01/24/2011 13:55 425227100V ANM7 P<^GE 03/12 

1 

2 

a 

4 

5 

6 

7 

B 

9 

10 

11 

12 

X3 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2» 

• 30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

96 

37 

3B 

33 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

46 

4d 

50 

51 

52 

53 

SCOTT R.MoRRts 

FAA OFFtCE OF REGIOKAJ- COUNSEL 

1601 LIND AVE., SW 

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 

TELEPHONE: 425.227.141 7 

FACSIMILE: 425.227.1007 

•AnTMENT OF 

'•PORMTiON 

' OF ERATIOf^'S 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

la the Matter of: 

FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET CP10NM0008 

FAA Case No. 2008NM700208 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0792 

Judge Goodwin 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S INITIAL DISCOVERY 

REQUESTS 

To: Respondent 

In accordance vrith 14 CFR Section 13.220, Complainant responds to Respondent's 

discovery requests as foUows, with the understanding that these requested Jntetrogatories and 

request for production are limited to the issue of sanction. Complainant also reserves the right to 

supplement if additional information comes to light. 

InterTogatdiv No. 1:" State the name, business address and joB title oTeach person supplying tactual 

infontiation used to compile the^ answers to these interrogatories and request for production and 

identify the interrogatories and request for v^^hich each person supplied informaiion. 

Ansyer: 

Donald A. Stiger 

7303 NE AJderwood Road 

Portland, Oregon 9721S 

Security Specialist (Hazardous Materials) 

503-258-6995 

Thomas L, Kenny 

1601 Lind Avenue SW. Suite 530 

Renton, Washington 98057 

Manager 

425-227-2734 

Complaim's Response to Respondent's Initial Discovery 

Requests 

FcdcfBl E»tpresa - 200eNM7OO2O8 &. CP10NM0008 

Paget of ID 

SCOTT R, MORRIS. FAA AiroRNEy 

TEL: 425.227,1417; FAX: 425,227.1007 

SLo/eooE SWQ VVd stLseetsos xvi ^z-z i LLOS/LO/SO 
01/24/2ail 13:55 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 04/12 

1 

2 

3 

4 

S 

6 

7 

B 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

1« 

17 

IB 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

2S 

27 

2B 

23 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

3ff 

37 

3B 

.39 

40 

41 

42 

A3 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

Complaint and, for each identified person, 

regarding the same. 

Answer; 

IntenoEatorv No. 2: Identify each person b;' full name, job utle, business address and telephone 

number who has knowledge or infonnation winceming or related to the allegations of your 

provide a brief description of Ws or her knowledge 

waj; See answer to Inteirogatory # I. Agent Stiger 

produced facts that are the basis of i e Complaint, 

case file during the delibemtive process. 

an inspector that conducted an investigation that 

Agent Kenny was a supervisor that reviewed the 

Interropatorv No. 3: Identify by full name, jbb tijtle, business address and telephone number each 

witness you intend to call at the hearing of thLr matter 

Ansvyer: 

See answer to Interrogatory # 1 and 6. 

Inteirogatory No. 4: Provide a summary of ihe flicts and opinions to which each intended witness 

identified in Interrogatory No. 3 is expected to icst^. 

Answer: 

Given that the hearing is limited to sanction, Coii^lainant's witnesses will focus their testimony 

and opinions on that matters set forth in the A dministrator's sanction guidance. In general terms, it 

is anticipated tiiat they will testify that FedEx: s a Group I air carrier for sanction purposes, they will 

address its violation histoiy, the nature, circurnstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, 

including the systemic and repetitive natuie of these violations, the Risk Ca.tcgories of Ac 

substances accqjted and transported, and the Rspondent's degree of culpability,'and that the 

proposed sanction is consistent with the Admiiiistriitor's sanction guidance. 

Interroeatorv No. 5: Identify each document 4nd i^em you hitend lo introduce at the hearing of this 

matter,- -. . 

