1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 KYLEE
. LOMAZO W FAA OFFIC E O FREGIONA LCOUNSE L 160 1 LlNDAVE.^S W RENTON , WASHINGTO N9805 7 TELEPHONE: 425/227-184 7 FACSIMILE; 425/227-100 7 ULFMRTW-N T O r :;OC:;[:TOPERAy!ON S /Oi l '.[: G ! 8 P :' : : J ;



### UNITE D STATE S O FAMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC E O FHEAIUNG S WASHINGTON , D.C

. I n th e Matte r

of : FEDERAI

. EXPRES S CORPORATIO N

In th e Matte r

o f CORPORAT E AI

R FA A Docke t No

. CP1QNMQOI

I FAA cas e No

. 2008NM70012 7 DM S No

. FAA-20I0-097 7

FA A Docke t No

. CPIONMOOI

O FA A cas e No

. 2008NM700I2 6 DM S No

. FAA-2010-097 5 Judge : RichardC

. Goodwi n

MOTIO N IN LIMIN E AND REQUES T FO REXPEDITE D RULIN G AJDG E GOODWEM : Complainant , throug hhi s undersigne dcounsel , hereb y move s pursuan t to 1 4 C.F.R

. § 13.218 , limitin g the testimon y o f

Respondent' s Notice dWitnesse s fo r th e followin g reasons : 1

. On Augus t

8 , 2011 , Responden t

notifie dComplainan t

that i t wil l cal l Bo b Richardt o testif y i n th e abov e matter

. 2

. Responden t

ha s indicate dthat

Bo b Richardwil l b e calle dto testif y abou t hi s participatio n i n th e rulemakin g proces s fo r an y regulation s i

n questio n i

n whic hh e ha s persona

l knowledge , bu t

Responden t

doe s no t mentio n Mr

. Richard' s personal background

. Mr

. Richard s i s th e former

Deput y Administrato r

for Hazardou s Material Safet y fo r the Pipelin e an dHazardou s Material s Safet y Administratio n (PHMSA)

. Accordin g to 4 9 C.F.R

. § 9.7(b) : In an y lega l proceedin g before the Departmen t o r i n whic hth e Unite dState s (includin g an y federa l agenc y o r office r 'o f th e Unite dStates ) i s apart}- : A n employe e ma

y testif y fo r th e Unite dState s bot

ha s to fact s withi n th e employee' s persona l knowledg e an da s a n expert o r opinio n witness

. Excep t

a s provide di

n paragrap h(c ) o f

thi s section , a n employe e ma y no t testif y a s a n expert

o r opinio n
Agency' s Motio n i

n Limin e DM S No

. FAA-20I0-097 7 & FAA-2010-097 5

. FA A Docke t No

. CPIONMOO1 1 & CPIONMOOIO FA A Case

- 2008NM7012 6 an d2009NM7012 7 Pag e 1 of 4 Y.YL E E

. LOMAZOW , FA A ATTOIWE Y TEL : 425-227- ] 847 ; FAX : 425-227-100 71

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 14 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 witness , wit

hregar dto an y matte r

arisin g ou t

o f th e employee' s officia

l dutie s o r

th e function s o f

the Department , fo r

an y parl y othe r

tha n th e Unite dState s i

n any lega l proceedin g i

n whichth e Unite dState s i s aparty

. A n employe e who receive s ademan d to testif y o n behal f

o f apart y othe r

tha n th e Unite dState s ma y testif y a s t o fact s withi n th e employee' s persona l knowledge , provide dtha t th e testimon y b e subjec t

t o th e prio r approva l o f

agenc y counse l an dt o the Federa l Rule s o f Civi l Procedur e an d an y applicabl e claim s o f

privilege

. Therefore , Mr

. Richardwoul dno t b e abl e t o testif

y a s a n exper t o r opinio n witnes s i

n thi s cas e regardin g an

y rul e or regulatio n arisin g ou t

o f hi s officia

l dutie s whil e servin g a s Deput y Administrato r

o f Hazardou s Material s fo

r PHMSA

. Furthermore , h e woul dno t b e abl e t o testif

y a s t o matter s o f

function s o f

PHMSA

. Thi s rul e prevent s Mr

. Richardfro m testifyin g a s t o th e deUberativ e proces s behin dan y rul e or regulatio n tha

