SERVED: DECEMBER 13,2012 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,Jil 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

) 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ) 

) 

Complainant, ) FAA DOCKET NO. CPllGLOOOO 

) 

v. ) (Civil Penalty Action) 

) 

D & M CUSTOM INJECTION MOLDING ) 

CORPORATION, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) FDMS No. FAA-2011-0679 

) 

INITIAL DECISION 

OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RICHARD C. GOODWIN 

Found: Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of $110,000. 

I. Background 

l LJ r::) !: l~l 

The only issue remaining in this proceeding concerns the appropriate civil penalty 

amount. 

Respondent D & M Custom Injection Molding Corporation ("D & M" or "Respondent") 

is a manufacturing concern headquartered in Burlington, IL. It does business under the name D 

& M Plastics Corporation (Exh. C-3; Tr. 69). Complainant Federal Aviation Administration 

("Complainant," "FAA," or "the agency") initiated this matter by its Complaint alleging that D 

& M violated various hazardous material regulations ("HMRs"), 49C.F.R. §§ 171-177, by 

offering in air transportation undeclared and forbidden hazardous materials. D & M had 

tendered to Federal Express Corporation ("Federal Express") for air transportation, the 

Complaint recites, a 5-box package containing approximately 2,000 Ruyan Rapp E-Mystick 

products ("E-Mysticks"). E-Mysticks are cigarette-like smoking substitutes. 1 The aircraft, a 

1 Exh. C-5. E-Mysticks have been advertised as non-tobacco products which may be used in areas where traditional 

smoking is prohibited. Exh. C-2, pp. 4, 5; Exh. C-3, p. 4. Respondent described the product as an "inhaler device 

that has a dietary supplement in it." Tr. 61. The product had been packaged in twenty cartons of 50 ''regular" units 

and an equal amount of"menthol," totaling 1,000 regular E-Mysticks and l ,000 menthol. Tr. 50. 
2 

DC-1 0 freighter, took off from Indianapolis International Airport and was destined for the 

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (''MSP"). The consignee was Ruyan America Inc. 

("Ruyan") in Minneapolis. 

Each E-Mystick contained a primary lithium metal battery as well as 1.5 milliliters ("ml") 

of a liquid containing, in part, ethanol and lobelia. These items, as well as the liquid as mixed, 

are classed as hazardous materials ("hazmats") under the Department of Transportation's HMRs. 

Offering hazardous materials in the stream of air transportation triggers certain 

requirements which shippers such as D & Mare obliged to follow. Such substances (assuming 

they are otherwise permitted to be shipped by air) must be transported with certain markings and 

labels in order to facilitate proper handling and to alert first responders in the event of an 

incident. Ethanol and lobelia are listed as so-called Class 3 flammable liquids, Alcohols, n.o.s. 

[which means "not otherwise specified"], with the United Nations ("UN") number 1987. The 

batteries must be described as "lithium batteries, contained in equipment." They are denoted a 

Class 9 material, with the UN number 3091. The liquid as mixed together also was considered a 

regulated material on account of its 93-degree (for regular E-Mysticks) and 94-degree (for 

menthols) flashpoint. See Table following 49 CFR §172.101; Exhs. C-3 and C-4; Tr. 26,30-31, 

70. The package should have been marked and labeled to so identify these dangerous goods. 

Other packaging and informational requirements, as well as training necessities, also attach to 

hazmats tendered in air transportation. 49 C.F .R. § 172. 

The shipment had been undeclared (Tr. 21-22). "Undeclared" means that it contained no 

warning or notice of the hazardous nature of its contents. Midtown Neon Sign Corporation, FAA 

Order No. 96-26 (August 13, 1996), p. 2. Additionally, the primary lithium batteries were not 

permitted to travel by air at all: the shipment had exceeded quantity limitations for such travel. 

See Table following 49 CFR §172.101 and §172.102, Code/Special Provision AlOl. 

