SEYEABTH_ -SHAW, 

ATTORNEY S 

Writer's direct phone 

(312)460-5976 

Writer's e-mail 

dflynn@seyfarth.com 

REIVED 

m ' ^ 2011 

••lEARIMG OOGKET 

131 South Dearborn Street 

Suite 2400 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

(312)460-5000 

fax (312) 460-7000 

www.seyfarth.com 

January 3, 2011 

VIA FACSIMILE (817) 222-5945 AND FEDERAL EXPRESS 

Hearing Docket » 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Re: Hajoca Waterworks, FAA Case No. 2010SW700113 (Qf IOS U)QCif S 

Dear Hearing Docket Clerk: f^^<^ 2010 ' • 2 ( 3 

Enclosed please find an original and one copy of Respondent's Answer and Affirmative 

Defenses to Complaint in the above-referenced matter. Please return a file-stamped copy of the 

Answer in the enclosed self-addressed, return envelope. 

Hajoca restates its request that the hearing take place in or near Ardmore, Pennsylvania, 

which is Hajoca Corporation's main office and the most convenient location for the Company's 

anticipated witnesses. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. 

Very truly yours, 

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 

r-i"-i-"rn 

c,'3 

Daniel R. Flynn 

DRF:clb 

Enclosures 

cc: James Archier, Esq. (w/ enclosure) 

13016201V.1 

THIS LETTERHEAD IS PRINTED O N RECYCLED STOCK 

o 

iM 
RECEIVED 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION '' fl i 2Q]\ 

) HEARIMG DOCKET 

In the Matter of: ) 

) FAA Docket Not Assigned 

Hajoca Waterworks, ) 

) FAA Case No. 2010SW700113 

Respondent ) 

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO COMPLAINT 

NOW COMES HAJOCA WATERWORKS ("Hajoca" or "Respondent"), by and through 

its attorneys, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, and for its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint, 

states as follows: 

I. 

COMPLAINT f 1: 

On or about March 22, 2010, Hajoca Waterworks ("Hajoca") offered United Parcel 

Service ("UPS") hazardous material for transportation by air from Tulsa, Oklahoma to Gardner, 

Kansas. 

ANSWER; 

The allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 1. 

COMPLAINT ^2: 

The shipment consisted of four quart size containers of "CHEM-PRIME HS RED 

primer" (#37 Tnemec Primer) and four quart size containers of "Blackhawk Coating #5011" 

paint. 

ANSWER; 

Hajoca lacks sufficient knowledge as to what shipment Paragraph 2 is referring and 

therefore cannot form a belief as to the truth of the allegations. Hajoca therefore denies the 

allegations in Paragraph 2. 

i 2969078 V. i 
COMPLAINT 113: 

All eight quarts of paint and primer were contained inside of a non-specification 

fiberboard box. 

ANSWER; 

The allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca further lacks sufficient knowledge as to what shipment Paragraph 3 

is referring and therefore cannot form a belief as to the truth of the allegations. Hajoca therefore 

denies the allegations in Paragraph 3. 

COMPLAINT f4: 

"CHEM-PRIME HS RED primer" (#37 Tnemec Primer) and "Blackhawk Coating 

#5011" paint are classified as hazardous material under the Department of Transportation 

Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR § 172.101). 

ANSWER: 

The allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 4. 

COMPLAINT 115: 

The proper shipping name for "CHEM-PRIME HS RED primer" (#37 Tnemec 

Primer) is Paint, hazard class 3, UN 1263, Packing Group III. 

ANSWER: 

Hajoca admits that the proper shipping name contained in the material safety and data 

sheet for "CHEM-PRIME HS RED" is "UN 1263, PAINT, 3, PGIII, ERG 128." 

COMPLAINT 116: 

The proper shipping name for "Blackhawk Coating #5011" is Tars, Liquids, hazard 

class 3, UN 1999, Packing Group III. 

ANSWER: 

Hajoca admits that the shipping name contained in the material safety and data sheet for 

Blackhawk #5011 is "Tars, liquid including road asphalt and oils, bitumen, and cutbacks." 

12969078V. 1 
COMPLAINT 117: 

The shipment was sent via UPS air bill number 1Z9VA0690142160275. 

ANSWER: 

Hajoca lacks sufficient knowledge as to what shipment Paragraph 7 is referring and 

therefore cannot form a belief as to the truth of the allegations. Hajoca therefore denies the 

allegations in Paragraph 7. 

