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

WASHINGTON, D.C.



### In the Matter ofWorldLogistics Solutions, LLC d/b/a Viabox DocketNo. FAA-2105-0207 AdministrativeLawJudge Richard C. Goodwin

ANSWER 

# RECEI\/ED

IV!Aii 

## l 72015 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) knowinglyoffered a shipment containinghazardousmaterials to Federal Express (Fed Ex), under Fed Ex tracking number 609695546186 for transportationby 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 ofScratch Wizard Clear Coat and one, ten and ahalfounce aerosol container ofScratch 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 ofthe 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 TransportationHazardous Materials Regulations (49 CPR § 172.10I). b. The proper shipping name ofthe material is aerosol, flammable liquids, n.o.s. It is in Hazard Class 2.1, aerosol, andis assigned identificationnumberUN 1950. RESPONSE: Viabox is without sutlicient knowledge or information to admit or deny this allegation. 7. The shipment ofthe hazardous materials was processed by an employee ofViabox that did not receive the requiredhazardous materials training. RESPONSE: Denied. 8. At all times mentioned herein, the shipment was not accompanied by a Shipper's Declarationfor Dangerous Goods. RESPONSE: Viabox is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny this allegation. 9. Viabox offeredthe above-described shipment ofhazardous material for transportation by air when there were no shipping papers containing the proper shipping name ofeach hazardous material; the hazard class ofeach hazardous material, preceded by "UN" or "NA," as applicable; the total quantity by weight or volume ofeach hazardous material covered by the description; andthebasic description ofeachhazardous material shownin 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 containedtherein

2RESPONSE: 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 requiredmarking in English andprinted on or affixed to the surface ofthe 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 telephonenumber, 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. AllegationNo. 13 appearsto be essentially the same as AllegationNo. 7. 

### II. 14. By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the Respondent violated the following Federal AviationRegulations: 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 notincondition for shipment as requiredbytheHazardousMaterial Regulations. RESPONSE: Denied. b) 49 CFR 

### § 172.200(a), in that Viabox offered a hazardous material for transportation and did notproperly describethatmaterial onthe shippingpaper. 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 descriptionthe certificationor 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 properlymark that material in accordance withthe regulations. RESPONSE: Denied.

3e) 49 CPR§ 172.400(a), in that Viabox offered a hazardous material for transportation and didnotproperly label thatmaterial inaccordance withthe 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 withthe 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 ofthe 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. Pursuantto 49 U.S.C. §5123, Respondent is subjectto acivil penalty ofat least $250 but not more than $75,000 for each ofthe violations alleged. Underthe facts and circumstances ofthis case, acivil 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 uponwhich reliefcanbe 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 FairnessActof 1996 ("SBREFA"). 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

4this 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 hearingfor this matter in Washington,DC afterAugust 17, 2015.

Dated: March24, 2015



### 5

# ?[;;L"-U<.,~-1 DavidM. Hernandez, Esq. Vedder, PriceP.C. 14011 StreetNW, 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/aViaboxCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ihereby certifythatIhave sentonthis day by way ofUnited States Certified Mail, Postage Prepaid, Return ReceiptRequestedthis Answerto the following: Federal AviationAdministration (Original and one copy) Attn: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. WilburWright**Building~** Suite 2W1000 Washington, D.C. 20591 Kate Barber Federal AviationAdministration Office ofRegional Counsel 2300EastDevon Avenue, AGL-7 DesPlaines, lllinois 60018 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E1l-310) Washington, DC 20590



## MegMorrison Administrative Legal Assistant Vedder Price P.C. 1401 I StreetNW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005

Date: March 24,2015