t wa s drafte d whil e Mr

. Richardwa s workin g for PHMSA

. 3

. Furthermore , accordin g t o th e attache dDepartmen t o f Transportatio n (DOT ) Polic y Memorandum : / hav e considere dth e factua l situation s i n whic htestimony b y forme r DO T employee s ar e likely to aris e an dth e intent o f th e rules , an dhav e conclude dtha t section s 9.7(b ) an d 9.9(c ) o f thi s Department' s employe e testimony rule , 4 9 C

. F

. R§ § 9.7(b ) an d9.9(c) , shoul db e clarifie da s follows :

Thes e provision s ar e no t

intended , an dshouldno t b e interpreted , t

o prohibi t aforme r DO T employe e fro mtestifying , o n aconsensua l basis , i n alega l proceedin g abou t

amatte r tha t employe e di dno t

participat e i

n o r wor k o n whil e aDO T employe e a s lon g a s suc htestimony doe s no t (a ) purpor t

to speak for the Departmen t

o r (b ) disclos e an y confidential , sensitiv e informatio n o r

anythin g abou t

the deliberativ e proces s o f th e Departmen t o f Transportation

. Here , Mr

. Richardshoul db e prevente dfro mtestifyin g becaus e h e wil l b e calle dto testif y a s t o rule s an dregulation s tha t h e participate di

n or worke do n whil e amember o f PHMSA

. Second , Responden t i s callin g Mr

. Richardt o testif y a s to th e deliberativ e proces s behin dPHMS A rule s an dregulation s a t issu e i n thi s case , whic hi s clearl y prohibited

. Eve n i f

thi s kin do f

testimon y wa s no t

prohibite db

y th e DOT , i

t woul dbe completel y irrelevan t

to thi s cas e a s th e rulemakin g proces s ha s nothin g to d o wit hth e fact s o f this cas e an dthe violation s alleged

. Ever y rul e ha s backgroun ddiscussions , bu t all tha t i s relevan t

i s the final rul e itsel f

andan y other comment s tha

t were publishe dfo

r publi c view

. 4

. Last , a s th e Agency , w e are no t awar e o r hav e receive dinformatio n indicatin g tha t Mr

. Richardha s i

n fac t receive dAgenc y approval t o testify , eithe r fro mth e Federa

l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) or

PHMS A a s i s require dunder Sectio n 9.7(b ) above

.

Agency' s Motio n i

n Limin e D.M S No

. F,AvA-2010-097 7 & F.A.A-2010-097 5 FA A Docket No

. CPlONMOOl i & CPIONMOOIO F.A A Cas e - 2008NM7012 6 an d2009NM7012 7 Pag e 2 of4 K'l'L E E

. LOMAZOW , FA A ATTORNE Y TEL ; 425-227-1847 ; FAX ; 425-227-100 71

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 B 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 THEREFORE , th e Complain t move s tha

t th e Administrativ e La

w Judg e (ALJ) :

a
. Preclud e th e testimon y o f Bob Richarda s h e i s aforme r DO T employe e an

di s prohibite dfro

mtestifyin g a s to matter s h e participate di n or worke do n under 4 9 C.F.R

. § § 9.7(b ) an

d9.7(c)

. b

. Preclude th e testimony of Bob Richarda s h e i s aforme r DO T employe e andi s prohibite dfro

mspeakin g fo

r PHMS A andtestifyin g t o th e deliberativ e proces s behin d th e rule s andregulation s a t issu e i n thi s case
.
c
. Preclud e th e testimon y o f Bo b Richarda s th e Agenc y i s no t aware o f Mr

. Richard havin g receive dAgenc y approval , eithe r fro mth e FA A o r PHMSA , t o testify

