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

- 0 307

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 beh alf o f Key Air for an exemption from

§ 135.156(d)(4 ) of Title 14

, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This exemptio n, if

granted, would allow Key Air to operate one Dassault Falcon 2000EX, N900FS

, S/N 177

without complying with § 135.156(d)(4) , which proh ibits 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 pe titioner supports its request with the following information:

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

U.S. a irworthiness c ertificate on April 23, 2014, and that compliance with the referenced

regulation require s retrofit o f the Dassault EASy Avionics. T he petitioner has scheduled theAFS

- 14

- 287

- E 2

airplane f or retrofit with the Dassault EASy Avionics suite, including a compliant DFDR

, on

June 1, 2015. The petitioner note s that, b ecause of the large number of air planes 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 equipmen t 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 purchase d 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

. N onetheless

, t he petitioner made a bu s iness decis ion to acquire this air plane for

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

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

air plane is the sole responsibilit y of the petitioner. The petitioner has not presented any

specific evidence to indicate that the regulations have some unique im pact on Key Air or unfairly burden it under circumstances beyond its control

. The regulations apply to the

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

decision to acquire noncompliant air plane 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 an d the previous

owner never sub mitted 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

air planes

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

air planes 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 t he 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 st ates 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

aircraf t...” This statement only addresses the petitioner’s economic interest in operating a

noncompliant airplane that it acquired after the r egulation took effect. The economic cost toAFS

- 14

- 287

- E 3

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

is unrelated to the public interest. The operational capability of the air plane 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 confi gured.

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 aut hority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 1 06(f),

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

, F light Standards Service