See previously produced Items of Proof from ihe /^Lgency's case. However, out of an abundance of 

caution the entire Section C of the Agency's cii^ fie (46 lOPs consisting of 351 pages) is produced 

anew. In addition. Complainant will offer an «xtraj:t of FAA Order 2150.3B; specificaUy, appendix 

C - tlie Administrator's sanction guidance 

Respondent's September 2, 2010 letter and 

matter. 

for hazardous material cases. Also attached is 

Election of rights form requesting a hearing in this 

Interroeatorv No. 6: Idaitify by name, busine ss ajidre: 

who conducted each of the inspections that arc 

her employment with the FAA and his or her jcfb tiljle(s) 

Answer 

Donald A Stiger 

CotnplDint's Response to Respondeni'S Initial Discoveiy 

Requests 

Federal E:q>rcss - 2008NM700208 & CP1 ONMOOOg 

Page 2 of 10 

SCOTT R. MORBJS, FAA ATTOJtNEY 

TEL: 425.227.1417: FAX; 425,227,3007 

ss and phone number of the FAA Inspector 

related to this matter and provide the dates of his or 

SLO/frOOlg SNQ VVd 2t?LSeet;303 XVJ OS-SI U03/L0/3 0 
01/24/2011 13:55 4252271007 ANH7 PAGE 05/12 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

£ 

7 

e 

? 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

19 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

2S 

27 

2a 

29 

ao 

31 

32 

33 

••34-

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

• • 0 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

4€ 

47 

4a 

49 

SO 

SI 

52 

S3 

7303 NE Aldcnvood Road 

Pordand, Oregon 97218 

Security Specialist (Hazardous Materials) 

503-258-6995 

Hired: January 1997 

Deborah L. Portin 

7303 NE Aldcrwood Road 

Portland, Oregon 97218 

Security Specialist (Hazardous Materials) 

503-258-6995 

Hired; January September 10,2001 

Inteirogatory No. 7: State the factual basis for the issuance of the subject Final Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty. 

Answer: 

No Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty was issued in this case. After Respondent received the 

Amended Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, it exercised its right to request a hearuq,g per 14 C.F.R13.16(f)(3). Because it opted to request a hearing instead of holding another informal conference as 

Complaint was filed per 14C.F.R. 13.16(i). 

Interp>gatorv No. ?: State the factual basis, statutory hasis, and any other information, including 

enhancement or mitigation factors, that may be presented at the trii of this matter to support the 

assessment of the $299,900.00 penalty in the subject Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty. 

Answer: 

Objection as this interrogatory asks for attorney work-product and deliberative materia). Further, 

Complainant is not required to do legal research for Respondents. Without waiving said objections, 

the fects presented wiU be those established bv the AU's order granting partial summary judgment, 

the facts in Agency case file which has alreafy been produced. Respondent's violation history, and 

tfaejfactois set.forth in thr. Ar^minisimtorls-saoction-guidancc 

Interrogatory No. 9: Describe the actions takai in relation to the shippers in this matter, including 

dje shippers' names, addresses, phone numbers, contacts with tt\e FAA, whether letters of 

investigatj,oii were issued, whether a civil penalty was proposed, and the outcome of any 

investigations. 

Answer; Objection, irrelevant Without waiving said objection: 

Case Number 2009NM700073 

Bcaverton Dodge 

9500 SW Canyon Road 

Portland,. Oregon 97225-3526 

503-297-7839 

Shipper hispecrion 

Closed with Civil Penally (S7,000) for violations of tl:ie following regulations: 

49 CFR §§ 173.166(c), 172.201(e), and 172.604(b) 

C«mplaiin''B Response to RcspondetK's Initial Discoveiy 

Request; 

Federal Express - 2008NM7OO308 & CPlONMOOOB 

?aj:e3afiO 

SCOTT R. MORRIS, FAA ATTOR-NKv 

TEL: 425.227.1417,-FAX; 425.227.1007 

SLO/SOOi a sua VVd Sl7L9eGt'S0S XVd OS:e L LLOS/iO/2 0 
01/24/2011 13:55 42S2271007 ANM7 PAGE 06/12 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

S 

7 

e 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

13 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

SS 

26 

27 

2B 

29 

30 

31 

33 

33 

_3.4_ 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

4S 

49 

SO 

51 

53 

S3 

Case Number 2008NM700189 

Cessna 

22550 Nelson Rd 

Bend, Oregon 97701 

Shipper Inspection 

Closed with Civil Penalty ($9,000) for violations of the following: 49 CFR §§ 172,201,172.202(a), 

172.203(a), 172.604(b) 

The information about the shippers outside of the Northwest Mountain Region were forwarded to 

other regions for fiirther investigation and enforcement actions as they deemed appropriate. We do 

not have the abilify to readily track this information. 

