AFS-13-246-E

Exemption No. 10837

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

AMERISTAR AIR CARGO, INC. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0180

 

for an exemption from § 121.1115

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

 By letter dated February 19, 2013, Mr. Pat Hulsey, Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc., dba Ameristar 

Charters, 4400 Glenn Curtiss Drive, Addison, TX 75001 petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) on behalf of Ameristar Charters for an exemption from § 121.1115 of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would

allow operation of your B737-200, N733TW, airplane beyond the applicable date identified in 

the regulation without having the requisite Limit of Validity (LOV) Airworthiness Limitations 

incorporated into Ameristar’s Maintenance Program.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 121.1115

Where it states in part:

“Limit of validity. No certificate holder may operate an airplane identified in paragraph (a) of 

this section after the applicable date identified in Table 1 of this section unless an 

Airworthiness Limitations section approved under Appendix H to part 25 or § 26.21 of this 

chapter is incorporated into its maintenance program.”

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

Ameristar states its request for relief from the existing rule is due to Boeing’s

discontinuing support of the engineering data to substantiate a Limit of Validity (LOV) 
2

beyond that called out in the FAA’s final rule – Aging Airplane Program: Widespread 

Fatigue Damage published November 15, 2010. 

Ameristar states they depended on Boeing to continue to support its aircraft to comply with 

the Limit of Validity (LOV), and if they were made aware, they would have attempted to find 

an alternative aircraft and begin the process of placing the new aircraft on its certificate. 

Ameristar further states that Boeing’s decision to discontinue its support of Ameristar’s 

aircraft coupled with the amount of time it would take to find a replacement aircraft and place 

that aircraft on its certificate is improbable in the time left stated in the rule. In addition, 

Ameristar believes that the rule specifically considered that low utilization aircraft, such as 

N733TW, would not be required to comply with § 121.1115.

Ameristar also states that it provides service in a niche market that is well suited for this 

specific aircraft and at a cost and benefit to those customers that it serves. Ameristar can 

continue to provide existing customers an aircraft at prices that they expect and reliable 

service that this aircraft has provided them. It is also in the public interest to provide service 

on an aircraft that is operated under the highest standards of 14 CFR part 121 as contrasted to

this aircraft being operated under 14 CFR part 125 with a similar amount of hours and cycles 

that Ameristar currently operates on a yearly basis. Aircraft N733TW, if this exemption was

approved, would continue to be inspected and maintained under all of the current programs, 

stated in paragraph F5 of this petition, providing inspection intervals, in relationship to cycles 

and hours, at a fraction of those of aircraft operated by scheduled carriers.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2013. 

No comments were received.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

The FAA has considered fully the petitioner’s request and finds that a grant of exemption 

would not be in the public interest, and the petitioner has not shown how an exemption would 

not adversely affect safety. 

The structural fatigue characteristics of airplanes are only understood up to a point in time 

consistent with structural analysis that have been performed and testing that has been 

accomplished. Structural maintenance programs which include structural inspections and 

modifications are based on this analysis and testing as well as any applicable service 

experience. Thus the LOV is defined as the limit (emphasis added) of validity of the 

engineering data that supports the structural maintenance program. To safely operate the 

airplane beyond the established LOV the operator would have to show through analysis and 

test evidence, accounting for differences in operating conditions and procedures that

widespread fatigue damage would not occur. Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, 

specifically § 26.23, Extended Limit of Validity provides for this option.
3

The petitioner provided only recent airplane flight cycle/hour computations and predicted

annual utilization estimates. The petitioner did not provide current aircraft cycles and 

operating hour information. Upon verification through a records search, the FAA finds the 

airplane serial number in question has accumulated more flight cycles than the Flight Cycle 

LOV requirement in the current FAA-approved B737-200 Airworthiness Limitations section.

The FAA does not agree with the petitioner’s rationale that the aircraft in question has 

operated in any less stressful environment based on the submission of the operator that the 

aircraft is in a low utilization category. The fact remains the aircraft has accumulated more 

than the maximum number of flight cycles during its operational use. The petitioner did not 

provide data to show the design’s fatigue characteristics and structural maintenance program 

address WFD throughout the petitioner’s proposed operational life of the airplane.

As part of Ameristar’s safety argument it asserts that the aircraft may be sold to a 14 CFR 

part 125 operator and continue to operate without the LOV requirements. The FAA maintains 

that 14 CFR part 125 operators do not hold out to the public and operate in air commerce as 

contrasted with air transportation. Consistent with 49 USC §44701, the FAA regulates aircraft

operations at different levels of safety based on more than one level of acceptable risk. The 

FAA holds 14 CFR part 121 operators to the highest possible degree of safety in the public 

interest. These operators hold out to the public while operating in the air transportation 

business. Conversely, operations under 14 CFR part 125 are operated in air commerce under 

a different risk classification and safety standard, which was taken into consideration during 

the evaluation of the Widespread Fatigue Damage final rule.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the public 

interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, 

delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc. for an 

exemption from 14 CFR § 121.1115 is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 2, 2013

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich

Deputy Director, Flight Standards

 Service