| Commitments and Contingencies | Note 16: Commitments and Contingencies Except as otherwise noted, while we are unable to predict the final outcome, based on information currently available, we do not believe that resolution of any of the following matters will have a material adverse effect upon our competitive position, results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. Environmental. Our operations are subject to environmental regulation by federal, state, and local authorities in the United States and regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over our foreign operations. We have accrued for the costs of environmental remediation activities, including but not limited to investigatory, remediation, operating and maintenance costs, and performance guarantees, and periodically reassess these amounts. We do not expect any additional liability to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. As of both September 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023, we had $0.8 billion reserved for environmental remediation. Commercial Aerospace Financing and Other Commitments. We had commercial aerospace financing commitments and other contractual commitments of approximately $14.1 billion and $14.6 billion as of September 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively, on a gross basis before reduction for our collaboration partners’ share. Aircraft financing commitments, in the form of debt or lease financing, are provided to certain commercial aerospace customers. The extent to which the financing commitments will be utilized is not currently known, since customers may be able to obtain more favorable terms from other financing sources. We may also arrange for third-party investors to assume a portion of these commitments. The majority of financing commitments are collateralized arrangements. We may also lease aircraft and subsequently sublease the aircraft to customers under long-term non-cancelable operating leases, or pay deposits on behalf of our customers to secure production slots with the airframers (pre-delivery payments). Our financing commitments with customers are contingent upon maintenance of certain levels of financial condition by our customers. Associated risks on these commitments are mitigated due to the fact that interest rates are variable during the commitment term and are set at the date of funding based on current market conditions, the fair value of the underlying collateral, and the credit worthiness of our customers. As a result, the fair value of these financing commitments is expected to equal the amounts funded. We also have other contractual commitments to make payments to secure certain contractual rights to provide product on new aircraft platforms. The estimated amount and timing of these payments are generally based on future sales or engine flight hours. Payments made on these contractual commitments are included within intangible assets as exclusivity assets and are amortized over the term of underlying economic benefit. We have entered into certain collaboration arrangements, which may include participation by our collaboration partners in these commitments. In addition, in connection with our 2012 agreement to acquire Rolls-Royce’s ownership and collaboration interests in IAE, additional payments are due to Rolls-Royce contingent upon each hour flown through June 2027 by the V2500-powered aircraft in service as of the acquisition date. These flight hour payments are capitalized as collaboration intangible assets as payments are made. Other Financing Arrangements. We have entered into standby letters of credit and surety bonds with financial institutions to meet various bid, performance, warranty, retention, and advance payment obligations for us or our affiliates. We enter into these agreements to assist certain affiliates in obtaining financing on more favorable terms, making bids on contracts and performing their contractual obligations. The stated values of these letters of credit agreements and surety bonds totaled $3.1 billion as of September 30, 2024. Offset / Industrial Participation Obligations. We have entered into industrial cooperation agreements, sometimes in the form of either offset agreements or ICIP agreements, as a condition to obtaining orders for our products and services from certain customers in foreign countries. At September 30, 2024, the aggregate amount of these agreements, both agreed to and anticipated to be agreed to, had an outstanding notional value of approximately $12.5 billion. These agreements are designed to return economic value to the foreign country by requiring us to engage in activities supporting local defense or commercial industries, promoting a balance of trade, developing in-country technology capabilities, or addressing other local development priorities. Offset agreements may be satisfied through activities that do not require a direct cash payment, including transferring technology, providing manufacturing, training, and other consulting support to in-country projects, and the purchase by third parties (e.g., our vendors) of supplies from in-country vendors. These agreements may also be satisfied through our use of cash for activities such as subcontracting with local partners, purchasing supplies from in-country vendors, providing financial