# >/ > /^AiW^ 3

Exemptio nNo . 61 5 8 UNITE D STATE S O F AMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO NADMINISTRATIO N WASHINGTON , D C 2059 1

********* • + * * + *** * + + * I nth e matte r o f th e petitio no f * EXECUTIV E AI RFLEET , INC . * fo r a nexemptio nfro m* Section s 135.25(b } and(c ) o f * Titl e 14 , Cod e o f Federa l Regulation s * Regulator yDocke t No . 2822 3

GRAN T O F EXEMPTIO N B ylette r date dMa y1 , 1995 , Mr . Randolp hM . Kennedy , Executiv e Vic e Presiden t an dChie f Operatin g Officer , Executiv e Ai r Fleet , Inc . (EAF) , 9 0 Moonachi e Avenue , Teterboro , Ne wJerse y 07608 , petitione do nbehal f o f EA F fo r a nexemptio nfro mSection s 135.25(b ) an d(c ) o f Titl e 14 , Cod e o f Federa l Regulation s (1 4 CFR) , t o th e exten t necessary.t o permi t EA F t o operat e it s aircraf t withou t havin g th e exclusiv e us e o f a t leas t on e aircraf t tha t meet s th e requirement s fo r a t leas t on e kin d o f operatio nauthorize db yEAF' s Operation s Specifications
. Th e petitione r request s relie f fro mth e followin g regulations : Sectio n135.25(b ) prescribes , i npertinen t part , tha t eac h certificat e holde r hav e th e exclusiv e us e o f a t leas t on e aircraf t tha t meet s the'requirement s for ' a t least'on e kin d o f operatio nauthorize di nth e certificat e holder' s Operation s Specifications
. I naddition,

- fo r eac hkin d o f operatio nfo r whic hth e certificat e holde r doe s no t hav e th e exclusiv e us e o f a naircraft , th e certificat e holde r mus t hav e availabl e fo r us e unde r a-writte nagreemen t (includin g arrangement s fo r performin g require d maintenance ) a t leas t on e aircraf t tha t meet s th e requirement s fo r tha t kin d o f operation
. Sectio n135.25(c } prescribes , i npertinen t part , tha t fo r th e purpose s o f paragrap h(b ) o f thi s section , a perso nhav e exclusiv e us e o f a naircraf t i f tha t perso nha s th e sol e possession , control , an dus e o f i t fo r flight , a s owner , o r
-•• • ha s a writte nagreemen t (includin g arrangement s fo r

AFS-95-387- Eperformin g require dmaintenance) , i neffec t whe nth e

aircraf t i s operated , givin g th e perso ntha t possession , control , an dus e fo r a t leas t 6 consecutiv e months . Th e petitione r support s it s reques t wit hthe•followin g information : Th e petitione r state s tha t it

- i s a Delawar e corporatio nand ' • ; - tha t it s principa l plac e o f busines s i s a t Teterbor o Airport , i nTeterboro , Ne wJersey . Th e petitione r i s a 1 4 CF Rpar t 13 5 -certificat e holder , an d it s Operation s Specification s permi t i t t p conduc t on-deman d airplan e an d rotorcraf t operations
. Th e petitioner' s principa l busines s i s th e contractua l placemen t o f client-owners ' aircraf t o n it s operatin g certificat e s o tha t th e aircraf t ca nb e chartere dt o thir dparties
. Th e petitione r state s tha t unde r it s contracts , i t ha s complet e operationa l contro l o f a naircraf t whe nth e aircraf t i s bein g operate d unde r charter . However , th e owne r o f th e aircraf t ha s complet e operationa l contro l whe n th e owne r i s usin g th e aircraf t fo r it s ow naccount . Th e petitione r ha s complet e maintenanc e contro l a t al l time s becaus e th e Federa l Aviatio nRegulation s d o no t permi t operator s t o alternat e thei r operation s betwee n1 4 CF Rpart s 9 1 an d135 . Th e petitione r state s tha t th e relie f it-no wrequest s ha s previousl ybee ngrante dt o EA F b yth e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n(FAA) . Th e petitione r state s tha t Exemptio n No . 3438 , a s amended , wa s issue d to-EAF"o nJul y7 , 198 2 •';::
- (Public-Docke t No . 22270) ' Th e petitione r state s tha t i t allowe d thi s exemptio nt o expir e o nJun e 30 , 1989, ^ du e t o change d busines s capabilities
. Th e petitione r state s tha t sinc e th e expiratio no f Exemptio n No . 3438 , a s amended , i t ha s purchase d an d maintaine d a single-engin e Cessn a 17 2 aircraf t solel yt o compl ywit hth e requirement s o f th e affecte d sections
. Th e petitione r no w request s a renewa l o f Exemptio nNo . 3438 , a s amended , o r a gran t o f a ne wexemption
. Th e petitione r state s tha t th e propose d exemptio nwoul d b e i nth e publi c interes t becaus e th e Cessn a 17 2 aircraft , whic hi s neve r flown , i s a neconomi c wast e becaus e it s onl y functio ni s t o compl ywit hSectio n135.25(b ) an d (c) . Th e petitione r state s tha t mone yspen t o nthi s aircraf t coul d b e allocate dt o mor e beneficia l areas , suc ha s safet yand efficienc yimprovements , whic hth e petitione r state s woul d b e i nth e publi c interest
. Th e petitione r state s tha t i f it s propose d exemptio nwer e granted , safet ywoul dno t b e affected. ' Th e petitione rbelieve s tha t th e safet yjustificatio nfo r Sectio n135.2 5 i s

