UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C I n th e Matte r

of : Helicopte r

Fiite , Inc . JU L | 3 ^flf j FA A Orde r No . 2011- 6 Docke t No . CPO9EA001 5 FDM S No . FAA-2009-057 9 

# ^^^^i^i mDOCKE T

: •

_^ • • • ^ M^^ ^ PETITIO N T O MODIF Y FA A ORDE RNO . 2011- 6 - o^^ ^ Th e Complainant , pursuan t to 1 4 C.F.R . Sectio n 13.234 , files it s Petitio n to . X I $^^ . Modif y FA A Orde r No . 2011-6 . A s explaine dbelow , Complainan t request s tha

t th e xj o c o c r Order b e modifie dto find aviolatio n o f sectio n 135.25(b) . Complainan t i s not-seekin g modificatio n o f

th e Order wit h regardto th e Decisionmaker' s finding tha t n o civi l penalty shoul db e impose di

n thes e circumstances , but doe s reques t

tha t th e Order b e clarifie ds o tha t th e Orde r

not be reada s precludin g impositio n o f acivi l penalty i

n a n appropriat e cas e eve n i

f ther e i s n o evidenc e that

acarrie r ha s operate ddurin g th e time i t ha dn o exclusive-us e aircraft . I n support of it s petition , Complainan t

highlight s certai n passage s tha t appea r to b e conflicting . Specifically , o n pag e 2 o f th e Order , i

t states : Afte r consideratio n o f

th e recordan

dth e briefs , i t

i s hel dtha

t i n th e absenc e o f evidenc e o f

operation , acertificate holder canno t b e foundt

o hav e violate d Sectio n 135.25(b) . Consequently , th e FAA faile dt o prov e tha t Helicopter

FJite violate dSectio n 135.25(b ) becaus e th e FAA di dno t introduc e an

y evidenc e tha

t Helicopte r

Flite or an y othe r entit y operate dth e helicopte r

i n questio n afte

r th e helicopte r was sold . Ye t o n page s 9 an d1 0 o f

th e Order , i

t states :...Th e FA A di dprov e tha t Helicopte r

Flit e di dno t

hav e exclusiv e us e o f

th e onl y aircraf t liste do n it s operation s specification s betwee n Februar y 22 , 2008 , an d Septembe r

15 , 2008 . However , it

make s n o sens e t o enforc e thi s requiremen t b y imposin g acivi l penalt y unles s ther e i s evidenc e tha t th e certificat e holde r

continue dt o operat e durin g th e tim e perio dtha t i t di dno t hav e exclusiv e us e o f

a t leas t on e aircraft , f

f ther e i s n o implici t

operatio n requirement , then , fo r example , th e FA A coul d asses s acivi l penalt y onc e acertificat e holder' s exclusiv e us e aircraf t wa s destroye db y afire o r

natura l disaster . Likewise , acertificat e holde r woul dno t

b e abl e t o sel l it s exclusiv e us e aircraf t an dus e iheproceed s t o purchas e another , "aircraf t Withou t bein g inviolatio n ofSection-l-35;25(b) : -~ - Th e FA A di dno t

introduc e an y evidenc e t o sho w tha t Helicopte r

Flit e operate d an y aircraf

t afte r th e sal e o f

N407Z . Th e languag e o n pag e 2 seem s to . b e aholdin g that , i n fact , th e FA A faile dt o prov e tha t

Helicopte r

Flit e violate dth e cite dregulafion. ' Ye t th e languag e o n page s 9-1 0 seem s t o b e aholdin g tha t —althoug h th e FA A prove dtha t Helicopte r

Flit e di dno t

hav e e.Kclusiv e us e o f

th e onl y aircraf

t liste da s exclusive-us e i n it s operation s specification s — then , a s amatte r

o f enforcemen t

policy , i t

woul d"make[ ] n o sense " t o enforc e th e requiremen t

unles s th e par t

13 5 operato r

actuall y conducte dapar t 13 5 operatio n durin g th e tim e tha t

i t di dno t hav e a n exclusive-us e aircraft . I n othe r words , o n th e on e hand , th e Orde r seem s t o stat e tha t

ther e wa s n o violatio n (pag e 2 ) a t all , bu t o n th e othe r

hand , i t seem s t o sugges t

(page s 9-10 ) tha t

ther e wa s atechnica l violatio n - bu t notin g tha t

a technica l violafio n coul daris e throug h n o faul t o f a n operato r

du e t o afire o r

othe r

' Readin g Helicopte

r Flite , Inc.' s Appea

l Brie f i n th e broades t sens e possible , whil

e i t appear s tha t i t challenge dwhethe r i t violate dth e regulations , tha

t challenge wa

s base dsolel y o n th e absenc e o f aspecific sanctio n type o r civil penalt

y amoun t liste di n FA A Orde r 2150.3 B fo

r noncompliance wit

h Sectio n 135.25(5) . FA

A Orde r 2150.3 8 doe s no

t provid e specifi c guidance o

n eac h typ e o f potentia l regulator y violatio n o r th e type o f enforcemen

t actio n t o b e .sought. And , th

e FA A Decisionmake

r di dno t bas e hi s decisio n o n th e absence o

f specifi c sanctio n guidance regardin

g Sectio n 135.25(b) . Notabl

y also , Helicopte r Flite , Inc . di

dno t argu e o n appea l tha t absen t ashowin g - tha t someon e els e operate

dth e exclusiv e us e aircraf

t o r absen t ashowin g tha t Heh'copte r Flit e onl y operatednonexclusiv

e us e aircraf t — mean t tha t n o violatio n occurred . Neithe

r di dHelicopte

r Flite , Inc . specificall

y argu e tha t eve n i f ther e wa s aviolation , n

o c'wi l penalt y shoul db e imposed . Instead , i

t requeste dtha t th e civil penalt

y shoul dbe - reduce dt o somethin g mor e reasonable . Thus , thi s is Complainant' s first opportunit y t o addres s the lega

l analyse s (i n terms o f whethe r ther e wa s aviolatio n o f Sectio n 135.25(b) o