JnteiTQgatoiy No._10: State each and every basis, factual, statutory, legal or otherwise, for tiie 

adjustment in the proposed cjvjl penalty from the original Notice to the Amended Notice. 

Answer: 

Objection, as the request seeks infonnation concerning the Agency's deliberative process. Without 

waiving said objection, an error in the sanction determination was discovered in this matter 

subsequent to the issuance of the initial Notice and after the infonnal conference. The sanction 

proposed in die initial Notice was not consistent with Agency policy. An Amended Notice was 

issued to correct this error. To correct this error, the Agency issued an Amended Notice and gave 

FedEx the opportunity for another infoimal. Instead of electing to hold another informal 

conference, FedEx opted to go directly to a hearing in this matter. 

There is nothing that prevents the Agency ixom correcting an error in its processing of a 

case prior to the issuance of a Complaint The Rules of .Procedure allow Complainant to amend its 

Complaint, let alone, a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, up to 15 days prior to the hearing without 

even the consent of the ALJ. There is no FAA or federal case law that would so restrict an Agency, 

charged to promotibg the highest level of safety to the public, from amending its pre-Complaint 

notice document in a timely manner, especially when the Amended Notice is identical to the 

Complaint There arc strong public policy reasons to allow an Agency to correct errors tJiat it 

discover? during its ^iforccmeut proceedings. Furtheimcwe, Respondent cannot claim surprise to 

tiic amount in tiic Complaint as it had an oppoitunity to present matters it considered relevant to 

ihis.issu«. during the .pre-complaint.istagSL(i..e...il_co.uld have opted for a_secondiiiformal conference"). 

but opted instead to seek imuonediately judicial review. The only substantive matter changed from 

the Notice to the Amended Notice was the amount of the proposed civil penalty. 

Interrogatory No. 11: State the name of the person at trial who will testify regarding the response to 

Interrogatory No. 10, 

Answer 

Agents Stigex and/or Kenny. 

Interroeatorv No. 12: State witii specificity each and every potential threat to safety posed by the 

violations noted in the Complaint 

Answer: 

Review of the violations in this case: 

ComplainT's Rfispanse to Respondcot's Initial Discovery 

Rcquesu 

FeiJeral Express - 2OOSNM7O0208 & CP IONMOOOS 

Page4o f 10 

SCOTT R. MORSJS, FAA ATTORNEY 

T^L: 425.227.U17; FAX;425,227.1007 

210/900® SWQ VVd 2t?LSGGtS0S XVd OS:SL UOS/10/2 0 
01/24/2011 13:55 4252271007 ANM? PAGE 07/12 

1 

2 

3 

4 

S 

s 

7 

8 

9 

10 ' 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

la 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

2e 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

-3-*.-

35 

3£ 

37 

3S 

39 

40 

Al 

42 

43 

44 

45 

4e 

47 

4B 

45 

50 

Si 

52 

53 

As listed in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 2150.B 

Sanction Area # 1 - Faflvre to comply *yith parts 171,172, or 173 

One violation of 49 CFR, 172.400(a) 

Sanction Areas # 2 & # 3 - Improper acceptance of hazmat and failure to inspect hazmat 

shipments properly. 

Eleven violations of 49 CFR, 175.30(a)(3) 

Sanction Area # 4 - Failure to have proper notice to the pilot-in-command. 