. d

. I n th e alternative , limi t

the testimony o f

Bob Richardt o hi s persona l opinion s abou t

the fact s surroundin g thi s cas e a s lon g a s h e doe s not spea k fo r PFIMS A andaddresse s matter s tha

t he worke do

n whil e Deput

y Associate Directo r

o f Hazardou s Material s fo

r PHMSA

.
e
. A s the hearin g i n thi s matter i s se t fo r Augus t 22 , 2011 , require aRespons e fro mth e Respondent

b y Augus t 17 , 2011 , s o th e AL

J ma y rul e o n thi s matter

prio r to th e hearing

. DATE D thi s 10^'' da

y o f Augus t 2011

. Respectfully submitted , 

# Hf/ < % ^ wm<iii

Kyl e E

. Lomazo w FA A Attome v

Agency' s Motio n i

n Limin e DM S No

. FAA-2010-0977 & FAA-2010-097 5 FA A Docke t No

. CP1ONMOO1 1 & C P 1ONMOO1 0 FA A Cas e - 2008NM7012 6 an d2009NM7012 7 Pag e 3 o f 4 KYL E E

. LOMAZOW

, FA A ATTORNE

Y TEL : 425-227- 1 847 ; FAX : 425-227-100 71

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 34 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t th e foregoingAgency' s Motio n i n Limin e ha s bee n serve dvi afacsimil e an dovernigh t

thi s date , to th e following :

Th e Honorabl e RichardC

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

. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , R mEl2-32 0 Washington , D.C

. 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 FAX ; 202-366-753 6 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenu e S W Washington , D.C

. 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbur Wright Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 R\X : 202-493-514 2 Cynthi aChandler-Snel l Staf f Attorney , Federal Express , Inc

. 362 0 Hack s Cros s Roa d Buildin g B , 3'''Floo r Memphis , T

N 38125-880 0 TEL : 901-434-836 1 FAX : 901-434-828 3

Date dthi s 10t

hda y o f August , 20 1

Dan aStephenso n '

Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l (ANM-7 ) Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 160 1 LindAve

. S W Renton , W

A 9805 7 425-227-216 4

Agency' s Motio n i

n Limin e DM S No

. FAA-2010-097 7 & FAA-2010-097 5 FA A Docket No

. CPlONMOOl i & CPIONMOOI O F.A A Case-2008NM7012 6 and2009NM7012 7 Pag e 4 o f 4 KYL E E

. LOMAZOW , YK \ATTORNE Y TEL : 425-227- 1 847 ; FAX : 425-227-100 7

# Q Memorandu m
USDepctftmento r TransportoHo n Offic e o f th e Secretor

y ofliansporlatto n S::b) ^ Prohibition s o n Testimon y b y Fonner.DO T ^ ^ SEPTEMBE K 26 , 1994 Employee s unde r

4 9 C.F.R

. Par t

9 

## ~ Z ^ St^H

. Kapla

n iOi / ^j ^ Genera l Counse l ^^ ^
To : Chie f

Counsel s Assistan t Genera l Counse l fo r

litigatio n

I n Februar y 1993 , th e Departmen t o f Transportatio n adopte dacomprehensiv e regulatio n governin g testimon y b y curren t an dforme r

DO T employee s i n lega l proceedings , 4 9 C JJR

. Par t 9,5 8 Fwiera l Registe r

671 9 (Februar y 2,1993)

. I hav e bee n advise dtha t

thi s regulatio n ha s th e potentia l t o restric t unnecessaril y forme r DO T employee s fro mtestifyin g voluntaril y wit hrespec t t o matter s wit h whic hthe y ha dn o involvemen t whil e the y wer e employe db y thi s agency
. I kno w o f n o instance s wher e testimon y of thi s natur e ha s actuall y bee n prohibited

. Nevertheless , t o clarif y th e Department' s poUc y i n thi s area , I a m hereb y directin g tha t

al l DO T office s interpre t thi s regulationin^th e manne r describe dbelow

. Th e spedH c languag e ove r whic hconcer n ha s bee n expresse di s se t fort hi n section s 9.7(b ) an d9.9(c ) of th e Department' s rule

. (Sectio n 9.7(b ) i s applicabl e t o lega l proceeding s befor e th e Departmen t o r i n whic hth e Unite dState s i s aparty , whil e sectio n 9.9(c ) cover s lega l proceeding s betwee n privat e Utigants- ) Bot ho f thes e provision s prohibi t curren t an dforme r