r i n term s o f sanctio n policy fo r a Sectio n 135.25(b) charge

) se t fort h i n th e Decisionmaker' s Orde

r i n thi s matter .natura l disaster . And , i t seem s t o hol dtha t

th e FA A mus t

prov e tha t

th e Responden t carrie r actuall y operated , i n par t 13 5 operations , anonexciusive-us e aircraf t durin g th e perio dwhe n i t

ha dn o exclusive-us e aircraf t i n orde r t o impos e acivi l penalty . Se e FA A Orde r 2011- 6 a t

pp . 9-10 . However , thi s raise s asecon dare ao f confusion . Th e secon dsentenc e i n th e above-quote dlanguag e fro mpag e 2 o f th e Orde r

seem s t o stat e tha t

th e FA A ca n prov e a violafio n o f

135.25(b ) whe n th e aircraf t "i n question " (i.e. , th e liste dexclusive-us e aircraft ) i s eithe r

operate db y th e Responden t carrie r o r b y anothe r

operator . W e d o no t believ e tha t

th e FA A Decisionmake r intende dt o sugges t

tha t on e o f th e necessar y element s o f

aSectio n 135.25(b ) violatio n i s tha t th e actua l aircraf

t "i n question " (i.e. , th e aircraf t liste di n th e opcrafion s specification s a s th e "exclusive-use " aircraft ) wa s operate db y th e Responden t carrie r o r b y anothe r

operator . Whethe r

th e liste dexclusive

us e aircraf

t i s operate do r

not.b y anyon e i s no t

relevan t t o whethe r

th e Responden t

carrie r ha da n exclusive-us e aircraf t i n it s exclusiv e possessio n an dcontro l for th e requisit e period . However , w e agre e tha t th e us e o f

nonexclusiv e us e aircraf t b y th e Responden t carrie r itself , durin g aperio dwhe n i t n o longe r

ha da n exclusive-us e aircraft , migh t b e relevan t t o whethe r

enforcemen t

actio n shoul db e take n o r no t an dmigh t

b e relevan t

a s t o th e natur e o f

th e enforcemen t

actio n (e.g. , certificat e acfio n versu s civi l penalty) . A thir dare ao f

confusio n arise s fro mth e above-quote dlanguag e fro mpage s 2 , 9 an d10 . On e coul drea dFA A Orde r 201 1 - 6 t o b e mor e o f

asanction-guidanc e holdin g

^ Clearly , use of

th e liste d"exclusive-use " aircraf

t b y someon e othe r tha t the par i 135 carrie

r woul db e evidenc e tha

t th e par t 13 5 carrie r di dno t hav e exclusiv e us e o f th e aircraft , bu

t tha t is no t th e onl y wa y t o establish alac

k o f use-exclusivity . Contrac

t provision s regardin

g th e aircraf t coul db e writte n i n suc h a wa y t o establis h tha t someone , othe

r tha n th e par t 135 carrier, ha

dth e righ t t o use th e aircraf t during th e six-mont h period . I

n fact , th e Decisionmaker, i

n FA A Orde r 2001- 6 a t footnot e 8 , questione

dwhethe r th e contractua l provisio n i n thi s cas e me

t th e use-exclusivit

y requirements o

f Sectio n 135.25(c) .than aholdin g o n the circumstance s i n whic h ther e i s aviolatio n o f Sectio n 135.25(b) . Th e above-quote dlanguag e fi-ompag e 9 o f th e Orde r regardin g whether

i t make s sens e or no t t o impos e a"civi l penalty " coul db e rea da s guidanc e o n when t o penaliz e someon e wit h acivi l penalty a s oppose dto other type s o f enforcemen t

actio n not

specificall y mentione di

n th e Orde

r - like "remedial " certificat e action , whic h i s take n b y th e FA A eve n i n circumstance s where aRespondent , eve n throug h n o faul t o f it s own , i s no t

i n complianc e o r

i s n o longer expecte dt o b e i

n complianc e wit

h safet y regulations . Th e thre e area s o f

confusio n i n th e Order

may hav e arise n b

y th e bottom-lin e ru b o f thi s case , namel y whethe r impositio n o f

acivi l penalt y i

n thi s cas e wa s considere d appropriat e eve n if

there wa s noncomplianc e wit h sectio n 135.25(b) . A s wil l b e discusse di

n greate r detai l below , althoug h complianc e o r noncornplianc e wit

h section . 135.25(b ) i s afairl

y straightforwar dissue , i

t i s adifferen t

issue , perhap s mor e difficult , to decide , i n th e publi c interest , whe n to tak e enforcemen t

actio n an dwha t kin do f enforcemen t

acfion i s appropriate . Finally , perhap s anothe r

underlyin g difficult

y i n regardto thi s safet

y regulatio n i s tha t ~ i n th e absenc e o f

th e operatio n o f

an y aircraf t (whethe r i t i s th e operatio n o f

th e liste dexclusiv e us e aircraf t o r whethe r i t i s th e operatio n o f

onl y nonexclusiv e us e aircraft) - i

t i s no t readil y obviou s wh

y th e FAA , an dit s predecesso r agencies , decide d thai safet y i n ai r commerc e require dth e adoptio n o f this typ e o f

regulation . Th e nexu s to aviatio n safet

y (e.g. , i n term s o f

cras h avoidanc e or

injury/deat

h avoidanc e or

property damag e avoidance ) i s usuall y readil y apparen t i n mos t safet y regulations . I

n many respect s —a s wil

J become mor e apparen t

afte r arevie w o f

th e regulator

y historj ' fo r exclusive-us e aircraf

t regulations , FA

A response s t o petition s fo r exemptio n an

dareiafivel y recen t FA A rul e tha t

ha s simila

r safet y rafional e an dgoal s - Sectio n 135.25(b ) ca n hav e aprophylacti c safet y effect when use dt o den y fty-by-night applicant s fo

r apar t 11 9 certificat e t

o conduc t par t 13 5 operation s an

dSectio n 135.25(b ) ca

n serv e a s a

n early-warnin g syste

mthat a n existin g par

t 13 5 operato r

tha t ha s n o exclusive-us e aircraf

t might hav e problem s conductin g asaf e an dcomplian t

par t 13 5 operation . Unde r

eithe r safet y theory , certificate actio n coul db e warrante dto protec t the publi c interest , an dth e agency' s historical interpretatio n an dapplicatio n o f tha t regulatio n ha s not