Two violations of 49 CFR, 175.33(a)(1) 

Sixteen violations of 49 CFR, 175.33(a)(l)(i) 

Five violations of 49 CFR, 175.33(a)(l(ii) 

One violation of 49 CFR, 175.33(a)(9) 

Six violations of 49 CFR, 175.33(a)(I0) 

Violation History (S years from the date violations were discovered) 

19 Closed with civil penalties 

53 closed administratively 

Conventional wisdom in the "System Safety" field indicates that most accidents can be traced to 

the causal sequence of human failures that leads to an accident or an error, or botli. In fact, many 

in the saferty community feel that the ValuJei accident was this elusive kind of disaster, a "system 

accident".- , . 

While, taken in isolation, one incorrect entry, on one flight, on one day, on a Pilot Notification 

may not represent a significant threat to aviation safety. Numerous violations of all types, over 

numerous flights, on various days, and at various times is an overt indication of a flawed system. 

The violations discovered during the inspection and documented in this enforcement case 

highlight various latent failures within. FedEx's ha2:ardous materials transportation system. 

System Safety teaches us that latent feilures become contributory factors in an aviation accident. 

This enforcement case highlights several preconditions of unsafe acts (ignoring haxmat packages 

plainly marked for only ground transportation) and further confirms what the 5-year FAA 

violation history suggests: That FedEx's system in accepting and transporting hazardous 

materials is flawed and susceptible to an accident/incident. 

An National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendation A-98-80 called into question 

FedEx's hazardous materials recordkeeping system after four incidents over the course of 3 

Complaint's Response lo Respondent's Initial Discovery 

Requests 

Federal Exprent - 2OO8NM700208 & CP 10NMOOOS 

Page 5 of 10 

SCOTT R. MOWJS. FA A ATTOHKEr 

TEL: 425,2271417; FAX: 425.227.1007 

SLO/iOOi a SWQ * VVd stLssetsos XVd oesL iios/io/so 
01/24/2011 13:55 4252271807 ANM7 PAGE: 08/12 

1 

2 

3 

4 

S 

6 

7 

B 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

,17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

27 

26 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

-3-4-. 

35 

36 

37 

3» 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

years. The various and widespread nature of the violations documented in this enforcement case 

and FedEx's past record of violations do the same. 

Interrogatory No. 13: Identify any and all case law that you contend would support the issuance of 

the subject Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty and the amount proposed. 

Answer: Objection, Complainant is not required is conduct legal research for Respondent. Further 

no Final Notice of Proposed Civil .Penalty was issued in tivis case. 

Interrogatory No. 14: Identify who will testify at trial to any potential or alleged threat to safety 

posed by the violations noted in tlie Complaint 

Answer: See response to Interrogatory No. 11. 

Tnterrogatorv No. 15: Identify by case name and number any FAA cases brought in your region 

since 1998 with a proposed civil penalty exceeding $100,000. 

Answer: 

Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, and not likely to lead to information relevant to tiie allegations 

in the Complaint. Additionally, under the Agency's cxpunction policy, information older than 5 

years may not be available, Witiiout waiving said objection, the following information concerning 

haanat cases only is provided: 

Transbrasil Airlines 

Korean Airlines 

Identily expunged 

Eva Airways 

Alaska Airlines 

Malaysian Airline System 

Hairan Provincial Aviation 

hdustria Chimica 

1999NM710364 

2000NM710191 

2000NM710657 

2000NM710668 

2001NM710030 

2001NM710472 

2001NM710519 

2001NM720100 

Condor Cargo Technik 

Accent Air 

Webster Veterinary Supply 

Cosmo Store Services 

The Boeing Company 

China Airlines 

All Nippon Airways 

Federid Express 

Laboratory Corpomtion 

SR Technics 

Kuehne & Nagle 

Egyptair 

Emirates 

•^00'2NM7ro"33'r 

2003NM700027 

2OO4NM700410 

2006NM700106 

2007WP700028 

2007NM700048 

2007NM700049 

20O8NM7O0208 

2008NM700104 

2008NM700141 

2008NM700170 

2008NM700180 

2009NM700020 

Request for Production No. 1: Produce the entire FAA file regarding the subject Final Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty that was issued against Respondent and regar^g the inspections(s) tiiat is 

related to this matter, including a copy of the F/\A inspector's notes, if any, taken. 

