RECEIVED 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

MAY 1 8 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION COMPLAINANT 

v. DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0866 

CASE NO. 2013S0950114 

MISSISSIPPI AIR EXPRESS, LLC RESPONDENT 

RESPONDENT'S REBUTTAL TO ADMINISTRATOR'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

Respondent, files this its Rebuttal to Administrator's Supplemental Response to 

Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, and in support thereof, would show unto the Court the following: 

FIRST REBUTTAL 

Administrator has wholeheartedly failed to provide this tribunal with any new evidence 

detailing why it failed to file its action and notice within the applicable statute of!imitations. The 

facts initially presented were ambiguous and contained numerous errors and references to allegations 

that were patently false. Administrator, instead of meeting its burden of proof, attempts to blame 

Respondent for its own delays.' A Notice was sent to Respondent dated March26, 2014. On April 

25, 2014, counsel for Respondent forwarded a request to the Administrator requesting an extension 

of time to review the matter and respond to the Notice. Administrator, in a "last ditch" effort to 

cover its own error, blames this request as the reason for the delay in bringing its action. This is 

absolutely false. Not only was this action barred by the 2-year statute oflimitations, the Notice was 

sent out of time as well. It is inconsequential that Respondent's counsel requested additional time 

1 See Administrator's Supplemental Response at § II wherein Administrator claims the 

delay was due exclusively to Respondent's request for an extension of time to respond to 

Administrator's March 26, 2014 correspondence. 
(upon his being hired) to review the matter, speak to witnesses; and gather evidence because upon 

counsel's review, it was evident that the statute oflimitations had tolled. 

The applicable statute oflimitations for this case is 2 years. As the prosecuting agency, the 

Administrator bears the burden of timely and accurately bringing it cases as well as the burden of 

proof. The Administrator has failed in all these respects as it has failed to timely bring its action and 

has failed to meet the burden of proof as it has presented no evidence supporting the allegations it 

declares. Therefore, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss should be granted. 

SECOND REBUTTAL 

The Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 128 at page 27555, indicates that the FAA adopts a 

"good cause" standard when addressing the agency's inability to issue a notice within the applicable 

2-year statutory period due to the agency's either could not or was not aware of the violation. In this 

case, not a shred of evidence has been presented that the agency was not or could not have been 

aware ofthe alleged violations committed by Respondent. Instead, Respondent has cited "clerical 

errors" as the reason the Notice was incorrecf and then attempts to blame Respondent for a delay 

it did not create (at a time when the original Notice was time barred). Clearly, the good cause 

standard has not been met. The Administrator has failed to meet its burden and is "a day late and a 

dollar short." Dismissal of this case is proper. 

THIRD REBUTTAL 

Allowing this matter to proceed when it was originally time barred; contained incorrect 

allegations against Respondent (even ones that were not committed); and because the Administrator 

has failed to provide good cause for its delay, flies in the face of due process for Respondent. The 

2

Not only did the Notice contain incorrect dates, but it also contained inaccurate 

allegations as the Notice referenced employee violations and the individual named as an 

employee was, in fact, NOT an employee of Respondent. 
statutory period of limitations was enacted for a reason and there is no evidence presented by the 

Administrator that it was not or could not be aware of the infractions allegedly committed by 

Respondent. Due process and public policy mandates that this matter be dismissed. It is the 

Administrator's duty to timely and effectively prosecute cases and in this instance-it did neither. 

That is not the burden of Respondent and because the Administrator did not proceed in the proper 

manner proscribed by the Rules and Regulations, this matter should be dismissed. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Respondent requests that its Motion to Dismiss 

be granted. 

Respectfully submitted, this the 15th day of May, 2015. 

OF COUNSEL: 

WAYNE E. FERRELL, JR. 

Mississippi Bar No. 5182 

Attorney at Law 

Law Offices of Wayne E. Ferrell, Jr., PLLC 

405 Tombigbee Street 

Post Office Box 24448 

Jackson, Mississippi 39225-4448 

(601) 969-4700 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Wayne E. Ferrell, do hereby certifY that I have this day forwarded a true and correct copy 

of the above and foregoing document to the following: 

Via Federal Express 

Original and One Copy to: 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue SW 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1 000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Via U. S. Mail, postage, prepaid 

One Copy to: 

Hone. J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Mr. Deitrick H. Johnson 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P. 0. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

Via Facsimile to: 

Fax No. 202-366-7536 

Hone. J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Thi" tho IS'<hyofMay, 2015. ~ 

E E FERRELL, JR.