requne dthat th e agenc y sho w tha

t th e par t 13 5 operato r

conducte doperation s wit h nonexclusiv e us e aircraf t durin g th e perio dwhe n th e par t 13 5 operato r

ha dn o exclusiv e us e aircraft . Turnin g to the regulatory histor y of exclusive-us e provisions , i t appear s tha

t a s earl y a s 1949 , th e Unite dState s impose da n exclusive-us e requiremen t o n som e air carriers . O

n Novembe r

22 , 1949 , th e Civi l Aeronautic s Boar d[CAB ] issue dseveral no nofic e final rules , policie s an dinterpretation s base do n afinding tha t i t woul d impracficabl e an dcontrar

y t o th e publi c interes t

t o dela y th e effectivenes s o f

th e ne w rules , policie s an dinterpretations . Amon g other things , th e CA

B wrot e th e following : Exclusiv e us e (C/I

A policie s whic

h appl y t o Sectio n 42.11 ) Whe n larg e aircraf t ar e operate dunder

th e term s o f

a n irregula r air carrie r operatin g certificate , th e aucarrie r shall own or

hav e th e exclusiv e us e o f a t leas t on e suc h aircraft . I

n othe r words , th e ai

r carrie r shal l hav e th e sol e possession , contro l an dus e o f suc h aircraf t fo r adefinite an dreasonabl e perio do f fime. Th e minimu mduratio n o f a leas e whic h meet s th e abov e requirement s wil l b e for aperio do f

60 days . Th e basi c principl e determinin g wha t constitute s areasonabl e perio dof tim e i s that whic h will enabl e th e Administratio n t o perfor mit s enforcemen t

ftinctions. Accordingly , if

th e circumstance s warrant , aleas e o f mor e than 6 0 day s duratio n ma y b e required . 1 4 CFR § 42.11- 1 (1949) . Se e 1 4 Fed . Reg . 7032-703 3 (November 22 , 1949) .I

n 1950 , th e CA B state dthat ; "...[th e Administrato r

o f Civi l Aeronautic s advised ] wit h th e limite dstaf

f availabl e fo

r administratio n an denforcemen t o f safet y standard s applyin g t o ai r carrier s an dcommercial operator s operatin g larg e aircraf t th e Administratio n i s unable , under

th e curren t

provision s o f

Par t 4 2 an dth e practice s herewit h described , t

o tak e al l necessar y an ddesirabl e measure s to assure th e attainmen t o f th e require dsafet

y standard s b y al l suc h operators . Thes e amendment s herei n adopte dar e intende dto focu s responsibility fo r maintenanc e an doperatio n b y requirin g a n operato r o f larg e aircraf

t to hav e exclusiv e operational contro l o f all suc h aircraf

t use di n hi s busines s fo

r aperio d o f a t leas t si x months . Heretofore , a

n operato r wh o ha dsuc h contro l o f

on e aircraf t coul dus e an

y additional aircraft , provided , if alarg e aircraft , tha

t i t wa s liste di n th e ai r carrie r operatin g certificate an da t th e tim e o f

suc h listin g wa s foundsaf e fo r th e servic e t

o b e offered . However , where suc h a n aircraf t i s liste d i n th e opei'atin g specificafion s o f mor e tha n on e person , a s i s ofte

n th e situation , w e ar e advise dthat

i t i s practicall y impossibl e mman y case s t o fix responsibility fairiy fo r poor maintenanc e o r

other airworthines s deficiencies . T o suppor t administratio n o f

existin g requirements , tli e regulatio n hereb y promulgate d provide s tha

t n o larg e aircraf

t ma y b e liste dsimultaneousl y i n th e air carrie r o r commercial operatin g certificate o f mor e than on e air

carrie r or commercial operator , an

dtha t whe n th e operator , cease s t o hav e exclusiv e operational contro l o f an y larg e aircraf

t h e shal l repor

t suc h fact to th e Administrato r

s o tha t th e aircraf t m y b e remove dfro

mhi s operatin g specification . Thi s regulatio n furthe

r provide s tha

t al l air carrie r operafin g certificate s an d commercial operato r

certificate s issue dprio r

t o Jul y 1 , 1950 , shal l expire n o late r tha n Jun e 30 , 1951 , an dtha

t al l certificate s issue dafte r Jul y 1 , 1950 , shal l b e limite di n duratio n to on e year . Thi s provisio n i s designe dto provid e aspecifi c recurren t perio dfo r provin g qualificatio n for

a n operatin g certificate . Suc h a provisio n isdeeme dnecessary , i n vie w o f th e fact tha t experienc e ha s show n that operator s who safisfactoril y sho w thei r ability to perfor

mair carrie r operation s safely a t th e tim e o f

original issuanc e o f

a n operatin g certificat e ofte n fai l t o maintai n the necessary facilitie s an dpersonne l thereafter . I n orde r to permi t th e Administrato r

t o cop e wit

h th e recurren t

inspectio n burde n create db y thi s provisio n b

y distributin g suc h burde n over th e entir e year , w e are providin g tha t h e ma y immediatel y initiat e hi s reinspecfio n programfo r renewal o f

ai r carrie r operatin g certificate s rather tha n wai l unti l th e en do f

thi s year . 1 5 Fed . Reg . 426 3 (Jul y 1 , 1950) .7

I t i s interestin g t o note , tha

t th e Government' s action s i n 194 9 wer

e limite dt o requirin g one exclusiv e us e larg e aircraf t fo r a t leas t 6 0 days , whil e i

n 195 0 th e requiremen t

wa s extende dto provid e tha t a H larg e aircraf

t use db y a

n irregula r air carrie r or commercial operato r

hadto b e i

n th e exclusiv e us e an

dcontro l o f

tha t certificat e holde r fo r aperio dof

a t leas t si x months . Th e commo n safet y threa drunnin g throug h thes e tw o action s was th e vie w tha t Governmen t

safet y oversight , which wa s an di s i n th e publi c interest , woul db e thwarte di n th e absenc e o f