COMPLAINT US: 

The shipper was Hajoca Waterworks, 5000 Southwest Blvd., Tulsa, Oklahoma 74107. 

ANSWER: 

Hajoca lacks sufficient knowledge as to what shipment Paragraph 8 is referring and 

therefore cannot form a belief as to the truth of the allegations. Hajoca therefore denies the 

allegations in Paragraph 8. 

COMPLAINT 119: 

The consignee was Joey, Grimm Construction, 785 East Warren, Gardner, Kansas 66030. 

ANSWER; 

Hajoca lacks sufficient knowledge as to what shipment Paragraph 9 is referring and 

therefore cannot form a belief as to the truth of the allegations. Hajoca therefore denies the 

allegations in Paragraph 9. 

COMPLAINT mO: 

The shipment was discovered leaking a black substance at the UPS Tulsa cargo sort 

station. 

ANSWER: 

Hajoca lacks sufficient knowledge as to what shipment Paragraph 10 is referring and 

therefore cannot form a belief as to the truth of the allegations. Hajoca therefore denies the 

allegations in Paragraph 10. 

3 

12969078V. 1 
COMPLAINT nil : 

At all times mentioned herein, the above described box was not marked with the proper 

shipping name or UN identification number of the hazardous material. 

ANSWER: 

The allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca further lacks sufficient knowledge as to what shipment Paragraph 

11 is referring and therefore cannot form a belief as to the truth of the allegations. Hajoca 

therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 11. 

COMPLAINT f 12; 

At all times mentioned herein, the above described box was not labeled with the proper 

hazardous materials labels, was not accompanied by a shipper's declaration of dangerous goods, 

shipper's certification or other proper shipping documents containing the information, including 

emergency response information, required by the hazardous material regulations, and was not 

otherwise in a condition for transportation by air as required by the hazardous material 

regulations. 

ANSWER: 

The allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca further lacks sufficient knowledge as to what shipment Paragraph 

12 is referring and therefore cannot form a belief as to the truth of the allegations. Hajoca 

therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 12. 

COMPLAINT 1113: 

Hajoca offered hazardous material for transportation by air when the material was not 

properly classed, described, packaged, marked, labeled, and in a condition for shipment as 

required or authorized by applicable requirements of the hazardous material regulations. 

ANSWER; 

The allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 13. 

12969078V. 1 
COMPLAINT 1114: 

Hajoca offered hazardous material for transportation by air when the shipping papers did 

not include: 

(a) the identification number prescribed for the material as shown in Column (4) of 

the§ 172.101 table; 

(b) the proper shipping name prescribed for the material in Column (2) of the 

§ 172.101 table; 

(c) the hazard class or division number prescribed for the material, as shown in 

Column (3) of the § 172.101 table; 

(d) the packing group in Roman numerals, as designated for the hazardous material in 

Column (5) of the § 172.101 table; 

(e) the total quantity of each hazardous material covered by the description must be 

indicated; 

(f) the total net mass per package, must be shown unless a gross mass is indicated in 

Columns (9A) or (9B) of the § 172.101 table in which case the total gross mass 

per package must be shown; 

(g) the number and type of packages must be indicated. 

ANSWER: 

The allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 14. 

COMPLAINT f 15: 

Hajoca offered hazardous material for transportation by air and failed to certify by 

printed certificafion, in the manner allowed by 49 C.F.R. §§ 172.204(a)(1) or 172.204(c)(1), that 

the material was offered for transportation in accordance with the hazardous material regulations. 

ANSWER: 

The allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 15. 

12969078V. 1 
COMPLAINT 1116: 

Hajoca offered hazardous material for transportation by air when it failed to provide two 

copies of the certification showing that the materials were in accordance with the certification set 

forth in § 172.204(a)(1) or § 172.204(c)(1) of the hazardous materials regulations. 

ANSWER: 

The allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 16. 

COMPLAINT 1117: 

Hajoca offered hazardous material for transportation in air commerce in non-bulk 

packaging and failed to mark the package with the proper shipping name and identification 

number for its contents. 

ANSWER; 

The allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 17. 

COMPLAINT HIS: 

Hajoca offered hazardous material for transportation by air and failed to label the 

package or containment device with the label specified in Section 172.101 (49 C.F.R. 

§ 172.101). 

ANSWER: 

The allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 18. 

COMPLAINT 1119: 

Hajoca offered hazardous material for transportation by air and failed to make emergency 

response information immediately available for use at all times the hazardous material was 

present. 

