### In the Matter of: UNITED STATES OFAMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

MONROE AIR CENTER,LLC, 

### Respondent FAA CASE NO. 2011 SW030084 FAA CP CASE NO.
___ _ JUDGE NOT ASSIGNED
ANSWER OF MONROE AIRCENTER,LLC COMES NOW Monroe Air Center, LLC, Respondent in the above-captioned matter, AND pursuant to 14 CFR §13.209, and for its Answer shows the Court as follows: FIRST DEFENSE The Complaint fails to state a violation of 14 CFR §135.21(a).**See~~** 

### 3(a), 3(b) on page 1ofthe Complaint**and~** 

### a on page 2 ofthe Complaint alleging violations of 14 CFR §135.21(a) despite the fact that in a letter ofinterpretation from FAA AS0-7 to FAA AS0-200 dated June 10, 1981 [attached as Respondent's ExhibitNo. 1], FAA counsel specifically found that a failure to comply with the requirements ofa General Operations Manual ("GOM") could not fonn the basis for a violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations because the GOM merely must be "used" [14 CFR §135.21(a)]. See Respondent's ExhibitNo. 1attached. Since the verb "use" means to "accustom, habituate, to put in action or service," it is not binding, FAA counsel having declared: "In 

### considering this definition it is difficult to conclude that a requirement to use a manual is the same as a requirement to be bound bythe manual.
.. " 

### !d. In light ofthe foregoing, even ifthe facts alleged in the Complaint were true, they would not constitute a violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations. There is and was no violation of 14 CFR §135.21(a) as alleged in the Complaint.

1SECOND DEFENSE The Complaint fails to state a violation ofI4 CFR §II9.5(g) for the following reasons: (1) At all times material hereto, Monroe Air Center, LLC ("MAC") was the holder ofFAA Air Carrier Certificate No. HLWAII6E. See Respondent's ExhibitNo. 2 attached, Air Carrier Certificate issued to Respondent by the FAA; (2) MAC was authorized to operateN800CF on its air carrier certificate. See Respondent's ExhibitNo. 3 attached, FAA Operation Specification D085 listingN800CF as an approved aircraft on Respondent's Air Carrier Certificate; (3) MAC was in the process oftransitioning its air carrier operations to JPS Aviation, LLC ("JPS") by October I8, 20II. See Respondent's ExhibitNo.4, FAA Operation Specification A502 issued October 3, 2011; (4) MAC'stransition to JPS had not been successful by October 18, 2011 with the resultthat MAC's air carrier operations reverted to MAC effective October 20, 2011. See Respondent's ExhibitNo. 5, letter from the FAA to MAC, October20, 20II; (5) MAC, believingthe transition to JPS would be accomplished in a timely fashion, ordered forms (including invoices) bearing the name ofJPS. The forms were only to be used after the transition was accomplished; (6) MAC underwent a focus inspection by the FAA from August 8 to August I2, 20Il. See Complaint,**~2;** (7) There was a great deal ofconfusion among the staffat MAC about the transition; and July Fuller, MAC's Chart Coordinator, was so confused, she simply used the wrong invoice. See Respondent's ExhibitNo. 6, InvoiceNo. I1-10035 from JPS to Oschner Hospital, October 25, 2011; and (8) N800CF was onMAC's air carrier certificate on October 25, 2011 (Respondent's ExhibitNo. 3); hence, the claim thatN800CF was operated in air carrier service "without, or in violation


### 2of, an appropriate certificate and operation specifications" (14 CFR §119.5(g)) is false. See Complaint,**~~4,** 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, (b). THIRD DEFENSE The Complaint fails to state a violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations for all the reasons outlined above in the First and Second Defenses. FOURTHDEFENSE Byvirtue ofthe complicity ofthe FAA in generating confusion about whether the operations
were to be conducted by JPS or MAC, the FAA bears responsibility in the matter at hand and is estopped from asserting any violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations by Respondent. FIFTH DEFENSE Responding to the numbered paragraphs ofthe Complaint, Respondent shows as follows: 

### 1. Responding to the allegations made in Paragraph I ofthe Complaint, page 1 ofthe Complaint, Respondent admits that MAC was advised in a Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty thatthe FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty of$2,800.00; however, Respondent denies that it is obligated to pay a civil penalty of$2,800.00 because Respondent is not guilty ofany violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations. In further response to Paragraph I ofthe Complaint onpage 1 ofthe Complaint, Respondent admits that on June 28, 2012, Respondent submitted a written Request for a Hearing in this matter. 2. The allegations made in paragraph 1under RomanNumeral II ofthe Complaint alleging that MAC holds FAA CertificateNo. HLWA116E are admitted.