support for in-country projects, and making investments in local ventures. Such activities may also vary by country depending upon requirements as dictated by their governments. We typically do not commit to offset agreements until orders for our products or services are definitive. The amounts ultimately applied against our offset agreements are based on negotiations with the customers and typically require cash outlays that represent only a fraction of the notional value in the offset agreements. Offset programs usually extend over several or more years and may provide for penalties in the event we fail to perform in accordance with offset requirements. Historically, we have not been required to pay any penalties of significance. Government Oversight. In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries and our properties are subject to regulatory and governmental examinations, information gathering requests, inquiries, investigations, and threatened legal actions and proceedings. For example, we are now, and believe that, in light of the current U.S. government contracting and overall enforcement environment, we will continue to be the subject of one or more U.S. government investigations. Our contracts with the U.S. government are also subject to audits. Agencies that oversee contract performance include: the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), the Inspectors General of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and other departments and agencies, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and Congressional Committees. Other areas of our business operations may also be subject to audit and investigation by these and other agencies. From time to time, agencies investigate or conduct audits to determine whether our operations are being conducted in accordance with applicable requirements. Such investigations and audits may be initiated due to a number of reasons, including as a result of a whistleblower complaint. Such investigations and audits could result in administrative, civil, or criminal liabilities, including the imposition of repayment obligations, fines, treble or other damages, forfeitures, disgorgement, restitution, or penalties, the suspension of government export licenses, and/or suspension or debarment from future U.S. government contracting. They could also result in deferred prosecution agreements, consent agreements, guilty plea agreements, and/or imposition of an independent compliance monitor. U.S. government investigations often take years to complete. As noted above, the U.S. government reserves the right to suspend or debar a contractor from receiving new government contracts for fraudulent, criminal, or other seriously improper conduct. The U.S. government could also void any contracts found to be tainted by fraud. Like many defense contractors, we have received audit reports recommending the reduction of certain contract prices because, for example, cost or pricing data or cost accounting practices used to price and negotiate those contracts may not have conformed to government regulations. Some of these audit reports recommend that certain payments be repaid, delayed, or withheld, and may involve substantial amounts. We have made voluntary refunds in those cases we believe appropriate, have settled some allegations and, in some cases, continue to negotiate and/or litigate. The Company may be, and in some cases has been, required to make payments into escrow of disputed liabilities while the related litigation is pending. If the litigation is resolved in the Company’s favor, any such payments will be returned to the Company with interest. Our final allowable incurred costs for each year are also subject to audit and have, from time to time, resulted in disputes between us and the U.S. government, with litigation resulting at the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) or the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), or their related courts of appeals. In addition, the DOJ has, from time to time, convened grand juries to investigate possible irregularities by us. We also provide products and services to customers outside of the U.S., and those sales are subject to local government laws, regulations, and procurement policies and practices. Our compliance with such local government regulations or any applicable U.S. government regulations (e.g., Arms Export Control Act (AECA), Export Administration Regulations (EAR), Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)) may also be investigated or audited. In addition, we accrue for liabilities associated with those matters that are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The most likely liability amount to be incurred is accrued based upon a range of estimates. Where no amount within a range of estimates is more likely, then we accrue the minimum amount. Other than as specifically disclosed in this Form 10-Q, we do not expect these audits, investigations, or disputes to have a material effect on our results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity, either individually or in the aggregate. Tax Treatment of Carrier and Otis Dispositions. Management has determined that the distributions of Carrier and Otis on April 3, 2020, and certain related internal business separation transactions, qualified as