t (]F ,';Tf(~:\ · 

'i·,;'<<~,,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,! !I ,1,. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

·~ 

i .,} ,_,,:,.::;..~,; 1 

?: I ~J ;t_ .. ·. : r· --\ ' ... "-~-"<-

In the Matter of: 

MONROE AIR CENTER, LLC, 

Respondent 

FAA CASE NO. 2011 SW030084 

FAA CP CASE NO. ___ _ 

JUDGE NOT ASSIGNED 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT 

COMES NOW Monroe Air Center, LLC ("MAC"), Respondent in the above-captioned matter, 

pursuant to 14 CFR § 13.218(f)(l ), 14 CFR § 13.218(f)(2)(i), and moves to dismiss the Administrator's 

Complaint based upon the Statement of Facts, Argument and Citation of Authorities, and Conclusion 

set forth below: 

I. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

A. The Procedural Posture of the Case 

Respondent submitted a written Request for Hearing in this matter on June 28,2012. Complaint, 

~1. The Administrator served his Complaint on June 29, 2012. Complaint, ~2. This Motion to Dismiss is 

filed within thirty days of service of the Complaint as authorized by 14 CFR § 13.209(a). An original and 

one copy of this Motion to Dismiss are being filed and a service copy is being provided to opposing 

counsel. See 14 CFR § 13 .209(b ). 

B. Summary of Argument 

The Complaint filed by the FAA has no merit for two reasons, to-wit: 

1. First of all, whether Respondent complied or did not comply with the provisions of 

the General Operations Manual ("GOM"), an alleged failure to comply with 14 CFR 

§ 135.21(a) cannot give rise to a violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations 

because one is to "use" the manual which is for "guidance." See letter of 

1 
interpretation from AS0-7 to AS0-200, June 10, 1981, attached hereto as 

Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 

2. Secondly, to the extent that the FAA claims there was a violation of 14 CFR 

§ 119 .5(g) claiming that N800CF was operated without a commercial operator 

certificate for operation specifications, the evidence shows to the contrary since 

MAC did have an air carrier certificate and N800CF was listed on the operation 

specifications page of MAC's air carrier certificate. See Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 2 

and 3 attached. To the extent that an invoice bearing the letterhead name of "JPS 

Aviation, LLC" was employed, it was done so in error and does not prove that JPS 

Aviation, LLC had operational control over N800CF. For this reason, the alleged 

violation of 14 CPR§ 119.5(g) must fail. 

n. 

ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIES 

A. An Alleged Infraction by an Air Carrier of its GOM Cannot, as a Matter of Law, Give 

Rise to a Violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

In the instant case, the FAA claims there are two violations of 14 CPR §135.2l(a). The first 

claim is that John 0. Shamblin was listed as the general manager in the GOM when he was not an 

employee of Respondent. See Complaint, 'JI3(a). The second claim is that the superseded aircraft status 

log required by the GOM could not be located. See Complaint, 'JI3(b). Respondent asserts that the listing 

of Shamblin as the general manager in the GOM was a mistake. This was part and parcel of the effort to 

transition the operations of the air carrier from MAC to JPS Aviation, LLC ("JPS"). Respondent denies 

that the superseded aircraft status log could not be located. However, even if the allegations set forth in 

'JI3(a) and 'JI3(b) ofthe Complaint were true, they would not give rise to a violation of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations because of express language appearing in 14 CFR § 135.21(a) and because of a letter of 

2 
interpretation from AS0-7 to AS0-200 dated June 10, 1981 attached hereto and marked as Respondent's 

Exhibit No. 1. 

With regard to 14 CFR §135.2l(a), the second sentence in subparagraph (a) ofthat regulation 

only requires that the GOM be "used." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary provides the following 

definition: 

Used (verb) 1. accustom, habituate; 2. to put into action for service: avail onself 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. 

Moreover, the third sentence in subparagraph (a) of 14 CFR § 134.21(a) indicates that the GOM is to be 

used for purposes of "guidance." 

Because the GOM is to be used for guidance, the failure to comply with the GOM cannot give 

rise to a violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations, since, as was declared in the letter of interpretation 

from AS0-7 to AS0-200 of June 10, 1981, the following is self-evident: 

In considering this definition it is difficult to conclude that a requirement to a manual is 

the same as the requirement to be bound by the manual. This conclusion is further 

strengthened when other language in the preamble and rule is considered. For example, 

the third sentence in§ 135.21(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 

* * * 

This opinion has been coordinated with the Office of the Chief Counsel, Operations Law 

Branch, AGC-220. 

See Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, letter of interpretation from AS0-7 to AS0-200 dated June 10, 1981, 

regarding "Enforceability ofF AR § 135.21(a)." 

Because the express language in 14 CFR § 135.21(a) indicates that the provisions of the General 

Operations Manual were intended to be used for guidance, it is not possible for the FAA to maintain an 

action before this Court to assess a civil penalty against Respondent. See, e.g., 14 CFR § 135.21(a); letter 

3 
of interpretation from AS0-7 to AS0-200, June 10, 1981, marked as Respondent's Exhibit No.1, 

definition of the verb "use" appearing in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. 

B. Because NSOOCF Was Listed on the Respondent's Air Carrier Certificate and Because 

Respondent Had Operational Control Over the Flight, There Is No Evidence That the 

Aircraft Was Operated Without an Air Carrier Certificate or Operation 

Specifications 

The Administrator asserts a violation of 14 CFR § 119 .S(g) in subparagraph (b) on page 2 of this 

Complaint, but the following facts demonstrate the Administrator's claims are false: 

(1) At all times material, MAC was the holder of FAA Air Carrier Certificate No. 

HLWA116E. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 attached, Air Carrier Certificate 

issued to MAC by the FAA. 

(2) MAC was authorized to operate N800CF on its air carrier certificate. See 

Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 attached, Aircraft Listing Page DOSS issued to MAC by 

the FAA, September 1S, 2011. 

(3) MAC was in the process of transitioning its air carrier operations to JPS by October 

13, 2011. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 4 attached, FAA Operation Specification 

AS 02 issued October 3, 2011. 

(4) MAC's transition to JPS had not been successful by October 18, 2011 with the result 

that MAC's air carrier operations remained in the name of MAC effective October 

20, 2011. See Respondent's Exhibit No. S attached, letter from the FAA to MAC, 

October 20, 2011. 

(S) MAC, believing the transition to JPS would be accomplished, ordered forms 

(including invoices) bearing the name of JPS. The forms were only to be used after 

the transition was accomplished. 

(6) MAC underwent a focus inspection by the FAA Baton Rouge Flight Standards 

District Office ("FSDO") from August 8 to August 12, 2011. See Complaint, ~2. 

(7) Following the FAA focus inspection, there was considerable confusion among the 

staff at MAC about the transition; and Judy Fuller, MAC's charter coordinator, was 

so confused she simply used the wrong invoice bearing the name of JPS. See 

Respondent's Exhibit No.6 attached, invoice number 11-1003S, October 2S, 2011 

from JPS to Oschner. 

4 
(8) N800CF was on MAC's air carrier certificate on October 25, 2011 (Respondent's 

Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3); hence, the claim that N800CF was operated in air carrier 

service "without, or in violation of, an appropriate certificate and operation 

specifications" (14 CFR §119.5(g)) is false. See Complaint, ~~4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, (b). 

(9) At all times material to this action, MAC had operational control over the flight 

involving N800CF, since the aircraft was listed on MAC's operation specifications 

which were part and parcel of its air carrier certificate. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 

2 and 3 attached. 

In view of the fact that N800Cf was an approved aircraft listed on the operation specifications of 

MAC (Respondent's Exhibit No.3) and in view of the fact that MAC did have an air carrier 

certificate (Respondent's Exhibit No.2 attached), it is not possible for the Court to find that 

N800CF was operating "without" an air carrier certificate or operation specifications in violation 

of 14 CFR § 119 .5(g) because MAC had operational control over the aircraft at all times relevant 

to this action. 

m. 

CONCLUSION 

Because 14 CFR § 135.21(a) concerns the "use" of the GOM which is to be used for "guidance," 

there can be no violation for any alleged deviation or failure to comply with the GOM. See 14 CFR 

§ 135.21(a); letter of interpretation from AS0-7 to AS0-200, June 10, 1981, marked as Respondent's 

Exhibit No. 1; Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary definition ofthe verb "use." 

Because N800CF appeared on the air carrier certificate and operation specifications of MAC at 

all times relevant to this action, as demonstrated by response to Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3, the conclusion is 

inescapable that MAC had operational control over the flight ofN800CF and it is not possible for the 

FAA to maintain that N800CF was operated "as a director air carrier or as a commercial operator 

without...an appropriate certificate and appropriate operation specifications." 14 CFR §119.5(g). 

5 
WHEREFORE, Respondent prays as follows: 

1. That the Administrator's Complaint be dismissed to the extent that it articulates alleged 

violations of 14 CFR §135.2l(a) in ~3(a) and ~3(b) ofthe Complaint; 

2. That the Administrator's Complaint be dismissed to the extent that it asserts violations of 14 

CFR §119.5(g) in ~~4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, (b) ofthe Complaint, because the evidence before the 

Court clearly demonstrates that N800CF was listed on Respondent's air carrier certificate. 

See Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3 attached. That being the case, it is impossible to 

argue that MAC did not have operational control over the aircraft. 1 

. )1A 

Respectfully submitted this the_!_§_ day of July, 2012. 

Alan Armstrong 

Georgia Bar No. 022075 ;

1 

Counsel for Respondent, Monroe "Air Center, LLC 

2900 Chamblee Tucker Road 

Building 5, Suite 350 

Atlanta, GA 30341 

770-451-0313-0 

770-451-0317 -F 

alan@alanarmstronglaw.com 

1 "Operational control, with respect to a flight, means the exercise of authority over initiating, conducting or 

terminating a flight." 14 CFR § 1.1. 

6 
UNITED 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 EXHIBITS 

1. Letter ofinterpretation from AS0-7 to AS0-200, June 10, 1981 regarding enforeceability of 

FAR Section 135.21(a) 

2. Air Carrier Certificate issued to Monroe Air Center, LLC by the FAA effective January 24, 

1986 (reissued March 5, 2002), Certificate No. HLWA116E 

3. Operation Specification DOSS 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 

referencing N800CF 

1 
··, 

DATE: 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

JUtl 1 0 1881 

IN REPLY REfER TO: AS0-7 

suBJEcT: Enforceability of FAR § 135. 21(a) ~ RESPONDENT 

4 EXHIBIT ~ 

FROM: Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel I l 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 

m~intenance 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. 
This 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 staqdards specified in the FARs 

but also internal company standards. 

The extent of this change becomes apparent when considering specific 

c~ses. 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 the manual, and, therefore, in 

violation of §l35.2l(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 "used." The word 11used11 is, not defined in Part l, 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' • I II 

.·.! :·I 

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 

by the manual. This conclusion is further 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 ,.useH 

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, ~n 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. 

A0""1-Q AD Q,~.L ' 

xRSCHEL H·uN. JR. 
US Department 

of Tr2r.sportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Q 

~ 

0 

z 

eo_ 

Jl 

E 

2 

"' 

RESPONDENT 

EXHIBIT 

h 

Air Carrier Certificate 

This certifies that 

Monroe Air Center, LLC 

5410 0 per a tions 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, 

shal! continue in effect indefinitely. 

Certificate number: ____ _HLl\':A.llii_L _ 

Effective Date: __ Jan~·?i:_!_98G __ 

Reissued: 03/05/2002 

Issued ai: __ B.aJQJLRoJ!~-AJ.m!is.i~UlJ.. ___ _ 

f,J.A Fcrrn 0~20-13 (6-07) 

By Direction of the Administrator 

tO~ ~FFICIAL USE ONLy 

Puoltcavailabili!y to be 

determined under 5 U.S.C. 552" 

SWQ3 

(Region/Office) 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

DOSS . Aircraft Listine 

Operations Specifications 

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 l'vl!l\1/S 

N559DW BB-1036 BE-200-B200 

N711EL TH-732 BE-58-58 

N800CF TH-1599 BE-58-58 

N396CA U-1035 BE-90-C90 

I. The Certificate Holder applies for the Operations in this paragraph. 

2. Support information reference: 

3. These Operations Specifications are approved by direction of the Administrator. 

2111 J.i J'l .I~ 1_; :~:<: 2' Cc·lllr:d fh:. li:;hl Tin1.: 

I. ••<::lli••n: \\. c·h<)['SS 

Dic:il:l!l\ j~ll L' d h fk:111 () .lnhn' <lll. 

!'ri~Kip ;l \i:tinlc" I\ IIK.: ln,.;p,·d"r tS\\"fl ~ I 

4. Date Approval is effective: 09/15/2011 Amendment Number: 12 

5. I hereby accept and receive the Operations Specifications in this paragraph. 

Woodward, Donald E., Dir. of Maintenance, Part 135 

Print Date: 9/ 15/201 1 

Date: 09/15/2011 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

"Public ava ilability to be 

determined under 5 U S.C. 552" 

0085-l 

Monroe Air Center, L.L.C. 

RESPONDENT 

EXHIBIT 

3 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration Operations Specifications 

A502 . Air Carrier Merger and/or Acquisition 

lt 

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 of Compliance 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 of Operations, Chief Pilot, or Director of Maintenance) 

unless approved by the Baton Rouge FSDO. 

Schedule of Events for Air Carrier certification per FAA 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: 

Any required inspections, sign-offs, or maintenance training will be conducted using Monroe Air 

Center, LLC's Operation Specifications, General Operations Manual, maintenance training, Aircraft 

Maintenance Manuals and authorized maintenance program. 

c. This operations specification is valid as of the effective date and shall remain in effect as long as 

the certificate holder continues to meet the requirements of this 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 must be archived. 