### 3

### 3. The allegations made in paragraph 2 under Roman Numeral II ofthe Complaintthat Respondent
was the subject ofan FAA focused inspection from August 8, 20II to August I2, 201I are admitted. 

### 4. Responding the allegations made in Paragraph 3, subparagraph (a) under Roman numeral II ofthe Complaint on page I ofthe Complaint, Respondent admits thatJohn 0. Shamblin was mistakenly listed
as General Manager in the GOM; however, Respondent denies thatthis is the basis for finding a violation under I4 CFR 

### §135.21(a) for the reason that a certificate holder is not "bound"by its GOM so as to create
a violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations ifit fails to "use" the GOM as confirmed by the letter of interpretation from AS0-7 to AS0-200 dated June IO, 198I, attached hereto and marked as Respondent's ExhibitNo. I. 

### 5. Responding to the allegations made in Paragraph 3, subparagraph (b) under Roman numeral II of the Complaint on page 1 ofthe Complaint, Respondent denies that the superseded aircraft status log could not be located, but even ifit could not be located, the failure to locate the superseded aircraft status log does not give rise to a violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations under I4 CFR §135.21(a) for the
reasons set out in the letter ofinterpretation from AS0-7 to AS0-200 dated June 10, 1981 attached hereto and marked Respondent's ExhibitNo.1. 

### 6. Responding to paragraph 4 under Roman numeral II on page ofthe Complaint, the allegations made that Operation Specification A502 was issued effective March 28, 2001 are admitted and that Operation Specification A502 allowed MAC to continue operations as "Monroe Air Center" while MAC completed training and developedthe qualifications necessaryto transition to JPS. 

### 4

### 7. Responding to the allegations made in paragraph 5 under Roman numeral II ofthe Complaint appearing on page 2 ofthe Complaint, Respondent admits that Operation Specification A502 indicated that the approved transition must have been completed by September 1, 2012.
8. Responding to the allegations made in paragraph 

### 6 ofthe Complaintunder Roman numeral 

### II of the Complaint on page 2 ofthe Complaint, Respondent admits that MAC, due to the unreasonable demands ofthe Baton Rouge FSDO, did not complete the requirements for transition to September 1, 2011 and the FAA granted an extension for completion to no later than October 

### 3, 2011; provided, however, Respondent states that the FAA created a number ofhurdles to transitioning as JPS to the extent that the Baton Rouge FSDO was not agreeing to the terms and provisions ofthe GOM drafted by Respondent and became unreasonably obtrusive, burdensome and demanding during this period of transition which was expected by Respondentto be accomplished without so much obstruction bythe Baton Rouge FSDO representatives.
9. Responding to the allegations made in paragraph 7 ofthe Complaintunder Roman numeral II on page 3 ofthe Complaint, Respondent admits that it was not able to meetthe transition requirements by October 3, 2011, because ofthe obstructionist conduct ofthe Baton Rouge FSDO and that the FAA granted Respondent an additional extension period for completion ofthe transition to October 18, 2011.
10. Responding to the allegations made in paragraph 8 under Roman II on page 3 ofthe Complaint, Respondent admits thatbecause ofthe obstructionist behavior ofthe Baton Rouge FSDO, it was unable to completethe transition to JPS priorto October 18, 2011. 

### 511. Responding to the allegations made under Roman numeral II, paragraph 9, on page 2 ofthe Complaint, Respondent admits receiving a letter from the Baton Rouge FSDO dated October 20, 2011 reminding MAC thatthe operation specifications for the merger/acquisition had expired. See Respondent's ExhibitNo. 5 attached. 12. Responding to the allegations made under Roman numeral II, paragraph 1 0, on page 2 ofthe Complaint, Respondent admits that "MAC operated civil aircraft numberN800CF in charter service;" however, MAC denies thatN800CF was operated "as JPS Aviation, LLC". Rather, the flight was conducted by MAC in accordance with its air carrier certificate and the operation specifications authorizingthe operation ofNSOOCF on the air carrier certificate ofRespondent. See Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3 attached. 13. Responding the allegations made in subparagraph (a) to the unnumbered paragraph appearing on page 2 ofthe Complaint, Respondent denies any violation of 14 CFR §135.2l(a). 14. Responding to the allegations made under subparagraph (b) under the unnumbered paragraph on page 2 ofthe Complaint, Respondent denies any violation of 14 CFR §119.5(g). 15. Responding to the allegations made in paragraph 1under subparagraph III ofthe Complaint on page 2 ofthe Complaint, Respondent denies that it is subjectto a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. §46301in



