U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

RECEIVED 

APR 1 0 2015 

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) , 17 5. 3 0 (a) ( 2) and 17 5. 3 0 (a) ( 3) . 4 9 C. F. R. § 

171.2(e) prohibits Federal Express Corporation from accepting 
hazardous 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. 

2 
orientation 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 

3 
Response 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) , 17 5. 3 0 (a) ( 2) and 17 5. 3 0 (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, 

4 
Texas 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.)~ 

5 
49 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 17 5. 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 17 5. 3 0 (a) ( 3) 

Constructive Knowledge 

When is an air carrier deemed to have "knowingly" accepted 

a shipment of hazardous material for transportation by air 

6 
within 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. 

7 
VI. 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. 

8 
Therefore, 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) 

9 
CERTIFICATE 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 

10 
EMAIL: 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 FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS 

Respondent, Federal Express Corporation d/b/a FedEx Express ("Respondent" or "FedEx 

Express"), by counsel and pursuant to 14 CFR § 13.220, hereby responds to the Complainant's First 

Set of Request for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Production of Documents: 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

Respondent's investigation of the facts related to this case is ongoing, and it has not yet fully 

completed its discovery in this action nor completed its trial preparation. All of the responses 

contained herein are based only upon such information and documents as are presently available to 

and specifically known to Respondent at the present time. Respondent states that further discovery, 

independent investigation, legal research and analysis may supply additional facts or documents, add 

meaning to the known facts or documents, and/or establish entirely new factual and legal 

conclusions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to, changes in and/or variations from the 

information and documents herein set forth. 

§ GOVERNMENT 

g EXHIBIT I A 
The following responses are given without prejudice 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 

company from Federal Express Corporation ("FedEx Express"). While FedEx Office accepts nonhazardous shipments on behalf ofFedEx Express and other carriers, FedEx Express carmotrespond 

on behalf ofFedEx 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 investigation is ongoing, and it has not yet completed its discovery, 

claims analysis and trial preparation. Facts, documents and things now known may be imperfectly 

understood and, accordingly, such facts, documents and things may not be included in the following 

responses. Respondent reserves the right to refer to, conduct discovery with reference to, m offer 

into evidence at the time of trial any and all facts, documents and things notwithstanding the initial 

responses herein. 

3. Respondent objects to Complainant's Interrogatories, Request for Admissions and 

Production of Documents insofar as they seek the disclosure of information that is protected by the 

attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine or any other applicable privilege. To the extent 

that Respondent inadvertently discloses information that may be protected from discovery under the 
attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine or any other applicable privilege, such 

inadvertent disclosure does not constitute a waiver of any such privilege. 

3. The responses set forth below are provided without in any manner waiving: (1) the 

right to object to the use of any response for any purpose, in this action or any other actions, on the 

grounds of privilege, relevance, or any other appropriate grounds; (2) the right to object to any 

request involving or related to the subject matter of the responses herein; or (3) the right to revise, 

correct, supplement or clarify any of the responses provided below, at any time. Respondent 

specifically reserves the right to supplement its responses. 

4. Subject to and without waiving these general objections, and subject to and 

without waiving the specific objections below, Respondent's responses are as follows to 

Complainant's Interrogatories, Request for Admissions and Production of Documents in 

accordance with Respondent's understanding of the fair meaning of those discovery requests: 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S FIRST SET OF 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 

REQUEST N0.1: On January 10, 2014 the customer service agent at the FedEx Office in 

Austin, Texas failed to inspect the 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, et seq, on behalf ofFedEx Express. Therefore Respondent objects to this request in that 

it seeks to imply an obligation on F edEx Office to inspect hazardous material shipments pursuant to 

49 C.F.R 175.30. Further, nothing alleged in Complainant's complaint would give rise to an 

additional duty on behalf ofF edEx Office to inspect the shipment. Respondent asserts that at no 

time, did employees of Respondent or FedEx Office knowingly, as definedin49 U.S.C. 5123 (a) (1), 
accept an improperly prepared hazardous material shipment. Respondent admits that FedEx Office 

accepted the shipment with a shipping label without indication that it contained hazardous materials 

and that did not contain the required shipper's declaration or required hazardous materials markings 

or labels, at a F edEx Office location with signage stating that dangerous goods are not accepted at 

FedEx Office. 

