Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01225/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01225-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Aviation Administration
Respondent
Gary J. Kauffman
Intervenor
Natural Resources Defense Council
Petitioner
The Wilderness Society
Petitioner

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued April 22, 2002 Decided June 14, 2002

No. 01-1225

Natural Resources Defense Council and

Wilderness Society,

Petitioners

v.

Federal Aviation Administration and

Janet F. Garvey, Administrator,

Respondents

Gary J. Kauffman,

Intervenor

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Federal Aviation Administration

Robert A. Bourque argued the cause for petitioners. With

him on the briefs were Johanna H. Wald, Leslie Jones, Paul

C. Gluckow and Sharon Buccino.

USCA Case #01-1225 Document #683549 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 1 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Susan Pacholski, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,

argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief was

Ronald Spritzer, Attorney.

William P. Horn was on the brief for intervenor.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Rogers.

Before: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, Henderson and Rogers,

Circuit Judges.

Rogers, Circuit Judge: The Natural Resources Defense

Council, Inc. and The Wilderness Society (collectively

"NRDC") petition for review of the Federal Aviation Administration's determination that the National Parks Air Tour

Management Act of 2000, 49 U.S.C. s 40128, does not bar

Vortex Aviation Inc.'s ("Vortex") proposed sightseeing tours

out of the Jackson Hole Airport. Because we conclude that

the issues presented in the petition are unripe for judicial

review, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

I.

In April 2000, Congress enacted the National Parks Air

Tour Management Act ("the Act"), which provides for the

regulation of commercial air tour operations over national

parks and tribal lands within or abutting national parks.

Pub. L. No. 106-181, 114 Stat. 185 (2000). The Act requires

the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration

("FAA"), in conjunction with the Director of the National

Park Service, to "establish an air tour management plan for

any national park or tribal land" in order to "develop acceptable and effective measures to mitigate or prevent the

significant adverse impacts, if any, of commercial air tour

operations upon the natural and cultural resources, visitor

experiences, and tribal lands." 49 U.S.C. s 40128(b)(1).

Before conducting commercial air tour operations over national parks or tribal lands, the Act requires each commercial air tour operator to apply to the FAA for authority to

conduct such operations. Id. s 40128(a)(2)(A).

The Act defines "commercial air tour operation" as:

USCA Case #01-1225 Document #683549 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 2 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

[A]ny flight, conducted for compensation or hire in a

powered aircraft where a purpose of the flight is sightseeing over a national park, within 1/2 mile outside the

boundary of any national park, or over tribal lands,

during which the aircraft flies--

(i) below a minimum altitude ... above ground level

(except solely for purposes of takeoff or landing, or

necessary for safe operation of an aircraft ... ); or

(ii) less than 1 mile laterally from any geographic

feature within the park (unless more than 1/2 mile

outside the boundary).

Id. s 40128(f)(4)(A). In determining whether a particular

proposed flight is a commercial air tour operation, the FAA

"may consider" the following factors: "(i) whether there was

a holding out to the public of willingness to conduct a

sightseeing flight for compensation or hire; (ii) whether a

narrative that referred to areas or points of interest on the

surface below the route of the flight was provided by the

person offering the flight; (iii) the area of operation; (iv) the

frequency of flights conducted by the person offering the

flight; (v) the route of flight; (vi) the inclusion of sightseeing

flights as part of any travel arrangement package offered by

the person offering the flight; (vii) whether the flight would

have been canceled based on poor visibility of the surface

below the route of the flight; and (viii) any other factors that

the Administrator and the Director consider appropriate."

Id. s 40128(f)(4)(B).

II.