### 6the maximum amount of$11,000.00 per violation for the reason that Respondent has committed no violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations. 16. Responding to the allegations made in paragraph 2 belowRoman numeral III ofthe Complaint,
on page 2 ofthe Complaint, Respondent denies that it is liable to pay the FAA a civil penalty to $2,800.00; and, furthermore, Respondent denies that it is obligated to paythe FAA any civil penalty in any amount whatsoever. 17. Responding to the allegations made in the unnumbered Complaint appearing below Roman numeral III, paragraphs 1and 2 ofthe Complaint, Respondent denies again any violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations and denies that this Court is authorized to enterjudgment for a civil penalty in the amount of$2,800.00 against Respondent, because Respondent is guilty ofno violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations. WHEREFORE, having fully answeredthe Complaint, Respondent pray as follows:

a. Thatthe administrator's Complaintbe dismissed; b. Thatthe Court find that the FAA may not assert a violation of 14 CFR 

### §135.21(a) in view of the letter ofinterpretation issued by AS0-7 to AS0-200 dated June 10, 1981 in the form attached hereto and marked as Respondent's ExhibitNo. 1;
c. Respondent prays thatthe Court find that in light ofthe fact that MAC did have an air carrier certificate and in light ofthe fact thatN800CF was listed on the air carrier certificate as an approved aircraft on October 25, 2011, there was no violation of 14 CFR §119.5(g) because the aircraft was operated "with" an approved air carrier certificate, the billing invoice marked Respondent's ExhibitNo.6 having been a mistake that resulted from the confusion that came 

### 7from the activity and interaction between Respondent and the Baton Rouge FSDO beginning in August 20 11 and thereafter; d. Thatthe Court find thatthere has been no violation of 14 CFR §119.5(g) because ofthe complicity ofthe FAA and the confusion associated with the attempted transition from MAC to 

### IPS resulting in Judy Fuller, MAC's charter coordinator, mistakenly invoicing for the trip ofan approved aircraft on MAC's charter certificate using an incorrect invoice; and
e. Thatthe Respondent have such additional and further reliefas the Court deemsjust and proper in the premises. 

### I

# Bf**~** Respectfully submitted this the

_ 1_day ofJuly, 2012.

2900 Chamblee Tucker Road Building 5, Suite 350 Atlanta, GA 30341 770-451-0313- 0 770-451-0317- F alan@alanan11stronglaw.com



### 8 Alan Armstrong**~** Georgia BarNo. 022075 " Counsel for Respondent, Monroe Air Center, LLCUNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C. In the Matter of: MONROE AIR CENTER, LLC, Respondent CASE NO. 2011 SW030084

RESPONDENT'S LIST OF EXIITBITS 1. 

### Letter oflnterpretation from AS0-7 to AS0-200, June 10, 1981 regarding enforeceability of FAR Section l35.21(a) 2. Air Carrier Certificate issued to Monroe Air Center, LLC bythe FAA effective January 24, 1986 (reissued March 5, 2002), CertificateNo. HLWA116E 3. Operation Specification D085 issued to Monroe Air Center, LLC effective September 15, 2011 4. FAA Operation Specification A502 issued to Monroe Air Center October 3, 2011, expiring October 18, 2011. 5. Letter from FAA Aviation Safety Inspection Mary E. Donahue to Monroe Air Center, LLC, October 20, 2011 6. Invoice No. 11-10035 from 