suc h regulafions . Implicit , if no t explicit , i n th e statement s issue di

n 194 9 an d195 0 wa s tha

t there wa s acompellin g publi c interes t to no t merel y rel y o n th e goo dintention s or representation s or

assurance s mad e b y already-certificate dai r

carrier s an

dcommercial operators , but tha t there wa s great valu e i n havin g independent , tax-payer-funde dGovernment-employe e inspection s o f th e aircraf t an doperafion s o f

suc h air carrier s an dcommercial operators . Eve n thoug h th e Governmen t eventuall y droppe dth e requirement tha t al l larg e aircraf t ha dto b e i n th e exclusiv e us e o f

air carriers , th e requiremen t

tha t operator s larg e aircraf t ha dto hav e a

t leas t on e exclusiv e us e aircraf

t wa s carrie dforwar

dan dmad e applicabl e t

o part 12 1 supplemental operators , pursuan t to former 1 4 CF R§ 121.15 5 unti l th e early 1980s . See , e.g. , 4 6 F R986 8 (Januar

y 29 , 1981 ) fo

r th e FA A NPR M proposin g t o eliminate sectio n 121.155 . I n regardt o the curren t

sectio n 135.25(b ) requiremen t impose do n par

t 13 5 operators , there i s regulator y histor y an dexemptio n histor

y tha t help s t o fi-ame no t

onl y ho w thi s typ e o f

regulatio n (whic h woul dinclud e forme r sectio n 121.155 ) ha s been interprete dove r

th e years , but

als o th e safet

y base s fo r maintainin g arequiremen t for a t leas t on e exclusiv e us e aircraf

t fo r par t 13 5 operators .I n 1973 , i n respons e t

o aletter fromth e attorney s fo

r Executiv e Air

Flee t Corporafio n (EAF) , the FA A interprete dth e applicability an dmeanin g o f the n secfio n 121.15 5 regardin g the exclusiv e us e requiremen t for al l aircraf t use db y par

t 12 1 supplementa l operators . EA F stale dtha t 4 o f it s client s wante dto giv e E.A F exclusiv e contro l o f thei r aircraf t whe n EA F use dsuc h aircraf t o n EAF charte r

flights, but

that th e client s woul dhav e acces s an dus e o f th e aircraf

t durin g other

time s fo r par t 9 1 flights. Th e FA A opine dtha

t suc h a n arrangemen t

woul dmean tha

t ".. . EAF woul dno t

hav e sol e possession , control , an dus e of th e aircraf

t durin g th e perio do f

th e writte n agreement... " an dthus , EAF ".. . woul dno t hav e 'exclusiv e use ' o f

th e subjec t

aircraf t withi n th e meanin g o f

sectio n 121.155. " Se e Attachmen t 1 . Nothin g i

n tha t interpretatio n suggest s tha t i n orde r for th e FAA t o prov e tha

t th e exclusive-us e provisio n ha s bee n violate di s i

f th e FA A prove s tha

t carrie r operate dnonexclusiv e us e aircraft . I n fact , i n a

n FA A respons e t o Congressman Parre n J . Mitchell , o n Jul y 13 , 1977 , i t i s mad e quit e clea

r tha t th e exclusiv e us e provision s i n th e safet y rule s ca n b e violate d whe n acarrie r

conduct s n o operation s whatsoever . Aire Cardina l International wa s apart 12 1 carrie r

tha t los t exclusiv e contro l of

it s tw o DC- 8 ahcraft , los t severa l require dftillum e persorme i an dcease doperating . A s aresult , i n Januar y 1977 , th e FA

A issue da Notic e proposin g t

o revoke Ah e Cardinal' s Commercial Operato r certificate , for

. violatin g th e the n sectio n 121.15 5 an dthe n sectio n 121.59(a) . Aire Cardinal trie dt o minimiz e it s violatio n o f

th e regulation s b y labelin g the m"technicalities" . Th e FAA disagree dwit

h labelin g th e violation s a s "technicalities " an dwrote : Th e requirement

fo r acommercial operato r

to hav e exclusiv e us e an

dcontro l o f

a t leas t on e aircraf

t focuse s th e responsibility upo n th e operato r — t o th e exclusio n o f al l other s —to assur e tha t th e ahcraf

t receive s proper

maintenanc e an di s kep t i n a n airworthy condition . Th e requiremen t fo r acommercial operato r

t o retai nke y managemen t an doperation s personne l a s full-time employee s guard s agains t th e us e o f untraine dan dinexperience dmanagemen t official s wh o hav e no t

bee n determine dqualifie dto make importan t safet y judgments . W

e vie w thes e regulatory requirement s a s paramoun t safet y consideration s ftilly consisten t with a commercial operator' s lega l obligafio n to condiic t

operafion s wit

h th e highes t degre e o f safety . FA A Lette r to Congressman Mitchell , date dJul y 13 , 197 7 a t pag e 2 . Attachmen t

2 . Th e lette r t o Congressman Mitchel l i s mstructiv e fo r anumbe r o f reasons . First , i

t make s clea

r that the exclusiv e us e rul e coul db e violate deven whe n the operato r conducte dn

o operations . Second , nothin g i n th e lette r

indicate s or

suggest s tha

t th e tw o forme r "exclusiv e use " aircraf

t (i.e. , th e tw o DC-8s ) were actuall y usedb y anyon e afte r Aire Cardinal los t

di e aircraf

t an dnothin g i

n th e letter

suggest s tha t

establishmen t

o f a violatio n o f

forme r sectio n 121.15 5 wa s dependen t o n ashowin g tha

t someon e actuall y flew thos e aircraf

t afte r Aire Cardinal los t

us e o f th e aircraft . Th e thir

dwa y th e lette r

wa s instructiv e wa s tha

t it s whol e teno r

wa s no t that thi s carrie r

neede dt o b e punishe d(eve n thoug h th e agenc y characterize dth e situatio n a s a"violation " o f sectio n 121.155 ) o r

tha t thi s carrie r

woul dnever

b e abl e t o retur

n to complianc e an

dthu s avoi dth e revocatio n o f it s certificate . I n fact , th e FA A clearl y state dtha

t if th e carrier

go t a n exclusiv e us e aircraft , th e certificate actio n woul db e dropped . Additionally , forme

r sectio n 121.155(c ) itsel f

i s somewhat

instructiv e o n th e typ e o f remed y tha

t shoul db e sought

when a n operato r doe s not mee t th e exclusiv e us e provision s o f

th e safely rules . Former

sectio n 121.155(c ) specifie dthe following : A supplemental ai r

carrie r o r commercial operato r

tha t doe s no t hav e exclusiv e us e o f a t leas t on e aircraf

t doe s no t mee t th e requirement s o f

thi s part , an dth e . Administrato r

may , i n a n appropriat e case , suspen do r revoke th e supplementa l ai r carrier' s o r commercial operator' s certificate .1 0

