U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC 

# RECEIVED APR 1 02015 HEARING DOCKET

In the Matter of FAA DOCKET No. NOT ASSIGNED Federal Express Corporation Respondent

THE HONORABLE RICHARD C. GOODWIN U.S. Administrative Law Judge FAA Case No. 2014SW700042 (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS No. FAA 2014-0864



### COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR DECISION NOW COMES the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") pursuant to Rule 218(5) of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 CFR § 13.218(5). Complainant hereby moves the Court for an order granting a Motion for Decision in favor of the Complainant, because there are no genuine issues as to material facts and the Complainant is entitled to a Motion for Decision as a matter of law. In support of this Motion, the Complainant states the following: I. Background Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration, ("Complainant," "FAA," or "the agency") alleges that on or about January 10, 2014, Federal Express Corporation, a Part 121 air carrier, accepted and transported by air certain hazardous materials in violation of requirements of the Department's Hazardous Materials Regulations ("HMRs"), 49 CFR §§ 171-178. Federal Express Corporation accepted and transported in air transportation two, one gallon cans of Tuffy Fast Dry F.F. Blue Paint. These two, one gallon cans of paint were contained inside of a non-specification fiberboard box with incorrect markings and lacked the mandatory shipping papers. In its Complaint, the Federal Aviation Administration charged Federal Express Corporation with violating 49 C.F.R. 

# '§ 171. 2 (e) , 171. 2 (f) , 175. 30 (a) (2) and 175. 30 (a) (3) . 4 9 C. F. R. § 171.2(e) prohibits Federal Express Corporation from acceptinghazardous material for transportation

**~when** the material is not properly classed, described, packaged, marked, labeled, and in condition for shipment as required or authorized by applicable requirements of subchapter C, of the hazardous material regulations." The FAA also charged Federal Express Corporation with violating 49 C.F.R. 171.2(f) for

**~transporting** hazardous material for transportation by air in commerce when the hazardous material is not transported in accordance with the applicable requirements of subchapter C of the hazardous material regulations." In addition, Federal Express Corporation accepted hazardous material aboard an aircraft when the hazardous material was not described and certified on a shipping paper prepared in duplicate in accordance with part 172 or as authorized by subpart C of part 171 of subchapter C of the hazardous material regulations. 1 Finally, Federal Express accepted hazardous material for transportation aboard an aircraft when the hazardous material was not marked and labeled in accordance with subparts D and E of part 172 or as authorized by subpart C of part 171 of subchapter C of the hazardous material regulations. 2 The Federal Aviation Administration seeks a civil penalty of $65,000.00 for violation of the above stated regulations. II. ISSUES (1) Whether Federal Express Corporation's actions violated 49 C.F.R. § 171.2 (e), 49 C.F.R. 171.2 (f), 49 C.F.R. § 175.30(a) (2) and 49 C.F.R. § 175.30(a) (3) of the hazardous material regulations. (2) Whether a civil penalty of $65,000.00 is appropriate for the facts and circumstances of this case. III. UNCONTROVERTED FACTS The following facts are undisputed: 1. The shipment consisted of two (1) one gallon cans of Tuffy Fast Dry F.F. Blue Paint. Authority:

**Complaint,~2. 3**  2. The paint was contained inside of a non-specification fiberboard box. One side of the box displayed two large

1 49 C.F.R. § 175.30(a) (2). 2 49 C.F.R. § 175.30 (a) (3). 3 Federal Express Corporation's Answer to the Complaint admitted each of the facts alleged in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. 2orientation arrows. "PAINT" was printed on a second side of the box. Authority:

**Complaint,~3** . 3. In transit, one of the cans leaked. Authority:

**Complaint,~4.** 4. Tuffy Fast Dry F.F. Blue Paint is regulated by the Department of Transportation Hazardous Material Regulations, 49 C.F.R. 171 et. seq. (DOT HMR). Authority:

**Complaint,~5.** 5. The proper shipping name for Tuffy Fast Dry F.F. Blue Paint is Paint, hazard class 3, Packing Group II, UN1263. Authority:

**Complaint,~6.** 6. The shipment was assigned FedEx Express Airway bill tracking number 797609866023. Authority:

**Complaint,~7.** 7. The shipper was Hanna Anderson, TCI Coatings, Inc., 220 Industrial Blvd., Austin, Texas 78745. Authority:

**Complaint,~8.** 8. The consignee was Receiving, Air Compressor Equipment, 3401 Kelly HWY, Fort Smith, Arkansas, 72904. Authority:

**Comp1aint,~9.** 9. Marked on the exterior of one side of the fiberboard box assigned airway bill tracking number 797609866023 was the word "PAINT". Authority: Respondent's Response to Complainant's First Set of Request For Admissions, Request No. 5: Admitted. (See Exhibit A, attached). 10. Handwritten on the exterior of one side of the fiberboard box assigned airway bill tracking number 797609866023 was the language TFD-654N Freedom Fishing Blue A-2888. Authority: Respondent's Response to Complainant's First Set of Request For Admissions, Request No. 7: Admitted. (See Exhibit A, attached) 11. Printed on the exterior of one side of the fiberboard box assigned airway bill tracking number 797609866023 was the language "THIS SIDE UP". Authority: Respondent's Response to Complainant's First Set of Request For Admissions, Request No. 8: Admitted. Respondent's response was "Admitted, assuming by 'exterior of one side' Complainant means the top of the box." (See Exhibit A, attached). 12. The shipment assigned airway bill tracking number 797609866023 leaked during the sorting operation at the Federal Express Regional Sort Center located at Fort Worth Alliance Municipal Airport in Fort Worth, Texas. Authority: Respondent's