### IPS Aviation, LLC to Ochsner Hospital, October 25,2011 referencingN800CF



### 1

### UNITED STATES OFAMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 

### In theMatterof: MONROE AIRCENTER,LLC, 

### Respondent CASE NO. 2011 SW030084

RESPONDENT'S LIST OF EXHffiiTS 1. Letter oflnterpretation from AS0-7 to AS0-200, June I0, 1981 regarding enforeceability of FAR Section 135.21(a) 2. Air Carrier Certificate issued to Monroe Air Center, LLC bythe FAA effective January 24, 1986 (reissued March 5, 2002), CertificateNo. HLWA116E 3. Operation Specification D085 issued to Monroe AirCenter, LLC effective September 15, 2011 4. FAA Operation Specification A502 issued to Monroe Air Center October 3, 2011, expiring October 18, 2011. 5. Letter from FAA Aviation Safety Inspection Mary E. Donahue to Monroe Air Center, LLC, October 20, 2011 6. Invoice No. 11-10035 from JPS Aviation, LLC to Ochsner Hospital, October 25,2011 referencingN800CF

1. ' 

### DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION /)

### ~~ "'5' 

### ,R;

# 2:0 =<

## ~<<::-):"~·;. _<,J\ 

# if .,:;**~** 

# r 

# G 1·(.<.:,

## ~\ 1 f.
. {\ )**-~~** 

## \J:._ ··-.., ' _.;.._;:.I [.7
..

DATE: 

### JUN 10 138\ SOUTHERN REGION

## ~ P. 0, BOX 20636 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30320

suBJECT: Enforceability of FAR §135.21(a)

FROM: Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel
TO: AS0-200 The second sentence of FAR 135.2l(a) provides that "This manual must be used by the certificate holder's flight, ground and maintenance personnel in conducting its operations. Your memo dated March 6, 1981, asks, in effect, whether, in light of the foregoing language, noncompliance with the certificate holder's manual by its employees in the conduct of air taxi operations would be a violation of §135.2l(a). We believe that §135.21 was never intended to be enforced**in~this** manner. In arriving at this conclusion I have reviewed not only the appropriate regulatory sections but also the regulatory history\of §135.21. Copies of this material are attached for reference. Prior to the time Part 135 was amended in 1978 there only existed the requirement that a certificate holder "prepare and keep current a manual for the use and guidance of flight, ground operations, and maintenance personnel in conducting its operations." As noted above, amended language now provides that these individuals must "use" the manual. The question now arises as to the significance of this change. Notice of Proposed Rule Making 77-17 (42 FR 43490, Aug. 29, 1977) included the following language pertaining to this change: §135.23 [changed to §135.21 in the final rule] 

### MANUAL REQUIREMENTS.

. . In addition, this section would be revised by amending paragraph (a) to require each certificate holder who is required to have a manual to prepare a manual acceptable to the Administrator. Further, each flight, ground, and maintenance employee of the certificate holder would be required to use the manual in the conduct of the ceertificate holder's flight operations. 

### RESPONDENT EXHIBIT 

# lThis language, on its face, would seem to imply that the FAA**w~s** about to make a radical departure from past practice by making noncertificated individuals (i.e., ground employees)**s~bject** to disciplinary actions. Moreover, the change would be even more radical since we would be enforcing not only**sta~dards** specified in the FARs but also internal company standards. The extent of this change becomes apparent when considering specific cases. Consider, for example, a company manual requirement which provides that an aircraft refueler must turn in fuel slips to the chief of operations at the end of each day. Could the FAA logically take the position that if the refueler turns in the fuel slips at the end of each week and turns them in directly to the accounting department he would be in violation of**~he** manual, and, therefore, in violation of §135.2l(a) and subject to 

### ? civil penalty. The answer is self evident. The language which was adopted in the final rule provides that the manual must be 11used. 11 The word 11used' 1 is, not defined in Part 1, so under the rules of construction we must apply its commonly :accepted meaning. Webster's new collegate dictionary provides the following definition. USE (verb) 1. Accustom, habituate 2. to put into action or service: avail oneself of: employ 3. to consume or take (as liquor or drugs) regularly 4. to carry out a purpose of action by means of: utilize 5. to expend or consume by putting to use 6. to behave toward: act with regard to: treat'