Federal Express flew the items to MSP. During taxiing following landing, one of the 

cargo containers -- known as Unit Load Devices ("ULDs") -- caught fire. At that point the 

offending materials were discovered (Exhs. C-2 and C-3; Tr. 16-17). 

The Complaint, dated July 8, 2011, charged D & M with thirteen HMR violations: 49 

C.F .R. 1) § 171.2( e) (offering hazardous material for shipment not properly classed, described, 

marked, and labeled); 2) § 172.200( a) (offering hazmats not described on the shipping paper as 

required); 3) § 172.204( a) (offering hazmats lacking certification that the material was offered in 

accordance with regulations); 4) §172.301(a) (offering hazmats in a non-bulk package not 

marked with proper shipping name and identification number); 5) §172.400(a) (offering or 

transporting a hazardous material without specified labels); 6) §172.600(c)(2) (offering a hazmat 

when emergency response information was not immediately available to anyone responding to 

an incident or conducting a hazmat investigation); 7) § 172. 702( a) (requiring hazmat employers 

to ensure that hazmat employees are trained); 8) §172.101(h) (requiring adherence to the "special 

provisions" column of the Hazardous Materials Table when applicable); 9) § 172.312( a)(2) 

(containing requirements relating to orientation markings); 10) §173.1(b) (prohibiting the 

Complainant's exhibits are identified by the letter "C" followed by a number; Respondent's begin with the letter 

"R." 
------------------------------------. 

3 

offering of hazmats not prepared in accordance with requirements); 11) § 173.21 (c) (prohibiting 

the offering of batteries "likely to create sparks or generate a dangerous evolution of heat," 

unless packaged in a manner precluding such an occurrence); 12) § 173 .24(b )(1) (mandating that 

hazmat packaging be designed to preclude the release of hazmats under conditions normally 

incident to transportation); and 13) § 173.27( c )(1) (requiring that packaging for shipment aboard 

aircraft be designed to prevent leakage caused by changes in altitude and temperature). 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §5123, the agency asked for a total civil penalty of$168,000 (see 

Tr. 8). It bears the burden of proving the appropriateness of this amount by a preponderance of 

the evidence. Phillips Building Supply, FAA Order No. 2000-20 (August 11, 2000), p. 8. 

Respondent acknowledged the facts underlying the allegations. It admitted that it 

committed the violations with which it was charged. But it opposes the agency's.civil penalty 

request as too high and as unwarranted by the facts. It stresses several factors it contends are 

mitigating (see discussion below, pp. 6-7). D & M states that it is willing to pay a penalty of no 

more than $25,000 (Exh. R-2; Resp. Br., p. 5; see Tr. 59). 

Against this background, I found that D & M had committed each of the violations set 

out in the agency's Complaint, and limited this proceeding to the controverted issue of the 

appropriate civil penalty amount. See Order Limiting Hearing to Sanction, served December 12, 

2011. A hearing was held on August 9, 2012, in Chicago, IL. I determined that a written 

decision was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances (Tr. 77 -78). The parties each 

filed opening briefs, and Complainant, because it has the burden of proof, was permitted to file a 

rebuttal brief and did so? ~ 

II. Penalty Determination 

I hold that the facts and circumstances of this case warrant an assessment against 

Respondent of $110,000. 

A. Factors in the Determination 

Determination of an appropriate civil penalty involves a number of factors. The 

decisionmaker must weigh ''the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation[s]," 

and, with respect to the violator, ''the degree of culpability, any history of prior violations, [and] 

the ability to pay" as well as "other matters that justice requires." These include mitigating and 

aggravating circumstances (49 U.S.C. §5123(c); see also Tr. 35). The principal elements in the 

analysis are the nature of the respondent's conduct and the totality of the circumstances. 

Envirosolve, LLC, FAA Order No. 2006-2 (February 7,2006), p. 13. 