3Response to Complainant's First Set of Request For Admissions, Request No. 12: Admitted. (See Exhibit A, attached). IV. STANDARD FOR MOTION FOR DECISION Rule 218(5) of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, Motion for Decision, 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(5) is patterned after the summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 218(5) states: A party may make a motion for decision, regarding all or part of the proceedings, at any time before the administrative law judge has issued an initial decision in the proceedings. The administrative law judge shall grant a party's motion for decision if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, matters that the administrative law judge has officially noticed, or evidence introduced during the hearing show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the party making the motion is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. The party making the motion for decision has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact disputed by the parties. V. ANALYSIS: LIABILITY Did Federal Express Corporation's actions violate of 49 C. F. R. §§ 171. 2 (e) , 171. 2 (f) , 175. 30 (a) (2) and 175. 30 (a) (3) ? Yes. The following analysis will explain the basis for the FAA's conclusion. 49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e) provides that: "No person may offer or accept a hazardous material for transportation in commerce unless the hazardous material is properly classed, described, packaged, marked, labeled, and in a condition for shipment as required or authorized by applicable requirements of this subchapter or an exemption or special permit, approval, or registration issued under this subchapter or subchapter A of this chapter." The FedEx Express Courier that works for the Federal Express Corporation who retrieved the shipment from the FedEx Office was Steven R. Worsham, Courier 5811 Techni Center Drive, Austin,
4Texas 78721. Proof for this assertion is evidenced in Respondent's response to interrogatory No. 6 of the Complainant's interrogatories. Interrogatory No. 6 states: Interrogatory No. 6: Identify the names, addresses, and phone numbers of each and every FedEx employee involved in the acceptance of the shipment on January 10, 2014 at the FedEx Office in Austin, Texas Response: "Respondent incorporates each of its General Objections above. Upon information and belief the employees at FedEx Office who were involved in accepting the shipment are: Taler Kaufman Center Manager Austin TX IH 35 at Slaughter 9500 S Interstate 35 Suite L550 Austin, TX 78748 512-292-1292 Darell Moore Center Consultant Killeen, TX US 190 W 2309 E. Central Texas Expy, Suite 300 Killeen, TX 76543 254 690-5584 The FedEx Express Courier who retrieved the shipment from FedEx Office was: Steven R. Worsham Courier 5811 Techni Center Dr. Austin, TX 78721 281 876-4131 Respondent further states that its fact investigation and trial preparation are ongoing, and discovery is not yet complete. Accordingly, Respondent reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response if it identifies any additional persons involved in the acceptance of the shipment." Attorneys for Federal Express Corporation filed this response on January 29, 2015. To date, Respondents have not supplemented their response. The FedEx Office in Austin assigned FedEx Express Airway bill tracking number 797609866023 to the shipment. The shipment was accepted in commerce for transportation from Austin, Texas 78745 to Fort Smith, Arkansas 72904. (See 

### supra, Uncontroverted Facts,

**~** 6, 7,

**8.)~**

549 C.F.R. 171.2(f) states: "No person may transport a hazardous material in commerce unless the hazardous material is transported in accordance with applicable requirements of this subchapter, or an exemption or special permit, approval, or registration issued under this subchapter or subchapter A of this chapter. Each carrier who transports a hazardous material in commerce may rely on information provided by the offeror of the hazardous material or a prior carrier, unless the carrier knows or, a reasonable person, acting in the circumstances and exercising reasonable care, would have knowledge that the information provided by the offeror or prior carrier is incorrect. Complainant asserts that this general provision is violated because Respondent did not comply with 49 C.F.R. § 175.30(a) (2) and 49 C.F.R. § 175.30(a) (3). Section 175.30(a) (2) does not allow a hazardous material to be accepted for air transportation unless the aircraft operator ensures that the HAZMAT is described on a shipping paper in accordance with the hazardous material regulations. No shipping paper existed with this shipment. Therefore, Section 175. 30 (a) (2) is violated. Section 175.30(a) (3) prohibits the acceptance of HAZMATS in air transportation unless the aircraft operator ensures that such materials have been marked and labeled as required. The shipment consisted of two (1) gallon cans of Tuffy Fast Dry F.F. Blue Paint. This paint was contained inside of a nonspecification fiberboard box. Printed on one side of the box was the proper shipping name "PAINT". The exterior of the box, however, failed to have the identification number, UN1263. The shipment failed to have the proper class, 3. Moreover, the shipment failed to have the packing group number II. Consequently, this shipment was not properly marked. Secondly, this shipment was not properly labeled. Paint is a flammable liquid. The shipment must have a flammable liquid label pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 172.419. Consequently, Federal Express accepted a shipment that was not properly marked and labeled in accordance with Section 175. 30 (a) (3) Constructive Knowledge When is an air carrier deemed to have "knowingly" accepted a shipment of hazardous material for transportation by air
6within the meaning of Section 5123 of the Federal Hazardous Material Transportation Law, 49 U.S.C. § 5123? Section 5123(a) (1) of the Federal Hazardous Material Law, 49 U.S.C. § 5123(a) (1) provides in pertinent part that: (a) Penalty.--(1) A person that knowingly violates this chapter or a regulation, order, special permit, or approval issued under this chapter is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $75,000 for each violation. The statue defines "acts knowingly" as follows: A person acts knowingly when-- (A) the person has actual knowledge of the facts giving rise to the violation; or (B) a reasonable person acting in the circumstances and exercising reasonable care would have that knowledge. 49 U.S.C § 5123(a) (1) (A) and (B). The knowledge requirement pertains to Federal Express Corporations's knowledge of what it did or failed to do. The Federal Hazardous Material Law requires a person or entity to make a reasonable inquiry, under the circumstances known at the time and exercising reasonable care, to gain knowledge of what (the material) was it accepted. Did Federal Express Corporation fail to make a reasonable inquiry? Yes. What red flags existed? The exterior of the box was marked with the proper shipping name "PAINT". The box contained orientation arrows on one side of the box. Written on one side of the box was the language "TFD-H54N Freedom Fishing Blue A-2888". On top of the box was printed the language "THIS SIDE UP". Finally, the shipment contained two (1) gallon cans of paint which weighed approximately 15**~** lbs. Moreover, TCI Coatings Inc., offered the shipment to Federal Express Corporation. TCI Coating manufactures the shipment of paint in issue here. Given the totality of all these facts, an employee of Federal Express Corporation should have inquired about the contents of the shipment before accepting it and placing it in air commerce. Consequently, Federal Express Corporation violated the hazardous material regulations when it accepted the hazardous material.