no t relevan t t o it s operation s becaus e it s procedure s fo r aircraf t managemen t provid e a highe r degre e o f safet ytha n th e implementatio no f tha t section
. Th e petitione r als o state s tha t throug hit s charte r contracts, , i t ha s authorit y ove r the'maintenanc e an dequipmen t o f al l it s clients ' aircraft , an dmaintain s the mcontinuousl yi naccordanc e with ' th e stringen t provision s o f par t 135 . Thus , th e petitione r believe s tha t it s operation s maintai na leve l o f safet ytha t i s highe r tha ntha t whic hi s possibl e unde r th e affecte d section
. Asummar yo f thi s petitio nwa s publishe d i nth e Federa l Registe r o nJul y17 , 199 5 (6 0 F R36454) . N o comment s wer e received
. Th e FAA' s analysis/summar yi s a s follows : Exemptio nNo . 3438 , a s amended , was-firs t issue d t o EA F o n Decembe r 31 , 1981 , a s a denial
. I ntha t petition , EA F state d tha t i t ha d als o submitte d a petitio nfo r rulemakin g tha t woul d abolis hth e par t 13 5 exclusive-us e requirement
. EAF' s petitio nfo r rulemakin g wa s publishe di nth e Federa l Registe r o nSeptembe r 28 , 198 1 (4 6 F R47465}
. I nits-petition,•EA F relie d o nth e FAA' s abolitio ni nJul y1981 , o f th e analogou s exclusive-us e rul e o f 1 4 CF Rpar t 12 1 o nth e basi s tha t i t wa s a neconomi c burde n.. . tha t canno t b e justifie d o nsafet ygrounds . EA F furthe r pointe dou t tha t th e situations"tha t exclusiv e use . rule s wer e intende dt o addres s (namely , th e plethor a o f nonschedule doperator s tha t emerge d afte r Worl d Wa r II ) n o longe r existe dan dtha t th e Civi l Aeronautic s Boar d n o longe r ha danyenforcemen t interes t i nth e area . Th e petitione r argue dtha t th e rul e di d no t eve naccomplis hit s intende d purpos e becaus e requirin g eac hpar t 13 5 operato r t o hav e exclusiv e us e o f on e aircraf t hardl yconstitute d "positiv e control " - th e ostensibl e purpos e o f exclusive

us e rules . '"•' • I nsuppor t o f it s reques t fo r exemption , th e petitione r furthe r state dtha t it s uniqu e an d highl yrespecte d timesharin g andaircraf t managemen t busines s di d not , o f itself , giv e EA F th e exclusiv e us e o f on e aircraft
. Therefore , th e compan yha d bee ncompelle d t o purchase , own , an d maintain ' a single-engin e Cessn a 15 2 solel yi norde r t o satisf yth e requirement s o f Sectio n135.2 5 . Asummar yo f EAF' s petitio nfo r exemptio nwa s publishe d i n th e Federa l Registe r o nNovembe r 5 , 198 1 (4 6 F R55051) . On e commen t wa s received
. Th e commente r stated , i npertinen t part , tha t th e ai r tax i industr yha d bee nplague d wit h temporar yoperator s wh o decide d t o hel p defra ythei r aircraf t expense s o r provid e employmen t fo r out-of-wor kTi
. pilot s b ygettin g int o th e ai r tax i busines s fo r shor t

period s o f time
. Accordin g t o th e commenter , requirin g a n ai r tax i operato r t o hav e a t leas t on e aircraf t exclusivel y availabl e fo r charte r acte d a s a mean s o f requirin g commitmen t t o th e ai r tax i business , whic hundoubtedl yha s prevente dth e existenc e o f greate r number s o f short-ter mai r tax i operators . Th e leve l o f inspectio nan d surveillanc e o f a noperato r temporaril yi nth e ai r tax i busines s canno t b e a s comprehensiv e a s i t i s fo r full-tim e operator s wit hwho mth e loca l FA