The Jackson Hole Airport, which is managed and operated

by the Jackson Hole Airport Board pursuant to a Use Agreement with the United States, is located in the State of

Wyoming, just inside the southern border of Grand Teton

National Park. Vortex, which provides nonscheduled commercial aviation services pursuant to FAA certification under

Parts 119, 133, 135, and 137 of the FAA's regulations, 14

C.F.R. pts. 119, 133, 135, 137, sought permission from the

Board to operate charter flights, including scenic tours, out of

USCA Case #01-1225 Document #683549 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 3 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the Airport. The Board, however, expressed concerns about

the Act's applicability to sightseeing flights out of the Airport

and the absence of an air tour management plan for the Park

as required by the Act. Vortex, in turn, sought clarification

from the FAA regarding the applicability of the Act to its

proposed sightseeing tours out of the Airport. The NRDC

challenges the FAA's letter responses to Vortex's inquiries.

A.

In August 1999 and again in May 2000, Vortex applied to

the Board for permission to operate charter services, including scenic air tours, out of the Airport. On May 17, 2000, the

Board approved Vortex's proposed operations, but on June

12, 2000, concerned that Vortex's scenic air tour operations

would violate the Act's restrictions on sightseeing tours over

national parks, the Board rescinded its approval subject to

Vortex's full compliance with the Act. Although Vortex

continued discussions with the Board, claiming that Vortex's

proposed flights were in compliance with the Act and that, in

any event, the Board lacked the authority to prevent Vortex's

operations, on July 17, 2000, the Board issued a moratorium

on the approval of all commercial scenic air tour operations

out of the Airport pending development of an air tour management plan or "other conclusive determination" that the

proposed flights would not violate the Act.

On June 22, 2000, Vortex wrote to the FAA seeking

clarification as to the applicability of the Act to Vortex's

proposed air tour operations. In the letter, Vortex described

its proposed flights, stating that its scenic air tour operations

will not be conducted over the Park and emphasizing that it

has "NEVER proposed flights over any portion of the [P]ark.

[Except those portions that are necessary to fly over as a

result to approach for a landing or for departure from takeoff.]" (brackets in original). Vortex asked the FAA to respond to four questions:

[1] Does the Act apply to the proposed scenic flights

that Vortex intends on performing at the Jackson

USCA Case #01-1225 Document #683549 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 4 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Hole Airport for flights conducted outside the

Park?

[2] Does the language in [s 40128(f)(4)(A)(i), the minimum altitude provision and its takeoff and landing exception,] ensure that those portions of

flights that cross sections of the Park for normal

approach to landing and departure from takeoff

are excluded from being considered a scenic air

tour over the Park when the final tour destination

is, in fact, outside the Park?

[3] [Does the Use Agreement] constitute the current

conditions of scenic air tour overflights for the

Park until an Air Tour Management Plan is enacted and approved by the FAA in the future for

Grand Teton Park?

[4] If the above is the affirmative, does the Park have

the right to unilaterally change overflight rules in

the absence of FAA approval under the terms and

conditions of the Act? Do the current overflight

rules of the Park 'stay in place' until the whole

process as defined in the Act take[s] place to

enact a change from the existing rules contained

in [the Use Agreement].

On August 13, 2000, Vortex wrote the FAA again. Informing

the FAA that the Board had not lifted the moratorium,

Vortex asked for clarification of the Board's authority to

enforce the Act, and, stating that the Board was using the

geographic feature provision of the Act, 49 U.S.C.

s 40128(f)(4)(A)(ii), to preclude Vortex's flights, Vortex also

sought the FAA's views on the meaning of "geographic

feature" as used in the Act and the effect under the Act of

flying within one mile of a geographic feature during takeoff

and landing. On August 31, 2000 and October 17, 2000, the

Board also wrote the FAA seeking its views on the meaning

of "geographic feature" and "laterally" as used in the Act, and

inquiring as to the Board's authority under the Act to control

a flight's route.

USCA Case #01-1225 Document #683549 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 5 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

The FAA responded to these questions in three letters. In

the first letter, dated August 9, 2000, the FAA responded,

through Donald P. Byrne, the Assistant Chief Counsel for the

Regulations Division, to Vortex's first two questions, and

concluded that the proposed flights would not violate the Act.