The Administrator has provided policy guidance for agency employees to follow when 

recommending an appropriate civil penalty in hazardous-materials cases. The guidance is found 

in the agency's Penalty Guidelines (''the Guidelines"). The Guidelines have been published as 

FAA Order 2150.3B and were marked (but not admitted) in this proceeding as Exhibit C.,.6, of 

2 Complainant's Brief will be designated as "Compl. Br.", the Post Trial Brief of Respondent as "Resp. Br.", and 

Complainant's Reply Brief as "Compl. Rebut. Br." 
4 

which I took judicial notice (Tr. 34-35, 42-43). The Guidelines assess all relevant statutory 

criteria, including mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The Guidelines additionally aid 

Complainant's penalty determination through a Sanction Guidance Matrix ("the Matrix"). The 

Matrix sets out specific penalty ranges for each input, cross-referencing such pertinent factors as 

the respondent's size, the quantity of the material offered, the extent of the respondent's usual 

dealings with hazmats, the relative risk of harm posed by the substances involved, and any 

adverse consequences associated with the hazmats' transport. 

The Guidelines are intended to indicate the Administrator's "general views" about the 

civil penalty ranges appropriate for different types of violations. Folsom's Air Service, Inc., 

FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November 6, 2008), 2008 WL 4948488, p. 13. They are not binding. 

Each situation, being dependent on so many variables, is unique. "Evaluation of the case," the 

FAA has emphasized, "is based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. "3 

Against this background, we turn to the events triggering this proceeding. 

B. Circumstances of the Incident 

Two witnesses testified for the FAA, hazardous materials specialists Joseph Sanders and 

Christopher Zawarus. I found them both credible. 

Mr. Sanders was Complainant's first witness. He testified that he was contacted soon 

after the fire had been extinguished. He traveled to the scene. The crew learned of the fire, 

Sanders stated, when a warning light flashed during taxiing. They then activated the fire 

suppression system. The MSP fire department was summoned. Firefighters put out the fire after 

landing and removed the responsible ULD. 

Mr. Sanders learned that each of the five pieces in the offending shipment contained eight 

smaller fiberboard boxes. Each of these smaller boxes contained the E-Mysticks. Some EMysticks also were wrapped in individual lightweight cardboard boxes, one item per box. Each 

E-Mystick itself had been packaged inside sealed plastic bags. 

E-Mysticks are assembled from several parts. Sanders explained that the parts are: an air 

flow sensor; an atomizer; 1.5 ml of a liquid consisting of, at least in part, the Class 3 flammable 

liquids ethanol and lobelia; an LED; a primary lithium battery; and a safety switch. The battery 

is used to vaporize the liquid. 

The fire had damaged the batteries as well as some of the cardboard boxes holding the EMysticks. Some E-Mysticks had come out of their boxes entirely; they were still glowing when 

Sanders arrived at the scene. It eventually was determined that the liquid had leaked from the 

product and had dripped on the atomizer. The safety switch had failed (Tr. 16-27, 4 7-48, 61; 

Exhs. C-1(D), C-1(H), C-1(X), C-2, and C-3). 

3 FAA Policy on Enforcement of the Hazardous Materials Regulations: Penalty Guidelines, 64 Fed.Reg. 19443, 

19444, 1999 WL 226610 (F.R.) (Apri121, 1999), also published on April14, 1999, as Change 26, Appendix 6, to 

FAA Order 2150.3A. Order 2150.38, effective October 1, 2007, updated and superseded the original guidelines. 

See 72 Fed.Reg. 55853. FAA Order 2150.3B may also be found at www.airweb.faa.gov. 
5 

Mr. Sanders and Complainant's second witness, Mr. Zawarus, also testified to the origins 

of the E-Mysticks. Ruyan, a manufacturer, and its joint-venture partner, Ruyan Group Holdings, 

a firm located in China, had contracted with D & M to assemble the product. More specifically, 

D & M had mixed the solutions for the regular and the menthol product on..:site at their 

Burlington, IL facility. It had placed the batteries into a component with the liquid solution. D 

& M -- as it acknowledges -- also had contracted to package and ship the product to Ruyan in 

Minneapolis (Tr. 24-25, 39-40,47-51, 59; Exh. C-7). 