7VI. ANALYSIS: CIVIL PENALTY A civil penalty of $65,000.00 is appropriate for the facts and circumstances of this case. "In determining the amount of the penalty, the decisionmaker must consider the 'nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation,' and with respect to the violator, 'the degree of culpability, any history of prior violations, the ability to pay, and any effect on the ability to continue to do business,' and 'other matters that justice requires'" (49 U.S.C. § 5123(c))
. 4 Here, paint is classified as Paint UN1263, Class 3, Packing Group II. Under the Risk Categories of the Hazardous Material Enforcement Sanction Guidance Paint UN1263, Class 3, Packing Group II is classified as Category A, Maximum Weight. "Category 'A' materials are materials that when released in the confines of an aircraft can potentially have a catastrophic effect on an aircraft's ability to continue safe flight, resulting in a crash or emergency landing causing injury or death to passengers and flightcrew, as well as persons on the ground." 5 The Material Data Safety sheet lists the flashpoint of the paint in this case as 50°F. 6 The FAA determined for assessment purposes that Federal Express Corporation was classified in the category of the largest air carriers. 7 In assessing the civil penalty, the FAA considered the company's violation history. 8 The company has been cited for numerous violations. In this case, Federal Express Corporation did not prepare the shipment. This fact is a mitigating factor. The range suggested by the Sanction Guidance Table for one § 174.30(a) violations committed by a Group I air carrier such as Federal Express Corporation is $5,000 to $32,500. The range for two violations is $10,000 to $65,000. The past violation history of Federal Express Corporation justifies a civil penalty of $65,000. The corrective action performed by Federal Express Corporation did not exceed the legal minimum requirement.

4 Husky Corporation, FAA Order No. 2010-8 (June 16, 2010) at p.13. 5 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Order 2150.38, Appendix C. Sanction Guidance Hazardous Materials Enforcement at p.C-17. 6 See Exhibit B, attached. 7 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Order 2150.38, Appendix C. Sanction Guidance Hazardous Materials Enforcement at p. 13. 8 A copy of Federal Express Corporation's violation history is attached as Exhibit C. 8Therefore, no reduction in civil penalty is warranted. Finally, a civil penalty of this amount is warranted because Federal Express Corporation is an air carrier. Air carriers are held to the highest standard of care. CONCLUSION In short, Federal Express Corporation violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 171.2(e), 171.2(f), 175.30(a) (2), 175.30(3) of the hazardous material regulations. These violations pose a serious threat to aviation safety. In weighing all the facts and circumstances in this matter, a civil penalty of $65,000 is warranted. Based on the above-stated evidence, the Complainant requests that the Administrative Law Judge enter an Order against Federal Express Corporation for each and every regulatory violation cited in its Complaint. It further requests that the Administrative Law Judge assess a civil penalty of $65,000.

Respectfully submitted this gth day of April 2015.

ERIC E. ANDERSON Regional Counsel Southwest Region

Archier, Attorney 222-5074 (Phone) 222-5945/5092 (Fax)

9CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: Federal Express Corporation, FAA Case No. 2014SW700042 I hereby certify that on April 9, 2015, I have sent via Federal Express an executed original and one copy of the Motion for Decision addressed as follows to: Hearing Docket Attention Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC 430 Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, SW Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 Washington, DC 20591 I further certify that the foregoing Motion for Decision has been sent via Federal Express to the following:

TEL: (202) 393-9285 FAX: (202) 628-0654 Mr. Greg G. Stofko Senior Attorney Regulatory Affairs Federal Express Corporation 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 950 Washington, DC 20006

EMAIL: greg.stofko@fedex.com

TEL: (202) 496-7356 Allan H. Horowitz McKenna Long & Alridge LLP 1900 K Street, NW washington DC 20006

10EMAIL: ahorowitz@mckennalong.com Honorable Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Office of Hearings, M-20 U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 Attn: Patricia Matthews (Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov

TEL: (202) 366-5121 Staff Assistant FAX: (202) 366-7536

ERIC E. ANDERSON Regional Counsel Southwest Region



### \\ By '--


## .

**-~""'**

**//~-** ames Archier, Dated: April 9, 2015

/ / Agency Attorney Federal Aviation Administration 

# j Office of the Regional Counsel
· Southwest Region 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137 (817) 222-5074

11

## ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

IN THE MATTER OF:

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION Respondent.
The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin ) ) ) FAA Case No. 2014SW700042 ) (Civil Penalty Action) ) 

### ) ) FDMS no. 2014-0864 )

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Respondent, Federal Express Corporation d/b/a FedEx Express ("Respondent" or "FedEx Express"),bycounsel andpursuantto 14 CFR § 13.220, herebyresponds to the Complainant'sFirst Set ofRequest for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Production ofDocuments: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Respondent's investigationofthefacts relatedto this case is ongoing, and ithas notyetfully completed its discovery in this action nor completed its trial preparation. All ofthe responses contained herein are basedonly upon suchinformation and documents as are presently available to and specificallyknowntoRespondent atthe presenttime. Respondent statesthat further discovery, independentinvestigation, legal research and analysis maysupplyadditionalfacts or documents, add meaning to the known facts or documents, and/or establish entirely new factual and legal conclusions, all ofwhichmay leadto substantial additions to, changes inand/or variations fromthe information and documents herein set forth.