In the second letter, dated September 7, 2000, the FAA,

through Nancy D. LoBue, Assistant Chief Counsel for Airports and Environmental Law in the Office of the Chief

Counsel, addressed Vortex's third and fourth questions concerning the Board's authority to impose restrictions on sightseeing flights out of the Airport, and declined to offer a

definitive opinion. However, in the third letter, dated October 27, 2000, the FAA, through Mr. Byrne, offered an advisory opinion on the remaining questions presented by Vortex

and the Board in their letters of August 2002.

B.

The first letter. Regarding Vortex's first question, the

FAA, through Mr. Byrne, stated that based on the information provided by Vortex, Vortex's proposed scenic flights

would not violate the Act. He explained:

The term "commercial air tour operation," is defined, in

part, as "any flight, conducted for compensation or hire

in a powered aircraft where a purpose of the flight is

sightseeing over a national park, within 1/2 mile outside

the boundary of any national park, or over tribal

lands...." [49 U.S.C. s 40128(f)(4)(A).] According to

the information [Vortex] provided ... , Vortex Aviation's

sightseeing operations are not conducted over Grand

Teton National Park or within 1/2 mile of the Park's

boundary[;] it is only entering and exiting the Park as

necessary for takeoff and landing and following the takeoff and landing routes as prescribed by the Airport

Board.

Thus, Mr. Byrne concluded, "it is clear that the National

Park[s] Air Tour Management Act does not prohibit or limit

Vortex Aviation's operations as long as Vortex Aviation conducts its sightseeing flights outside of Grand Teton National

USCA Case #01-1225 Document #683549 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 6 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Park and more than 1/2 mile outside the Park boundary."

Regarding Vortex's second question, Mr. Byrne stated that

Vortex would not violate the Act by descending below the

minimum altitude set forth in the Act as long as it was solely

for the purpose of takeoff and landing.

The second letter. In a second letter, the FAA, through

Ms. LoBue, began by noting "serious concerns" about the

Board's moratorium on commercial sightseeing flights in view

of the fact that the Board is primarily responsible for noise

abatement and because the Airport's federal financial assistance is contingent upon the Board providing access to airport users "on fair and reasonable terms, without unjust

discrimination." However, regarding Vortex's third question,

she concluded that it was unnecessary for the FAA to issue

an advisory opinion concerning the Board's authority to regulate sightseeing overflights of the Park under paragraph (h)

of the Use Agreement, which governs commercial scenic and

charter flights over noise sensitive areas of the Park. Vortex,

she stated, "is not proposing to initiate flights over [the Park]

(other than those necessary to land and takeoff)." She

explained further that "[i]f Vortex proposes to initiate such

flights before the [Act] is implemented by regulation, then

FAA would discuss the genesis and proper interpretation of

paragraph (h) with the parties to the Use Agreement before

issuing any definitive opinion." Similarly, regarding Vortex's

fourth question, Ms. LoBue declined to reach the legality of

paragraph (h) of the Use Agreement because "Vortex is not

currently conducting overflights of the Park except for landings and takeoffs."

The third letter. On October 27, 2000, the FAA, through

Mr. Byrne, responded to the remaining questions that Vortex

and the Board posed. Mr. Byrne stated that the "Board has

no authority under the Act to prohibit scenic operations from

taking off or landing at Jackson Hole Airport" or to otherwise

enforce the Act by establishing flight routes. He offered an

interpretation of the geographic feature provision of the Act,

providing hypothetical examples of its applicability.

USCA Case #01-1225 Document #683549 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 7 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

III.