tax-free under applicable law. In making these determinations, we applied the tax law in the relevant jurisdictions to our facts and circumstances and obtained tax rulings from the relevant taxing authorities, tax opinions, and/or other external tax advice related to the concluded tax treatment. If the completed distributions of Carrier or Otis or certain internal business separation transactions were to fail to qualify for tax-free treatment, the Company could be subject to significant liabilities, and there could be material adverse impacts on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity in future reporting periods. Pratt & Whitney Powder Metal Matter. In 2023, Pratt & Whitney determined that a rare condition in powder metal used to manufacture certain engine parts requires accelerated inspection of the PW1100 GTF fleet, which powers the A320neo. This determination was made pursuant to Pratt & Whitney’s safety management system. On August 4, 2023, Pratt & Whitney issued a special instruction (SI) to operators of PW1100 GTF powered A320neo aircraft, which required accelerated inspections and engine removals covering an initial subset of operational engines, no later than September 15, 2023. During the third quarter of 2023, through its safety management system, Pratt & Whitney continued its engineering and industrial assessment, which resulted in an updated fleet management plan for the remaining PW1100 fleet. This updated plan requires a combination of part inspections and retirements for some high pressure turbine and high pressure compressor parts made from affected raw material. Guidance to affected operators was released via service bulletins (SB) and SI in November 2023, and this guidance has been reflected in airworthiness directives issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Consistent with previous information, the actions are currently resulting in, and are expected to continue to result in, significant incremental shop visits through the end of 2026. As a result, Pratt & Whitney expects aircraft on ground levels for the PW1100 powered A320neo fleet to remain elevated through 2026. As a result of anticipated increased aircraft on ground levels and expected compensation to customers for this disruption, as well as incremental maintenance costs resulting from increased inspections and shop visits, Pratt & Whitney recorded a pre-tax operating profit charge in the third quarter of 2023 of $2.9 billion, reflecting Pratt & Whitney’s net 51% program share of the PW1100 program. This amount reflected our best estimate of expected customer compensation for the estimated duration of the disruption as well as the EAC adjustment impact of this matter to Pratt & Whitney’s long-term maintenance contracts. The incremental costs to the business’s long-term maintenance contracts include the estimated cost of additional inspections, replacement of parts, and other related impacts. The charge recorded in the third quarter of 2023 resulted in a net increase in Other accrued liabilities of $2.8 billion, which principally related to our 51% share of an accrual for expected customer compensation. At September 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023, we had Other accrued liabilities of $2.2 billion and $2.8 billion, respectively, primarily related to expected compensation to customers. The decrease in the accrual during the nine months ended September 30, 2024 was due to customer compensation. Other engine models within Pratt & Whitney’s fleet contain parts manufactured with affected powder metal, but we do not currently believe there will be any resultant significant financial impact with respect to these other engine models at this time. The financial impact of the powder metal issue is based on historical experience and is subject to various assumptions and judgments, most notably, the number and expected timing of shop visits, inspection results and scope of work to be performed, turnaround time, availability of parts, available capacity at overhaul facilities and outcomes of negotiations with impacted customers. While these assumptions reflect our best estimates at this time, they are subject to variability. Potential changes to these assumptions and actual incurred costs could significantly affect the estimates inherent in our financial statements and could have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations for the periods in which they are recognized. Legal Proceedings. The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to various contract pricing disputes, government investigations, and litigation matters across jurisdictions, updates to certain of which are set forth below. Cost Accounting Standards Claims As previously disclosed, in April 2019, a Divisional Administrative Contracting Officer (DACO) of the United States DCMA asserted a claim against Pratt & Whitney to recover alleged overpayments of approximately $1.7 billion plus interest ($1.2 billion at September 30, 2024). The claim is based on Pratt & Whitney’s alleged noncompliance with Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) from January 1, 2007 to March 31, 2019, due to its method of allocating independent research and development costs to government contracts. Pratt & Whitney believes that the claim is without merit and filed an appeal to the ASBCA