ANSWER; 

The allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 19. 

6 

12969078V. 1 
COMPLAINT 1120; 

Hajoca offered hazardous material for transportation by air and failed to make emergency 

response information, including an emergency response telephone number, required by this 

subpart immediately available to any person who, as a representative of a Federal, State, or local 

government agency, responds to an incident involving a hazardous material, or is conducting an 

investigation, which involves a hazardous material. 

ANSWER; 

The allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 20. 

COMPLAINT 1121: 

Hajoca offered hazardous material for transportation by air and failed to provide and 

maintain emergency response information that includes the minimum information set forth in 

this section, 172.602(a)(l-7)). 

ANSWER: 

The allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 21. 

COMPLAINT 1122; 

Hajoca offered hazardous material for transportation by air and failed to provide an 

emergency response telephone number immediately available to any person who, as a 

representative of a Federal, State or local government agency, responds to an incident involving 

a hazardous material, or is conducting an investigation, which involves a hazardous material. 

ANSWER: 

The allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 22. 

COMPLAINT 1123: 

Hajoca offered hazardous material for shipment by air when emergency response 

information was not presented on a shipping paper. 

12969078V. 1 
ANSWER; 

The allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 23. 

COMPLAINT 1124; 

Hajoca offered hazardous material for shipment by air and failed to provide an 

emergency response telephone number (including area code) for use in the event of an 

emergency involving hazardous material that is monitored at all times that the material is in 

transportation, including storage incidental to transportation. 

ANSWER: 

The allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 24. 

COMPLAINT f25: 

Hajoca offered hazardous material for shipment by air and failed to provide an 

emergency response telephone number of a person knowledgeable of the hazardous material 

being shipped and who has comprehensive emergency response and incident mitigation 

information for that material, or has immediate access to a person possessing such knowledge 

and information. 

ANSWER: 

The allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 25. 

COMPLAINT f26: 

Hajoca offered hazardous material for transportation by air and failed to provide an 

emergency response telephone number, for use in the event of an emergency involving the 

hazardous material, and entered on a shipping paper immediately following the description of the 

hazardous material required by subpart C of this part, or entered once on the shipping paper in a 

clearly visible location. 

ANSWER: 

The allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 26. 

12969078V. I 
COMPLAINT 1127; 

Hajoca offered hazardous material for transportation by air and failed to train the 

HAZMAT employee who offered the shipment. 

ANSWER; 

The allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 27. 

COMPLAINT 1128; 

Hajoca offered hazardous material for shipment by air and failed to class and describe the 

hazardous material in accordance with parts 172 and 173 of Subpart B, Preparation of Hazardous 

Materials for Transportation. 

ANSWER; 

The allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 28. 

COMPLAINT 1129: 

Hajoca offered hazardous material for shipment by air and failed to use packaging that 

was designed, constructed, maintained, filled, its contents so limited, and closed so that under 

conditions normally incident to transportation there was no identifiable release of hazardous 

materials to the environment. 

ANSWER: 

The allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 29. 

II. 

COMPLAINT 1T30; 

By reason of the above, Hajoca violated the following Department of Transportation 

Hazardous Materials Regulations (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations): 

a. Section 171.2(e) (49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e)), in that Hajoca offered hazardous material 

for transportation by air in commerce when the material was not properly classed, 

described, packaged, marked, labeled, and in a condition for shipment as required 

or authorized by applicable requirements of the hazardous material regulations. 

12969078V. 1 
b. Section 172.200(a) (49 C.F.R. § 172.200(a)), which requires that each person 

offering a hazardous material for transportation to properly describe the hazardous 

material on the shipping papers. 

c. Section 172.202(a)(1) (49 C.F.R. § 172.202(a)(1)) in that it offered hazardous 

material for transportation in air commerce when the required hazardous material 

description on the shipping papers did not include the identification number 

prescribed for the material as shown in Column 4 of the § 172.101 Table. 

d. Secfion 172.202(a)(2) (49 C.F.R. § 172.202(a)(2)) in that it offered hazardous 

material for transportation in air commerce when the required hazardous material 

description on the shipping papers did not include the proper shipping name 

prescribed for the material in Column 2 of the § 172.101 Table. 

e. Section 172.202(a)(3) (49 C.F.R. § 172.202(a)(3)) in that it offered hazardous 

material for transportation in air commerce when the required shipping papers did 

not include the hazard class or division number prescribed for the material, as 

shown in Column (3) in the Hazardous Materials Table, referenced in section 

172.101. 

