AFS-14-287-E

 

 Exemption No. 11057

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

KEY AIR LLC

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0307 

for an exemption from §135.156(d)(4)

of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated, May 5, 2014, Mr. Steven Ferrabelo, Quality Control, Assurance and Records 

Manager, Key Air LLC (Key Air), 3 Juliano Drive, Suite 201, Oxford, CT 06478, petitioned 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Key Air for an exemption from 

§135.156(d)(4) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption, if 

granted, would allow Key Air to operate one Dassault Falcon 2000EX, N900FS, S/N 177 

without complying with §135.156(d)(4), which prohibits the filtering of flight data provided 

to the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR).

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 135.156(d)(4) prescribes, in pertinent part, that, after April 21, 2014, no aircraft flight 

data recording system may filter any specified parameter unless the certificate holder 

possesses test and analysis procedures and test results that have been approved by the FAA, 

and maintains that data as part of its required correlation documentation.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states the airplane was purchased from a foreign operator and issued a 

U.S. airworthiness certificate on April 23, 2014, and that compliance with the referenced 

regulation requires retrofit of the Dassault EASy Avionics. The petitioner has scheduled the 
AFS-14-287-E

2

airplane for retrofit with the Dassault EASy Avionics suite, including a compliant DFDR, on 

June 1, 2015. The petitioner notes that, because of the large number of airplanes being 

retrofitted, there is a significant waiting time to be accepted into a facility that can complete 

the upgrade, and that the supply of the retrofit avionics equipment is equally limited. The 

petitioner also states that a denial of its petition would place an economic burden on it as the 

operator, and that a denial is not in the public interest.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has fully considered the petitioner’s supporting information and finds that a grant of 

exemption would not be not in the public interest.

The petitioner purchased the subject airplane from a foreign entity and, upon inspection, 

discovered that the airplane did not comply with the flight recorder data filtering prohibition

of §135.156. Nonetheless, the petitioner made a business decision to acquire this airplane for 

revenue operation and now seeks to put the airplane into revenue service under Part 135, 

placing the burden of noncompliance on the FAA and the U.S. public. The condition of the 

airplane is the sole responsibility of the petitioner. The petitioner has not presented any 

specific evidence to indicate that the regulations have some unique impact on Key Air or 

unfairly burden it under circumstances beyond its control. The regulations apply to the 

petitioner as they would to the new acquisition of any aircraft by any operator. A business 

decision to acquire noncompliant airplane is not a basis for exemption from long-established 

requirements.

Key Air stated in its petition that the “Aircraft was registered in Isle of Man and the previous 

owner never submitted for the Exemption.” We presume the petitioner is referring to the 

exemption No 10971, which was granted to to operators of certain Dassault Falcon 2000EX 

airplanes. The exemption, dated 1 April, 2014, contained a list of all affected U.S. registered 

airplanes that would be granted an exemption from § 135.156(d)(4), to the extent necessary to 

operate without complying with the prohibition on filtering flight data. That list was provided 

by the manufacturer. At the time Exemption No. 10971 was issued, the petitioner’s subject 

aircraft was registered to a foreign entity, and there would have been no cause for the previous 

owner to petition for exemption because U.S. regulations did not apply to its operations. The

previous ownership of the aircraft is not relevant to this request, and does not provide support 

for the petitioner’s request. 

Finally, the petitioner has presented no evidence why a grant of exemption would be in the 

public interest. The petitioner states that the inability to operate its newly-acquired airplane

“would have a significant economic burden on us. Denial of this petition would not be in the

public’s interest and would significantly reduce the operational capability of the affected 

aircraft...” This statement only addresses the petitioner’s economic interest in operating a 

noncompliant airplane that it acquired after the regulation took effect. The economic cost to 
AFS-14-287-E

3

the petitioner is a result of its own business decision to acquire a noncompliant airplane, and 

is unrelated to the public interest. The operational capability of the airplane is not affected 

because, as a noncompliant airplane, it has never been eligible to be added to the petitioner’s 

Part 135 operations specifications as configured. 

The FAA’s Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of this request for exemption would not be 

in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f),

40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Key Air, LLC for an 

exemption from 14 CFR §135.156(d)(4) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on September 18, 2014

/s/

John Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service