on June 7, 2019. On September 30, 2024, a DCMA DACO issued a second claim against Pratt & Whitney that similarly alleges that Pratt & Whitney was noncompliant with CAS due to its method of allocating independent research and development costs to government contracts from April 1, 2019 to December 31, 2023. The second claim demands payment of $1.1 billion plus interest ($276 million at September 30, 2024 ). Pratt & Whitney believes the second claim is without merit and will file an appeal to the ASBCA. As previously disclosed, in December 2013, a DCMA DACO asserted a claim against Pratt & Whitney to recover alleged overpayments of approximately $177 million plus interest ($176 million at September 30, 2024). The claim is based on Pratt & Whitney’s alleged noncompliance with CAS from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2012, due to its method of determining the cost of collaborator parts used in the calculation of material overhead costs for government contracts. In 2014, Pratt & Whitney filed an appeal to the ASBCA. An evidentiary hearing was held and completed in June 2019. On November 22, 2021, the ASBCA issued its written decision sustaining in part and denying in part Pratt & Whitney’s appeal. The ASBCA rejected the DCMA’s asserted measure of the cost of collaborator parts, and ruled substantially in Pratt & Whitney’s favor on other liability issues. The ASBCA remanded the appeal to the parties for resolution of damages issues, which could require further proceedings at the ASBCA. On December 23, 2021, the DCMA filed a motion with the ASBCA seeking partial reconsideration of the November 22, 2021 decision. The motion for reconsideration was denied on August 29, 2022. On December 23, 2022, the DCMA filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We continue to believe that the ASBCA’s rejection of the DCMA’s asserted measure of the cost of collaborator parts is well supported in fact and law and likely will be sustained. In December 2018, a DCMA DACO issued a second claim against Pratt & Whitney that similarly alleges that its method of determining the cost of collaborator parts does not comply with the CAS for calendar years 2013 through 2017. This second claim, which asserts the same measure of the cost of collaborator parts rejected by the ASBCA’s November 22, 2021 decision, demands payment of $269 million plus interest ($148 million at September 30, 2024). Pratt & Whitney appealed this second claim to the ASBCA in January 2019. In December 2023, a DCMA DACO issued a third claim against Pratt & Whitney that similarly alleges that its method of determining the cost of collaborator parts does not comply with the CAS for calendar years 2018 through 2022. This third claim, which asserts the same measure of the cost of collaborator parts rejected by the ASBCA’s prior decision, demands payment of $277 million plus interest ($73 million at September 30, 2024). Pratt & Whitney appealed this third claim to the ASBCA at the end of December 2023. Although subject to further litigation at the ASBCA and potentially further appellate proceedings, we continue to believe that the November 22, 2021 decision in the first claim will apply with equal legal effect to the second and third claims. Accordingly, we believe that the amounts demanded by the DCMA as set forth in the three claims are without legal basis and that any damages owed to the U.S. government for the three claims will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. Thales-Raytheon Systems and Related Matters As previously disclosed, in 2019, Raytheon Company received a subpoena from the SEC seeking information in connection with an investigation into whether there were improper payments made by Raytheon Company, our joint venture known as Thales-Raytheon Systems (TRS), or anyone acting on their behalf, in connection with TRS or Raytheon Company contracts in certain Middle East countries since 2014. In the first quarter of 2020, the DOJ advised Raytheon Company it had opened a parallel criminal investigation. In the third quarter of 2020, Raytheon Company received an additional subpoena from the SEC, seeking information and documents as part of its investigation. Following the government’s and the Company’s own internal investigations, the Company engaged in resolution discussions with the DOJ and the SEC, and during the quarter ended June 30, 2024, the Company reached agreements in principle with the DOJ and the SEC as to the principal elements of such resolutions, as previously disclosed on July 25, 2024. On October 15, 2024, Raytheon Company entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) (DPA-1) with the DOJ and on October 16, 2024, the Company settled an administrative proceeding with the SEC to resolve these matters. Pursuant to DPA-1, the DOJ will defer, for a period of three years, criminal prosecution of Raytheon Company related to Raytheon Company’s conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA and conspiracy to violate the AECA by failing to make related disclosures of certain payments that qualified as fees, commissions and/or political contributions under Part 130 of the ITAR. If Raytheon Company and the Company fully comply with all of their respective obligations under DPA-1 during its three-year term, the DOJ will move for dismissal with prejudice of