§ 

### GOVERNMENT g 

### EXHIBIT 

# I AThe following responses are given withoutprejudice to Respondent's right to produce any subsequently discovered fact(s) or document(s) that it may later recall, lean1 about or locate. Accordingly, Respondent reserves the right (but specifically denies any obligation) to change any and all responses herein as additional facts or documents are ascertained, analyses are made, legal research is completed, and contentions are made. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc. ("FedEx Office") is a distinct operating companyfrom Federal Express Corporation ("FedEx Express"). While FedEx Office accepts nonhazardous shipments onbehalfofFedExExpress and other carriers, FedExExpress carmotrespond
onbehalfofFedEx Office. Without waiving any rights or objections associated therewith, FedEx Express believes the following responses that relate to FedEx Office are accurate based on information and belief. ' 2. Respondent's fact investigationis ongoing, andithasnotyetcompletedits discovery, claims analysis andtrial preparation. Facts, documents andthings nowknownmaybe imperfectly understood and, accordingly, suchfacts, documents andthingsmaynotbeincludedinthefollowing responses. Respondent reserves the rightto refer to, conduct discovery with reference to, m offer into evidence at the time oftrial any and all facts, documents andthings notwithstanding the initial responses herein. 3. Respondent objects to Complainant's Interrogatories, Request for Admissions and ProductionofDocuments insofar as they seekthe disclosure ofinformationthatisprotectedbythe attorney-clientprivilege, the workproduct doctrine or any other applicableprivilege. To the extent thatRespondentinadvertentlydiscloses informationthatmaybeprotectedfrom discoveryundertheattorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine or any other applicable privilege, such inadvertent disclosure does not constitute a waiver ofany suchprivilege. 3. The responses set forth beloware providedwithout in any manner waiving: (1) the rightto objectto the use ofany response for anypurpose, in this action or any other actions, onthe grounds ofprivilege, relevance, or any other appropriate grounds; (2) the right to object to any request involving or relatedto the subject matter ofthe responses herein; or (3) the rightto revise, correct, supplement or clarify any of the responses provided below, at any time. Respondent specificallyreserves the right to supplement its responses. 4. Subject to and without waiving these general objections, and subjectto and without waiving the specific objections below, Respondent's responses are as follows to Complainant's Interrogatories, Request for Admissions and Production ofDocuments in accordance with Respondent's understanding ofthe fair meaning ofthose discovery requests:
RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FORADMISSION REQUEST N0.1: OnJanuary 10, 2014 the customer service agent atthe FedEx Office in Austin, Texas failed to inspectthe shipment assigned airway bill tracking nurnber797609866023. ANSWER: Respondent incorporates each of its General Objections above. Upon information and belief, FedEx Office does not accept any hazardous material, as -defined in in 49 C.F.R 171, 

### etseq, onbehalfofFedExExpress. ThereforeRespondent objectsto thisrequestinthat it seeksto implyanobligationonFedEx Officeto inspecthazardous material shipmentspursuantto 49 C.F.R 175.30. Further, nothing alleged in Complainant's complaint would give rise to an additional duty on behalfofFedEx Office to inspect the shipment. Respondent asserts that at no time, did employees ofRespondentorFedEx Officeknowingly, as definedin49U.S.C. 5123 (a) (1),accept an improperlypreparedhazardous material shipment. Respondent admitsthatFedEx Office acceptedthe shipmentwith a shippinglabel withoutindicationthatitcontainedhazardousmaterials andthat did notcontaintherequired shipper's declaration orrequiredhazardous materialsmarkings
or labels, at a FedEx Office locationwith signage stating that dangerous goods are not accepted at FedEx Office. REQUESTNO.2: OnJanuary 20, 2014 the customer service agent atthe FedEx Office in Austin, Texas failed to questionthe shipperconcerningthe contents oftheshipmentassignedairway bill tracking number 797609866023. ANSWER: Respondent incorporates each of its General Objections above. Upon information and belief, Denied. REQUESTN0.3: OnJanuary 10,2014the customer service agent atthe FedEx Office in Austin, Texas accepted a shipmentwithhazardous materialindicators assignedairwaybilltracking number 797609866023. ANSWER: Respondent incorporates each of its General Objections above. Upon information and belief, Respondent admits that the shipment in question was accepted byFedEx Officewitha shippinglabelwithoutindicationthatit containedhazardous materialsandthatdidnot contain the required shipper's declaration orrequired hazardous materials markings or labels, at a FedEx Office locationwith signage statingthat dangerous goods arenot accepted 

### at FedEx Office, but denies thatthe shipment had hazardous material indicators. REQUEST NO. 4: The shipmentassigned airWaybilltrackingnumber797609866023 was packaged inside ofa non-specification fiberboard box. ·ANSWER: Admitted.REQUEST NO. 5: Marked on the exterior of one side of the fiberboard box assigned airway bill tracking number 797609866023 was the word "PAlNT". ANSWER: Admitted. REQUEST NO. 6: Orientation Arrows were printed on the exterior of one side ofthe fiberboard box assigned airway bill tracking number 797609866023. ANSWER: Respondent admits thatthe shipment contained orientation arrows, but denies that the orientation arrows are hazardous materials orientation arrows prescribed by 49 CFR 172.312. 

### REQUEST NO.7: Handwritten onthe exterior ofone side ofthe fiberboard box assigned airwaybilltrackingnumber797609866023 wasthe language

### TFD-654N Freedom FishingBlueA2888. ANSWER: Admitted. 

### REQUEST NO.8: Printed ontheexteriorofone side ofthe fiberboardbox assigned airway bill tracking number 797609866023 was the language "TH1S SIDE UP". ANSWER: Admitted, assuming by "exterior ofone side" Complainantmeansthetop ofthe box. 

### REQUEST NO.9: OnJanuary 10,2014the customer service agent at the FedEx Office in Austin, Texas acceptedthe shipment assigned airway bill tracking number 797609866023. ANSWER: Respondent incorporates each of its General Objections above. Upon information andbelief, Respondent admits thatFedEx Office acceptedthe shipmentwitha shipping label without indication that it contained hazardous materials and that did not contain the required shipper's declarationorrequired hazardous materialsmarkings or labels, at aFedExOfficelocation with signage stating that dangerous goods are not accepted at FedEx Office.\ ! REQUEST NO.lO: OnJanuary 10, 2014thecustomer service agentattheFedExOfficein Austin, Texas allowed the shipment assigned airway bill tracking number 797609866023 into air
commerce. ANSWER: Respondent incorporates each of its General Objections above. Upon information and belief, Denied, the shipment in question never traveled on an aircraft and was therefore never in air commerce. REQUEST NO. 11: The shipment assigned airway bill tracking number 797609866023 leaked. ANSWER: Admitted. REQUEST NO. 12: The shipment assigned airway bill tracking number 797609866023 leaked during the sorting operation at the Federal Express Regional Sort Center located at Fort Wortb Alliance Municipal Airport inFort Wmih, Texas. ANSWER: Admitted.

