'(A(y^ LA^ ^ 

Exemption No. 3438A 

UNITED STATES OF- AMERICA • 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDEPAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2 0 591 

In the matter of the petition of 

EXECUTIVE AIR FLEET CORPORATION * Regulatory Docket 

* No. 22270 -

for an exemption from Section * 

135.25(b) and (c) of the Federal * ' 

Aviation Regulations * 

•k 

•it-k-k-k-k-k-k* * k-k-kk . kk-k-k * 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated February 2, 1982, Mr. William B. Watt, 

Executive Air Fleet Corporation. (EAF), 90 Moonachie Avenue, 

Teterboro, N.J. 07608, and J. W. Rosenthal, Esq., Attorney, of 

Ginsburg, Feldman, Weil and Bress, 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, petitioned for reconsideration 

of Denial of Exemption No. 3438 issued to EAF on December 31, 

1981. EAF seeks an exemption from Section 135.25(b) and (c) 

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) to the extent 

necessary to allow petitioner to operate without having the 

exclusive use of at least one aircraft that meets the 

requirements for at least one kind of operation authorized in 

the certificate holder's operations specifications. 

Sections of the FAR affected; 

Section 135.25(b) provides, in pertinent part, that each 

certificate holder must have exclusive use of at least 

one aircraft that meets the requirements for at least one 

kind of operation authorized in the certificate holder's 

operations specifications. In addition, for each kind of 

operation for which the certificate holder does not have 

the exclusive use of an aircraft, the certificate holder 

must have available for use under a' written agreement 

(including arrangements for performing required maintenance, 

at least one aircraft that meets the requirements for that 

kind of operation. 

VS-82-140-E 
Section 135.25(c) provides, in pertinent part, that for 

the purpose of the previously mentioned paragraph, a 

person has exclusive use of an aircraft if that person 

has the sole possession, control, and use of it for 

flight, as owner,, or has a written agreement (including 

arrangements for performing required maintenance), in 

effect when the aircraft is operated, giving the .person 

that possession, control, and use for at least 6 

consecutive months. 

The petitioner's supportive information is as follows: 

EAF stated in its original petition that it is a Delaware 

corporation with its principle place of business atTeterboro Airport, Teterboro, New Jersey. EAF is an 

aircraft management firm which also holds a certificate 

and operations specifications issued under Part 135 and, 

among other things, conducts an air taxi charter operation 

under an exemption from the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) 

pursuant to Part 298 of the Board's economic regulations. 

EAF's principal business is the performance of management 

and consulting services for clients who own executive jet 

aircraft. Those clients include corporations and 

individuals who use such aircraft for the transportation 

of their own corporate executives or themselves, as the 

case may.be, and their- guests. Under contracts between 

EAF and the owners of these aircraft, EAF performs a 

multitude of management advisory functions related to the 

owners' operation.of such aircraft. These functions 

include aircraft maintenance and recordkeeping and the 

recruiting and training of flight crewmembers. 

Several of EAF's present client-owners have determined 

that, in order to utilize their aircraft efficiently, it 

would be desirable to have such aircraft chartered to 

third parties from time to time. In order to accomplish 

this, EAF obtained - the certificate and operations 

specifications referred to above. 

Under its contracts with the owners, EAF has complete 

operational control of the aircraft when it is being 

operated under a charter, and the owner has complete 

operational control (with management services performed 

by EAF) when the owner is using the aircraft for its own 

account. When EAF operates the aircraft, the operation is 

under Part 135; when the owner operates the aircraft, it 

is operated under Part 91 of the FAR. 
Becau£;e its uniqiie and highly respected timesharing and 

aircraft management business does not, of itself, give 

EAF the exclusive use of one aircraft, the company has 

been compelled to purchase, own, and maintain a 

single-engine Cessna 152 solely in order to satisfy 

Section 135.25. 