Thi s forme r

secfion , take n togethe r wit h th e analysi s i n th e Lette r t o Congressma n Mitchell , illustrate s tha t aviolatio n o r

noncomplianc e wit h exclusive-us e provision s - - shoul dprobabl y resul t

i n th e potenlia ! remova } o f th e certificate . Th e secfion . itsel f i s writte n with th e expectatio n tha t th e FA A woul dus e goo djudgment . I n regar dt o th e exercis e o f

prosecutoria l judgment , w e submi t tha t i n som e circimistances , i f th e los s o f th e exclusiv e us e aircraf t i s temporary , the n n o certificat e actio n woul dnecessaril y b e warrante d- eve n i f

th e par t 13 5 operato r

confinue s operation s wit h nonexclusive-us e aircraft. ^ h i othe r

cases , i t migh t b e appropriat e t o suspend , pendin g complianc e wit h th e exclusiv e us e provisions , th e par t 11 9 certificate . I n othe r cases , where , fo r

example , th e operato r ha s no t conducte dan y operatio n fo r quit e som e tim e o r

wher e th e operato r

ha s no t ha dan aircraf

t that meet s th e exclusiv e us e requirement s fo r quit e som e time , the n th e appropriat e remed y t o protec t th e publi c interes t

i n meaningfu l FA A oversigh t o f th e operator' s maintenanc e progra man di n th e efficac y o f th e FAA' s safet y inspecto r wor k force , migh t

wel l b e th e revocatio n o f th e certificate . Th e ide ao f

requirin g tha t

par t 13 5 operator s hav e a t

leas t on e exclusiv e us e aircraf t wa s discusse di n th e 197 8 final rul e wherei n Sectio n 135.2 5 wa s adopted . I n th e section-by-sectio n analysi s o f th e Fina l Rule , th e FA A note dtha t tw o conmienter s urge d tha t par t 13 5 operator s shoul dhav e exclusiv e us e o f eac h aircraf

t use di n thei r

operafions . I n rejectin g tha t

suggestion , th e FA A state dtha t th e rul e adequatel y ensure s prope r contro l ove r

maintenanc e an dals o i s sufficientl y flexible. Th e FA A als o state dthat :

• ' Fo r example , a

s note di n FA A Orde r 2011-6 , i f th e exclusive-us e aircraf

t wa s destroye di n astor mo r i f i t wa s sol di n orde r fo r th e operato r t o ge t fund s t o purchas e o

r lease anothe

r aircraf t tha t woul dmee t th e requirement

s o f Sectio n 135.25 , the

n i n appropriat

e circumstances , i

t coul db e appropriat

e fo r the FA A t o wai t areasonabl

e periodfo r th e carrie r t o retur n t o compliance .1 1

A n applican t

o r acertificat e holder

shoul dreasonabl y expec t t o eithe r ow n or hav e exclusiv e us e o f

a t leas t on e aircraf

t an dth e rul e provide s positiv e contro l fo r bot h operatio n an dmaintenanc e o f th e aircraft . 4 3 F R4674 2 a

t p . 4676 3 (Octobe r

10 , 1978) . I n 1981 , Executiv e Air

Flee t Corporafio n sought

a n exempuo n fi'omsectio n 135.25 . Thepefitio n fo

r exemptio n wa s publishe dfor publi c comment . On e commente r state dth e following : Thi s industr

y ha s been plague dwit

h temporar

y operator s wh o decid e to hel p defra y expense s o n aircraf

t or provid e employmen t

fo r out-of-wor

k pilot s b y gettin g int o th e air tax i busines s fo

r shor t period s o f

tune . Requirin g tha

t a t leas t on e aircraf

t b e exclusivel y availabl e fo r charte r us e i s on e mean s o r

requirin g a commitmen t

t o th e ai r tax i busines s tha

t undoubtedl y prevente dth e existenc e o f even more short-termair

tax i operators . Th e leve l o f inspectio n an dsurveillanc e o f someon e man dou t

o f th e ai r tax i busines s ove

r ashor t perio do f tim e canno t

b e a s comprehensiv e a s i t i s fo r th e continuing , full-fim

e operator s th e local FAA office s hav e deal t with over

a perio do f time ; hence , th e possibility o f alowe r leve l o f safet y fo r thos e operator s exists . I n denyin g th e petitio n fo

r exemption , th e FA

A stated : Base dupon arevie w o f

th e fact s presente dan di

n light o f th e commen

t receive d [italicize demphasi s added] , th e FA A believe s tha

t th e aircraf

t requiremen t

i n Par t 13 5 provide s astabl e bas e fo r certification . A t

th e presen t

time , a s many a s 10 0 operator s g o ou t

o f busines s monthly , wit

h abou t th e same numbe r

appl y fo r ne w certificates . Thi s aircraf

t requiremen t

ha s been i

n existenc e sinc e 1949 , an dth e industr y ha s voice dn o objectio n t

o th e rule . I

n th e revisio n to Par

t 13 5 i n 1977 , only afe w comment s were receive drequesfin g achange . Fromasafet

y standpoint , th e rul e provide s prope r contro l ove

r operation s an d maintenanc e fo

r on e aircraft . Executiv e Ai r Flee t Corporafio n argue s tha

t thi s doe s no t accomplis h tha

t purpose . Th e FA

A maintain s tha

t b y requirin g ouTiership o r

leasin g o f

on e aircraft , a

n applican t

will hesitat e befor

e makin g applicatio n becaus e i

t mus t commi t itsel f to contro l on e akcraft . Withou t suc h a commitment , th e operato r might b e tempte dt o reduc e aircraf t maintenanc e an d cre w trainin g an dthe n sel l or leas t th e aircraf

