# RECEIVED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION IN THE MATTER OF: 

## AUG 2 02012 

## HEARING DOCKET ) ) ) ) FAA Case No.: 2011CE700023 NU FASHION BEAUTY SUPPLY DISTRIBUTORS, NVFASIDON BEAUTY SUPPLY DISTIBUTORS' POST TRIAL BRIEF Comes now NuFashion Beauty Supply Distributors, (Nu Fashion), by counsel W. Bevis Schock, and states for its Post-Trial Brief: NuFashion agrees with the FAA's assessment onp. 5 ofits post-trial briefthat the only issue before the court is the appropriateness ofthe FAA's requested sanction of$15,000. Nu Fashion states, as it has throughout this matter, that a sanction of$15,000 is too high for the facts in this case. In making this assertionNuFashion inno way wishes to make light of the events, or to suggest that public safety is not ofthe highest possible importance. Nevertheless, the facts in NuFashion's favor, including I. Nu Fashion's cooperation withthe FAA, 2. The fact that Nu Fashion actually asked the UPS driver for help filling out the shipping form, 3. The fact that this was an isolated incident out ofthe routine business pathways ofNuFashion, 4. The fact that the box, which contained 12 cans ofhairspray, never did get

on the airplane, 5. Nu Fashion is a small business, 6. There was no intent to create a risk,7. The contents ofthe cans, aerosol, were not inthe category "forbidden", which is the highest category, 8. There was no reliance on others, 9. There were no aggravating circumstances, l0. Afterproper classification ofthe product as a consumer item the cans were in Category "C", 11. There is virtually no chance ofrepetition ofthe conduct. The FAA's requested penalty of$15,000 is out ofproportion to the facts. If$100,000 is an appropriate fme for a situation resulting in death, serious illness or

severe injury to a person, this situation is about 1% as serious as that, and so a $1,000.00 fine would be appropriate. NuFashion notes that at p.9 the agency discusses a Dunn and Bradstreetreport. Counsel for Nu Fashionrecalls that the testimony regarding the Dunn and Bradstreet report was not accepted by the court because itwas subjectto a proper hearsay objection. PRAYER WHEREFORE,.Nu Fashion prays the court to assess a sanction of$1,000.00, for such other reliefas the court

# ~o bejust, meet and reasonable. Respectfully Submitted,



## ' /;**;~j/J** 

## -,'

-- 

# v r !I; 

# Y/ "\**/~-~** 

## " W. Bevis Schock, MBE # 32551

-- Attorney for Nu Fashion 7777 Bonhornme Ave., Ste. 1300 St. Louis, MO 63105 wbschock@schocklaw.com Fax: 314-721-1698 Voice: 314-726-2322



### 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on Aprill6, 2012 (s)he served this document on: Gayle E. Townsend, Complainant's Counsel

- (hy email and regular mail) Office ofRegional Counsel Central Region, ACE-7 901 Locust, Room 506 Kansas City, MO 64106 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave., S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building, Ste. 2W1000

### .t/.tU.a~l//1 / 

## )(liJ**/24/~~** The method ofservice was: regular mail

3