As seen, two of the liquid components ofE-Mysticks were considered hazmats; 

additionally, the liquid as mixed was considered a hazmat on account of its flashpoint as well as 

its ingredients. Separately, primary lithium batteries- because of their "propensity to generate 

dangerous quantities of heat" - also were determined to be hazardous materials. As noted as 

well, the number of batteries on the aircraft also exceeded the quantity limitations for transport 

by air (Tr~ 47-50, 54, 59; see Initial Decision ("J.D."), p. 2). 

C. Decision 

I have determined to assess a civil penalty against Respondent of$110,000. 

1. Complainant's arguments 

The agency seeks a civil penalty totaling $168,000. Its calculation is based initially on 

the tables in Order 2150.3B. Complainant explained that the materials involved are classified 

under the HMRs as "Category A." Category A goods carry a maximum final aggregate weight. 

Key factors in the agency's calculation also included the fact that the shipment was undeclared 

and was forbidden in air transport for exceeding quantity limitations. Complainant's 

determination additionally categorized Respondent as a business entity using or handling 

hazardous materials in the course of its business. Seven violation groups - shipping papers, 

labels, marking, packaging, training, release, and emergency response information - were 

implicated. Melding these factors warrants a civil penalty of between $10,000 and $32,500 per 

violation group (Exh. C-6, p. C-12, at the intersection of Offense Category IV and Column C; 

Compl. Rebut. Br., p. 8). 

Complainant also pointed out that several aspects of the incident properly are considered 

as aggravating circumstances. It pointed to the following: each of the five large fiberboard boxes 

comprising the shipment had exceeded quantity limitations and thus were forbidden for air 

travel; the materials generated a "dangerous" quantity of heat; the E-Mysticks had caused an on• 

board fire; and significant damage resulted from the fire (Tr. 9, 37, 53). 

Indeed, the estimate of actual damage resulting from the fire also is a factor in the 

calculus. Federal Express determined that it had incurred the following losses: material, 

$15,000; carrier damage, $10,000; other property damage, $10,000; a response cost of$1,000; 

and remediation/cleanup cost of$1,000. No reason to doubt these figures was raised, and they 

are accepted. The total costs incurred by the carrier, then, were estimated at $37,000 (Exh. C-3, 

p. 3; Tr. 33). 
6 

The agency decided that the fair and appropriate assessment per violation group was 

$24,000. This amount is a bit higher than halfway between the Guidelines' range (as evaluated 

by Complainant) of$10,000-$32,500. $24,000 times the number ofviolation groups, seven, 

results in the agency's proposed civil penalty of$168,000.4 

2. Respondent's arguments 

Respondent, .while acknowledging the violations, countered that nothing in the goods it 

had received from Ruyan indicated the presence of hazardous materials. More specifically, no 

evidence suggested that D & M knew that the batteries were primary lithium batteries. Ruyan, 

Respondent said, had labeled the contents of the cartridge in which the batteries were delivered 

as "flavoring."5 Nor did the company understand or have reason to know that special 

requirements attached to shipping the goods. Moreover, it asserted that the batteries overheated 

because Ruyan had, unknown to D & M, modified the safety switch atomizing device (Tr. 61; 

Exh. R-2). 

D & M' s primary argument against the proposed penalty amount is that it does not have 

the ability to pay. It contends that it experienced "extreme operating and financial difficulties" in 

the years prior to the incident. The penalty Complainant suggests, it continues, also would have 

a significant negative effect on its ability to operate at its current level and capacity, and even to 

continue in business. In support, D & M submitted three years of corporate tax returns. 

Respondent added in support of mitigation that it does not customarily ship hazmats, had never 

shipped them prior to this incident, and has no intention of doing so in the future. It pointed out 

that it has no history ofviolations (Tr. 56, 60-64; Exh. R-1 through R-7; Resp. Br., pp. 3-4). 