On May 23, 2001, the NRDC petitioned for review of the

FAA's opinion, as set forth in the three letters of August 9,

September 7, and October 27, 2000, that the Act did not bar

Vortex's proposed flights. The NRDC contends that, contrary to the Act's express and unambiguous terms, the FAA

misinterpreted the Act (1) by erroneously concluding that a

flight is not a "commercial air tour operation" unless its only

purpose is sightseeing despite the unambiguous statutory

language that requires only that "a purpose of the flight [be]

sightseeing," 49 U.S.C. s 40128(f)(4)(A) (emphasis added),

and (2) by improperly interpreting the takeoff and landing

exception of the minimum altitude provision, id.

s 40128(f)(4)(A)(i), as an exception to the entire commercial

air tour operation definition, including its separate geographic

feature subsection, id. s 40128(f)(4)(A)(ii). The NRDC also

contends that in concluding that Vortex's proposed flights

were not covered by the Act, the FAA failed to analyze

Vortex's "self-serving assertion that the purpose of its flights

while over the Park was only to takeoff and land from the

Airport, despite clear evidence in the record ... that Vortex's

flights also had an undeniable sightseeing purpose," as indicated by Vortex's proposal to take a route that would prolong

the flight time over the Park and thus provide "a spectacular

view of the Park's signature geographic feature," the Tetons.

Petitioners' Br. at 18.

The FAA disputes the NRDC's contentions on the merits,

pointing to "the unique circumstances of this case, where a

major airport is located within a national park," Respondents'

Br. at 13, but contends as a threshold matter that the court

lacks jurisdiction because (1) the petition is untimely under 49

U.S.C. s 46110(a); (2) the three letters do not constitute final

agency action under 49 U.S.C. s 46110; (3) the issues raised

in the petition are unripe; and (4) the petitioners lack standing. Because we conclude that the issues presented in the

petition are not ripe for review, we do not address the merits

of NRDC's petition or the FAA's additional jurisdictional

claims.

USCA Case #01-1225 Document #683549 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 8 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

The basic rationale underlying the ripeness doctrine is

preventing courts from entangling themselves in premature

adjudication involving abstract disagreements over administrative policies. Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148

(1967). It is well established that the court's ripeness inquiry

is twofold, requiring us "to evaluate both the fitness of the

issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of

withholding court consideration." Id. at 149; see also Wyo.

Outdoor Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 165 F.3d 43, 48 (D.C.

Cir. 1999).

Under the fitness for review prong, the court considers not

only whether the claims present purely legal questions that

are presumptively suitable for judicial review, but also whether the courts and agency would benefit from postponing

review until the questions at issue have taken on a more

definite form. Cronin v. FAA, 73 F.3d 1126, 1131 (D.C. Cir.

1996). Thus, "the 'court's interests in avoiding unnecessary

adjudication and in deciding issues in a concrete setting'

militate in favor of postponing review if, for example, the

court finds 'that resolution of the dispute is likely to prove

unnecessary,' or 'that the court's deliberations might benefit

from letting the question arise in some more concrete ...

form.' " Id. (quoting Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. EPA, 759

F.2d 905, 915 (D.C. Cir. 1985), and State Farm Mut. Auto.

Ins. Co. v. Dole, 802 F.2d 474, 479 (D.C. Cir. 1986)) (alteration

in original) (citations omitted). These factors weigh against

immediate review.

First, the interpretation of the Act that the NRDC challenges was set forth in three letters that on their face

demonstrate the tentativeness of the legal determination regarding Vortex's operations. This is evident from the fact

that the FAA, in determining that the Act did not bar the

proposed flights, relied solely on Vortex's descriptions of the

flights that it was proposing to fly out of the Airport. In the

first letter to Vortex, Mr. Byrne stated:

According to the information you provided ..., Vortex

Aviation's sightseeing operations are not conducted over

Grand Teton National Park or within 1/2 mile of the Park's

USCA Case #01-1225 Document #683549 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 9 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

boundary, it is only entering and exiting the Park as

necessary for takeoff and landing....

....