t befor e routin e FA

A surveillanc e reveal s only possibl e irregularities . Suc h asituatio n i s no t i n th e publi c interes t an dcoul dresul t

i n operation s conducte da

t areduce dleve l o f

safety .1 2

Denial o f Exemptio n No . 3438 , p p 2- 3 (Decembe r 31 , 1981) . Attachment

3 . Th e statement s take n fro

mthi s Denial o f

Exemption , alon g with the earlie r regulator} ' history includin g th e FA A correspondenc e wit

h Congressman Mitchel l i n th e Aire Cardinal enforcemen t matter , explai n th e safet

y base s fo r th e exclusive-us e rule. . We labe l thes e tw o safet

y base s as : I . Th e Best-Use-of-FAA-Safety-Inspectors-for

Certification-and-Oversigh t Theor y an d2 . Th e More-Meaningftil-Dat aTheory . Theor y 1 : Th e Best-Use-o f

FAA

- Safety-Inspectors-for-Certification-and

Oversigh t Theory . A s tli e regulator

y history make s clear , th e FAA an dit s predecesso r agencie s ha

d a n interes t i n no t wastin g taxpaye r

fund s - o r

mor e importantl y scarc e Governmen t certificafio n an dsafet

y oversigh t

personne l —

processin g an dapprovin g applicaUon s for a n ai r carrie r certificate s or

commercial operafin g certificate s if the applicant s di dno t hav e th e financial wherewithal or th e busines s commitmen t t o hav e th e exclusiv e us e an d contro l o f a n aircraf t fo r a t leas t 6-mont h increments . Th e certificatio n proces s fo r apar t 13 5 applican t

i s fime-consuming an dresourc e intensive . I t woul dno t

b e i n th e publi c interes t to diver t FA A safet y resource s to applicant s tha t ha dbusines s model s that

ha da goo dlikelihoo dof

bein g short-term . I

t woul dno t

b e i n th e publi c interes t

to hav e s o many teeterin g carrier s o

r fly-by-night

operation s tha

t Governmen t

resource s woul db e stretche dthin reviewin g applicaUon s or overseein g suc h operation s an dthu s hayin g les s time t o overse e other

par t 13 5 operations . Devofin g resource s t o th e certificatio n proces s fo r applicant s who might

neve r ge t of f th e groun d(s o t o speak ) o r t o overseein g carrier s tha t woul db e i n an

dou t o f business , woul ddiver

t scarc e publi c resource s fromcertifyin g an doverseeiri g thos e tha

t woul dbe acfively engage di n conmiercfa

l operations . An d1 3

again , th e regulator

y histor y make s clea

r tha t th e publi c ha s a

n interes t i n havin g mdependent , taxpaye r

fundedoversigh t

o f suc h operation s i n tha

t histor y ha s demonstrate dtha t

many certificate holders , onc e certificafio n wa s complete , di dno t maintai n thei r

operafion s or

maintenanc e program s t o th e appropriat e levels . I f to o man y fly-by-night

operation s go t

certificated , safet

y problem s that

coul dotherwis e b e identifie dan

dcorrecte db

y FA A inspector s afte

r inspecfin g real , going-concern part 13 5 operators , migh t

be missed . Theor y 2 : Th e More-Meaningfitl-Safety-Dat aTheory . A s th e FA A an dit s predecesso r

agencie s e.xplained , requirin g acommercia l operato r to hav e th

e exclusiv e us e an dcontro l o f a t leas t on e aircraf

t fo r six-month increments , gav e Government safet y inspector s abette r

opportunity to ge t

ameaningfu l pictur e o f whethe r th e operato r

wa s adherin g to appropriat e air carrie r requirements , includin g maintenanc e requirements . I n other words , if a n FA A inspecto r

ha dth e opportunity t o inspec t

a t leas t on e aircraf

t use dan dcontrolle d(i n a t leas t 6-mont h increments ) b y th e operator , tha t coul dgiv e th e FAA amor e meaningful pictur e abou t whethe r th e carrie r

properl y maintaine dth e aircraf t an dwhethe r

th e aircraf

t wa s properl y returne dt o service . Thus , even thoug h par t 13 5 carrier s can als o us e aircraf t tha t ar e no t exclusive-us e aircraft , b y th e FAA requirin g eac h par t 13 5 operato r

to hav e a t leas t on e exclusiv e us e aircraf

t i t increase dth e chance s tha t i t woul dge t

mor e meaningfu l dat a point s to trac k

th e carrier' s ability o r

willingnes s t o compl y wit h safet y rules . Therefore , even if acarrie r i s no t afly-by-night

carrie r an dha s th e financial wherewithal an d busines s intentio n of

bein g along-termgoin g concer n (thus , i n th e rar e cas e where1 4

Theor y 1 woul dno t

be relevant) , th e FAA decide dthat i t wa s stil l importan t

t o impos e a one-aircraft , exclusiv e us e requiremen t o n par t 13 5 operators . [nearl y 1982 , EAF filed apetitio n fo r reconsideratio n o f

th e Denial o f

Exemptio n issue di n Decembe r

1981 . Se e Attachmen t

4 . I n tha t proceeding , th e FAA grante dth e exemptio n mpart

becaus e th e safet

y concern s tha

t we'v e labele da s Theory I abov e didn' t appl y (i.e. , EAI

^ wa s no t afly-by-night

par t 13 5 operator , but

instea dha

dbee n i n busines s fo

r quit e som

e time ) an dbecaus e th e compan y demonstrate dthat al l o f th e aircraf t tha t i t use di n it s par t 13 5 operatio n —tha

t wer e sometime s use db y th e aircraf t owner s themselve s i

n par t 9 1 operafion s ~ were b y contrac t betwee n th e aircraf

t owner s an dEA F —i

n EAF' s hand s fo

r purpose s o f

complianc e wit

h aircraf t maintenanc e an d recordkeepin g requirements . Se e Gran t o f Exemption , No . 3438A , a t pag e 2 . Tha t exempuo n wa s extende du p to 1989 , whe n EA