the deferred charges against Raytheon Company. DPA-1 provides for a criminal monetary penalty and forfeiture of $282 million. In addition, the SEC’s administrative order issued in connection with the administrative proceeding settlement alleged that Raytheon Company violated the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. The order provides for a $102 million payment to the SEC that includes disgorgement, prejudgment interest on disgorgement, and a civil penalty. Under DPA-1, the SEC’s administrative order, and DPA-2 discussed in “DOJ Investigation and Contract Pricing Disputes” below, Raytheon Company and the Company are required to retain an independent compliance monitor(s) satisfactory to the DOJ and the SEC and are required to undertake certain cooperation and disclosure obligations for a three-year term. The compliance monitor(s) will oversee Raytheon Company’s and the Company’s compliance with their respective obligations under DPA-1, the SEC’s administrative order, and DPA-2 discussed in “DOJ Investigation and Contract Pricing Disputes” below. The Company has accrued $384 million in the aggregate for DPA-1 and the SEC’s administrative order as of September 30, 2024, which will be paid during the fourth quarter of 2024. The Company does not believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. DOJ Investigation and Contract Pricing Disputes As previously disclosed, on October 8, 2020, the Company received a criminal subpoena from the DOJ seeking information and documents in connection with an investigation relating to financial accounting, internal controls over financial reporting, and cost reporting regarding Raytheon Company since 2009. The investigation involved multi-year contracts subject to governmental regulation, including defective pricing claims for certain Raytheon Company contracts entered into between 2011 and 2013. As part of the same investigation, on March 24, 2021, the Company received a second criminal subpoena from the DOJ seeking documents relating to a certain contract entered into in 2017 by Raytheon Company. As previously disclosed on July 25, 2024, following the government’s and the Company’s own internal investigations, the Company engaged in resolution discussions with the DOJ, and during the quarter ended June 30, 2024, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the DOJ as to the principal elements of such resolution. In addition, the Company cooperated with the DOJ with respect to a related civil defective pricing investigation under the False Claims Act (FCA). On October 16, 2024, Raytheon Company entered into a DPA (DPA-2) and an FCA settlement agreement (FCA Settlement Agreement) with the DOJ to resolve these matters. Pursuant to DPA-2, the DOJ will defer, for a period of three years, criminal prosecution of Raytheon Company related to two counts of major fraud against the United States by Raytheon Company involving two legacy contracts. If Raytheon Company and the Company fully comply with all of their respective obligations in DPA-2 during its three-year term, the DOJ will move for dismissal with prejudice of the deferred charges against Raytheon Company. DPA-2 provides for a criminal penalty in the amount of $147 million, plus restitution, and the FCA Settlement Agreement provides for an FCA settlement payment in the amount of $428 million plus interest ($4 million at September 30, 2024), which includes restitution that will satisfy the criminal restitution obligation when paid. Under DPA-2 as well as DPA-1 and the SEC administrative order discussed in “Thales-Raytheon Systems and Related Matters” above, Raytheon Company and the Company are required to retain an independent compliance monitor(s) satisfactory to the DOJ and the SEC and are required to undertake certain cooperation and disclosure obligations for a three-year term. The compliance monitor(s) will oversee Raytheon Company’s and the Company’s compliance with their respective obligations under DPA-2 as well as DPA-1 and the SEC administrative order discussed in “Thales-Raytheon Systems and Related Matters” above. The Company has accrued $579 million in the aggregate for DPA-2 and the FCA Settlement Agreement as of September 30, 2024, which will be paid during the fourth quarter of 2024. The Company does not believe that these matters, will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. Trade Compliance Matters From time to time, we identify, investigate, remediate, and voluntarily disclose violations or potential violations of the ITAR and EAR to the relevant regulators. In May 2024, the U.S. Department of State’s (DOS) Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance (DTCC) informed the Company of its intent to seek administrative penalties for alleged violations of the AECA and the ITAR. The DTCC informed us that it considers certain of our voluntary disclosures, primarily identified in connection with the integration of Rockwell Collins and, to a lesser extent, Raytheon Company, filed since 2019 to reflect deficiencies warranting a civil penalty. On August 29, 2024, the Company entered into a Consent Agreement (CA) with the DOS to resolve these matters. The CA settles certain AECA and ITAR compliance matters with the DTCC and the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. The CA has a three-year term and provides for: (i) a civil penalty of $200 million, $100 million of which is suspended on the condition that such amount is applied to DTCC-approved remedial compliance measures; (ii) the appointment of an external Special Compliance Officer to oversee compliance with the CA, the AECA, and the ITAR; (iii) an external audit of the Company’s AECA and ITAR compliance program; and (iv) implementation of additional remedial compliance measures related to AECA and ITAR compliance. The $100 million portion of the settlement that is not subject to suspension, which was accrued by the Company in the second quarter ended June 30, 2024, will be paid in installments, with $34 million paid in September 2024, $33 million paid by August 29, 2025, and $33 million paid by August 29, 2026. As previously disclosed, the Company has determined that there is a probable risk of liability for potential penalties related to other export compliance matters which have been voluntarily disclosed to the cognizant regulators, but which are not subject to the CA. We have accrued $251 million in the aggregate as of September 30, 2024 for these matters and the matters being resolved pursuant to the CA. We are currently unable to estimate the timing or outcome of the other voluntarily disclosed export compliance matters that are not subject to the CA. However, the Company does not believe these matters will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. UTC Equity Conversion Litigation As previously disclosed, on December 6, 2022, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and certain current and former members of its Board of Directors, alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary duties in May 2020 by amending the method by which United Technologies Corporation (UTC) equity awards were converted to certain Company equity awards following the separation of UTC into three independent, publicly traded companies. On July 23, 2024, in response to a motion to dismiss filed by the Company, the Court dismissed the shareholder derivative lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice. On August 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. We continue to believe that the lawsuit lacks merit. We also continue to believe that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. Civil Litigation Related to Employee Hiring Practices Pratt & Whitney is one of multiple defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that Pratt & Whitney and the other defendants agreed to restrict the hiring and recruiting of certain engineers and skilled laborers in a manner that violated federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek to represent different purported classes of engineers and skilled laborers employed by Pratt & Whitney and other supplier-defendants since 2011, and are seeking to recover treble damages in an undetermined amount, plus attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. On August 30, 2024, Pratt & Whitney filed a notice with the court that the parties have reached agreement in principle to settle Plaintiffs’ claims on a class-wide basis for an immaterial amount. In April 2024, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors of the Company alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to implement and enforce a reasonable oversight mechanism for compliance with antitrust laws. Based on the information available to date, we do not believe that this this matter will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. Powder Metal Disclosure Litigation and SEC Investigation Following the Company’s disclosures of a rare condition in powder metal used to manufacture certain Pratt & Whitney engine parts, two sets of civil actions were filed against RTX. First, two putative federal securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Company and certain current and former executives of the Company. The lawsuits allege that defendants violated federal securities laws by making material misstatements and omitting material facts relating to Pratt & Whitney’s GTF engine fleet, including the impact of the powder metal issue on the fleet, in various regulatory filings. The lawsuits were consolidated and remain pending. Second, multiple shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed against current and former officers and directors of the Company, all of which have now been consolidated into a single action which is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The operative complaint in the consolidated action alleges that the defendants caused the Company to make materially false and misleading statements relating to Pratt & Whitney’s GTF engines, and failed to maintain an adequate system of oversight, disclosure controls and procedures, and internal controls over financial reporting. Based on the information available to date, we do not believe that either matter will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. On November 7, 2023, January 30, 2024, and May 21, 2024, the Company received subpoenas from the SEC seeking engineering, operational, organizational, accounting, and financial documents in connection with an investigation relating to the Company’s disclosures in 2023 of issues arising from Pratt & Whitney’s use of powder metal in manufacturing various engine parts, its identification of certai |