In its recent petition, EAF states that it filed its 

original petition for exemption as a corollary to its 

earlier petition for rulemaking {46 FR 47465, September 

28, 1981) to abolish the Part 135 exclusive-use 

requirement. EAF emphasized the irrelevance of Section 

135.25 to the safety of its operation in view of its 

management contracts which provide for the continuous 

maintenance of all its managed aircraft under Part 135.-

In addition, EAF noted the outrageous economic waste 

which resulted from EAF's having to own and maintain a- • 

Small airplane, which is never flown, simply to comply 

with the rule. 

EAF.states that the denial of exemption was erroneously 

based on a public comment opposing the petition for 

rulemaking and that the comment is not directed toward the 

individual situation which EAF cited in support of its 

reqriest for exemption. Also, EAF states that the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) failed to note that three 

favorable public comments were submitted to support its 

petition for rulemaking. EAF states the denial of 

exemption is fundamentally inadequate because the FAA 

failed to address EAF's unique aircraft management 

arrangements and that forcing EAF to ov/n and maintain an 

aircraft which is never flown purely to comply with 

Section 135.25 is an outrageous economic waste. 

Accordingly, EAF strongly believes that a grant of 

exemption will result in an increase in aviation safety 

and a reduction in the economic burden of government 

regulation. 

A summary of the EAF petition was published in the Federal 

Register (47 FR 8721, March 1, 1982), and no public comments 

were received. 

The FAA analysis/summary is as follows: 

The EAF petition for rulemaking is identified as Docket 

No. 22084. It is a separate rulemaking action under 

Part 3l~~oT' the FAR and should not have any direct bearing 

on this petition for exemption. 
The FAA recognizes that EAF is unique with respect to its 

Part 135 operation. EAF is primarily responsible for 

performing management and consultant services for certain 

business aircraft owners. Among its contractual 

obligations, EAF performs aircraft maintenance and 

recordkeeping, and the-recruiting and training of flight' 

crewmembers. EAF has operational control of these 

business aircraft during charter flights conducted in 

accordance with its Part 135 certificate and operations 

specifications. The aircraft may be .operated by EAF 

under Part 135 for a few days followed by a period of 

days during which the same aircraft is operated by the 

owner for private operations under Part 91. 

The FAA finds that the uniqueness of the EAF operation 

warrants a grant of exemption subject to the condition 

that EAF shall not operate under Part 135 any U.S.-

registered civil airplane which has a seating capacity of 

20 or more passengers or a maximum payload capacity of 

6,000 pounds or more, and used to conduct non-common 

carriage operations under Part 125. Section 125.11(b) 

states that no Part 125 certificate holder may conduct any 

operation which results directly or indirectly from any 

person's holding out to the public to furnish air 

transportation. Thus, to preclude any possible mixing 

of Part 135 common carriage operations with Part 125 

non-common carriage operations for compensation and hire, 

the FAA finds that EAF may not operate, or list on its 

Part 135 operations specifications, any airplane which is 

listed on the operations specifications of any Part 125 • 

certificate holder. The FAA finds that this condition is 

necessary in- the public interest to provide the highest 

level of safety for persons being transported by EAF under, 

its Part 135 certificate and operations specifications. 

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of 

exemption is in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to 

the authority contained in Sections 313(a) and 601(c) of the 

Federal Aviation Act of 1958, delegated to me by the 

Administrator (14 CFR 11.53), Executive Air Fleet Corporation 

is granted an exemption from Section 135.25(b) and (c) of the 

FAR to the extent necessary to allow EAF- to operate under 

Part 135 without having the exclusive use of at least one 

aircraft that meets the requirements for at least one kind of 

operation authorized in the EAF operations specifications 

subject to the condition that EAF shall not operate under 

Part 135 any airplane which: 

1. Has a seating capacity of 20 or more passengers, or 

2. Has a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or 

more, and 
. on any ^-^^ '' ' ^ , 1985, --^'' ' 

, , n 190' ^ • 

,....sh.n.ton , t) -

Xssu5<i -^^