Given the facts as stated above, it is clear that the

National Park[s] Air Tour Management Act does not

prohibit or limit Vortex Aviation's operations as long as

Vortex Aviation conducts its sightseeing flights outside of

Grand Teton National Park and more than 1/2 mile outside

the Park boundary. (emphasis added)

In the second letter, Ms. LoBue reaffirmed the tentative

nature of the first letter, explaining that although it was

unnecessary for the FAA "to issue an advisory opinion concerning the authority of the Board to regulate commercial

sightseeing overflights" because Vortex had not proposed

sightseeing flights over the Park, the FAA would reconsider

this decision if, in fact, Vortex "proposes to initiate such

flights." Finally, in the third letter, Mr. Byrne again emphasized the hypothetical and advisory nature of the opinion

stated in the letters, noting that "[t]he FAA already has

issued an interpretation stating that Vortex's proposed sightseeing operations are not covered by the Act if they are

conducted outside the boundaries of Grand Teton National

Park, regardless of the fact that Vortex lands and departs

from Jackson Hole Airport." (emphasis added).

The three letters thus make clear that the FAA's determination of the applicability of the Act flowed solely from

Vortex's description of its proposed flights. In other words,

the FAA's interpretation of the Act was not based upon a

factual determination, consistent with the factors that the

FAA may consider under the Act in determining whether a

flight is a commercial air tour operation, see 49 U.S.C.

s 40128(f)(4)(B), that Vortex's actual operations would be

immune from regulation under the Act. The FAA did not

purport to make any findings in the letters regarding whether

Vortex's actual flights had as a purpose sightseeing over the

Park. Had the FAA done so, presumably it would have

addressed Vortex's "true" purpose and intent in light of

Vortex's choice of flight path and flight times and Vortex's

description of its tours on its website. As it was, however,

USCA Case #01-1225 Document #683549 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 10 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the FAA made neither findings regarding, nor mention of,

Vortex's proposed departure routes, Vortex's flight times, or

Vortex's description of its tours on its website, all of which

are relevant factors in making a determination as to whether,

in fact, a flight is a commercial air tour operation, see id. To

the extent the FAA rendered an interpretation of the Act

based on Vortex's factual assertions, in essence, the FAA's

views were based on a hypothetical factual scenario and hence

are not appropriate for review. Cf. Aerosource, Inc. v. Slater,

142 F.3d 572, 579-80 (3d Cir. 1998). Indeed, the interpretation of the Act in the three letters, while seemingly a final

position as to the applicability of the Act to the hypothetical

flights described by Vortex, would be consistent with a future

determination by the FAA that Vortex's flights violate the

Act if, for example, the NRDC's assertions are borne out by

the evidence.

Second, the issues raised in the NRDC's petition are not

strictly legal in nature. Determining the applicability of the

Act to Vortex's actual flights requires the application of law to

facts based on evidence that was not before the FAA and is

not before the court. Further, the challenges to the FAA's

interpretation of the Act, which present legal issues, are

intertwined with the FAA's assessment of "the facts." For

example, in contending that the FAA wrongly read the Act to

be triggered only when "the only purpose" of a flight is

sightseeing over a Park rather than when "a purpose" of a

flight is sightseeing (as the NRDC contends the Act requires), the NRDC also maintains that the FAA ignored the

factual possibility that Vortex's flights could have a dual

purpose that includes sightseeing over the Park. To resolve

the validity of the FAA's statutory construction, the court

would have to examine the record evidence to determine

whether the FAA's factual findings were supported and

whether the FAA's assessment of the purpose or purposes of

Vortex's flights was appropriate. Again, however, the FAA

did not purport to make findings as to whether Vortex's

actual flights had as a purpose sightseeing over the Park but

took as true Vortex's assertion that it was not conducting

sightseeing tours over the Park. Even the seemingly legal

USCA Case #01-1225 Document #683549 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 11 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

issues presented by the NRDC turn then on evidentiary facts

that are not developed in the record.