. l 1 I

. ·_, i In considering this definition it is**~iffic~lt** to conclude that a requirement to use a manual is the same as a requirement to be bound by the manual. This conclusion is furth·er strengthened when other language in the preamble and rule is considered. For example, the third sentence in §l35.2l(a), although addressing deviations, clearly implies that the manual is for the "guidance" of flight, ground and maintenance personnel. Guidance, by definition, is not mandatory but merely informatory.After considering all of the material available and also after discussions with AGC-220 it seems clear that the requirement to "use" the manual was intended as a mandate to the operator to insure that its personnel have sufficient guidance available and that company emphasis be placed on the use of this guidance. It was not intneded to be enforceable against individual employees. Now that the foregoing conclusion has been drawn a qualification must be inserted. In almost every case where enforcement action would be appropriate (i.e., in cases other than the type used in the example above) there will be an appropriate FAR section other than 135.2l(a) on which the violation action can be based. For example, if a pilot violates the manual's weight. and balance provisions [see §135.23(b)], he will, 1n all probability, also be in violation of §135.185. There will, of course, be times when an operator imposes on his employees a higher standard than required in the FARs. In a case where an employee violates this higher standard, under the guidance stated above, enforcement action would not be appropriate. In summary, the rule of thumb should be that 

### if an individual fails to comply with 

# a part of the manual that is made mandatory by some section of the FARs other than §135.2l(a) then the violated FAR should be cited. If, on the other hand, an individual violates a company standard not covered by the FARs then any enforcement action as to the violation of that standard should be at the discretion of the company. This opinion has been coordinated with the Office of the Chief Counsel, Operations Law Branch, AGC-220. 

# AO""s:J<

# D

# ·~ ' XRSCHEL

# H·uN, JR.US Department of Tr2nsportation Federal Aviation Administration 

### : RESPONDENT EXHIBIT



# h


# Air Carrier Certificate This certifies that Monroe Air Center, LLC



## 5410 Operations Road l\,1om·oe, Louisiana 

## 71203 has met the requirements of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, and the rules, regulations, and standards prescribed thereunder for the issuance of this certificate and is hereby authorized to operate as an air carrier and conduct common carriage operations in accordance with said Act and the rules, regulations, and standards prescribed thereunder and the terms, conditions, and limitations contained in the approved operations specifications.
This certificate is not transferable and, unless sooner surrendered, suspended, or revoked, sha!! continue in effect indefinitely.

Certificate number:
___ ..HU\'AUJi.E___ Effective Date:
___January
__**~-1-.** l**~_§**

### __ Reissued: 03/05/2002 Issued ai:
__**iLHilllJsDJ!~-.J&tti8;uFl**___

FAL; Fcrrn s.:;3Q-lS (6-Bl) By Direction ofthe Administrator

## /~L--0~~

___**"-.___./=-~]= To~ph**  D Smith (Signature)

### ~0~**~FFIC::IAL** USE ONLY Puoltcavalfability to be determined under5 U.S.C. 552"**--~A=c~l~ae~r**____ _ (Title)



### w., (Region/Office)

## ! RESPONDENT**~** 

### EXHIBIT

tpi II£ 

# I 3**W?tW ~.:w&o·;@es**  g 9?$WEA !!lifi5"!£Mfj+!i<f%¥¢W#'*S! '# ·!§?t.:?iii¢4 ?st .i{! rt t

## ;oo:::w;•**~==I:C:i ~=** **r--------'** U.S
. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Admini stration Operations Specifications MM?»...,.....,.a,w+ 1 tfPft1W.:.ast2idif6'iCA& ..••.Y&eNc-v;; s AJ »&#&&•

### a" 2t3!J'?:{Q±i?i"55M mrnsYMfl't}£iit<i8i'H *rl8t¥£"'t D085. Aircraft Listing: HQ Control: 02/06/1998 HQ Revision: 02a
a. The certificate holder is authorized to conduct operations under 14 CFR Part 135 using the aircraft identified on this operations specification. Registration No. Serial No. Aircraft lVlfl\IIS N559DW BB-1036 BE-200-8200 N711EL TH-732 BE-58-58 N800CF TH-1599 BE-58-58 N396CA U-1035 BE-90-C90

1. The Certificate Holder applies for the Operations in this paragraph
. 2. Support information reference: 3. These Operations Specifications are approved by direction ofthe Administrator.