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORYN0.1: Identifythename, address,telephone number, andpositionof each person answering or assisting in answering these interrogatories. RESPONSE: Greg Stofko Senior Attorney 1700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 950 Washington, DC 20006 202-393-9285Allan H. Horowitz Senior Counsel McKenna, Long & Aldridge 1900 K St., NW Washington, DC 20006 202-496-7500 David Littlejohn Dangerous Goods Advisor Federal Express Corporation 3670 Hacks Cross Road Memphis, TN 38125 (901) 434-9567 Robert Teutsch Managing Director, Regulatory and Commercial Transactions Three Galleria Tower 13155 Noel Road, Suite 1600 Dallas, TX 75240 214-550-7587

INTERROGATORYNO.2: Identifybyname, address andtelephonenumbers all persons who have personal knowledge ofyour affirmative defenses alleged inyour Answer. RESPONSE: Greg Stofko SeniorAttorney 1700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 950 Washington, DC 20006 202-393-9285 Allan 

### H. Horowitz Senior Counsel McKenna, Long & Aldridge 1900 K St., NW Washington, DC 20006 202-496-7500 David Littlejohn Dangerous Goods AdvisorFederal Express Corporation 3670 Hacks Cross Road Memphis, TN 38125 901-434-9567 Pat Oppenheimer Senior Manager, Corporate Safety Federal Express Corporation 3670 Hacks Cross Road Memphis, TN 38125 901- 434-9563 Thomas Lopez Managing Director, Corporate Safety Federal Express Corporation 3670 Hacks Cross Road Memphis, TN 38125 901-434-9587 Respondent further states that its fact investigation and trial preparationare ongoing, and discovery is not yet complete. Accordingly, Respondent reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response ifitidentifies any additional individual withpersonal knowledge of Respondent's affirmative defenses.



### INTERROGATORYNO.3: Identifybytitle, date, author, present custodian and content all documents obtained by you or in yourpossessionrelating to the assertions in Federal Express Corporation's Answer, including affirmative defenses. 

### RESPONSE: Respondent incorporates each ofits General Objections set forth above. Respondent objects to this request onthe grounds that it seeks informationthat is neither relevant
norreasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant evidence, it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, notsufficientlylimitedinrelevanttype,time or geographic scope, and notreasonably calculatedto leadto the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Respondentfurther objects to this request

### to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Respondent identifies as follows the responsive, non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control to the extent such documents exist and can be located in the exercise of reasonable diligence and without undue burden: All documents below are inpossession ofRespondent's Counsel.

• Releasable portion ofF AA Investigative File, including but not limitedto:
o FAA Letter ofInvestigationdated January 17, 2014
o FedEx Express Response to Letter ofInvestigation, dated February 6, 2014, including attachment
o Statement ofF AA Special Agent Anthony Jimenez
o Package photographs, dated January 15, 2014
o Copy ofthe shipper's shipping label, dated January 10,2014
o 2014 FedEx Express Service Guide, includingFedExExpressTerms andConditions
o FAA Order 2150.3B Compliance and Enforcement Program
o E"mail dated February 10, 2014 betweenHeidiMcAuliffe oftheAmericanCoatings Association and David Littlejohn ofFedEx regarding regulated vs. non-regulated paint

• E-mail exchange dated September 24, 2014 between Kim 

### Shannon ofAkzoNobel Coatings andDavidLittlejohnofFedExregardingregulatedvs. non-regulatedpaint
• FedEx Express Informal Conference PresentationRespondent further states that its fact investigation and trial preparation are ongoing, and discovery is not yet complete. Accordingly, Respondent reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response if it identifies any additional documents relating to Federal Express

**Corporation'~** Answer and Affirmative Defenses.

INTERROGATORYNO.4: Identifythename, address, telephonenumber, and specialty ofeachpersonyouexpectto call as anexpertwitness attrial, andfor eachexpertidentified, statethe subjectmatterofhis orhertestimony and the substance of thefacts and opinions towhichthe expert ' is expected to testifY. RESPONSE: Respondent has not yet identified any expertwitness but will amend and/or supplement this response ifitidentifies any expert witness.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Explainthe factual basis for each denial inFederal Express Corporation's Answer to Complainant's complaint. RESPONSE: FedExExpress deniesthat any ofits employeesknowingly, as defmed in49 U.S.C. 5123 (a) (1), acceptedthe improperlypreparedhazardousmaterial shipmentinquestion. The shipment in question was tendered without the required hazardous material markings, labels or documentation. The shipmentwas notin

### lJN specificationpackaging, didnotinclude aUNnumber, did nothave any ofthe required hazard labels, and did not include a shipper's declaration. The shipmentinquestion, as itappearedto FedExExpress employees,was completely consistentwitha non-hazardous shipment. The word "paint" printed on the side of the box as referred to in Complainant's complaint, Section I paragraph 3, is not a wordthat is synonymous withhazardous material and could refer to a variety ofpaints that are not regulated by the Hazardous MaterialsRegulations. In addition, the orientation arrows referred to in Complainant's Complaint, SectionI paragraph3, arenotinconformancewiththehazardous materialregulations, specifically section49 C.P.R. 172.312. Further, the shipmentin questionwas droppedoffat a FedEx Office facility, which perpolicy andFec!Ex Express terms and conditions does notaccepthazardousmaterials onbehalfof Fec!Ex Express. Additionally, the FedEx Officefacility hadsignageprominentlypostedto indicate thatitdoes not accept dangerous goods. Finally, the shipper utilized automated FedEx softwareto generate their shippinglabel and affim1edthatthis shipment didnot containhazardous materials, an affirmationthatFedExExpressis entitledto relyupon. Hadthe shipperproperlyindicatedthattheir shipment contained hazardous materials during the preparation oftheir shipping label, the label would have indicated that the shipment contained a regulated co=odity. Therefore, there is no dutyfor areasonableperson acting inthese circumstancesto furtherinquireinto a shipmentthat, by its appearance andgiven all the relevant facts and circumstances, is consistentwith anon-hazardous shipment. 