As the FAA observes, the NRDC, to advance its challenges

to the FAA's statutory interpretation, "indulge[s] in speculation regarding the probabl[e] routes of Vortex's flights, their

likely duration and the quality of the scenery that might be

visible from the windows of Vortex's helicopters," and relies

on documents that were not before the FAA, including a map

of Vortex's proposed flight path and information placed on

Vortex's website a year after the FAA's letters were issued.

Respondents' Br. at 25. Further, the FAA states in its brief

that because Vortex began operating out of the Airport in the

summer of 2001, there is now actual evidence of Vortex's

operations out of the Airport. Under the circumstances, this

is a classic case where "further factual development would

'significantly advance our ability to deal with the legal issues

presented' and would 'aid us in their resolution.' " Ohio

Forestry Ass'n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 737 (1998)

(quoting Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Group,

Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 82 (1978)).

In light of the tentative nature of the FAA's interpretation

of the applicability of the Act to Vortex's flights and the lack

of a factual grounding for the NRDC's challenges, the views

expressed in the FAA's three letters are akin to the informal

opinion letters at issue in New York Stock Exchange, Inc. v.

Bloom, 562 F.2d 736 (D.C. Cir. 1977), that the court concluded were unripe for review. Id. at 741-43. In Bloom, the

court explained that the issues were unfit for review, in part,

because the informal form of the Comptroller's action "reflected the tentative nature of his interpretative conclusion,"

in which the Comptroller "expressly reserved the possibility

that his opinion, which extended only to the permissibility of

the particular service proposed ..., might change if and when

he was presented with concrete evidence" as to the applicability of the Act. Id. at 741. Moreover, although the issues in

Bloom were legal in the sense that they involved statutory

construction, the court explained that they were not fit for

review because a substantial part of the challenges to the

Comptroller's opinion was the parties' disagreement with the

USCA Case #01-1225 Document #683549 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 12 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Comptroller's factual assessment. Id. Both of these elements are present here. Just as in Bloom, the issues are not

fit for judicial review because, in the end, they lack sufficient

concreteness and they would require the court to conduct a

purely hypothetical inquiry. Cf. Nat'l Automatic Laundry &

Cleaning Council v. Shultz, 443 F.2d 689, 699 (D.C. Cir.

1971).

Turning to the hardship prong, because the issues would

benefit from postponing review, the NRDC must demonstrate

immediate, direct, and significant hardship to warrant immediate review, Cronin, 73 F.3d at 1133, and it has failed to do

so. Unlike agency regulations that can force compliance

through a fear of immediate sanction, see Abbott Labs., 387

U.S. at 152-53, the NRDC is neither regulated by the FAA

nor forced to change its conduct in order to avoid future

adverse consequences as a result of the letters. Further, any

harm incurred by the NRDC as a result of Vortex's actual

conducting of sightseeing flights is not a direct consequence

of the three letters at issue as they do not authorize Vortex's

current flights out of the Airport. See Ohio Forestry Ass'n,

523 U.S. at 733. Finally, the NRDC has an alternate remedy.

In the event Vortex's actual flights violate the Act in the

opinion of the NRDC, the NRDC can file a complaint with

the FAA, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. s 46101(a), whereupon the

FAA would be required to "investigate the complaint if a

reasonable ground appears to the ... Administrator for the

investigation." 49 U.S.C. s 46101(a). These factors all weigh

against the need for immediate review. Cf. Bloom, 562 F.2d

at 743.

Accordingly, because the issues presented by the petition

are not presently fit for review and the NRDC would suffer

no significant hardship from delaying review, we dismiss the

petition as unripe and do not address either the remaining

jurisdictional issues, Fourth Branch Assocs. (Mechanicville)

v. FERC, 253 F.3d 741, 745 (D.C. Cir. 2001), or the merits, see

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95,

101-02 (1998).

USCA Case #01-1225 Document #683549 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 13 of 13