### UNITED STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATlQfiL FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C . J&B ENTERPRISES , INC . c^b/ a RHYTH M SHINE , 

# lEGEO W



# H JU i 1 7 Z00

9 AIRPORTS/ENVIRONMENTA L LAW . AGC-60 0 ' 

### Complainant , V . 

### FA A Docket No . 16-08-0

7 METROPOLITA

N NASHVILL

E AIRPOR T AUTHORIT

Y Respondent . RESPONDEN T METROPOLITA N NASHVILLE AIRPOR T AUTHORITV.<= OPPOSITIO N T O COMPLAINANT' S MOTI ^ T O SUPI-LIS T 

### TH E RECOR D O N APPEA L AN D MOTIO N T O STW ^ NEWISSUE S RAISE D ON APPEA L Responden

t Metropolita

n Nashvill e Aiipor

t Authorit y (MNAA) oppose s Complainan

t J&B Entetprise s Inc.' s Motio n t o Supplemen t th e Recor do n Appea

l an d request s tha

t FA A den y th e motion i n all respects . I n addition , MNA

A move s t o strik

e ne w issue s raise db y Complaman t fo r th e firs t time i n it s appeal . Issue s whichwere no , raisedi n th e pleading s andwhichwer e no t consideredb y th e Director ma y no t b e considere db y th e Assistant Admimstrator

andshouldb e stricken a s contrar y t o th e provision s o f

Par t 1 6 tha t ar e designe dt o ensur

e fundamenta

l fairnes s t o th e partie s i

n proceeding s sucha s this . Granting MNAA' s motio n will als o spar e bot hMNA A andth e FA A th e burden o f

addressin g issue s not

properl y raise do n appeal .I . OPPOSITIO N T O COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N T O SUPPLEMEN T TH E

RECOR D O N APPEA L O n Jul y 8 , 2009 , Complainan t file da n Appea l o f

th e Director' s Determinatio n i n thi s matte r

and , b y separat e filing, requeste dthat th e FA A supplemen t

th e recor do n appeal withsi x documents : thre e letter s sen t b y Complainan t

t o th e FA A durin g th e pendenc y o f

thi s matte r

befor e th e Director , but

not serve do n MNAA ; on e lette r sen t b y Complainant' s previou s counse l t o MNA A ove r amonthbefor e th e Complain t v^^a s submitted ; an dfinally, tw o letter s regardin g th e ACDB E progra mat adifferen t

airport (Baltimore-Washingto n Internationa l Airport , o r BWI ) an dadministere db y adifferent airpor t sponso r (Marylan dAviatio n Administration) . Thes e tw o letter s wer e date d January 9 , 200 9 an dMa y 12 , 2009 . Fo r th e followin g reasons . Complainant' s motio n t o supplemen t th e recor dshoul d b e denie da s t o al l si x documents . Unde r th e rule s mandate db y 1 4 C.F.R . Part 16 , eac hpart y i s require dt o file with it s pleading s al l document s "tha t i t consider s sufficien t

t o presen t

al l relevan t

fact s an d argumen t necessar y for

th e FA A t o determin e whethe r th e airport

sponso r i s i n compliance " withit s gran t assurances . 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.29(b) . I n addition , relevan t document s reasonabl y availabl e t o Complainan t afte r th e pleading s close dbu t befor e th e Director' s Determinatio n wa s issue dshoul db e submitte db y motio n unde r § 16.19(a) . Jame s Vernon Ricks , Jr . v . Millingto n Municipa l Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t

No . 16

- 98-19 , W L129521 0 a

t *15 , n. 3 (Decembe r

30 , 1999 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder) . Th e FA A i s entitle dt o rel y entirel y o n th e Complain t an dresponsiv e pleading s i n makin g it s initia l determination . Id . a t 16.29(a) .I f partie s wer e permitte dt o supplemen t arecor dwithou t

an y showin g that

th e ne w evidenc e i s relevan t

an dcoul dno t

hav e bee n obtaine dbefor e th e Directo r issue da Determination , th e administrativ e proces s woul db e endless , defeatin g th e goal o f expedite dprocedure s provide dunde r Part 16 . Roadhous e Aviation s a t *11 . Thus , i n a Part 1 6 appeal , ne w evidenc e wil l no t b e considere di f

