On this basis, the FAA has consistently held that where the government entity receives compensation for a flight carrying persons or property, the aircraft cannot be considered a "public aircraft". This seems fairly clear in those instances where the aircraft service is carrying private persons or property. But what about the situation where the aircraft is carrying the persons or property of another governmental entity? This type of carriage has become much more prevalent with the increase in the number and use of government owned and operated aircraft and the utilization of agreements between government entities for joint use of these aircraft. The majority of these agreements provide for at least the reimbursement of direct and, in many cases, some indirect expenses to the operator of the aircraft. While the FAA had consistently considered these type of operations to fall within the commercial prohibition of the definition, the issue did not officially arise until the early 1990's. In 1992 and 1993, the FAA administratively interpreted the commercial operation exclusion to apply to those situations where one government entity was carrying persons and property of another government entity and was receiving compensation for those flights. As one such opinion indicated, it is the FAA's "long standing position that intergovernmental reimbursement for aircraft services constitutes compensation and operations conducted pursuant to such reimbursement arrangements are, therefore, civil aircraft operations". FAA opinion to U.S. Forest Service dated June 23, 1995.