F decide dno t

to see k it s extension . Se e Grant o f Exemptio n No . 615 8 fo

r th e history . Attachmen t

5 . I n 1995 , EA F agai n pefitione dth e FA

A fo r a n exemptio n fi'omsectio n 135.25(b ) an dsecfion i 135.25(c ) fo

r th e sam e reason s i

t cite di n th e 1980s . Th e FA

A grante dth e exemption . Tha t exempfio n doe s no t seemto hav e bee n extende dbeyon dth e 199 7 terminaUo n date . Mor e recently , i

n th e preambl e to th e Marc h 199 5 NPR M regardin g propose dne w par t 119 , th e FA

A state dth e followin g concernin g arequiremen t tha t wa s eventuall y adopte dint

o th e current

par t 11 9 an dmad e applicabl e t o all par t 13 5 an dpa n 12 1 operators : Sectio n 119.63~Recenc y o f operation . Propose dSec . 119.6 3 woul d prohibi t acertificate holde r

fro mconducfin g akin do f

operafio n if

tha t kin do f operatio n ha s no t

bee n conducte dfo

r aperio do f

3 0 consecufiv e days . T o resume . tha t kin dof operatio n th e certificat e holder mus t advis e th e Administrato r

a t leas t 5 consecutiv e calenda

r day s prio r

to resumptio n o f

that kin do f operatio n an d1 5

make itsel f

availabl e fo

r an y FA A reexaminatio n tha

t th e FAA consider s necessar)' . Thi s requiremen t i s bein g propose dbecaus e th e FA A believe s that

th e safet y requirement s fo

r aparticula

r kin do f operafio n migh t

no t b e met adequatel y b y a n operato r tha t doe s no t conduc t tha t kin do f operation s fo

r tha t lengt h o f time . Safet} ' require s a

t leas t 5 day s notic e s o tha

t th e FA A ha s th e opportunity t o conduc t a n inspectio n o r

reexaminatio n t

o determin e whethe r

th e certificate holder remain s properl y an dadequatel y equippe dan dabl e to conduc t asaf e operation . Unles s th e FAA suspend s o r revoke s th e operator' s certificat e o r withdraw s the authorizatio n i n th e operation s specificatio n fo r that kin do f operafion , the certificat e holder ma y resum e that

kin do f operafio n o n th e sixt

h • - - consecutiv e calendar day afte r i t notifie dth e FA' ^ o f

it s plan s t o resum e tha

t kin d o f operation . Eve n i f

th e FA A decide s no t

t o conduc t

areinspecfio n or

a reexaminatio n durin g that 5-consecutive-calendar-day period , th e certificate holde r may nonetheles s resum e operation s o n th e sixt h consecutiv e calenda

r day afte r th e notification . Fo r

seasonal operators , advanc e plannin g an dcoordinatio n wit h th e certificate holdin g distric t offic e woul dmake resumpfio n o f operafion s smoother . 6 0 F R1623 0 a

t p . 1626 3 (Marc h 29 , 1995) . Sectio n 119.6 3 i s somewha t relevant to analyzin g th e safet

y purpos e fo

r havin g a sectio n 135.25(b) . I

n promulgating Sectio n 119.63 , th e FA A wa s attemptin g to protec t agains t simila r potential safet

y danger s tha

t sectio n 135.25(b ) doe s no t directl y regulate . Thus , fo r example , eve n if

apar t 13 5 carrie r

ha da n exclusive-us e aircraf t tha t literall y me t all o f th e term s o f

sectio n 135.25(b) , th e "dat apoint " theor y (Theory 2 discusse d above ) regardin g bot

h th e operatio n an dmaintenanc e o f tha t aircraf t woul dno t

b e meaningfu l i

n assessin g whethe r

th e carrie r

wa s stil l abl e an dwillin g t o compl y wit h th e regulation s - i f

the carrie r

ha dbeen inactiv e fo

r aprolonge dperiod . Th e exclusive-us e aircraf t coul dhav e jus t

bee n sittin g i

n th e hangar . Moreover , a n extensiv e dormanc y perio dfo r th e part 13 5 operato r

raise s th e potenfial safet

y concer n tha t th e carrie r

ha s no t recentl y pracfice do

r implemente dit s FAA-approve dpart 13 5 operations . Th e secfio n 119.63(a ) provision , rea dtogethe r wit h th e notic e requirement s i n 119.63(b)(1 ) an dth e availability/accessibility requirement s o f 119.63(b)(2) , i s - lik

e 135.25(b ) ~ a

n earl y1 6

warnin g syste mtha

t give s th e FA

A safet y mspector s th e opportunity t o inspec t th e •operator befor e th e operato r

resume s operation s afte

r alon g perio do f

inactivity . Clearly , th e FA

A coul dcharg e apar

t 11 9 certificat e holde r

wit h "violating " Sectio n 119.6 3 i

n th e traditiona l sens e o f

ho w peopl e woul ddescrib e noncomplianc e with asafet y rule . However

i t woul db e somewha

t incongruen t

with th e usua

l sens e an dus e o f th e wor d"violation " t o s o labe l acarrie r tha t di dno t conduc t a n operatio n fo

r a n extende dperio dinsteado f th e less-judgmental labe l o f "noncompliance" . I

f acarrie r resume s par

t 13 5 operation s afte

r alon g perio do f

inactivity withou t

first providin g th e FA A wit h a5-da y notic e o f

it s intentio n to resum e operation s o r i f i t otherwis e fail s to make s itsel f

availabl e an daccessibl e t o a n FA A safet y inspection , the n tha

t woul db e fairly labele da s a"violation " becaus e o f th e plai n requirement s o f th e rul e an

dth e publi c interes t i n givin g th e FA

A th e opportunity to verif y whethe r

th e carrie r

remain s saf

e befor e i t resume s operations . S o like sectio n 135.25 , sectio n 119.6 3 wa s designe dt o provid e th e FA A with a n earl y warnin g syste mto inspec t a n inactiv e carrie r

tha t decide s to resume operations . I t als o filled agap in.th e exclusive-us e rul e i n tha t acarrie r coul db e i

n complete complianc e wit

h secfio n 135.25(b) , bu t

th e dat apoin t

(i.e. , th e exclusive-us e aircraft ) woul dnot necessaril y provid e meaningfu l dat ao n whethe r th e carrie r