Complunt'E Response to Reiipondem's Initial Diseovery 

Requests 

Federal Express - 2008NM700208 A CPl ONMOOOS 

PBic6oflO 

3C0TT R, MORWS. FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: 425.227.1417; FAX: 425.227.1007 

SL0/800i a swo VVd 21?LSSGl!S02 XVd OS-SI. U02/i.0/20 
01/24/2011 13:55 4252271007 ANM 7 PAGE 09/]2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

S 

7 

e 

9 

10 

11 

12 

X3 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IB 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

as 

26 

27 

28 

?.9 

30 

31 

32 

33 

-34-

35 

3« 

37 

3e 

39 

40' 

•41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

4e 

<J7 

48 

49 

50 

51 

S2 

S3 

contemporaneously or in relations to Ihe aforementioned inspection. Please note that this request 

does not intend to seek documents or items that are proterted by the attorney-client privilege, 

Aaswer: 

No Final Notice was issued. Respondent has received the releasabJe portion of the Agency's case 

file and it is again provided in this discovery response. The inspector no longer has any notes other 

than any that are contained in the documents previously produced. 

Request for Production No. 2: Produce any and aU documents or items that concern or relate to the 

allegations of your Complaint 

Answer: 

See Response to Request for Production No. 1. In addition, the Agency will offer the 

Administrator's sanction guidance, a copy of which can be found at www.fa2.g0v. 

Request for Production No. 3: Produce any and all documents or items that either support or tend 

to refute any contention or affirmative defense raised by Respondent in its Answer and Statement of 

Affirmative Defenses. 

Answer: 

Complainant is aware of no documents that support or tend to refute Respondent's single noticed 

aflSimative defisnse. 

Request for Production No. 4: Produce a copy of any document or item you intend to introduce at 

the hearing of this matter or nial<e the same available for inspection at a mutually convenient place 

and time if copying the document or item is unfeasible or impossible. 

Answer: 

See Response to Request for Production No. 2. Complainant reserves the riglit to stipplement this 

lequest (or anyLothajif this chsuiges. . 

Request for Production No. 5: Produce the resume or curriculum vitae of the FAA inspector(s) 

who conducted the inspection thai is related to this matter. 

Answer: See attached resume of Agent Kenny. Agent Stiger's information is below, 

Donald Stiger: Professional History: 

Hazardous Materials Inspector - United States Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation 

Administration) since January 1997. 

As a Hazardous materials Inspector at the Portland, Oregon, office, I conduct inspections at 

airports, air carrier stations, cargo acceptance points, freight forwarders, and hazardous materials 

shippers in order to evaluate compliance with Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs) and 

Federal Aviation Administration training regulations. 

Complaint's Response 1« Respondent's Ininal Discovery 

Requests 

Federal Eacpress - 2008NM70020? A CP10MM0008 

Page 7 of 10 

SCOTT R. MORRIS, FA A ATTORNEY 

TEL; 425.227.U17; FAX: 425.227,1007 

zLo/eoo® SWQ * VVd ^tLSEGtSOS XVd 0G:S L LLOS/IO/SO 
01/24/2011 13:55 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 10/12 

1 

3 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

e 

9 

10 

11 

\ 2 

13 

14 

15 

IS 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

2Z 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2a 

25> 

30 

31 

32 

33 

35 

36 

37 

3S 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

4£ 

47 

48 

49 

50 

SI 

53 

53 

Safety Inspector - United Stales Department of Transportation (Federal Highway Administration 

- now called tiie Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) from 1993-1997. 

Responsible for investigating motor carriers and barardous materials shippers for compliance 

with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety (49 CFR, Parts 200-399) and Hazardous Materials 

Regulations (49 CFR, Parts 100-177 and 179-199), Required to make decisions in interpreting 

and applying regulations, determining mvestigativc techniques, and legal sufficiency of evidence 

gathered for successful conclusion of enforcement cases. 

Veterans Claims Examiner - United States Department of Veterans Affairs from 1991-1993 

Responsible for reviewing and exercising sound judgment and discretion on Compensation, 

Pension, and Educational claims. Determining and calculating proper entitiement awards in 

compliance with numerous laws and acts of Congress. 