th e part y seekin g t o admi t i t coul d reasonabl y hav e know n o f it s availability . Id . (citin g Charle s H . Koch , Jr. , Administrativ e Law an dPractice , Vol . 1 , § 6.7 6 (1997)) . A part y "ma y not correc t a mistak e i n it s origina l selectio n o f evidenc e b y compellin g th e agenc y t o conside r i t o n appeal. " Rick s v . Millingto n Municipa l Airpor t Authority , 199 9 W L129521 0 a t *15 , n.3 . Base do n thes e principles , th e FA A ha s routinel y denie drequest s t o admi t evidenc e whe n th e part y seekin g t o admi t i t fail s t o sho w tha t

th e evidenc e coul dno t

hav e bee n discovere do r

presente dt o th e agenc y befor e th e Directo r issue daDetermination . It shoul dsimilarl y den y Complainant' s reques t t o re-ope n th e recor dan dsupplemen t i t with ne w documents . See , e.g. , Roadhous e Aviations , FA A 16-05-08 ; Jame s Vernon Ricks , Jr. , FA A 16-98-19 . J& B wa s require dt o submi t al l availabl e document s i n support o f it s Complaint . 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23(b)(2) . Havin g faile dt o d o so , J& B no w seek s t o supplemen t

th e recor dt o correc t

it s mistakes , but

ha s mad e n o showin g i n it s motio n o f an y legal justificatio n t o justif y it s request . It

ha s neithe r

explaine dwh y th e document s date dbefore Ma y 5 , 200 9 wer e no t alread y submitte dint o th e recor dbefor e th e Directo r an dserve do n MNAA , no r ha s it provide dasingle citatio n t o legal authorit y t o support it s reques t t o admi t ne w evidenc e int o th e recor do n appeal . Significantly , althoug hJ& B acknowledge s i n it s motio n that th e FA A ha s alread y decide dno t

t o admi t th e thre e letter s sen t

firomJ& B t o th e FA A befor e th e Director' s

# e \

Determinatio n (Complainant' s Motio n t o Supplemen t a t 1 ) (citin g Director' s Determinatio n a

t 9 an dnn . 5 7 an d58) , i t

doe s not alleg e tha t

th e Director' s decisio n t o exclud e th e letter s wa s erroneous . It merel y suggest s tha t

th e letter s - whic hwer e essentiall y ex part e communications , becaus e the y wer e not serve do n MNA A - "she d light " o n th e action s an dcircumstance s surroundin g th e relationshi p betwee n MNA A an d J& B Enterprise s andshoul dtherefor e b e admitte dfo r consideratio n o n appeal . Rathe r tha n sheddin g ne w light , however , th e J& B letter s merel y re-stat e Complainant' s argumen t an drecit e unsubstantiate dfact s an dconclusor y statements , ostensibl y i n support o f Complainant' s case . Eve n i f the y wer e otherwis e admissible , i t i s impossibl e t o se e ho w thes e letter s coul dassis t th e Assistan t

Administrato r

i n considerin g a

n appeal o f th e Director' s Determination . A s t o th e Jun e 19 , 200 8 lette r fi-omJ&B' s previou s counsel , Anthon y Robinson , t o MNAA' s in-hous e counsel , Robert Watson , th e Motion t o Supplemen t provide s absolutel y n o explanatio n a s t o wh y th e lette r wa s not include dwithth e Complaint , an d provide s n o reaso n wh y th e lette r shoul db e admitte dnow . Thi s lette r was sen t b y J&B' s counse l approximatel y on e mont hbefor e th e Complain t was filed. J& B electe dno t t o includ e i t withth e Complaint , an dshoul dnot b e permitte dt o d o s o now. ' O f th e tw o letter s regardin g th e ACDB E audi t that too k plac e at BWI , on e wa s date dapproximatel y four month s before th e Director' s Determinatio n wa s issued ; th e othe r i s date dafe

w week s after

th e DD . Th e letter s discus s amatte r that too k plac e a t

' I n it s Motio n t o Supplemen t th e Record , Complainan t make s th e inexplicabl e clai mthat th e "Complaint' s complain t

letter " referre dt o thi s Jun e 19 , 200 8 letter , citin g t o "Ite m1 at p . 4 " i n FA A Exhibi t 1 i n th e Inde x o f