wa s capabl e o f maintainin g th e aircraf

t an dretumin g t o par

t 13 5 servic e i

n accordanc e wit

h th e rules . But , i t i s als o worthwhil e t o not e tha t sectio n 119.6 3 i s no t

asubstitut e fo

r sectio n 135.25 . A carrie r might hav e n o period s o f

par t 13 5 inactivit

y but no t hav e a n exclusive-us e aircraf t fo r many months . And , th e nonexclusiv e aircraf t tha t th e carrier

use s i n it s par t 13 5 operatio n might

b e maintaine db

y other s1 7

Th e Complaman t

respectfull y requests , i

n vie w o f th e foregoin g discussio n abou t th e histor y o f exclusive-us e aircraf

t rules , tha t th e FA A Decisionmaker

modil y FAA Order 201 1 -6 . First , w e reques t tha t th e FA A Decisionmake r

clarif y tha t acarrie r ca n b e foun dt o be i n noncomplianc e with sectio n 135.2 5 regardles s o f whether that carrie r conduct s par

t 13 5 operafion s durin g th e perio dwhe n i t lack s a n exclusive-us e aircraf

t or whethe r i t i s i n aperio do f

inacfivity . Thus , onc e i t

i s prove n tha

t th e carrie r

doe s no t hav e a n exclusiv e us e aircraft , —fo r exampl e perhap s becaus e o f th e wa y aleas e i s writte n tha

t give s the owne r

th e right t o potenfiall y us e th e aircraf t durin g th e 6-mont

h perio do r becaus e the liste d"exclusive-use " aircraf t wa s use db y aperso n o r

entit y othe r tha n th e carrier

—the n afinding o f

noncomplianc e wit

h Sectio n 135.25(b ) ca

n b e made . Second , w e reques t

tha t th e FA A Decisionmake r

modif y hi s decisio n to specificall y discus s th e safet

y base s (theories ) fo r

havin g a n exclusiv e us e safet

y rule . Give n th e evidenc e i

n thi s cas e an

dth e Decisionmaker' s finding that Helicopte r Flite , Inc . di dno t

hav e exclusiv e us e o f

th e onl y aircraf

t liste do n it s operafion s specification s betwee n Februar y 22 , 200 8 an dSeptembe r 15 , 2008 , th e Complainan t request s tha

t th e Decisionmaker

modif y FA A Order No . 2011- 6 to fm

dtha t Responden t wa s i n violatio n of

sectio n 135.25(b) . A s note dearlier , Complainan t i s no t seekin g modificatio n o f

th e Orde r t o impos e a civi l penalty i n thi s case . However , Complainan t doe s seek

clarificafior

i tha t thi s orde r doe s no t preclud e impositio n o f

acivi l penalt

y i n appropriat e circumstance s fo r a violatio n o f

secfio n 135.25(b ) eve n where ther e i s n o evidenc e tha t th e ai r carrie r i s operatin g aircraf

t durin g th e perio di t

ha s n o exclusive-us e aircraft . A s w e hav e suggeste dabove , i

t ma y wel l b e tha

t th e mos t appropriat e enforcement

action , base do n1 8

th e purpose s behin dthi s rule , woul db e remedia l certificat e actio n i f th e circumstance s wanan t an y enforcemen t

actio n a t

all . Th e Decisionmaker' s poin t i s wel l take n tha t

i t woul dlikel y no t

b e an appropriat e exercis e o f prosecutoria l discretio n t o impos e acivi l penalt y simpl y becaus e acarrie r i s withou t

a n exclusive-us e aircraf t becaus e i t

wa s destroye db y fire o r

anatura l disaster , particularl y i f th e carrie r

i s workin g diligentl y t o replac e it s exclusive-us e aircraft . Nevertheless , ther e migh t b e circumstances , albei t rare , whe n acivi l penalt y migh t b e appropriate , an dw e as k tha t th e Decisiomnake r

no t preclud e impositio n o f

acivi l penalt y i n suc h circumstances . Conclusio n Th e Complainan t

respectfull y request s tha t FA A Orde r

2011- 6 b e modifie da s follows : 1 . T o clarif

y tha t acarrie r ca n b e foun dt o b e mnoncomplianc e wit h sectio n 135.2 5 regardles s o f whethe r tha t carrie r conduct s par t

13 5 operafion s durin g th e perio dwhe n i t lack s a n exclusive-us e aircraft . 2 . T o findthat

Responden t

di dviolat e sectio n 135.25(b) ; an d 3 . T o clarif

y tha t th e Decisionmaker' s Orde r doe s no t preclud e th e impositio n - i n appropriat e circumstance s - o f acivi l penalt y fo r

aviolatio n o f

secfio n 135.25(b ) eve n wher e ther e i s n o evidenc e o f th e carrie r

operating . Respectfull y submitted . A . Cont e lanager , Specia l Emphasi s Enforcemen t Enforcemen t

Division , AGC-30 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f

Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Counse l for

Complainan t1 9 CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t th e foregoin g Petitio n t o Modif y th e Final Decisio n an dOrde r o f th e FAA Decisiomnaker

i n th e Matte r

of HeUcopte

r Flite . Inc. . Docke t

CPO9EA0013 , FDMS . No . FAA-2009-0579 , wa s sen t vi aFederal Expres s nex t

busines s da

y deliver y servic e an dth e U S Mail , certifie dreturn receip t requested , to : Mr . Floy dHoffma

n Presiden t Helicopte r

Flite , Inc . -19 0 Decker

Lan e . _

- _ . . . . _ _ Weatheriy , P

A 1825 5 (on e cop y wit

h 5 attachments ) I fijrther certif y tha t th e original an don e cop y o f th e Petifio n to Modif

y th e Fina

l Decisio n an

dOrder o f th e FA A Decisionmake r

(includin g th e 5 attachments ) i n th e Matte r o f Helicopter

Elite . Inc . DocketCPO9EA0015 , FDMS . No . FAA-2009-0579 , wa s hand-delivere dto : Federal Aviatio n Administrafio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g —

Roo m201 4 Date : Jul y 13 , 201 1 |^rt^Kv ^ 9,,m\ \