f Secfion 172.202(a)(4) (49 C.F.R. § 172.202(a)(4)) in that it offered hazardous 

material for transportation in air commerce when the required shipping papers did 

not include the Packing Group, in Roman numerals, prescribed for the material in 

Column 5 of the § 172.101 Table. 

g. Secfion 172.202(a)(5) (49 C.F.R. § 172.202(a)(5)) in that it offered hazardous 

material for transportation in air commerce and failed to describe the hazardous 

material on the shipping papers, including the total quantity (by net or gross mass, 

capacity, or as otherwise appropriate), including the unit of measurement, or the 

hazardous material covered by the description, in the manner required by this 

subpart. 

h. Secfion 172.202(a)(6) (49 C.F.R. § 172.202 (a)(6)) in that it offered hazardous 

material for transportation in air commerce and failed to describe on the shipping 

papers the total net mass per package, unless a gross mass is indicated in Columns 

(9A) or (9B) of the § 172.101 Table. 

i. Section 172.202(a)(7) (49 C.F.R. § 172.202(a)(7)) in that it offered hazardous 

material for transportation in air commerce and failed to describe on the shipping 

papers the number and type of packages. 

j . Section 172.204(a) (49 C.F.R. § 172.204(a)) in that it offered hazardous material 

for transportation by air and failed to certify by printed certification, in the 

manner allowed by 49 C.F.R. §§ 172.204(a)(1) or 172.204(a)(2), that the material 

was offered for transportation in accordance with the hazardous material 

regulations. 

10 

12969078V. 1 
k. Secfion 172.204(c)(2) (49 C.F.R. § 172.204(c)(2) in that it offered hazardous 

material for transportation by air when it failed to provide two copies of the 

certification showing that the materials were in accordance with the certification 

set forth in § 172.204(a)(1) or § 172.204(c)(1) of the hazardous materials 

regulations. 

1. Secfion 172.300 (49 C.F.R. § 172.300), which requires that each person offering a 

hazardous material for transportation to properly mark each package, freight 

container, and transport vehicle containing the hazardous material. 

m. Section 172.301(a) (49 C.F.R. § 172.301(a)) in that it offered a hazardous 

material for transportation in air commerce in non-bulk packaging and failed to 

mark the package with the proper shipping name and identification number for its 

contents. 

n. Secfion 172.400(a) (49 C.F.R. § 172.400(a)) in that it offered hazardous material 

requiring labeling under the hazardous material regulations for transportation in 

air commerce and failed to label the package or containment device with the label 

specified in Section 172.101 (49 C.F.R. § 172.101). 

o. Section 172.600 (49 C.F.R. § 172.600)), which requires that each person offering 

a hazardous material for transportation to provide and maintain emergency 

response information during transportation and at the facility where hazardous 

materials are loaded for transportation, stored incidental to transportation or 

otherwise handled during any phase of transportation. 

p. Section 172.600(c)(1)) (49 C.F.R. § 172.600(c)(1)) in that it offered hazardous 

material for transportation by air and failed to make emergency response 

information immediately available for use at all times the hazardous material was 

present. 

q. Section 172.600(c)(2)) (49 C.F.R. § 172.600(c)(2)) in that it offered hazardous 

material for transportation by air and failed to make emergency response 

information, including emergency response telephone number, required by this 

subpart immediately available to any person who, as a representative of a Federal, 

State, or local government agency, responds to an incident involving a hazardous 

material, or is conducting an investigation which involves a hazardous material. 

r. Secfion 172.602(a)(l-7)) (49 C.F.R. § 172.602(a)) in that it offered a hazardous 

material for transportation by air and failed to provide and maintain emergency 

response information that includes the minimum information set forth in this 

section, 172.602(a)(l-7)). 

s. Section 172.602(b)(2)) (49 C.F.R. § 172.602(b)(2)) in that it offered hazardous 

material for transportation by air and failed to provide an emergency response 

telephone number immediately available to any person who, as a representative of 

a Federal, State or local government agency, responds to an incident involving a 

11 

12969078V. 1 
hazardous material, or is conducting an investigation which involves a hazardous 

material. 

t. Section 172.602(b)(3)(i)) (49 C.F.R. § 172.602(b)(3)(i) in that it offered 

hazardous material for shipment by air when emergency response information 

was not presented on a shipping paper. 

u. Section 172.604(a)(1)) (49 C.F.R. § 172.604 (a)(1)) in that it offered hazardous 

material for shipment by air and failed to provide an emergency response 

telephone number (including area code) for use in the event of an emergency 

involving hazardous material that is monitored at all times that the material is in 

transportation, including storage incidental to transportation. 