Administrativ e Record . Motio n t o Supplemen t at \2 . Nowher e doe s Ite m1 (th e Complaint ) refer

t o aJun e 19 , 200 8 lette r fro mJ& B t o MNAA , at

pag e 4 o r anywher e els e i n th e Complaint . MNA A coul dfin dn o referenc e t o aJun e 19 , 200 8 lette r anywher e i n th e Complaint , th e unnumbere dan dunpaginate dexhibit s attache dt o th e Complaint , or anywher e els e i n th e record .anothe r

airport , unde r

th e auspice s o f

adifferen t

airport sponsor . Complainan t

seek s to hav e thes e letter s admitte dt o support ane w allegatio n raise dfo r th e first tim e o n appeal

r an dbase do n th e imprope r suggestio n tha t

non-complianc e withFA A Guidanc e b y a Join t Ventur e a

t on e airport

i s asufficient

basi s fo r inferrin g non-complianc e b y a separat e Join t

Ventur e a

t adifferent

airport . Again , J& B provide s th e FA A withn o explanatio n a s t o wh y thes e letter s shoul db e admitted , othe r tha n assertin g withou t explanatio n tha t

the y ar e relevan t

t o issue s addresse di n th e appeal . Complainant' s Motio n t o Supplemen t th e Recor dshoul db e denied , a s t o th e thre e letter s th e FA A ha s alread y decide dt o exclude ; th e singl e lette r that wa s i n J&B' s attorney' s files befor e th e Complain t wa s filed; an dth e tw o letter s regardin g aseparat e complianc e issu e a

t adifferent

airport . Non e o f

thes e document s wil l assis t th e Assistan t Administrato r

i n reviewin g th e Director' s Determination , an dnon e mee t th e standard s require dfor

ne w evidenc e presente dafter th e recor dha s bee n closed . H . NE WISSUE S RAISE D FO RTH E FIRS T TIM E O N APPEA LAN D NO T CONSIDERE D B Y TH E DIRECTO RSHOUL D B E STRICKE N FRO M TH E APPEA L I n additio n t o requestin g tha t th e FA A den y Complainant' s Motion t o Supplemen t th e Record , MNA A als o request s tha t th e FA A strik e tw o issue s raise dfor th e first tim e b y Complainan t

i n it s appeal . First , Complainan t allege s for

th e first tim e that MNAA' s decisio n no t

t o rene w J&B' s contrac t whe n i t expire di n Augus t

200 8 constitute d retaliatio n agains t

J&B , whos e counse l ha dsen t alette r t o MNA A allegin g th e Authority hadviolate dit s ACDB E program. ^ Appea l a t 2-6 . Complainan t

als o allege s for

th e first

^ Complainan t

repeatedl y mischaracterize s MNAA' s allegedl y retaliator y actio n a s havin g "terminated " th e contrac t

withJ& B Enterprises . What MNA A did , a s show n i n th e recor dan deve n i n th e excerpte d statement s fro mMNA A employee s quote db y J& B i n th e Appeal , wa s t o elec t no t t o rene w J&B' s contract , t o procee dwit

hane w RF P fo

r adirec t leas e with ashoeshin e concessionaire , t o encourage J& B t o respon dtim e that Olympi c Supply , aDB E tha t i s part o f aJoin t Ventur e a

t Nashvill e Airport , i s no t operatin g withsufficient independenc e firomit s Join t Ventur e partne r

t o satisf y FAA' s Join t

Ventur e Guidelines . Appea l a t 20-21 . Neithe r

o f thes e allegation s was raise db y J& B i n it s Complaint; ^ consequentl y neithe r MNA A no r

th e Directo r considere dthe man dth e Directo r di dno t rul e o n them . A s such , the y ar e entirel y inappropriat e issue s for

consideratio n o n appeal . Th e rul e governin g final Agenc y revie w o f Director' s Determination s i n proceeding s unde r

Part 1 6 provide s tha t

"[rjevie w b y th e Assistan t Administrato r

i s limite dt o a

n examinatio n o f

th e Director' s Determinatio n an dth e Administrativ e Recor d upo n whic hsuc hdeterminatio n wa s based. " Roadhous e Aviations , 200 7 W L196616 0 a t *9 . Ne w allegation s o r

issue s shoul dnot

b e presente do n appeal . Id . Simpl y put , a

n appellan t

canno t alleg e erro r

i n aDeterminatio n concernin g a n issu e that th e partie s di dnot

rais e an dth e Directo r

di dnot consider . Aerodynamic s o f Readin g v . Readin g Regiona l Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t No . 16-00-03 , W L 108534 6 (Jul y 23 , 2001 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder) . In Aerodynamic s o f Reading , th e Complainan t