REQUEST NO.2: On January 20, 2014 the customer service agent at the FedEx Office in 

Austin, Texas failed to question the shipper concerning the contents ofthe shipment assigned airway 

bill tracking number 797609866023. 

ANSWER: Respondent incorporates each of its General Objections above. Upon 

information and belief, Denied. 

REQUEST N0.3: On January 10,2014 the customer service agent at the FedEx Office in 

Austin, Texas accepted a shipment with hazardous material indicators assigned airway bill tracking 

number 797609866023. 

ANSWER: Respondent incorporates each of its General Objections above. Upon 

information and belief, Respondent admits that the shipment in question was accepted by FedEx 

Office with a shipping label without indication that it contained hazardous materials and that did not 

contain the required shipper's declaration or required hazardous materials markings or labels, at a 

FedEx Office location with signage stating that dangerous goods are not accepted at F edEx Office, 

but denies that the shipment had hazardous material indicators. 

REQUEST NO. 4: The shipment assigned airWay bill tracking number 797609866023 was 

packaged inside of a 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 "P AlNT". 

ANSWER: Admitted. 

REQUEST NO. 6: Orientation Arrows were printed on the exterior of one side of the 

fiberboard box assigned airway bill tracking number 797609866023. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits that the 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 on the exterior of one side of the fiberboard box assigned 

airway bill tracking number 797609866023 was the language TFD-654N Freedom Fishing Blue A2888. 

ANSWER: Admitted. 

REQUEST NO.8: Printed on the exterior of one side of the fiberboard box assigned airway 

bill tracking number 797609866023 was the language "TH1S SIDE UP". 

ANSWER: Admitted, assuming by "exterior of one side" Complainant means the top of the 

box. 

REQUEST NO.9: On January 10,2014 the customer service agent at the FedEx Office in 

Austin, Texas accepted the shipment assigned airway bill tracking number 797609866023. 

ANSWER: Respondent incorporates each of its General Objections above. Upon 

information and belief, Respondent admits that FedEx Office accepted the shipment with a shipping 

label without indication that it contained hazardous materials and that did not contain the required 

shipper's declaration or required hazardous materials markings or labels, at a FedEx Office location 

with signage stating that dangerous goods are not accepted at FedEx Office. 
\ 

! 

REQUEST NO.lO: On January 10, 2014the customer service agentattheFedExOffice in 

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 in Fort W mih, Texas. 

ANSWER: Admitted. 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S FIRST SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES 

INTERROGATORY N0.1: Identify the name, address, telephone number, and position of 

each person answering or assisting in answering these interrogatories. 

RESPONSE: 

Greg Stofko 

Senior Attorney 

1700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Suite 950 

Washington, DC 20006 

202-393-9285 
Allan 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 

INTERROGATORY NO.2: Identify by name, address and telephone numbers all persons 

who have personal knowledge of your affirmative defenses alleged in your Answer. 

RESPONSE: 

Greg Stofko 

Senior Attorney 

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 Advisor 
Federal 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- 434-95 63 

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 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 individual with personal knowledge of 

Respondent's affirmative defenses. 

INTERROGATORY NO.3: Identify by title, date, author, present custodian and content 

all documents obtained by you or in your possession relating to the assertions in Federal Express 

Corporation's Answer, including affirmative defenses. 

RESPONSE: Respondent incorporates each of its General Objections set forth above. 

Respondent objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence, it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, not sufficiently limited in relevant type, time or geographic scope, and not reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Respondent further 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 in possession of Respondent's Counsel. 

• Releasable portion ofF AA Investigative File, including but not limited to: 

o FAA Letter of Investigation dated January 17, 2014 

o FedEx Express Response to Letter of Investigation, dated February 6, 2014, 

including attachment 

o Statement ofF AA Special Agent Anthony Jimenez 

o Package photographs, dated January 15, 2014 

o Copy of the shipper's shipping label, dated January 10,2014 

o 2014 FedEx Express Service Guide, including FedEx Express Terms and Conditions 

o FAA Order 2150.3B Compliance and Enforcement Program 

o E"mail dated February 10, 2014 between Heidi McAuliffe of the American Coatings 

Association and David Littlejohn of FedEx regarding regulated vs. non-regulated 

paint 

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

Coatings and David Littlejohn ofFedEx regarding regulated vs. non-regulated paint 

• FedEx Express Informal Conference Presentation 
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 documents relating to Federal Express 

Corporation'~ Answer and Affirmative Defenses. 

