AFS

- 13

- 2 46

- 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

- 20 13

- 0 180

for an exemption from § 1 21. 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 fro m § 1 21. 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 1 21. 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 Lim itations 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 w ith 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 th e 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 s ervice 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 p art 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 pro grams, stated in paragraph F 5 of this petition, providing insp ection 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

modificatio ns 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 airpla ne 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, speci fically § 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 catego ry. 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 thro ughout 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

p art 125 operator and continue to operate without the LOV requirement s. The FAA maintains

that 14 CFR p art 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 a cceptable risk. T he

FAA hold s 14 CFR p art 121 operators to the highe st possible degree of safety in the public interest. These operators hold out to the public while operating in t he air transportation

business. Conversely, operations under 14 CFR p art 125 are operat ed in a ir 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:

I n 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 CF R § 1 21. 1115 is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, DC , on August 2, 2013

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service