t 

### (]F**,';Tf(~:\** ·**'i·,;'<<~,,UNITED** STATES OFAMERICA ,! !I ,1,.

DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.**·~** 

### i .,}**,_,,:,.::;..~,;** 1
?: I**~J** ;t_ 

## ..·. : r·--\

'
...**"-~-"<-** 

### In theMatter of: MONROE AIR CENTER, LLC, 

### Respondent FAA CASE NO. 2011 SW030084 FAA CP CASE NO.
___ _ JUDGE NOT ASSIGNED RESPONDENT'S MOTION TODISMISS COMPLAINT COMES NOW Monroe Air Center, LLC ("MAC"), Respondent in the above-captioned matter, pursuantto 14 CFR §13.218(f)(l), 14 CFR §13.218(f)(2)(i), and moves to dismiss the Administrator's Complaintbased upon the Statement ofFacts, Argument and Citation ofAuthorities, and Conclusion set forth below: 

### I. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

### A. TheProceduralPostureofthe 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 ofservice ofthe Complaint as authorized by 14 CFR §13.209(a). An original and
one copy ofthis Motion to Dismiss are being filed and a service copy is being provided to opposing counsel. See 14 CFR §13.209(b).
B. 

### Summary ofArgument The Complaintfiled by the FAA has no merit for two reasons, to-wit:
1. First ofall, 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



### 1interpretation from AS0-7 to AS0-200, June 10, 1981, attached hereto as Respondent's ExhibitNo. 1 2. Secondly, to the extent thatthe FAA claims there was a violation of 14 CFR §119.5(g) claimingthatN800CF 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 ofMAC's air carrier certificate. See Respondent's ExhibitNos. 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 overN800CF. Forthis 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 ofits GOM Cannot, as a Matter ofLaw, Give Rise to a Violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations.
In the instant case, the FAA claims there are two violations of 14 CPR §135.2l(a). The first claim is thatJohn 0. Shamblin was listed as the general manager in the GOM when he was not an employee ofRespondent. See Complaint, 'JI3(a). The second claim is thatthe superseded aircraft status log required by the GOM could not be located. See Complaint, 'JI3(b). Respondent asserts that the listing ofShamblin as the general manager in the GOM was a mistake. This was part and parcel ofthe effort to transition the operations ofthe air carrier from MAC to JPS Aviation, LLC ("JPS"). Respondent denies that the superseded aircraft status log could not be located. However, even ifthe allegations setforth in 'JI3(a) and 'JI3(b) ofthe Complaint were true, they would not give rise to a violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations because ofexpress language appearing in 14 CFR 

### §135.21(a) and because ofa letter of



### 2interpretation from AS0-7 to AS0-200 dated June 10, 1981 attached hereto and marked as Respondent's ExhibitNo. 1.
With regard to 14 CFR §135.2l(a), the second sentence in subparagraph (a) ofthatregulation only requires thatthe 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 onselfof, employ; 3. to consume ortake (as liquor or drugs) regularly; 4. to carry out a purpose of action by means of: utilize; 5. to expend or consume byputtingto use; 6. to behave toward: act with regard to: treat. Moreover, the third sentence in subparagraph (a) of 14 CFR §134.21(a) indicates thatthe GOM is to be used for purposes of"guidance."
Because the GOM is to be used for guidance, the failure to comply withthe GOM cannot give rise to a violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations, since, as was declared in the letter ofinterpretation from AS0-7 to AS0-200 ofJune 10, 1981, the following is self-evident:
In consideringthis definition it is difficult to conclude that a requirement to a manual is the same as the requirementto 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" offlight, ground and maintenance personnel. Guidance, by definition, is not mandatory but merely informatory 

## * 

## * * This opinion has been coordinated withthe Office ofthe ChiefCounsel, Operations Law Branch, AGC-220. See Respondent's ExhibitNo. 1, letter ofinterpretation 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 thatthe provisions ofthe General Operations Manual were intended to be used for guidance, it is notpossible for the FAAto maintain an action before this Court to assess a civil penalty against Respondent. See, e.g., 14 CFR §135.21(a); letter



### 3ofinterpretation from AS0-7 to AS0-200, June 10, 1981, marked as Respondent's ExhibitNo.1, definition ofthe verb "use" appearing in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.


### B. Because NSOOCF WasListed on the Respondent's Air CarrierCertificate and Because RespondentHad Operational Control OvertheFlight, ThereIs No Evidence Thatthe AircraftWas OperatedWithout an Air Carrier Certificate or Operation Specifications The Administrator asserts a violation of 14 CFR §119.S(g) in subparagraph (b) on page 2 ofthis Complaint, butthe 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 oftransitioning its air carrier operations to JPS by October 13, 2011. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 4 attached, FAA Operation Specification AS02 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 ofMAC 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 ofJPS. 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 8to August 12, 2011. See Complaint,**~2.** (7) Following the FAA focus inspection, there was considerable confusion among the staffat MAC aboutthe transition; and Judy Fuller, MAC's charter coordinator, was so confused she simply used the wrong invoice bearingthe name ofJPS. See Respondent's ExhibitNo.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 ExhibitNos. 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 overthe flight involving N800CF, since the aircraftwas listed on MAC's operation specifications which were part and parcel ofits air carrier certificate. See Respondent's ExhibitNo. 2 and 3 attached. In view ofthe fact that N800Cfwas an approved aircraft listed on the operation specifications of MAC (Respondent's ExhibitNo.3) and in view ofthe fact that MAC did have an air carrier certificate (Respondent's ExhibitNo.2 attached), it is notpossible for the Courtto 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 overthe aircraft at all times relevant to this action. 