ha dinitiall y mad e a

n argumen t

regardin g airport

fee andrenta l structur e base do n acompariso n o f it s rental payment s t o thos e o f othe r competin g FBOs . Id . a t *12 . I n it s appeal , th e Complainan t shifte dit s clai mt o argu e (fo r th e first time ) that

it s renta l valu e wa s not

basedo n th e appraise dvalue . Th e Administrato r decline dt o conside r th e latte r

issue , notin g that

"th e Directo r

coul dno t

hav e erre di n failin g t o

t o th e ne w RF P and , i n th e interim , t o allo w J& B t o continu e a s th e shoeshin e concessionair e o n amonth

to-monthbasis . Director' s Determinatio n a t 8 , 32 ; se e als o Complainant' s Appea l at 4 , 7-10 . A s discusse dbelow , th e onl y issue s J& B raise di n it s complain t regardin g th e Olympic-Hudso n join t ventur e relate dt o whethe r Olympi c wa s acertifie dACDB E i n Tetmesse e an dth e percentag e interes t o f Olympi c i n th e join t

venture . MNA A addresse dthos e issue s an dth e Directo r rule do n the mi n hi s Determination .addres s a n issu e tha t

wa s no t raise do r argue di n th e initia l complaint , an dth e Associat e Administrato r

wil l no t conside r thi s issu e on appeal. " Id . Eve n whe n ane w allegatio n i s base do n existin g fact s properl y i n th e record , th e Assistan t Administrato r

wil l no t conside r a n issu e not

raise do r

argue di n th e initia l complaint . BM I Salvag e Corp . & Bluesid e Svc . Inc . v . Miami-Dad e County , Florida , FA A Docke t

No . 16-05-16 , W L92617 6 a t *18-1 9 (Marc h5 , 2007 ) (Fina l Decisio n an d Order ) (refusin g t o conside r allegatio n regardin g exclusiv e acces s tha t wa s no t presente d i n th e Complain t

o r Reply ; eve n thoug hth e allegatio n was base do n existin g fact s previousl y presented , th e allegatio n itsel f represente dane w issue. ) Unde r thi s rule , th e FA A shoul dstrike fi-omth e appeal bot hth e allegatio n that MNA A retaliate dagains t J& B an dth e allegatio n that MNA A di dno t

properl y investigat e th e adequac y o f

th e Join t Ventur e a s define db y FA A Guidance . Althoug hretaliatio n coul db e raise da s afor mo f intentiona l discriminatio n i n aPart 1 6 cas e concernin g ACDB E compliance , thi s allegatio n wa s no t mad e anywher e i n th e Complain t i n thi s case . Instead , i t

ha s bee n raise dfo

r th e first tim e o n appeal . Indeed , Complainan t attempt s to blam e th e Directo r for "fail[ing ] completel y t o recognize " what i t no w allege s was retaliator y behavior , i n spit e o f Complaint' s utte r

failure t o alleg e retaliatio n i n it s pleading . Complainant' s Appea l a t 4 . Th e Directo r

canno t b e faulte dfor

no t "recognizing " a

n argumen t

that was no t presente dt o him . Indeed , th e fact that th e Directo r di dno t addres s thi s ne w argumen t i s compellin g evidenc e that i t wa s no t containe di n th e Complaint .Similarly , Complainan t neve r allege dthat

th e Join t

Ventur e betwee n Olympi c Suppl y an dHudso n di dnot confor mt o FAA' s Join t

Ventur e Guidance" * o r

that Olympi c di dno t fiilly participat e i n th e join t venture . Instead , J& B simpl y allege d(incorrectly ) i n th e Complain t

that Olympi c Suppl y wa s no t acertifie dACDBE , an d(als o incorrectly ) that Olympi c wa s require dt o hav e a t leas t 51 % ownershi p i n th e Join t Venture . MNA A addresse dbotho f

thes e issue s t o th e Director' s satisfaction . Director' s Determinatio n a t 18-19 . MNA A neve r

addresse dth e issu e o f

complianc e wit hth e Join t Ventur e Guidance , no r di dth e Directo r

conside r it , becaus e Complainan t

neve r raise dit . A s withth e retaliatio n issue . Complainant' s Appea l fault s th e Directo r for failin g "t o mak e inquirie s an dfindings" base do n a n issu e no t