INTERROGATORY NO.4: Identify the name, address, telephone number, and specialty 

of each person you expect to call as an expert witness at trial, and for each expert identified, state the 

subject matter ofhis or her testimony and the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert 

' 

is expected to testifY. 

RESPONSE: Respondent has not yet identified any expert witness but will amend and/or 

supplement this response if it identifies any expert witness. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Explain the factual basis for each denial in Federal Express 

Corporation's Answer to Complainant's complaint. 

RESPONSE: FedEx Express denies that any of its employees knowingly, as defmed in 49 

U.S. C. 5123 (a) (1 ), accepted the improperly prepared hazardous material shipment in question. The 

shipment in question was tendered without the required hazardous material markings, labels or 

documentation. The shipment was not in lJN specification packaging, did not include a UN number, 

did not have any of the required hazard labels, and did not include a shipper's declaration. The 

shipment in question, as it appeared to FedEx Express employees, was completely consistent with a 

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 word that is synonymous with hazardous 

material and could refer to a variety of paints that are not regulated by the Hazardous Materials 
Regulations. In addition, the orientation arrows referred to in Complainant's Complaint, Section I 

paragraph 3, are not in conformance with the hazardous material regulations, specifically section 49 

C.P.R. 172.312. Further, the shipment in question was dropped off at a FedEx Office facility, which 

per policy and Fec!Ex Express terms and conditions does not accept hazardous materials on behalf of 

Fec!Ex Express. Additionally, the FedEx Office facility had signage prominently posted to indicate 

that it does not accept dangerous goods. Finally, the shipper utilized automated FedEx software to 

generate their shipping label and affim1ed that this shipment did not contain hazardous materials, an 

affirmation that F edEx Express is entitled to rely upon. Had the shipper properly indicated that their 

shipment contained hazardous materials during the preparation of their shipping label, the label 

would have indicated that the shipment contained a regulated co=odity. Therefore, there is no 

duty for a reasonable person acting in these circumstances to further inquire into a shipment that, by 

its appearance and given all the relevant facts and circumstances, is consistent with anon-hazardous 

shipment. 

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 F ec!Ex Office who were involved in accepting the shipment 

are: 

Taler Kaufman 

Center Manager 

Austin TX IH 35 at Slaughter 

95 00 S Interstate 3 5 

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 if it identifies any additional persons involved in the acceptance of the 

shipment. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify the names, address and phone numbers of each and 

every FedEx employee who failed to inspect 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, F edEx Office does not accept any hazardous material, as defined in in 49 

C.F.R 171, et seq, on behalf ofFedExExpress. Therefore Respondent objects to this request in that 

it seeks to imply an obligation onFedEx Office to inspect hazardous material shipments pursuant to 

49 C.F.R 175.30. Further, nothing alleged in Complainant's complaint would give rise to an 

additional duty on behalf of FedEx Office or FedEx Express to inspect the shipment. Respondent 
asserts that at no time, did employees of Respondent or FedEx Office knowingly, as defined in 49 

U.S.C. 5123 (a) (1), accept an improperly prepared hazardous material shipment. For employees 

involved in the acceptance of the shipment, see answer to Complainant's Interrogatory Number 6. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify the names of each and every employee in the FedEx 

Office in Austin involved in this incident who received the following training: 

(a) General awareness/familiarization training; 

(b) Function-specific training; 

(c) Safety training; 

(d) Security awareness training; 

(e) In-depth security training; 

(f) Any other hazardous material training. 

RESPONSE: Respondent incorporates each of its 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 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations. In response to Interrogatory 8 (f), 

both FedEx Office employees Kaufman and Moore received Dangerous Goods Assessment training 

and Dangerous Goods Handling training. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify the dates the employees in the FedEx Office in 

Austin received training referred to in Interrogatory No. 6. 

