U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of World Logistics Solutions, LLC 

d/b/a Viabox 

Docket No. FAA-2105-0207 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

ANSWER 

RECEI\/ED 

IV!Aii l 7 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

World Logistics Solutions, LLC d/b/a Viabox ("Viabox"), by counsel, hereby files its 

Answer, pursuant to Rule 209 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. 13.209), to the Federal 

Aviation Administration's ("FAA") Complaint served on February 24, 2015, and states as 

follows: 

I. 

l. On or about July 19, 2014, World Logistics Solutions, LLC, d/b/a Viabox (Viabox) 

knowingly offered a shipment containing hazardous materials to Federal Express (Fed Ex), under 

Fed Ex tracking number 609695546186 for transportation by air from [sic] 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

2. The shipment under Fed Ex tracking number 609695546186 was offered by Viabox, 

25883 North Park Ave., Elkhart, IN 46514 for transportation to Ridha Outertani, 2090 Rue 

Moreau, Locall03, Montreal, PQ HI W2M3, Canada. 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

3. The shipment under Fed Ex tracking number 609695546186 traveled to a Fed Ex sort 

facility at South Bend, IN were it was discovered to contain two aerosol containers that are 

hazardous materials. 

RESPONSE: Viabox is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny this 

allegation. 

4. The shipment under Fed Ex tracking number 609695546186 was one box which 

contained 2 aerosol cans. One, twelve ounce aerosol container of Scratch Wizard Clear Coat and 

one, ten and a half ounce aerosol container of Scratch Wizard, Mercedes, 747 Blend. 
RESPONSE: Viabox is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny this 

allegation. 

5. Personnel from Fed Ex contacted the Federal Aviation Administration who conducted 

an investigation into the shipment of the hazardous materials and discovered that the hazardous 

materials shipment was not declared, described, packaged, marked or labeled as containing 

hazardous materials or in the proper condition for transport according to the Hazardous Material 

Regulations. 

RESPONSE: Viabox is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny this 

allegation. 

6. The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for the aerosols lists the products as regulated as 

Aerosol Flammable. 

a. The product is classified as a hazardous material under the Department of 

Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations ( 49 CPR § 172.10 I). 

b. The proper shipping name of the material is aerosol, flammable liquids, n.o.s. It is in 

Hazard Class 2.1, aerosol, and is assigned identification number UN 1950. 

RESPONSE: Viabox is without sutlicient knowledge or information to admit or deny this 

allegation. 

7. The shipment of the hazardous materials was processed by an employee of Viabox that 

did not receive the required hazardous materials training. 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

8. At all times mentioned herein, the shipment was not accompanied by a Shipper's 

Declaration for Dangerous Goods. 

RESPONSE: Viabox is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny this 

allegation. 

9. Viabox offered the above-described shipment of hazardous material for transportation by 

air when there were no shipping papers containing the proper shipping name of each hazardous 

material; the hazard class of each hazardous material, preceded by "UN" or "NA," as applicable; 

the total quantity by weight or volume of each hazardous material covered by the description; 

and the basic description of each hazardous material shown in sequence. 

RESPONSE: 

allegation. 

Viabox is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny this 

10. Viabox offered the above-described hazardous material for transportation by air when the 

shipment was not marked or labeled in any manner that would indicate the hazardous nature of 

the contents contained therein 

2 
RESPONSE: 

allegation. 

Viabox is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny this 

11. Viabox offered the above-described shipment for transportation by air when the box was 

not marked with the proper shipping name and the assigned identification number of each 

hazardous material contained therein, and with the required marking in English and printed on or 

affixed to the surface of the package. 

RESPONSE: Viabox is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny this 

allegation. 

12. Viabox did not make emergency response information, including the emergency response 

telephone number, available for use at all times the hazardous material was present. 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

13. Viabox employee's [sic] performed hazardous material shipping functions when they [sic] 

had not received the required hazardous materials employee training. 