raise dbelow . Appeal a t 19 . Specifically , Complainan t argue s tha t

th e Directo r

shoul dhav e gon e beyon dth e allegation s an dth e evidenc e i n th e recor dt o conduc t a n independen t

investigatio n int o Olympi c Supply' s busines s practice s at othe r airports . Id . a

t 21 . Bu t thi s ne w allegatio n canno t b e shoehome dint o th e existin g one s actuall y raise di n th e Complain t simpl y b y couchin g i t

a s part o f a n overal l clai mthat

MNA A di dnot

compl y with4 9 CF RPart 23 . It i s aseparat e allegation , raise dfor th e first tim e o n appeal , an dshoul dnot b e considere d b y th e Assistan t

Administrator. ^ Part

1 6 explicitl y state s that

th e Directo r

ma y issu e a Determinatio n base dsolel y o n th e Complaint , accompanyin g documents , an dth e airport sponsor' s response . 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.29(b) . Thus , J& B wa s o n notic e tha t it s complain t

" * Th e FAA release dit s guidanc e regardin g Join t Venture s o n Augus t

8 , 2008 , approximatel y on e wee k afte r J& B file dit s Complaint , bu t nin e month s befor e th e Directo r issue daDeterminatio n i n thi s matter , givin g J& B plenty o f

tim e t o mov e t o amen dit s complaint , i f i t s o chose , base do n th e newl y issue d Guidance . ' Ther e i s absolutel y n o evidenc e i n th e recor dt o support aclai mthat

th e Join t Ventur e i n th e instan t

cas e i s no t i n complianc e withFA A Guidance . Th e tw o letter s regardin g th e audi t a t BWI ar e no t

part o f th e recor do n appea l an dare at an y rat e irrelevant , a s the y d o no t relat e t o th e AMS-Olympi c Join t Ventur e at Nashvill e Airport . And , a s previousl y noted , i n renderin g hi s determinatio n th e Directo r i s entitle dt o rel y entirel y o n th e Complain t an dresponsiv e pleadings . Id . a t 16.29(a) .an dsupportin g document s mus t contai n al l issues , arguments , an devidenc e upo n whic hi t relied, an dupo n whic hth e Directo r coul dbas e hi s Determination . Thes e tw o newly-raise dissue s shoul db e als o b e stricke n fi-omth e Appea l o n ground s o f

fiindamental fairness . Responden t shoul dno t

b e force dt o incu r

additional , burdensom e litigatio n expense s defendin g agains t aconstantl y movin g target , contrary t o th e provision s o f

Part 16 . J& B seeks , i n effect , t o amen dit s Complain t an dintroduc e ne w evidenc e lon g afte

r th e tim e fo

r doin g s o ha s passed , an dafter i t ha s see n that

th e issue s i t di drais e wer e rejecte db y th e Director . I n essence , J& B seek s t o retr y it s cas e befor e th e Assistan t

Administrator . Part

1 6 doe s no t

permi t this . Th e Directo r

foun dthat MNA A ha dbee n "full y responsive " i n resolvin g "al l issue s raise db y th e Complainant. " Director' s Determinatio n a t 32 . Ne w issue s ca n not

no w b e raise do n appeal . WHEREFORE , Responden t MNA A respectfull y request s tha t th e FA A den y i n al l respect s Complainant' s motio n t o supplemen t th e recor do n appeal , an dthat i t grant Respondent' s reques t

t o strik e th e ne w issue s raise db y Complainan t fo r th e first tim e o n appeal andno t

considere db y th e Director . Respectfull y submitte dthi s 16 * da y o f July , 2009 :

Robert Watso n Arthu r P . ^ Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport Authorit y KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCI^WEL LLL P On e Termina l Drive , Suit e 50 1 64 1 Lexingto n Ave . Suit e 140 9 Nashville , T N 3721 4 New York , N Y 1002 2 Telephone : (615 ) 275-163 7 Telephone : (212 ) 328-951 5 Facsimile : (615)275-430 2 Facsimile : (646)514-544 0Thoma s Devin e

KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL LLL P 100 1 Connecticu t

Av e NW , Suit e 80 0 Washington , D C 2003 6 Telephone : (202 ) 955-560 0 Facsimile : (202 ) 955-561 6 LisaReynold s KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL L LL P 167 5 Broadway , Suit e 230 0 Denver , C O 8020 2 Telephone : (303 ) 825-700 0 Facsimile : (303 ) 825-700 5 Counse l fo r