### INTERROGATORYNO.6: Identifythe names, addresses andphonenumbers ofeachand everyFedExemployee involvedinthe acceptance ofthe shipmentonJanuary 10, 2014 attheFedEx Office in Austin, Texas. 

### RESPONSE: Respondent incorporates each of its General Objections above. Upon information andbeliefthe employees atFec!Ex Office who were involved inacceptingthe shipment
are: Taler Kaufman Center Manager Austin TX IH 35 at Slaughter 9500 S Interstate 35 Suite L550 Austin, TX 78748 512-292-1262

### Darell Moore Center Consultant Killeen TX US 190 W 2309 E Central Texas Expy Suite 300 Killeen, TX 76543 254-690-5584 The FedEx Express courier who retrieved the shipment from FedEx Office was: Steven R. Worsham Courier 5811 Techni Center Dr. Austin, TX 78721 281-876-4131

Respondent further states that its fact investigation and trial preparation are ongoing, and discovery is not yet complete. Accordingly, Respondent reserves the right to amend and/or
I 

### supplement this response ifit identifies any additional persons involved inthe acceptance ofthe shipment.

INTERROGATORYNO. 

### 7: Identifythe names, address andphonenumbers ofeach and everyFedEx employee whofailed to inspectthe shipment onJanuary 10, 2014 attheFedEx Office in Austin, Texas. RESPONSE: 

### Respondent incorporates each of its General Objections above. Upon information and belief, FedEx Office does not accept any hazardous material, as defined in in 49 C.F.R 171, et seq, onbehalfofFedExExpress. ThereforeRespondent objects to this requestinthat it seeksto implyan obligation onFedExOfficeto inspecthazardous material shipmentspursuantto 49 C.F.R 175.30. Further, nothing alleged in Complainant's complaint would give rise to an additional duty on behalfofFedEx Office or FedEx Express to inspect the shipment. Respondentasserts that at no time, did employees ofRespondent or FedEx Office knowingly, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 5123 (a) (1), accept an improperly prepared hazardous material shipment. For employees involved inthe acceptance ofthe shipment, see answer to Complainant's Interrogatory Number 6. INTERROGATORYNO. 8: Identifythenames ofeachandevery employeeinthe FedEx Office inAustin involved in this incident who received the following training: (a) General awareness/familiarization training; (b) Function-specific training; (c) Safetytraining; (d) Security awareness training; (e) In-depth securitytraining; (f) Any other hazardous materialtraining. RESPONSE: Respondent incorporates each ofits General Objections above. Upon information and belief, the FedEx Office in Austin is not a hazmat employer and none of its employees are hazmat employees as defined in 49 CRF 171.8, and therefore not subject to the training requirements ofthe Hazardous Materials Regulations. In response to Interrogatory 8 (f), bothFedEx Office employees KaufmanandMoorereceivedDangerous Goods Assessmenttraining and Dangerous Goods Handling training. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify the dates the employees in the FedEx Office in Austin received training referred to inInterrogatory No. 6. RESPONSE: Respondent incorporates each ofits General Objections above. Upon information andbelief, Kaufman completed Dangerous Goods Assessment onNovember20, 2012 and December 5, 2013 and Dangerous Goods Handling on February 11, 2014; Moore completedDangerous GoodsAssessment onNovember 17, 2012 and January 15, 20 14 and Dangerous Goods Handling on February 20, 2014. INTERROGATORYNO. 

### 10: Ifyourresponses to eachRequestfor Admission served is not an unqualified admission, then state all facts which you base your response to each and every qualified admission ofComplainant's First Set ofRequests for Admission. RESPONSE: See response to Complainant's InterrogatoryNumber 5. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: State the nanaes, addresses and telephone numbers ofall personswho haveknowledge ofthe facts whichyoubase yourresponseto each and everyqualified admission ofComplainant's First Set ofRequest to Admit Facts. RESPONSE: See response to Complainant's InterrogatoryNumber 2.

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify all documents and other tangible things that support your response to each Request for Admission in Complainant's First Set ofRequest to Admit Facts.

RESPONSE: Respondent incorporates each of its General Objections set forth above. Respondent objects to this request onthe grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant
nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant evidence, it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, not sufficientlylimitedinrelevanttype, time or geographic scope, andnotreasonably calculatedto leadto thediscovery ofadmissible evidence. Respondentfurther objects to this request to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine.

### Subject to and without waiving these objections, Respondent identifies as follows the responsive, non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control to the extent such documents exist and can be located in the exercise of reasonable diligence and without tmdue burden:

• Releasable portion ofF AA Investigative File, including but not limitedto:
o FAA Letter ofinvestigation dated January 17, 2014
o FedExExpress Response to Letter ofinvestigation, dated February 6, 2014, including attachment

o Statement ofF AA Special AgentAnthony Jimenez
o Package photographs, dated January 15, 2014
o Copy ofthe shipper's shipping label, dated January 10,2014
o Package tracking printout for airway bill tracking number 797609866023

• 2014 FedExExpress Service Guide, including FedExExpress Terms and Conditions

• E-mail dated February 10,2014betweenHeidi McAuliffe oftheAmericanCoatings Association and David Littlejohn ofFedEx Express regarding regulated vs. nonregulated paint

• E-mail exchange dated September 24, 2014 between Kim Shannon ofAkzoNobel Coatings and David Littlejohn of FedEx Express regarding regulated vs. nonregulated paint

• FedEx Express Informal Conference Presentation

• Statements ofTaler Kaufman and Darrel Moore, dated January 27,2014. Respondent further states that its fact investigation and trial preparation are ongoing, and



### .1 discovery is not yet complete. Accordingly, Respondent reserves the right to amend and/or _j

### ) supplement this response if it identifies any additional documents that support Respondent's response to Complainant's Request to Admit Facts.