RESPONSE: Denied. Allegation No. 13 appears to be essentially the same as Allegation No. 7. 

II. 

14. By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the Respondent violated the 

following Federal Aviation Regulations: 

a) 49 CFR § 171.2( e) in that Viabox offered a hazardous material for transportation in 

air commerce that was not properly packed, classed, described, marked, labeled and 

was not in condition for shipment as required by the Hazardous Material Regulations. 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

b) 49 CFR § 172.200(a), in that Viabox offered a hazardous material for transportation 

and did not properly describe that material on the shipping paper. 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

c) 49 CFR § 172.204(a), in that Viabox offered a hazardous material for transportation 

and did not certify that the material is offered for transportation in accordance with 

this subchapter by printing on the shipping paper containing the required shipping 

description the certification or declaration; 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

d) 49 CFR § 172.30l(a), in that Viabox offered a hazardous material for transportation 

in a non-bulk package and did not properly mark that material in accordance with the 

regulations. 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

3 
e) 49 CPR§ 172.400(a), in that Viabox offered a hazardous material for transportation 

and did not properly label that material in accordance with the regulations; 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

f) 49 CPR § 172.600( c )(2), in that Viabox offered a hazardous material for 

transportation and did not provide emergency response information in accordance 

with the regulations; 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

g) 49 CPR § 172.702(a), in that Viabox did not ensure that employees involved in the 

handling of hazardous materials were trained in accordance with subpart H of part 

172; [sic] 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

h) 49 CFR § 173.l(b), in that Viabox did not prepare shipment of the hazardous materials in 

accordance to this subchapter to be offered for transportation by air, highway, rail, or 

water. Viabox did not ensure each hazmat employee or employee having any 

responsibility for preparing hazardous materials for shipment conform to the applicable 

regulations or be trained in accordance with the requirements prescribed in this 

subchapter; and [sic] 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

15. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §5123, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty of at least $250 but not 

more than $75,000 for each of the violations alleged. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, 

a civil penalty of $70,020 is appropriate. 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

III. Affirmative Defenses 

1. For its first affirmative defense, Viabox asserts that Complainant fails to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted. 

2. For its second affirmative defense, Viabox, a small business with net income of $51,685 

in 2013, and $67,400 in 2014, asserts that Complainant's proposed civil penalty is 

excessive and not appropriate in view of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 ("SBREF A"). 

3. For its third affirmative defense, Viabox asserts that Complainant's proposed civil 

penalty is excessive and not appropriate in view of precedent and FAA enforcement 

guidance. 

4. For its fourth affirmative defense, Viabox asserts that the Complainant's prosecution of 

4 
this case will not further serve the Complainant's compliance and enforcement objectives 

and the public interest and, therefore, is not in compliance with FAA Order 2150.3B, 

Compliance and Enforcement Manual. 

IV. Requested Relief 

WHEREFORE, Viabox, by counsel, submits that it has fully answered the Complaint 

and that the Administrative Law Judge dismiss this matter or, in the alternative, schedule a 

hearing for this matter in Washington, DC after August 17, 2015. 

Dated: March 24, 2015 

5 

?[;;L"-U<.,~-1 David M. Hernandez, Esq. 

Vedder, Price P.C. 

14011 Street NW, Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005 

Direct: + 1.202.312.3340 

Fax: + 1.202.312.3322 

dhernandez@vedderprice.com 

Counsel to World Logistics Solutions, LLC 

d/b/a Viabox 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have sent on this day by way of United States Certified Mail, 

Postage Prepaid, Return Receipt Requested this Answer to the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building~ Suite 2W1 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Kate Barber 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

2300 East Devon Avenue, AGL-7 

Des Plaines, lllinois 60018 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E1l-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Meg Morrison 

Administrative Legal Assistant 

Vedder Price P.C. 

1401 I Street NW, Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005 

Date: March 24,2015