Responden t

Metropolita n Nashvill e Airpor t Authorit y

1 0CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y that I hav e thi s day serve dth e foregoin g Oppositio n t o Complainant' s Motio n t o Supplemen t th e Recor do n Appea l an dMotio n t o Strik e Ne w Issue s Raise do n Appea l o n th e followin g person s a t th e followin g addresse s b y overnigh t Federa l Express : FA A Offic e o f

th e Chie f Counse l Part 1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docket , AGC-61 0 Roo m92 5 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Origina l an d3 copie s VI A Federa l Expres s No . 796 7 825 4 344 6 Thoma s J . Henderso n Henderso n La w Firm , PLL C Suit e 35 0 142 5 K Street , N W Washington , D C 2000 5 On e Cop y VI A Federa l Expres s No . 796 7 825 5 729 1 ElizabethNewma n Offic e o f th e Chie f Counsel , Airport s an dEnvironmenta l La w Branc h Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , SW , Roo m923- M Washington , D C 2059 1 1 courtes y cop y VI A Federa l Expres s No . 796 7 825 6 914 8 Date dthi s [h ^ da y o f July , 2009 : fi ^ ^ Lis aA . Reynolds ' Counse l for

Responden t

MNA A/ ^ Page- 1 o f 1

From : Origi n ID : TEX

A(303)825-700 0 Dan a Loos e Kapla n Kirsc h & Rockwel l LL P 167 5 Broadwa

y Suit e 230 0 Denver , C

O 80202 Ebcpres s

J092M9061S2I2 3 SHI P TO : (303 ) 825-700 0 BIL L SENDE R FA APar t 1 6 Ai rProc . Docke t AGC61 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l 80 0 INDEPENDENC E AV E S W R M 92 5 WASHINGTON , D C 2059 1 ShipDate:16JUL0 9 ActWgt : 1. 0 L B CAD:2114100/INET906 0 Account* : S * Deliver yAddres s Ba rCod e

Ref # 1308-0 2 Invoic e # P0 # Dept # 

# SIOJJ W JU L 1 7



### ^ 7967 825 4 344 6 

# gfaasA I X C WAS A 2059 1 DC-U S DC A

Afte rprintin g tlii s label : 1 . Us e th e 'Print ' butto n o n thi s pag e t o prin t you rlabe l t o you rlase ro rInkje t printer . 2 . Fol d th e printe d pag e alon g th e horizonta l line . 3 . Plac e labe l i n shippin g pouc h an d affi xi t t o you rshipmen t s o tha t th e barcod e portio n o f th e labe l ca n b e rea d an d scanned . Warning : Us e onl yth e printe d origina l labe l fo rshipping . Usin g a photocop yo f thi s labe l fo rshippin g purpose s i s fraudulen t an d coul d resul t i n additiona l billin g r.narges . alon g wit h th e cancellatio n o f you rFedE xaccoun t number . Us e o f thi s syste m constitute s you ragreemen t t o th e servic e condition s i n th e curren t FedE xServic e Guide , availabl e o n fedex.com.FedE xwil l no t b e responsibl e fo ran yclai m i n exces s o f $10 0 pe rpackage , whethe rth e resul t o f loss , damage , delay , non-delivery,misdelivery,o rmisinformation , unles s yo u declar e a highe rvalue , pa ya n additiona l charge , documen t you ractua l los s an d fil e a timel yclaim.Limitation s foun d i n th e curren t FedE xServic e Guid e apply . You rrigh t t o recove rfro m FedE xfo ran yloss , includin g intrinsi cvaiueo f th e package , los s o f sales , incom e interest , profit , attorney' s fees , costs , an d othe rform s o f damag e whethe rdirect , incidental,consequential , o rspecia l i s limite d t o th e greate ro f $10 0 o rth e authorize d declare d value . Recover ycanno t excee d actua l documente d loss.Maximu m fo ritem s o f extraordinar yvalu e i s $500 , e.g . jewelry , preciou s metals , negotiabl e instrument s an d othe ritem s liste d i n ou rServiceGuide . Writte n claim s mus t b e file d withi n stric t tim e limits , se e curren t FedE xServic e Guide .

https://www.fedex.eom/shipping/html/en//PrintIFrame.htm l 7/16/200 9