EIVED 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEB 2 7 2015 

FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

v. 

PRO FORM PRODUCTS LTD. 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

HEARING DOCKET 

FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-1122 

Case No. 2012S0700264 

JUDGEJ.E. SULLIVAN 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO 

COMPLAINT 

Respondent, Pro Form Products Ltd., by and through undersigned counsel, and 

in response to Complainant Federal Aviation Administration's Complaint, states as 

follows: 

I. 

Respondent admits the allegations contained in Section I (1) of the Complaint. 

II 

1. Respondent admits only that on or about June 11,2012, Respondent 

offered to DHL a one-piece shipment for transportation by air and denies each and 

every other allegations contained in Section II (1) of the Complaint. 

2. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Section II (2) of the 

Complaint. 

3. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Section II (3) of the 

Complaint. 
4. Respondent does not dispute that the shipment was not accompanied by a 

Shipper's Certification or Declaration of Dangerous Goods. However, Respondent 

indicated in the shipment documents with DHL that the material being shipped was 

"all purpose cleaner." 

5. Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations in Section II (5) of the Complaint, and therefore 

denies the same. 

6. Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations in Section II (6) of the Complaint, and therefore 

denies the same. 

7. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Section II (7) of the 

Complaint. 

8 a. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Section II (8)(a) of 

the Complaint. 

b. Respondent admits that the material it unknowingly shipped is 

Flammable Liquid N.O.S. (Ethylbenzene) which is in Hazard Class 3, Packing Group II, 

and has an assigned identification number of UN 1993, but denies the allegation that the 

proper shipping name of the material is Flammable Liquid N.O.S. (Hydrogen chloride). 

9. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Section II (9)(a) to (d), but 

denies the allegations contained in Section II (9)(e) to (f). Respondent further states that 

it indicated in the shipment documents with DHL that the number of packages being 

shipped was "1" and the total weight of the material was "28 oz." 

2 
10 Respondent admits the allegations contained in Section II (10) of the 

Complaint. 

11. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Section II (11) of the 

Complaint. 

12. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Section II (12) of the 

Complaint. Respondent further states that it provided its contact information in the 

shipment documents with DHL. 

13. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Section II (13) of the 

Complaint. Respondent further states that it provided its contact information in the 

shipment documents with DHL. 

14. Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations in Section II (14) of the Complaint, and therefore 

denies the same. 

15. Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations in Section II (15) of the Complaint, and therefore 

denies the same. 

III 

16. Respondent denies allegations contained in Section III (16)(a)- (q) of the 

Complaint. In further response to the allegations contained in this Section III (16), 

Respondent repeats and incorporates by reference his replies to Paragraphs 1 through 

15 of Section II hereof and denies generally that it knowingly or intentionally violated 

3 
any of the regulations contained in this Section III (16) of the Complaint and demands 

strict proof thereof. 

17. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Section III (17) of the 

Complaint. 

18. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Section III (18) of the 

Complaint. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

1. The Complaint fails to state a claim warranting the proposed penalty. 

2. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

3. Respondent did not knowingly or intentionally violate any law or 

regulation. 

4. Respondent did not "knowingly" offer hazardous materials for 

transportation by air. 

5. Respondent reserves the right to assert additional defenses as may 

become apparent through additional investigation and discovery. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, Pro Form Products Ltd., having fully responded to 

FAA's Complaint, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor, the 

Complaint and civil penalty of the Federal Aviation Administration be dismissed with 

prejudice and that Respondent be awarded its costs herein and such other relief, legal or 

equitable, that the Administrative Law Judge deems suitable and proper. 

4 
5 

Respectfully submitted, 

Stuart A. Laven, Jr. (0071110) 

Cavitch, Familo & Durkin Co., LP A 

1300 East Ninth St. -20th Floor 

Cleveland, Ohio 44114 

Telephone: 216-621-7860 

Facsimile: 216-621-3415 

Email: slaven@cavitch.com 

Attorney for Respondent 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Answer has been sent via FedEx on 

February 26, 2015 to: 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAA, AGC - 430, Suite 2W 1000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

800 Independence A venue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

cj o Mail Center (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Robert B. Dixon 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

6 

Stuart A Laven, Jr.