Utilization of the above Operation Specifications, Manual and procedures shall be void after 

certification is completed for JPS Aviation, LLC. 

RE$PONDENT 

EXHIBIT 

iJPrint Date: 1017/2011 A502-1 Certificate No.: HLWA116E 

r!6~T=McfArtcrst=b~LY 

) 
U.S. Department 

ofT ransportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration Operations Specifications 

I. Issued by the Federal Aviation Administration. 

2. Support information reference: 

3. These Operations Specifications are approved by direction of the Administrator. 

21111.1 t1.u-:- I S:O~:II:\ ( ·-:ntral [)~" li~ht rirn-: 

l.<>cati,,n: \\-ch()J'')<-; · -

[)i~it~tlh ,i~ttccl bv ~ larv I· fl<lll~lillk'. 

l'ri~tc· ip~;l ( )l)c'lal j, ;lb ln-;.pc·ctt>r l <-; \ \'! 1.'\ I 

4. Date Approval is effective: 10/03/2011 Amendment Number: 5 

5. I hereby accept and receive the Operations Specifications in this paragraph. 

Jarrell, C. Palmer, Dir. of Operations, Part 135 

Date: 10/03/2011 

Print Date: 1017/2011 A502-2 Certificate No.: HLWA116E 

Monroe Air Center, L.L.C. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

October 20, 2011 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

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 

RESPONDENTEXHIBIT 

5 

The Operations Specifications paragraph for Air Carrier Merger/ 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 of Operatioq 

Specifications paragraph A004, removing paragraph A502. 

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 Carrier Certificate, i.e. Monroe Air 

Center, LLC, must be used for all operations conducted under 14 CFR Part 135. 

Please review the enclosed Operations Specifications, sign both copies and return one set to 

this office within 14 days of receipt. 

Should you have any questions concerning the above, please call this office. 

Sincerely, 

Mary E. Donahue 

Aviation Safety Inspector 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

'\ L.,., 'o b"" "P n\.ir- ....... \,~·~ ':Jn''j'\' t., ,.., u .,. .~ G ..._. '--' ·.J- ' • J I '"' ..-.. 55 r- i: 

determined um~;:;r 5 U.;::..c. ./· 

ONCURRENCES 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

MED 

INITIALS!SIG 

DATE 

;o/z,1 / 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

BLL 

INtnGJ!l 

ATE f I jfJ -7111 ( OUTING SYMBOL 

ALP 

OUTING Sl:"MBBL 

INlTlALSISJG 

ATE 

ROUTING S"{MBOL 

!NlTfAIJ-'SIG 

DATE 

OUTING SYMD3L 

!NITIALS!SIG 

DATE 
'•••l··''lll•lllll•ltlll''ll•'t' 111l11 11111 11l·lltl 

Mr. Paul Bullock, Agent for Service 

Monroe Air Center, LLC 

5410 Operations Road 

Monroe, LA 71203 

SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION · . · .. - . . . . 

• 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 of the mailpiece, 

or on the front if space permits. 

1 .. Article Addressed to: 

FOR OFFICI!~.L U~~[~ ONLY 

"Public availability to be 

~~~~i_JfJUe£ 5U.S.C. ~ 

'···l··''lll•lll'l·ltlllllll•'t''l'l'''''''''''' l!;::==:F=======~=====t:=== 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 

• • . . ((qnste,r rrprn 7e,ryiqe 'iiJreO 7010 1870 0001 8188 2871 

'ooh-ie~tic Return Receipt 

0 Yes 

1 02595-{)2-M-1 
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 

1 0!25!11 

8.12AM 

Sales Person: Lisa 

Line# Type ltem!Description I Cr?) Aircraft I Quantity] Units I ListPricel Disc] 

1 Chrt Charter I I N800CF I 1j Trip l 1.757.5o I 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: 1 0/25!11 

I Subtotal 

\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 OF F!Cl!\L USE ONLY 

"Public availability to be " 

rl.-1.-.r,.....,inori 1tnrlMs:; II S.C. 552 

RESPONDENT 

EXI]IBIT 

f5j 

Unit Price Extended 

1,757.50 1,757.50 

1,757.50 

1,757.50 

Page: 1 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing Respondent's Motion to Dismiss 

Complaint was served upon counsel for the Administrator by First Class United States Mail, postage 

prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Tim Duff, Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd. 

Room 663 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

Respectfully submitted this the / B df:of July, 2012. 

7