RECEIVED 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

AUG 2 0 2012 

HEARING DOCKET ) 

) 

) 

) 

FAA Case No.: 2011CE700023 

NU FASHION BEAUTY SUPPLY 

DISTRIBUTORS, 

NV FASIDON BEAUTY SUPPLY DISTIBUTORS' POST TRIAL BRIEF 

Comes now Nu Fashion Beauty Supply Distributors, (Nu Fashion), by counsel W. Bevis 

Schock, and states for its Post-Trial Brief: 

Nu Fashion agrees with the FAA's assessment on p. 5 of its post-trial brief that the only 

issue before the court is the appropriateness of the 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 assertion Nu Fashion in no way wishes to make light of 

the events, or to suggest that public safety is not of the highest possible importance. 

Nevertheless, the facts in Nu Fashion's favor, including 

I. Nu Fashion's cooperation with the 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 of the routine business 

pathways ofNu Fashion, 

4. The fact that the box, which contained 12 cans of hairspray, 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 of the cans, aerosol, were not in the category "forbidden", 

which is the highest category, 

8. There was no reliance on others, 

9. There were no aggravating circumstances, 

l 0. After proper classification of the product as a consumer item the cans were 

in Category "C", 

11. There is virtually no chance of repetition of the conduct. 

The FAA's requested penalty of $15,000 is out of proportion 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. 

Nu Fashion notes that at p.9 the agency discusses a Dunn and Bradstreet report. Counsel 

for Nu Fashion recalls that the testimony regarding the Dunn and Bradstreet report was not 

accepted by the court because it was subject to a proper hearsay objection. 

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE,.Nu Fashion prays the court to assess a sanction of$1,000.00, for such 

other relief as the court ~o be just, 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 

2 
CERTIFICATE 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 of Regional Counsel 

Central Region, ACE-7 

901 Locust, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey 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 of service was: regular mail 

3