## m. CONCLUSION Because 14 CFR §135.21(a) concerns the "use" ofthe GOM which is to be used for "guidance," there can be no violation for any alleged deviation or failure to complywith the GOM. See 14 CFR §135.21(a); letter ofinterpretation 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 ofMAC at all times relevantto this action, as demonstrated by response to ExhibitNos. 2 and 3, the conclusion is inescapable thatMAC had operational control overthe flight ofN800CF and it is not possible for the FAA to maintain thatN800CF 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).



### 5WHEREFORE, Respondent prays as follows:
1. Thatthe Administrator's Complaint be dismissed to the extentthat it articulates alleged violations of 14 CFR §135.2l(a) in**~3(a)** and**~3(b)** ofthe Complaint; 2. Thatthe Administrator's Complaintbe dismissed to the extentthat it asserts violations of 14 CFR §119.5(g) in**~~4,** 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, (b) oftheComplaint, because the evidence before the Courtclearly demonstrates thatN800CF was listed on Respondent's air carrier certificate. See Respondent's ExhibitNos. 2 and 3 attached. That being the case, it is impossible to argue that MAC did not have operational control overthe aircraft. 1



### . )1A Respectfully submitted this the_!_§_day ofJuly, 2012.

Alan Armstrong Georgia BarNo. 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 ofauthority over initiating, conducting or terminating a flight." 14 CFR §1.1. 

### 6UNITED STATES OFAMERICA DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C. In theMatter of: MONROE AIR CENTER,LLC, Respondent CASE NO. 2011 SW030084

RESPONDENT'S LIST OF EXHIBITS 1. Letter ofinterpretationfrom 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 bythe FAA effective January 24, 1986 (reissued March 5, 2002), CertificateNo. HLWA116E 3. Operation Specification DOSS issuedto 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. Letterfrom FAA Aviation Safety Inspection MaryE. Donahue to Monroe Air Center, LLC, October 20, 2011 6. InvoiceNo. 11-10035 from 

### IPS Aviation, LLC to Ochsner Hospital, October 25, 2011 referencing N800CF



### 1··, DATE: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION



### JUtl 10 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 11used 11 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 perations 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 under5 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 ref erence: 3. These Operations Specifications are approved by direction ofthe Administrator.

2111 J.iJ'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 AmendmentNumber: 12 5. I hereby accept and receive the Operations Specifications in this paragraph. Woodward, Donald E., Dir. ofMaintenance, Part 135

Print Date: 9/15/201 1 Date: 09/15/2011

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY "Public availability to be determined under 5 U S.C

. 552" 0085-l Monroe Air Center, L.L.C. 

### RESPONDENT EXHIBIT



# 3U.S. Department ofTransportation 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 ofCompliance addressing appropriate parts of 14 CFR Parts 43, 61, 91, 119 and 135 must be submitted for JPS Aviation, LLC No changes in requiredpersonnel (Director ofOperations, ChiefPilot, orDirectorofMaintenance) unless approved by the Baton Rouge FSDO. Schedule ofEvents 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 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 must be archived. Utilization of the above Operation Specifications, Manual andprocedures shall be voidafter certification is completed forJPSAviation, LLC. 

### RE$PONDENT EXHIBIT



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

## r!6~T=McfArtcrst=b~LY 

# )U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration Operations Specifications

I. Issued by the Federal Aviation Administration. 2. Support information reference: 3. These Operations Specifications are approved by direction ofthe 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'lalj,;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. ofOperations, Part 135

Date: 10/03/2011

PrintDate: 1017/2011 A502-2 Certificate No.: HLWA116E Monroe AirCenter, 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 AirCarrier Merger/ Acquisition has expired effective October 18, 2011 and the authorizationfor atransition to JPS Aviation, LLC has been suspended at this time. Enclosed you will find your amended copy ofOperatioq Specifications paragraph A004, removing paragraphA502.

Monroe AirCenter, LLC Operations Specifications Monroe AirCenter, 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 beused 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 ofreceipt. 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' 111

## l11

## 11111 1

## 1l·lltl Mr. Paul Bullock, Agent for Service Monroe Air Center, LLC 5410 OperationsRoad 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 F ee) 2. Article Number • •. . ((qnste,r

### rrprn7e,ryiqe 'iiJreO 

### 7010 1870 0001 8188 2871**'ooh-ie~tic** Return Receipt 0 Yes

102595-{)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 10!25!11 8.12AM Sales Person: Lisa

Line# Type ltem!Description 

# I Cr?) Aircraft 

# I Quantity] Units 

# I ListPricelDisc] 1 Chrt Charter 

## I IN800CF 

## I 1jTrip 

## 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: 10/25!11 

## ISubtotal \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: 1CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy ofthe 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 ofthe Regional Counsel Federal Aviation Administration 2601 Meacham Blvd. Room 663 FortWorth, TX 76137 Respectfully submitted this the / 

# B df:ofJuly, 2012.



### 7