INTERROGATORY 

### NO. 13: State the name, address and telephone number of the person(s) who has each document or thing that supports your response to each Request for Admission in Complaint's First Set ofRequest to Admit Facts. RESPONSE: 

### Alldocumentsreferredto in Complainant's Interrogatory 13 areinpossession ofRespondent's Counsel. INTERROGATORYNO. 14: 

### Explainthe factual basis for each denial in FederalExpress Corporation's Answer to Complainant's complaint. RESPONSE: 

### See response to Interrogatory Number 5.

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S FIRST REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

REQUEST TO PRODUCE NO. 1: 

### Produce all documents supporting Respondent's
answers to Complainant's First Set ofinterrogatories. RESPONSE: 

### Documents identifiedinresponse to Interrogatories Number 3 and 12 andnot alreadyin the Complainant'spossession (e.g. FAA enforcementfile) areproduced atAttaclnnent 1, along with the FedEx Office employee's training certificates for the courses referenced in Respondent's response to Interrogatory 8. Respondent further states that its fact investigation and trialpreparationare ongoing, anddiscoveryis notyetcomplete. Accordingly, Respondentreservestherightto amend and/or supplementthis responseifitidentifies additional documents responsiveto this request. REQUEST TO PRODUCE NO. 2: Produce all documents supporting Respondent's
answers to Complainant's First Set ofRequests for Admission. RESPONSE: See documents identified and produced in response to Request to Produce Number 1. Respondentfurther states thatits fact investigationand trialpreparationare ongoing, and discovery is not yet complete. Accordingly, Respondent reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response ifit identifies additional documents responsive to this request.
REQUEST TOPRODUCE NO.3: Produce any expertreport intendedto beused at trial. Pursuantto Federal Rule ofCivilProcedure 26 (a)(B), thereport shall contain acomplete statement ofall opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefore; the data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions; any exhibits to be used as a summary of or supportfor theopinions; the qualifications ofthewitness, includingalistofallpublications authored by the witness within the preceding ten years; the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony; anda listing ofanyother cases inwhichthe witnesshas testified as anexpert attrial orby deposition within the precedingfour years. Any expert report inpossession ofRespondent or its counsel and any documents containingthe informationrequiredbyFederalRule ofCivil Procedure 26 (a)(B), whetherinthe form ofareport, letter, or otherwise, shouldbeproducedinresponseto this demand whether or not itpresently conforms to the Federal Rules cited above. RESPONSE: Respondent has not yet identified any expert report, but will amend and/or supplement this response ifit identifies any expert.

### ) REQUESTTO PRODUCENO.4: Produce acopyofeachexhibitthatRespondentintends to introduce into evidence at trial. RESPONSE: Please see docmnents produced at Attachment 2. Respondent further states that its fact investigation and trial preparation are ongoing, and discovery is not yet complete. Accordingly, Respondentreserves the rightto amend and/or supplementthisresponse ifitidentifies additional docmnents responsive to this request.

Respectfully submitted, Federal Express Corporation '-·- '_:,7 -.---

**-·~~-~·~--~/~;;"** By:



### ~....-:) **c;.!$:-:zc~** ·Greg Stofko /

**~..---·** [ Attorney for Respondent 1700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 950 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 393-9285 greg.stofko@fedex.comCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing document has been sent via Federal Express to the following:

:Mr. James Archier, Attorney Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe Regional Counsel 2601 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth, Texas 76137

Dated this 29th day ofIanuary, 2015.

**~7** ? 

# 01';? By: 

# /./ s"/

**-~** ·-.7-·

**-~** 

## /- 4::.,-·-/ c/

. -·'

- '.• GregStofko ,/ 

### Att6meyfor Respondent 1700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 950 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 393-9285 greg.stofko@fedex.com

## SAFETY DATA SHEET
TFD1154N TOFFY FAST DRY F. F. BLUE

SECTION 1 PRODUctAN!>MANUFACTURER IDENTIFICATION PRODUCT DESCRIPTION: TUFFY FAST DRY F. F. BLUE MANUFACTURER: TCI COATINGS INC. NPCA-HMIS HEALTH DATE: 1/16/2014 FLAMMABILITY 220 Industrial Blvd. TELEPHONE; 800-880-8242. Austin, TX 78745 PHYSICAL HAZARD 0 EMERGENCY NUMBER: 806-424 9300 (CHE:MTREC) SECTION 11 HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS INGREDIENT WT %

MIXED XYLENES 41

- 60 ACGIH & OSHA-TWA: HlB ppm; ACGIH & OSHA-STEL: 150 ppm LT. ALIPHATIC SOLVENT NAPHTHA ACGIH & OSHA TWA: 300 ppm; OSHA STEL: 400 ppm ETHYL BENZENE OSHA &ACGIH TWA: 100 ppm / OSHA &ACGIH STEL: 125 ppm LT. AROMATIC SOLVENT NAPHTHA OSH & ACGIH: TWA 125 mg/m3 11

- 20

20
-10 CAS No.

133€)-20-7
64742-89-8
100-41-4

64742-95-6 Vapor Pressure mm Hg @ TEMP

6.0
15
7.1

4.4

* This product contains a toxic chemical (or chemicals) subject to the reporting requirements of SARA Section 313 Title III.

BOILING RANGE: 247 EVAPORATION RATE: Slower than ether.

FLASH POINT: 50°F SECTION Ill WEIGHT: 7.74 lb/gl Coating V.O.C.: 4.898 lb/gl Material V.O.C. · 4.898 lb/gl PHYSICAl DATA VAPOR DENSITY: Heavier than air. VOLATILE BY VOLUME: 70.27% SECTION IV FIRE.AND EXPLOSION HAZ.I\RD DATA METHOD: TCC LEL:
. 8 UEL: 7 EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: Use alcohol foam, carbon dioxide, or dry chemical. UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS: Vapors may form explosive mixture with air. Vapors can travel to a source of ignition and flash back. Can release vapors that form explosive mixtures at temperatures at or above the flashpoint. Empty containers retain product residue and can be dangerous.
SPECIAL FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES: Containers can build up pressure if exposed to fire. Avoid spraying water directly into storage containers due to danger of boilover. Water runoff can cause environmental damage.

POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS ACUTE: SECTION V
- HEALTH HAZARD DATA

SKIN CONTACT: Frequent or prolonged contact may irritate. Occasional brief contact will not result in significant irritation unless evaporation is impeded. EYE CONTACT: Irritating but should not injure eye tissue if washed out immediately.
INHALATION: High concentrations of vapor cause irritation of lhe respiratory tract, experienced as nasal discomfort and discharge, with chest pain and coughing. Headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and drowsiness may occur. Date Printed: 1/16/2014 Page 1 of3 

### EXHIBIT B 

# I

# I

I INGESTION: Small amounts of this product aspirated into the respiratory system during ingestion or vomiting may cause

mild to severe pulmonary injury, possibly progressing to death.
CHRONIC: Chronic exposure to organic solvents has been associated with various neurotoxic effects including permanent brain and nervous system damage.
MEDICAL CONDITIONS PRONE TO AGGRAVATION BY EXPOSURE: Any rt:!spiratory or skin condition. PRIMARY ROUTE(S) OF ENTRY: Inhalation, ingestion and sUn absorption. CARCINOGENICITY: NTP: No NOTES: N/A IARC: No OSHA: No SECTIONVi •FIRST AID MEASURES INHALATION: Remove to fl'esh air, restore breathing. EYE CONTACT: Flush immediately with large amounts of water for at least 15 minutes. SKIN CONTACT: Wash affected areas with soap and water and remove contaminated clothing and shoes. INGESTION: Drink 1 or 2 glasses of water to dilute. Do NOT induce vomiting.
IN ALL CASES, GET PROMPT MEDICAL ATTE:NTION.

**S~CTIONVII** • REACTlVlfYDATA
. STABILITY: Stable. INCOMPATIBILITY: Isolate from strong oxidizers such as permanganates, chromates and peroxides. CONDITIONS TO AVOID: Extreme heat, sparks and open flame. HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: Fumes may contain carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and various other hydrocarbons. HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: Will not occur.

STEPS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE MATERIAL IS SPILLED: Wear skin, eye and respiratory protection during cleanup. Contain spill. Soak up material with absorbent and shovel into a chemical waste container.
WASTE DISPOSAL METHOD: Dispose of in accordance with local, state and federal regulations. Incinerate in approved facility. Do not incinerate closed containers. SECTION·JXC SlifE HANDUNG Ai'.JDUSE.JNFORMAtlqN RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: A NIOSH/MSHA approved air purifying respirator with an organic vapor cartridge or canister may be permissible under certain circumstances where airborne concentrations are expected to exceed exposure limits. VENTILATION: If vapor or. mist, is generated when the product is applied, adequate ventilation in accordance with good engineering practice must be provided to maintain concentrations below the specified exposure or flammable limits. PROTECTIVE GLOVES; Recommended; must be able to withstand solvents. Required for prolonged or repeated contact. EYE PROTECTION: Face shield or goggles. Do not wear contact lenses when working with liquid paint products or solvents. OTHER PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: For open systems where contact is likely, wear safety glasses with side shields and a face shield, long sleeves and chemical resistant gloves.
HYGIENIC PRACTICES: wash hands thoroughly with soap and water after use.

PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN HANDLING AND STORING: Keep container closed. Handle and open containers with care. Store in a cool, well ventilated place away from incompatible materials. Do not handle or store near an open flame, heat or other sources of ignition.
Do not take internally. Ground containers when pouring. Avoid prolonged breathing of vapor or spray mist and prolonged skin contact.

The information presented herein has been compiled from sources considered to be dependable and is accurate to the best of the preparer's

**l~nowledge.** However, since the use of this information and the conditions of the use of the product

Date Printed: 1/16/2014 page 2 of 3 

# I

I


# Iare not under the control of the preparer, it is the user's obligation to determine conditions of safe use of the product.

Date Printed: 1/16/2.014 Page 3 of3U.S. Department ofTransportation FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Hazardous Materials Safety Division, AHC-400 COMPLIANCE HISTORY
A review of the FAA Enforcement Investigation System (EIS) on March 7, 2014 revealed fiftyfour (54) closed civil penalty actions documenting hazardous material violations of 49 CFR 175.30(a)(2), and/or 49 CFR 175.30(a)(3) for FDEA in the previous five (5) years. Those EIRs are: 2009EA700512, 2009GL700349, 2009GL700354, 2009NE700316, 2009NE700318, 2009NM700179, 2009NM700181, 2009SW700276, 2009SW700307, 2009WP700247, 2009WP00249, 201 OGL700057, 201 OGL700087, 201 ON E700291, 201 ONE700303, 201 ONM720047, 201 ONM730066, 2010S0700180, 201 OWP700173, 2011 NE700233, 2011NM710050, 2011NM710052, 2011NM710096, 2011NM720011, 2011S0700144, 2011 SW700093, 20 12GL 700171, 20 12GL 700234, 2012GL700247, 20 12GL700304, 2012NE700213, 2012NM720017, 2012NM720069, 2012S0700023, 2012SW700049, 2012SW700178,2012SW700251, 2012WP700135, 2012WP700144, 2013EA700118, 2013EA700160, 2013GL700036, 2013GL700060, 2013GL700207, 2013GL700237, 2013GL700268, 2013NE700151, 2013NE700189, 2013NM720060, 2013S0700250, 2013S0700416, 2013S0700418, 2013S0700437, and 2013SW700140.

Interviewed/Reviewed On By /} -L

.. /2_:,_•• HM Specialist Anthony Jimenez 

### &0'77""'tf-r/-·7- FAA Form 1600-32-1 (9-86) GPo 924 954

**~** 

### GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 

## c At File 2014SW700042 No. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (Public availability to be determined under 5 U S.C. 522)