211ll
.t1'1.15**1.~:' :<:** **2'<· ,:** **nlr:li** [),,-. ld\1**Tin~o.:** Lt.'COII it•ll: \\ L·h< !f'SS

- - Di'-!il:\11\**;~nc·d** " ' llt::tll n .lnlll b tliL**l'ri~t t.:** **ip,;l** \l:tillk ll:H\Ct: lu< pL·t.:lotl' iS\\'(), ; I

4. Date Approval is effective: 09115/2011 Amendment Number: 12 S. I hereby accept and receive the Operations Specifications in this paragraph
. Woodward, Donald E., Dir. ofMaintenance, Part 135

Print Date: 9/151 2011 Date: 09/15/2011

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY "Publ ic availability to be determined under 5 U S
.C
. 552" D085-l Monroe Air Center. L.L.C.& U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration £+ Operations Specifications

AS02
. Air CarrierMerger and/or Acquisition HQ Control: 05/23/2006 HQ Revision: 000
a. The certificate holder, Monroe Air Center, L.L.C., is authorized to conduct operations in accordance with these operations specifications during the merger transition period with JPS Aviation, LLC.. The merger transition period will commence October 3, 2011 and shall continue until all required training and qualifications are accomplished or within: a period no later than October 18, 2011.. b. The following conditions must be met for the certificate holder to continue to conduct operations during the transition period: (1) General: Letter ofCompliance addressing appropriate parts of 14 CFR Parts 43, 61, 91, 119 and 135 must be submitted for JPS Aviation, LLC No changes in required personnel (Director ofOperations, ChiefPilot, orDirector ofMaintenance) unless approved by the BatonRouge FSDO. Schedule ofEvents for Air Carrier certification perFAA Order 8900.1 will be provided to show target dates. (2) Operations: Operations under 14 CFR 135 will be conducted using Monroe Air Center, LLC's Operation Specifications, General Operations Manual, Training Program, HAZMAT Program, MEL's and aircraft checklistlbriefmg cards (3) Airworthiness: Anyrequired inspections, sign-offs, or maintenance training will be conducted using Monroe Air Center, LLC's Operation Specifications, Genera1 Operations Manual, maintenance training, Aircraft Maintenance Manuals and authorized maintenance program.
c. This operations specification is valid as ofthe effective date and shall remain in effect as long as the certificate holder continues to meet the requirements ofthis operations specification. d. This operations specification msut be re-issued to extend the transition period indicated in subparagraph a above. When the transition is complete, this operations specification is no longer necessary and mustbe archived. Utilization of the above Operation Specifications, Manual andprocedures shall be voidafter certification is completed forJPSAviation, LLC. 

### RESPONDENT

## ]~ EXHIBIT



# 'h.

Print Date: 1017/2011 A502-l Certificate No.: HLWA116E 

# fk5<Fffif.Mf::rAEtff

# s\:bNLYU.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration Operations Specifications

1. Issued by the Federal Aviation Administration. 2. Support infom1ation reference: 3. These Operations Specifications are approved by direction ofthe Administrator.

:o**11.111.(1~** I>;:Oi:o:.: (·.:nlr<tl [)," li:..Jll rin1.: l.<>c·aticlll: \\.-:hi Jl'SS
. -**[)i~it:tlh ,i~n.:d**  b\ \larv I· D<>tUil!l.:.**l'ri~ll'ip:il** (J!l.:ratir;lh Jn-;.pc'Cltll' t**S\\'11:~** 1

4. Date Approval is effective: 10/03/2011 Amendment Number: 5 5. I hereby accept andreceive the Operations Specifications in this paragraph.

Jarrell, C. Palmer, Dir. ofOperations, Part 135

Date: 10/03/2011

PrmtDate: 1017/2011 A502-2 Certificate No.: HLW A116E Monroe Air Center, L.L.C.U.S. Deportment of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration



### October 20, 2011 Baton Rouge, Louisiana



### CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPTREQUESTED Mr. Paul Bullock, Agent for Service MonroeAir Center, LLC 5410 Operations Rd. Monroe, LA 71203 Dear Mr. Jarrell: Flight Standards District Office 6100 Corporate Boulevard Suite 200 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808 225-932-5900, Fax: 225-932-5975 