RESPONSE: Respondent incorporates each of its General Objections above. Upon 

information and belief, Kaufman completed Dangerous Goods Assessment on November 20, 2012 

and December 5, 2013 and Dangerous Goods Handling on February 11, 2014; Moore completed 
Dangerous Goods Assessment on November 1 7, 2012 and January 15, 20 14 and Dangerous Goods 

Handling on February 20, 2014. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: If your responses to each Request for Admission served is 

not an unqualified admission, then state all facts which you base your response to each and every 

qualified admission of Complainant's First Set of Requests for Admission. 

RESPONSE: See response to Complainant's Interrogatory Number 5. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: State the nanaes, addresses and telephone numbers of all 

persons who have knowledge of the facts which you base your response to each and every qualified 

admission of Complainant's First Set of Request to Admit Facts. 

RESPONSE: See response to Complainant's Interrogatory Number 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 of Request to 

Admit Facts. 

RESPONSE: Respondent incorporates each of its General Objections set forth above. 

Respondent objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence, it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, not sufficiently limited in relevant type, time or geographic scope, and not reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Respondent further 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 limited to: 

o FAA Letter ofinvestigation dated 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 Package tracking printout for airway bill tracking number 797609866023 

• 2014 FedEx Express Service Guide, including FedEx Express Terms and Conditions 

• E-mail dated February 10,2014 between Heidi McAuliffe of the American Coatings 

Association and David Littlejohn of FedEx Express regarding regulated vs. nonregulated paint 

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

Coatings and David Littlejohn of FedEx Express regarding regulated vs. nonregulated paint 

• FedEx Express Informal Conference Presentation 

• Statements of Taler 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 of Request to Admit Facts. 

RESPONSE: All documents referred to in Complainant's Interrogatory 13 are in possession 

of Respondent's Counsel. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Explain the factual basis for each denial in Federal Express 

Corporation's Answer to Complainant's complaint. 

RESPONSE: See response to Interrogatory Number 5. 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S FIRST REQUEST 

FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

REQUEST TO PRODUCE NO. 1: Produce all documents supporting Respondent's 

answers to Complainant's First Set ofinterrogatories. 

RESPONSE: Documents identified in response to Interrogatories Number 3 and 12 and not 

already in the Complainant's possession (e.g. FAA enforcement file) are produced at Attaclnnent 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 

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 additional documents responsive to 

this request. 

REQUEST TO PRODUCE NO. 2: Produce all documents supporting Respondent's 

answers to Complainant's First Set of Requests for Admission. 

RESPONSE: See documents identified and produced in response to Request to Produce 

Number 1. 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 additional documents responsive to this request. 

REQUEST TO PRODUCE NO.3: Produce any expert report intended to be used at trial. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 ( a)(B ), the report shall contain a complete statement 

of all 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 

support for the opinions; the qualifications ofthe witness, including a list of all publications authored 

by the witness within the preceding ten years; the compensation to be paid for the study and 

testimony; and a listing of any other cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by 

deposition within the preceding four years. Any expert report in possession of Respondent or its 

counsel and any documents containing the information required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26 (a)(B), whether in the form of a report, letter, or otherwise, should be produced in response to this 

demand whether or not it presently conforms to the Federal Rules cited above. 

RESPONSE: Respondent has not yet identified any expert report, but will amend and/or 

supplement this response if it identifies any expert. 
) REQUEST TO PRODUCE NO.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, Respondent reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response if it identifies 

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.com 
CERTIFICATE 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 of the Regional Counsel 

2601 Meacham Boulevard 

Fort Worth, Texas 76137 

Dated this 29th day of I anuary, 2015. 

~7 ? 01';? 

By: -~ 

/./ s"/ -~ ·-.7-· /- 4::.,-·-/ c/ . -·' - '.• 

GregStofko ,/ 

Att6mey for 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 PRODUct AN!> 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 of 3 

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 

SECTION Vi • 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 • REACTlVlfY DATA . 

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 HAN DUNG 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 

I 
are 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 of3 
U.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 OGL 700057, 201 OGL 700087, 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 12GL 700304, 

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)