V. Section 172.604(a)(2)) (49 C.F.R. § 172.604(a)(2)) in tiiat it offered hazardous 

material for transportation by air and failed to provide an emergency response 

telephone nvmiber of a person knowledgeable of the hazardous material being 

shipped and who has comprehensive emergency response and incident mitigation 

information for that material, or has immediate access to a person possessing such 

knowledge and information. 

w. Section 172.604(a)(3)) (49 C.F.R. § 172.604(a)(3)) in that it offered hazardous 

material for transportation by air and failed to provide an emergency response 

telephone number, for use in the event of an emergency involving the hazardous 

material, and entered on a shipping paper immediately following the description 

of the hazardous material required by subpart C of this part, or entered once on 

the shipping paper in a clearly visible location. 

X. Section 172.702(a)) (49 C.F.R. § 172.702(a)) in that it offered hazardous material 

for transportation by air and failed to train the HAZMAT employee who offered 

the shipment. 

y. Section 173.1(b) (49 C.F.R. § 173.1(b), which prohibits the shipment of 

hazardous material by air that was not packed in packaging specified in Part 173. 

z. Section 173.22(a)(1)) (49 C.F.R. § 173.22(a)(1)) in that it offered hazardous 

material for shipment by air and failed to class and describe the hazardous 

material in accordance with parts 172 and 173 of Subpart B, Preparation of 

Hazardous Materials for Transportation. 

aa. Secfion 173.24(b)(1)) (49 C.F.R. § 173.24(b)(1)) in that it offered hazardous 

material for shipment by air and failed to use packaging that was designed, 

constructed, maintained, filled, its contents so limited, and closed so that under 

conditions normally incident to transportation there was no identifiable release of 

hazardous materials to the environment. 

12 

12969078V. 1 
ANSWER: 

The allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. Hajoca denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 30. 

III. 

Pursuant to the Federal hazardous material transportation law, and 107.329 of the 

Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations [49 U.S.C. § 5123 (a)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 

§ 107.329] Hajoca Waterworks is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $50,000.00 for each 

violation alleged. 

Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of $63,000.00 is 

appropriate. 

ANSWER: 

The allegations in part III of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no response is 

required. Hajoca denies each and every remaining allegation in part III of the Complaint. 

Affirmative Defenses 

Respondent asserts the following affirmative defenses without waiving Complainant's 

obligation to meet its burden of proof and without assuming any burden of proof not otherwise 

imposed by law. Respondent reserves the right to raise other defenses of which it may become 

aware at the time of hearing. 

1. The Complaint fails to state a claim against Respondent upon which relief can be 

granted. 

2. Complainant's proposed civil penalty is excessive because Respondent took 

prompt and comprehensive corrective action to prevent future violations, and Respondent has no 

history of previous violations of the Federal Aviation Administration's Hazardous Materials 

Regulations. 

13 

12969078V. 1 
3. Complainant's proposed civil penalty is excessive because Respondent is not the 

manufacturer of the material nor does Respondent regularly ship hazardous materials in the 

course of its business. 

4. Respondent had in place procedures and policies that prohibited employees from 

shipping hazardous materials by air, which were communicated to all of its employees. 

Respondent cannot be held liable for an isolated violation of those procedures and policies by a 

single employee where Respondent did not have any knowledge of the act. 

5. The regulations cited by Complainant are vague and ambiguous and did not 

provide Respondent with fair notice of the regulated conduct, especially as Complainant has 

interpreted and applied the standards to Respondent. 

6. The Complaint is vague and ambiguous in that Complainant has failed to provide 

sufficient facts to enable Respondent to evaluate Complainant's allegations that its employees 

violated the cited regulations and, thus, has further denied Respondent due process. 

DATED; January 3, 2011 Respectfully submitted, 

HAJOCA WATERWORKS 

Eric E. Boyd 

Daniel R. Flynn 

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 

131 South Dearborn Street 

Suite 2400 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

(312)460-5000 

12969078V. 1 

14 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Daniel R. Flynn, an attorney, do hereby certify that I have caused a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO COMPLAINT to be served upon 

the following, via Federal Express Mail on this 3rd day of January, 2011: 

James Archier 

Agency Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Southwest Region 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Fort Wortii, TX 76193-0007G6 

Daniel R. Flyrm 

12969078V. 1