Operations Manager - Wal-Mart Stores Distribution from 1990-1991 

Responsible for night terminal operations with over 205 drivers, 181 tractors and 1100 trailers 

averaging 185 loads daily to 171 stores, Dispatched drivers and assigned backhauls, handled 

store, driver, and vendor complaints and problems. Completed, processed and audited pay sheets. 

Prepared, analyzed and forecasted profit and loss staienients, equipment and manpower reports, 

cross dock reports, and claims reports. 

United States Army - Pilot from 1985-1990 

BS (Economics) - Oregon State University. 

Request for Production No. 6: Produce any and all documents or things which you contend either 

supports or tends to refiite the issuance of the subject citation. 

Answer: 

See previously produced documents from the Agency's case file. See also Respondent's Answer to 

the Complamt-as-well as the AU's-partial grant tsfstHnmaiy-^dgpaentr- . • 

Request for Production No. 7: Produce any and all documents or thing which you contend either 

svqjports or tends to refiite the assessment of the $299,900 penalty in the subject Final Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty. 

Answer: 

See Response to Request for Production No. 6. See also the Administrator's Sanction Guidance. 

Request for Productipn No. 8: To the ext«it it has not already been produced, produce each 

document or item, identified or described in your responses to the interrogatories above. 

AnswCT: 

See eartier Responses. 

Complaint's Response to Rcspondem's Tnitial Discovery 

Requests 

Federal Exprojj - 200RNM7002O8 & CPl ONMOOOS 

Page 8 of 10 

SCOTT R. MORWS, FA A ATTOKttEY 

TEL: 4J5.227.1417; FAX: 425.227.1007 

SLO/OLO ® swo VVd stigeet^o s xvd is:eL HQZ/LO/Z O 
01/24/2011 13:55 4252271007 am? PAGE 11/12 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

B 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

16 

17 

IB 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2S 

39 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34" 

35 

35 

37 

3S 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

4B 

49 

50 

SI 

52 

53 

Request for Production No. 9: To the extent it has not akeady been produced, produce a copy of 

each document or item, you relied upon in responding to the interrogatories above. 

Answtg': 

See earlj.er responses. 

Submitted this 24tfe^y of January 2011. 

cott R. Morris 

FAA Attorney 

CompIaiiiT's Response to Respondent's Jni:ia] Discovery 

Requests 

Federal Express - 2O08NM7(K>208 & CPl ONMOOOS 

Page 9 of 10 

SCOTT R. MORBJS, FA A ATTORNB V 

TEt; 425.227.1417; FAX: 425.227)007 

SLO/LLOi a SWQ VVd 21?LSSei7202 XVd LS:6 L LL0S/10/3 0 
01/24/2011 13:55 4252271007 AhlM7 PAGE: 12/1 2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

e 

7 

9 

9 

10 

LI 

12 

13 

14 

15 

IC 

17 

l a 

19 

20 

a i 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

23 

29 

30 

31 

32 

35 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

4S 

4S 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Complainant's Initial Response to Response Initial Discovery 

Request has been served via fecsimile and ccrtibSed mail - Return Receipt Requested this date, to 

the following: 

The Honorable Richard C, Goodwin 

Office of hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S,E. 

East Buildmg Ground Floor, Rm El2-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: 202.366.2139 

FAX: 202.366.7536 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn; Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430 

Wilbur Wri^t Building - Suite 2W1000 

FAX; 202,493.5020 

Cynthia Chandler-Snoll 

Federal Express Corporation 

3620 Hacks Cross Road 

Building B, 3"* Floor 

Memphis, TN 38125 

TEL: 901.434.8361 

•FAX:-90-l-.4*4^-83.^--

Dated this 24th day of January, 2011 

MOIFAIRCHIN 

Office of Regional Counsel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

425.227.2160 

Complaint's Respoii.'* to Respondent's Initial Discovery 

Requests 

FodcraJ Express - 2008NM700208 A. CPl ONMOOOS 

Psge 10 of 10 

Scorr R. Mosws. FAA ATTORMEY 

TEL: 425.227.1417; FAX; 425,227.1007 

SLO/SLOE SNQ VVd 21?LSSGt203 XVd IS:6 L LLOS/iO/SO