3. Ruling 

A penalty assessment in a case such as this must weigh a respondent's behavior and 

evaluate its effect. In that context, the circumstances of the incident warrant a substantial and 

impressionable sanction. 

D & M assembled the E-Mysticks; it packaged them; and it shipped them. They 

contained batteries capable of generating.dangerous levels of heat as well as flammable liquids. 

Each of the five boxes in the shipment exceeded quantity limitations for air transport. Finally, 

and perhaps most dramatically, the materials caught fire during flight. The fire necessitated the 

deployment of firefighters to extinguish it and prevent further - and perhaps catastrophic -

damage and/or injury. 

4 Compl. Rebut. Br., pp. 8-10. Several times Complainant stated that it could have assessed a civil penalty as high 

as $195,000. See Tr. 36, 53-54; Compl. Br., p. 10; Compl. Rebut. Br., p. 7. It is not clear how it arrived at this 

figure. The maximum civil penalty per violation group for a business using or handling hazmats and found in 

violation for tendering an undeclared shipment exceeding quantity limitations is, as noted in the text, $32,500. 

Applying this figure to the number of violation groups, seven, results in a total of$227,500. 

5 Tr. 59-61. Complainant maintains that its penalty recommendation accounted for the idea that Respondent had 

"reasonably relied on incorrect information" Ruyan had sent to it. Tr. 36. See also Tr. 56 (acknowledging that no 

evidence showed that D & M knew the batteries were primary lithium batteries). 
7 

The undeclared nature of the shipment also is a significant penalty determinant. D & M 

had provided no information or warnings (Tr. 22; see also, e.g., Exh. C-1(L)). As an unknown, 

the packages presented an indefinite - and therefore inherently perilous - risk. The agency has 

stated that such hidden shipments are particularly worrisome. The Administrator has stressed 

that such circumstances "pose a special risk." Envirosolve, Inc. FAA Order No. 2006-2 

(February 7, 2006), p. 14; Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., FAA Order No. 94-28 (September 30, 

1994), p. 13. Emergency response information also was lacking. Such information could have 

proven critically important. First responders could not know what awaited them (Exh. C-1 (Y); 

Tr. 39-40). 

On the other hand, it is a mitigating factor that Respondent was unaware that the batteries 

specifically were of the primary lithium variety and thus constituted hazardous materials. Not all 

batteries, after all, have been determined to be hazardous materials. But some are. The mere 

presence of batteries in Ruyan's shipment, I find, put D & M on notice of the possible presence 

of dangerous goods. 6 It was then incumbent on Respondent to investigate further. It is charged 

with the knowledge that a reasonable inspection would have produced. 49 U.S.C. §5123(a)(1); 

Contract Courier Services, Inc. v. US. Department ofTransportation, 924 F.2d 112, 114 (7 Cir. 

1991). Moreover, Respondent knew, or should have known, that it was mixing liquids which 

were flammable and, thus, carried the risk of danger by their very nature. It is no defense that 

Respondent had not dealt with hazardous materials in the past. Those who deal with hazmats are 

charged with due care in handling them regardless of experience. It could not be otherwise in 

view of the danger to the public inherent in these materials. 

But mitigation, I find, is not warranted on the basis of Respondent's tax returns. D & M' s 

plea for a reduction of an otherwise reasonable and justifiable assessment on the basis of an 

inability to pay is an affirmative defense. That is, it is Respondent's burden to prove it. See, e.g., 

American Air Network, FAA Order No. 2006-5 (February 10, 2006), p. 9 n. 19. Respondent has 

failed to carry its burden. 

I agree with Complainant that Respondent's failure to explain the connection between the 

financial information it submitted and the remedy it seeks dooms its proof (see Compl. Rebut. 

Br., pp. 10-11). D & M simply did not demonstrate why its tax returns compel mitigation. 