### ; · RESPONDENT**~** 

### .·ExHfBlT 

# s

The Operations Specifications paragraph for Air CarrierMerger/Acquisition has expired effective October 18, 2011 and the authorization for a transition to JPS Aviation, LLC has been suspended at this time. Enclosed you will find your amended copy ofOperatioq Specifications paragraph A004, removing paragraph A502.
must utilize the following: Monroe Air Center, LLC Operations Specifications Monroe Air Center, LLC General Operations Manual Monroe Air Center, LLC Training Program Monroe Air Center, LLC HAZMA T Program Monroe Air Center, LLC Minimum Equipment Lists Monroe Air Center, LLC Maintenance Program Also, per 14 CFR 119.9, the business name on your Air CarrierCertificate, i.e. Monroe Air Center, LLC, must be used for all operations conducted under 14 CFRPart 135. Please review the enclosed Operations Specifications, sign both copies and return one set to this office within 14 days ofreceipt. Should you have any questions concerning the above, please call this office. Sincerely,
Mary E. Donahue Aviation Safety Inspector FOR OFFICI!\L USE ONLY ·1**~>'~''·•'cb"'** "Pun.\!·,.....**~~'21** 2
....**~:\~j** '·, "-' • J , ... ._ - , ,.....**~ ~r:z'·**  d6\ermined**um~-::or** t, U.0.C.**v~'** ONCURR£NCES ROUTING SYf...fBOL MED !}.iJTJALStS!G

DATE

ROU1lt4G SYMHOL BLL

OUTING SYMBOL ALP

!NITIALSISIG
ATE

OUTING S\1vt.BOL

INlTIALSISIG
ATE

ROUTING SYMBOL**JNITiA~~~SiG**

DATE

OUTING SYME'5L

!NlTIALS/SlG

DATED r-'1

. 0 ('- zi?- 

## llllllllllll•l(l(lll(lllllllll( II (I( II

### 11111 1

### 1'·'''1 Mr. Paul Bullock, Agent for Service Monroe Air Center, LLC 541 0 Operations ·Road Monroe, LA 71203

SENDER: COMPLETETHISSECTION
. · · -. -

. . . . . 

### .

·l • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse

so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back ofthe mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to:

. FOR OFFICiP.L**u~;t:** ONLY "Public availability to be

-**~ ~~.t:f~** **.; ./~** fn:ief 5U.S
. C r;:;.R'F'----1 

## '···I II

### 11111•11111·111111

## 'II" III

### 1'1 II

### 11111•11 " 

### l!;====:f=:===========::::======ic== Mr. Paul Bullock, Agent for Service Monroe Air Center, LLC 541 0 Operations Road Monroe, LA 71203 4
. Restricted Delivery{ (Extra Fee) 2. Article Number

. . , (fr<ylsfe,rf(OITJ**7~ryir;e** l aJ;leO 

### 7010 1870 0001 8188 2871 'rs Form 3811 :l=ebru1 

### ary 2ob4 · Oohiestic Return Receipt 0 Yes

1 02595-02-M-·

### JPS Aviation, LLC 5410 Operations Road

Monroe, LA 71203 800-223-3895/318-387-0222/318-325-7558 (Fax) 318-387-1506

Invoice: 11-1 0035 Account#: OCHHO
Sold To: OCHSNER HOSPITAL (RAMEE & WHITE) Attn: LORI DRUFNER ATIN: Dr. Christopher White 1514 Jefferson Hwy 3rd Floor New Orleans, LA 70121 10/25/11 8.12AM Sales Person: Lisa

Une# Type Item/Description !cr?! Aircraft 

# I Quantity! Units 

# I List Price

# I Disci 1 Chrt Charter 

## I IN800CF 

## I 11 Trip 

## I 1,757.501 

## I Aircraft Charges 1,332.50 Capitan Daily Rate Charges 350.00 Ldg/Departure Fees 75.00 CHARTER TO NEW ORLEANS CONFIRMED BY: LAURIE ADAMS PASSENGERS: DR. RAMEE AND LORI PILOT: ALLEN FORD DATE OF CHARTER: 10/25/11 

## ISubtotal 

## I Total Due No returns on electrical parts. No parts exchanges. Customers returning parts must pay a 20% restocking charge. Terms: Net 10 days

Printed: 10/27/11 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY "Public availability to be ,, rJ
.

,I.-:.rminRrl under 5 U.S.C. 552 

### RESPONDENT 

### EXHIBIT



# ·e;

Unit Price Extended

1,757.50 1,757.50

1,757.50 1,757.50

I

# I

Page: 

# I

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy ofthe above and foregoing Answer ofMonroe Air Center was served upon counsel for the Administrator by First Class United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Tim Duff, Esq. Office ofthe Regional Counsel Federal Aviation Administration 2601 Meacham Blvd. Room 663 Fort Worth, TX 76137 Respectfully submitted this the 

# /8

# ~ofJuly, 2012.



### 9