Aoffice s hav e deal t wit hove r a perio d o f time
. Therefore , th e possibilit yexist s tha t thos e operator s wil l maintai na lowe r leve l o f safety . Whil e othe r mean s undoubtedl yexis t t o requir e th e commitmen t mentione dabove , th e FA Anote s tha t n o othe r metho di s currentl yi neffec t tha t woul d replac e th e aircraf t requirement
. Therefore , th e requirement s o f Sectio n135.25(b ) an d(c ) shoul d no t b e delete d a t thi s time
. I nissuin g Denia l o f Exemptio nNo . 3438 , th e FA Areviewe d th e fact s presente dan dth e commen t received
. Th e FA Afoun d tha t - th e aircraf t requiremen t i npar t 13 5 provide s a stabl e bas e fo r certification
. A t tha t time , a s man ya s 10 0 operator s wer e goin g ou t o f busines s monthly , wit habou t th e sam e numbe r applyin g fo r ne wcertificates
. Th e FA Astate dtha t th e exclusive-us e aircraf t requiremen t ha d bee ni nexistenc e sinc e 1949 , an d tha t th e industr yha d voice dn o objectio nt o th e rule . .I nrespons e t o a proposa l t o revis e par t 13 5 i n1977 ; onl ya fe wo f th e commenter s requeste d a change . Th e FA Afurthe r state dtha t fro ma safet ystandpoint,-th e rul e provide dprope r contro l oye r operation s an d maintenanc e fo r on e aircraft
. Whil e th e petitione r argue d tha t thi s doe s no t accomplis htha t purpose , th e F7y \ maintaine d tha t b y requestin g ov.-nershi p o r leas e o f on e aircraft , a napplican t wil l hesitat e befor e makin g a napplicatio nbecaus e i t mus t commi t itsel f t o controllin g on e aircraft
. Withou t suc ha commitment , th e operato r migh t b e tempte d t o reduc e aircraf t maintenanc e an dcre wtraining , an d the nsel l o r leas e th e aircraf t befor e routin e FA Asurveillanc e reveal s possibl e irregularities
. Suc ha situatio ni s no t i nth e publi c interes t an dcould ' resul t i noperation s conducte d a t a decrease dleve l o f safety . O nFebruar y2 , 1982 , EA F petitione d fo r reconsideratio no f Denia l o f Exemptio nNo . 3438 . Th e petitione r state d tha t i t file dit s origina l petitio nfo r exemptio na s a corollar yt o it s earlie r petitio nfo r rulemakin g t o abolis hth e par t 13 5 exclusive-us e requirements
. Th e petitione r state d tha tSectio n135.2 5 wa s irrelevan t t o th e safet yo f it s