Respondent's additional contention that its violation-free history justifies mitigation also is 

rejected. A violation-free history is expected to be the norm. That fact does not lead to a 

reduction in an otherwise appropriate civil penalty. See, e.g., Tate and Partners, FAA Order No. 

2010-7 (June 15, 2010), p. 13. Nor does D & M's promise to refrain from shipping hazmats in 

the future constitute the type of positive, corrective action justifying a civil penalty reduction. 

TCI Corporation, FAA Order No. 92-77 (December 22, 1992), p. 22. 

Respondent's lack of experience in dealing with hazmats also fails to qualify as a 

mitigating circumstance. But it does warrant, I find, an adjustment in Complainant's 

6 D & M disputes that it was aware that it had received batteries from Ruyan. It states that the batteries were hidden 

in the packaging. Tr. 75. Complainant counters that the batteries had been shipped in separate sleeves and were 

exposed at that point and, as such, D & M had to know what they were. Tr. 73-76. Even if D & M did not know 

initially that it had received batteries, as the assembler of the E-Mysticks I find that it cannot credibly contend that it 

lacked knowledge of each of the product's component parts. 
8 

categorization of D & M for penalty-recommendation purposes as a business using or handling 

hazardous materials in the course of business. Respondent is rather more like a "business entity" 

- a Guidelines characterization calling for a lower range of recommended penalties - although it 

is not altogether unfair to categorize it in the manner Complainant suggests. This difficulty in 

precisely classifying Respondent's course of dealing with hazmats helps demonstrate that a 

mechanistic calculation of penalties is misguided. Indeed, the agency has held as much. "It is 

improper," the Administrator has said, ''to take the mathematical, formulaic approach of 

multiplying the number of violations by a set dollar amount." Interstate Chemical Company, 

Inc., FAA Order No. 2002-29 (December 6, 2002), p. 15. I decline, therefore, to perform such a 

calculation to arrive at an assessment which would be fair and congruent with all the 

circumstances. 

I find and conclude that a civil penalty of.$11 0,000 is appropriate. This assessment is 

warranted by the totality of the circumstances in the context of the statutory factors. The penalty 

is substantial for this entity without having an unduly punitive character. It suitably accounts for 

both the aggravating and the mitigating factors involved in this case. I think it will help 

Respondent, and similarly-situated entities, understand the risk- and the gravity -- associated 

with the transport of hazardous materials. The assessment suitably promotes the FAA's policies 

of compliance and deterrence. · 

I have considered all other arguments advanced by both parties. Those not discussed are 

rejected as without merit. 

I hereby assess a civil penalty of $110,000 against Respondent D & M Custom Injection 

Molding Corporation for violations of: 49 C.P.R. §§171.2(e), 172.200(a), 172.204(a),l72.301(a), 

172.400(a), 172.600(c)(2), 172.702(a), 172.101(h), 172.312(a)(2), 

173.1 (b), 1 73.21 (c), 1 73 .24(b )( 1 ), and 173.27 ·rasd~scrib · is Initial Decision. 7 

ichard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

7 This decision may be appealed to the Administrator of the FAA. The notice of appeal must conform to sections 

13.210, 13.2ll(e)and 13.233 of the Rules of Practice, which require that a notice of appeal 1) be filed not later than 

10 days (plus an additional five days if mailed) from the service date of this decision, and 2) be perfected with a 

written brief or memorandum not later than 50 days (plus an additional five, if mailed) from the service date of this 

decision. The notice of appeal and brief or memorandum must either be a) mailed to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000, orb) delivered personally or via expedited courier service to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

D.C. 20591, Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. A copy of the notice of appeal and brief or memorandum also 

must be sent to agency counsel. Service upon the presiding judge is optional. 
9 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL'& ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI0001 

ONE COPY 

Michael Teofilovich, President 

D&M Custom Injec:tion Molding Corporation 

dba D&M Plastics Corporation 

150 French Road 

Burlington, IL 601 09 

Kate Barber, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7B 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

TEL: 847-294-7862 

FAJ<: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

' 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAJ<: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-20il-0679 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.