DO T employee s fro mtestifyin g a s a n exper t o r opinio n witnes s "wit hregar dt o an y matte r arisin g ou t

o f th e employee' s official dutie s o r th e function s o f

th e Department " 4 9 G.F. K § § 97Cb ) an d9.9(c)

. Rea dliterally , thi s languag e coul darguabl y b e construe dt o predud e forme r Departmai t

o f Transportatio n employee s fro mtestifyin g i n lega l proceeding s wit hrespec t t o matter s whic hthe y di dno t wor k o n whil e employe d b y DOT

. This , however , i s no t th e inten t

of th e Department' s rul a
Th 6 inten t

o f th e Department' s rul e i s spelle dou t i n sectio n 9.1(b ) o f

tha t rule , 4 9 C-FJ l § 9.1(b) , whic hidentifie s five objectives , o r purposes
. However , onl y thre e o f thes e fiv e objective s ar e relevan t t o testimon y b y forme r

employees : (a ) t o minimiz e th e possibilit y of involvin g th e Departmen t i n controversia l issue s no t

relate dt o it s mission , 4 9 C J.R

. §9- 1 (bX2) ;(b ) t o maintai n th e impartialit y o f th e Departmen t

amon g privat e litigants , 4 9 CF.R

. § 9.1(b)(3) ; an d (c ) t o protec t

confidential , sensitiv e informatio n an dth e deliberativ e processe s o f

th e Department , 4 9 C.F-R

. § 9.1(b)(5)

. Conversely , th e tw o remainin g purpose s o f th e Department' s rule , th e nee dt o conserveThe^timeofxurrent^mployee s forofficialbusines s (49CF.R

. § 9.1(b)(1)) , an dth e nee dt o avoi dspendin g th e tim e an dmone y o f th e Unite dState s fo r privat e purpose s (4 9 C.F.R

. § 9.1(b)(5)) , generall y hav e littl e bearin g o n testimon y h y forme r

employees

. I hav e considere dth e factua l situation s i n whic htestimon y b y forme r DO T employee s ar e likel y t o aris e an dth e inten t o f th e rules , an dhav e conclude dtha t section s 9.7(b ) an d9.9(c ) o f thi s Department' s employe e testimon y rule , 4 9 CF.R

. § § 9.7(b ) an d9.9(c) , shoul db e clarifie da s follows :

Thes e provision s ar e no t intended , an dshoul dno t b e interpreted , t o prohibi t

aforme r DO T employe e fro m testifying , o n aconsensua l basis , i n alega l proceedin g abou t amatte r tiiat employe e di dno t

participat e i n o r wor k o n whil e aDO T employe e a s lon g a s suc htestimon y doe s no t (a ) purpor t

t o spea k fo r th e Departmen t

o r (b ) disclos e an y confidential , sensitiv e informatio n o r anythin g abou t th e deUt>erativ e processe s o f th e Departmen t

of Transportation

. In othe r words , th e mer e fact

tha t aforme r employe e ma y rel y o n som e o f th e genera l expertise , o r

knowledge , acquire dwhil e tha t individua l worke dfo r

th e Department , i n itself

, i s no t sufficien t

t o ba r aforme r employe e fro mprovidin g
. consensua l testimony

. B y wa y o f example , if

aforme r Departmen t

employe e di d no t participat e i n th e Department' s investigatio n o f aparticula r

accident , ordinaril y thi s perso n woul dno t b e preclude dfro mtestifyin g a s t o hi s o r he r view s concernin g th e caus e o f tha t accident

. O n th e othe r

hand , suc ha n individua l woul dno t

b e permitte dt o spea k

fo r th e Department , o r

divulg e th e specific s o f

a n on-goin g o r

contemplate denforcemen t investigation

. I n additior w forme r DO T employee s will , o f course , continu e t o b e subjec t t o an y applicabl e requirement s impose db y ethic s rules , contractua l obligations , controllin g rule s o f evidenc e o r

procedure , an dothe r

statutor y constraints

. A cop y o f

this memorandu mshoul db e provide dt o al l forme r DO T employee s wh o appl y t o testif

y unde r th e Department' s rul e o r inquir e abou t

i t