operation s i nvie wo f it s managemen t contracts , whic h provid e fo r th e continuou s maintenanc e o f al l it s manage d aircraf t unde r par t 135 . I naddition , th e petitione r note d tha t a noutrageou s economi c wast e resulte d fro mEAF' s havin g t o ow nan dmaintai na smal l airplane , whic hneve r wa s flov.Ti , simpl yt o compl ywit hth e rule . Th e petitione r state dtha t Denia l o f Exemptio nNo . 343 8 wa s erroneousl ybase do na publi c commen t opposin g a petitio n fo r rulemaking , andtha t th e commen t wa s no t directe d towar d th e particula r situatio ntha t th e petitione r cite d i n suppor t o f it s reques t fo r exemption
. Also , th e petitione r state d tha t th e FA Afaile d t o not e tha t thre e favorabl e comment s wer e submitte dt o suppor t it s petitio nfo r rulemaking
. Th e petitione r state d tha t th e denia l o f exemptio nwa s fundamentall yinadequat e becaus e th e FA A faile dt o addres s EAF' s uniqu e aircraf t managemen t arrangement s an dtha t forcin g EA F t o ow nan d maintai na n aircraf t tha t neve r wa s flow npurel yt o compl ywit hSectio n 135.2 5 wa s a noutrageou s economi c waste . EA F state d that , accordingly , a gran t o f exemptio nwoul d resul t i na n increas e i naviatio nsafet yan d a reductio ni nth e economi c burde no f governmen t regulation
. I nrespons e t o EAF' s petitio nfo r reconsideration , th e FA A issue dGran t o f Exemptio nNo . 3438 At o th e petitione r o n Jul y7 , 1982 . Th e FA Afoun d tha t th e petitione r 'wa s uniqu e wit hrespec t t o it s par t 13 5 operation
. Thi s i s becaus e EA F wa s primaril yresponsibl e fo r performin g managemen t an d consultan t service s fo r certai nbusines s aircraf t owners . Amon g it s contractua l obligations , th e petitione r perform s aircraf t maintenanc e an drecordkeeping , a s wel l a s th e recruitin g andtrainin g o f fligh t crewmembers . Th e petitione r ha doperationa l contro l o f thes e busines s aircraf t durin g charte r flight s conducte d i naccordanc e wit h it s par t 13 5 certificat e an d Operation s Specifications
. Fo r example , th e aircraf t ma yb e operate d byEA F unde r par t 13 5 fo r a fe wdays , followe dbya perio d o f day s durin g whic h th e sam e aircraf t i s operate d byth e owne r fo r privat e operation s unde r par t 91. ' Th e FAAfoun dtha t th e uniquenes s o f EAF' s operation s warrante da gran t o f exemptio nsubjec t t o th e conditio ntha t EA F shoul dno t operat e unde r par t 13 5 an yU.S.-registere d civi l airplan e whic hha da seatin g capacit yo f 2 0 o r mor e passengers , o r a payloa dcapacit ytha t exceede d 6,00 0 pounds , an dwa s use dt o conduc t non-commo ncarriag e operation s unde r par t 125 . Sectio n125.11(b ) state s tha t n o par t 12 5 certificat e holde r ma yconduc t an yoperatio ntha t result s directl yo r indirectl yfro man ypersons ' holdin g ou t t o th e publi c a noffe r t o furnis hai r transportation
. Thus , t o preclud e anypossibl e mixin g o f par t 13 5 commo ncarriag e operation s wit hpar t 125•non-commo ncarriag e operation s fo rcompensatio nan dhire, , th e FA Afoun d tha t th e petitione r shoul d no t operate , o r lis t o nit s par t 13 5 Operation s Specifications , anyairplan e whic hwa s liste d on•th e Operation s Specification s o f an ypar t 12 5 certificat e holder . Th e FA

Afoun dtha t thi s conditio nwa s necessar yi n th e publi c interes t t o provid e th e highes t leve l o f safet y fo r person s bein g transporte d b yth e petitione r unde r it s par t 13 5 certificat e an dOperation s Specifications
. Exemptio nNos . 3438 B and3438 C were , issue d as - extensions , withou t an ychange s bein g mad e t o th e origina l exemption
. Th e FAAfind s that , subjec t t o condition s an d limitations , th e petitione r ha s operate d successfull yunde r Exemptio nN o 34 3 8 , a s amended . Th e FA Afurthe r find s tha t th e reason s tha t warrante dth e previou s gran t o f exemptio ncontinu e t o b e vali dan dserv e a s th e basi s fo r a gran t o f exemption
. I nconsideratio no f th e foregoing , I find tha t a gran t o f exemptio ni s i nth e publi c interest
. Therefore , pursuan t t o th e authorit ycontaine di n4 9 U.S.C . Section s 4011 3 an d 44701 , . formerl ySections ' 313(a ) an d601(c ) o f .th e Federa l Aviatio nAc t o f 1958 , a s amended , delegate dt o m e b yth e Administrato r (1 4 CF RSectio n11.53) , Executiv e Ai r Fleet , Inc. , i s hereby grante d a nexemptio nfro m1 4 CF RSection s 135.25(b ) an d (c ) t o th e exten t necessar yt o allo wEA F t o operat e unde r 14 CF Rpar t 135 , withou t havin g th e exclusiv e us e o f a t leas t on e aircraf t tha t meet s th e requirement s fo r a t leas t on e kin d o f operatio n authorize db

yEAF' s Operation s Specifications
. Thi s exemptio ni s subjec t t o th e followin g conditions
. EA F shal l no t operat e an y airplan e unde r par t 13 5 which : 1 . Ha s a seatin g capacit yo f 2 0 o r mor e passengers , o r 2 . Ha s a payloa dcapacit ytha t exceed s 6,00 0 pounds , an d 3 . I s liste do nanypar t 12 5 Operation s Specifications
. Thi s exemptio nterminate s on ' Augus t 31 , 1997 , unles s soone r supersede do r rescinded
. /s / Willia m

J . Whit e Actin g Director , Fligh t Standard s Servic e Issue din

- Washington , D.C . o nSeptembe r 11 , 1995 .