

9. I also downloaded tracking information on all the above described shipments from 

http://fcdex.com/tracking. 

10. During the course of inbound flight inspections at FDEA's PDX sort facility, 5159 NE 

Comfoot Road, Portland, Oregon 97218 Portland, Oregon, on September 24.2008,1 discovered 

additional violations to the HMR, 

11. Specifically. I discovered a violation of 49 C.F.R. 175,33(a)(l) far a shipment that was on 

Flight 14B0-24. on September 24, 2008, with tracking number 9031 2749 7820, because the 

written pilot-in-command notification failed to have the proper shipping name, hazard class, and 

identification number The pilot-in-command notification indicated that hazardous matcria.1 was 

Declaration of Donald Stiger 

Page 3 of5 
* DMS @1012/015 

11/03/2010 10:25 FAX 2024935142 F^^ p^^ ^ ^^^^^ 

11/£13/2010 07:29 4252271607 ^NMT 

loaded in Unit Load Device (ULD) # AMJ41490PX in position 9L on aircraft N-556FE. A 

physical check of the ULD during unloading operations discovered no such material loaded in 

ULD AMJ41490FX. A tracking of the shipment with the help of FDEA PDX Operations 

Manager Sandy DRONEN indicated that it had been delivered to the consignee on September 

17, 2008, DRONEN provided a copy of the Package Tracking Report on September 24, 2008. 

12, I discovered violations of 49 C.F.R. 175.33(a)(l)(ii) for the following shipments because the 

written piloi-in-command notification failed to have the additional description requirements (the 

EX number) as provided in the ICAO Tecluiical Instructions or any additional infotmation on the 

.shipping paper required by subpart C of part 171. 

Flight Date Tracking^: 

1480-24 September 24, 2008 7035 4S21 0828 

1480-24 September 24, 2008 9456 0058 0431, 9456 0058 0442, & 9456 0058 0453 

13.1 discovered a violation of 49 C.F.R. 175.30(a)(3) for a shipment on Flight 1857-24, on 

September 24, 2008, with tracking number 9847 8242 3373 because the package was only 

marked as a Consumer Commodity, ORM-D. I took photographs of the packaged identified by 

tracking # 9847 8242 3373 on September 24, 2008, and secured a copy of the hazardous 

materials shipping paper attached to the package. 

14. I discovered a violation of 49 CF.R. 175.33(a)(l)(i) for a shipment on Flight 1857-25, on 

September 25, 2008. with tracking number 7288 3457 9422 because the written pilot-incommand notification indicated a shipment to have an additional description requirement 

(Reportable Quantity [RQ]) as provided in 49 CFR. Sections 172.202 and 172.203. However, 

neither the shipper's Declaration for Dangerous Goods nor the package indicated the shipment 

waj a reportable quantity, I took photographs of the packaged identified by tracking # 7288 

3457 9422 on September 25, 2008, and secured a copy of the hazardous materials shipping paper 

attached to the package. 

15. I discovered a violation of 49 C.T.R. I75,33(a)(l)(ii) for a shipment on Flight 1480-25, on 

September 25,2008, with tracking number 9005 1651 0686 because the written pilot-incommand notification failedto have the additional description requirements (list the EX number) 

as provided in the ICAO Technical Instructions or any additional information on the shipping 

paper required by subpart C of part 171. 1 secured a copy of tho hazardous materials shipping 

paper attached to the package for the shipment identified by tracking # 9005 1651 0686 on 

September 25, 2008, 

16. I discovered a violation of 49 C.F.R. 175.33(a)(10) for a shipment on Flight 1480-25, on 

September 25, 2008, with tracking number 9800 2559 5341 because the written pilot-incommand notification failed to indicate that a. hazardous material is being carried under terms of 

a special permit, I took photographs of the packaged identified by tracking # 9800 2559 52W1 on 

September 25, 2008, and secured a copy of the hazardous materials shipping paper attached to 

the package. 

17. I downloaded tracking information on all the above described shipments I found on the 

September 25,2008, inbound flight from httD://fedex.com/tracking on September 25.2008. 

Declaration of Donald Stiger 

Page 4 Of 5 
. DMS 121013/015 

11/03/2010 10:26 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^^^ ^ ^^^^ 

11/03/2010 07:28 4252271007 ANM7 

18. I discovered a violation of 49 C.F.R, 172.400(a) for a shipment on Flight 1857-25, on 

September 25.2008, concerning ULD# SAX60] OFX because of the failure to label an airt;raft 

unit load device conforming to paragraphs (a)(3) or (b)(3) of 49 C.F.R. 172.512, This ULD 

contained shipments of hazard classes 1.4S, 2.2, 3, 8 & 9 but the ULD itself Dangerous Goods 

ID Tag failed to identify the hazardous materials loaded in the ULD. I took a photograph of 

gome of the hazardous materials packages found in the ULD identified by number SAXfiOl lOFX 

on S^tember 25, 2008. 

19. I discovered a violation of 49 C.F.R 175.30(a)(3) for a hazardous material shipment 

accepted for transport in commerce on September 25,2008 with tracking number 7508 8868 

3463. The shipping paper that accompanied the shipment described the shipment as a Consumer 

Commodity, ORM-D. However, the shipment package had no markings that indicated that it 

was hazardous material. I took photographs of the packaged identified by tracking # 7508 8868 

3463 on September 25, 2008, and secured a copy of the hazardous materials shipping paper 

attached to the package. 1 also downloaded tracking information on the shipment from 

http;//fedex.com/tracking on September 25. 2008. 

Executed this 2d day of November 2010. 

Declaration of Donald Stiger 

Page 5 of 5 
11/03/2010 10:29 FAX 2024935142 

11/03/2010 07:2B 4252271007 

FAA ^ DMS 

ANM7 

21014/015 

PAQE 11/15 

EXHIBIT B 

SCOTT R.MORRIS 

FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 

1601 LINO AVE.. SW 

RENTON, WASHINGTON 9805? 

TELEPHON E : 425.227,1417 

FACSIMILE; 425.227.1007 

UNTTED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of; 

FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET CPl ONMOOOS 

FAA Case No. 20O8NM7OO2O8 

DMS No. FAA-201 0-0792 

Judge Goodwin 

DECLARATION 

I, DEBORAH PORTIN, declare under penalty of perjury the following: 

1. I am a Federal Aviation Administration Hazardous Material Special Agent assigt\cd to the 

Portland Hazardous Materials Field Office in Portland, Oregon. I have worked for the Federal 

Aviation Administration for 12 plus years. 1 have worked in the area of hazardous material 

enforcement for over 9 years. 

2. On September 3 and 4,2008,1 performed a hazardous materials shipping paper audit on 

Federal Express' (FDEA) Lake Oswego, Oregon, cargo facility (HIOA). During this audit 1 

discovered several hazardous materials shipping paper violations; specifically, violations of 49 

CF.R. 175.30(a)(2) for accepting a hazardous material for air transportation utilizing a shipping 

paper not prepared in accordance with part 172 or Subpart C of pan 171, The violations 

concerned the following dates, FDEA tracking numbers, shippers and discrepancies: 

Date 

8/20/08 

Tracking #(s) 

9680 1059 6826 

96801059 6837 

L 

Shipper Discrepancy 

Beaverton Dodge, Shipping paper tailed to list the EX number 

Beaverton, OR or the word "Recycled" on the Shipper's 

Declaration of Dangerous Good 

Declaration of Deborah Portin 

Page 1 of 2 
11/03/2010 10:2G FAX 

11/03/2010 07:28 

2024935142 

4252271007 

FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

12015/015 

PA5E 15/15 

06/13/08 

8/06/08 

7/29/08 

7/22/08 

6/26/08 

6/23/08 

9680 1059 034<S 

9558 3162 1007 

9598 2077 S393 

9598 2077 8408 

9598"20r7 7537 

8620 3853 6421 

8381 1521 5889 

Beaverton Dodge, 

Beaverton, OR 

Western Wildlife Control, 

Canby, OR 

Novellus Systems, Inc., 

Tualatin, OR 

Novellus Systems, Inc., 

Tualatin, OR 

Evergreen Helicopters, 

Inc., McMinnville, OR 

Art ex Aircraft Supplies, 

Inc., Aurora, OR 

Shipping paper failed to list tho EX number 

or the word "Recycled" on cive Shipper's 

Declaration of Dangerous Good 

Shipment utilized Pacfcjn| Instruction 101 

on the Shipper's Declaration of Dangerous 

Goods which requires the following 

statement on the shipping paper: 

"Packaging approved by the competent 

authority of the United State*; of America 

(USA)" 

Shipping paper identified Ihe wrong 

packing instruction for the material listed 

on the Shipper's Declaration for Dangerous 

Goods 

There was an incorrect spelling of the 

proper shipping name on the Shipper's 

Declaration of Dangerous Goods 

The Shipper's Declaration of Dangerous 

Goods did not have the required additional 

description of "Limited Quantity" 

The Shipper's Declaration of Dangerous 

Goods did not have on it an emergency 

response telephone number 

3. I took photocopies of the shipping papers described above on September 3 «t 4, 2008. 

Executed this 2nd day of November 2010. 

Declaration of Deborah Portin 

Page 2 of2