Hogan Lovells US LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in the District of Columbia. Hogan Lovells refers to the international legal practice comprising Hogan Lovells US LLP, Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells Worldwide Group (a Swiss Verein), and their affiliated businesses with offices in: Abu Dhabi Alicante Amsterdam Baltimore Beijing Berlin Boulder Brussels Caracas Chicago Colorado Springs Denver Dubai Dusseldorf Frankfurt Hamburg Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Madrid Miami Milan Moscow Munich New York Northern Virginia Paris Philadelphia Prague Rome San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Tokyo Warsaw Washington DC Associated offices: Budapest Jeddah Riyadh Zagreb

\\DC - 040601/000002 - 5683623 v1 Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 T +1 202 637 5600 F +1 202 637 5910 www.hoganlovells.com

May 29, 2014 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Re: Petition of Chautauqua Airlines, Inc. for an Extension of FAA Exemption No. 7353F, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-12009
Dear Sir or Madam: Chautauqua Airlines, Inc. (“Chautauqua”) hereby petitions the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, for an extension of Exemption No. 7353F, last issued to Chautauqua on June 22, 2012, exempting Chautauqua from the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 121.434(c)(1)(ii), thereby allowing Chautauqua to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) while that PIC is performing prescribed duties during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing when completing initial or upgrade training as specified in § 121.424. 1 Exemption No. 7353F terminates on September 30, 2014. Chautauqua respectfully requests that this exemption be extended for at least two additional years, through September 30, 2016. Chautauqua hereby incorporates by reference all relevant information previously submitted in the instant docket and in FAA Regulatory Docket No. 29182. Chautauqua submits that further extension of this exemption is in the public interest and will provide an equivalent level of safety – findings that the FAA made in granting the initial exemption to Chautauqua on September 22, 2000, and in the subsequent extensions of the exemption.

1 Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii) prescribes, in pertinent part, that if a qualifying PIC is completing initial or upgrade training specified in §121.424, the PIC must be observed in the performance of prescribed duties by an FAA inspector during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing.\\DC - 040601/000002 - 5683623 v1 2

Good cause exists for the FAA to act on this petition without delay and without publishing a summary in the Federal Register or awaiting comments, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 11.87. No new precedent will be established by extending the existing exemption previously granted to Chautauqua. Indeed, the FAA determined that good cause existed for not publishing the most recent petition for extension of this exemption in 2012. See Exemption No. 7353F. The FAA should reach the same conclusion here. Chautauqua urges the FAA to grant this non-controversial request for an extension of Exemption No. 7353F prior to the September 30, 2014 expiration date. In the event that the FAA does not act on this petition prior to that date, Chautauqua hereby invokes and relies upon the automatic extension provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 558(c), to the extent that such relief is consistent with the FAA’s rules, policies, and procedures, in order to continue the effectiveness of Chautauqua’s current exemption pending the FAA’s final determination on this petition. Chautauqua submits the following information in further support of this request: The original intent of § 121.434(c)(1)(ii), issued in early 1970, was to validate the training a pilot received in a visual simulator. Since that rule was adopted, the airline industry has had over 40 years of experience with visual simulators and advanced simulation. The airlines have successfully trained tens of thousands of pilots using sophisticated advanced simulators. Chautauqua believes that the advanced simulation experience of the airline industry, combined with that of the FAA, has made the present rule virtually obsolete. The FAA has for many years routinely granted similar requests for exemptions,2 subject to certain conditions and limitations, finding that there is an equivalent level of safety in allowing airlines to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA inspector to satisfy the observation requirements. Chautauqua submits that (a) the facts presented by Chautauqua do not differ materially from those presented previously by Chautauqua, or from those presented by other similarly situated petitioners; (b) the reasons stated by the FAA for previously granting the exemption to Chautauqua and to similarly situated petitioners also apply to the situation presented herein by Chautauqua; and (c) extension of the exemption to Chautauqua is in the public interest. Chautauqua expects that it may need to certify new PICs each year. Chautauqua states that granting this exemption would allow --

2 The FAA has made similar findings and has granted (and extended) exemptions to similarly situated applicants. See, e.g., Exemption No. 9346C, Docket FAA-2007-28086 (Republic Airline Inc.); Exemption No. 8819C, Docket FAA-2006-26589 (Shuttle America); Exemption No. 8054B, Docket FAA-2002-12947 (Trans States Airlines); Exemption No. 8598B, Docket FAA-2005-21877 (Freedom Airlines); Exemption No. 8735, Docket FAA-2006-24900 (Air Midwest); Exemption No. 9755B, Docket 2006-24996 (Alaska Airlines).\\DC - 040601/000002 - 5683623 v1 3

1. The FAA greater flexibility and better use of its inspection force by focusing on higher priority safety functions; 2. Chautauqua to use a qualified pilot immediately after completing OE; 3. Chautauqua to significantly increase the use of qualified pilots and improve its ability to provide on-time, dependable air service to the public; and 4. Chautauqua to reduce the unnecessary cost of wages and lost productivity for those qualified pilots waiting for the FAA observation. By allowing a company check airman who is highly qualified in the airplane to complete the observation, a greater level of scrutiny and objectivity would be provided for the qualifying PIC, thus enhancing the level of safety. Finally, consistent with the conditions and limitations set forth in Exemption No. 7353F, Chautauqua proposes that the extended exemption be subject to the same conditions and limitations, as follows: 1. A Chautauqua check airman or aircrew program designee may conduct a PIC observation in place of an FAA inspector when— a. The Administrator pre-approves that substitution for each observation of a qualifying PIC candidate, thus reserving first right of refusal to the FAA in each case. Chautauqua, therefore, must contact an appropriate FAA office in each instance before substituting that check airman or aircrew program designee. b. The qualifying PIC candidate has completed no less than 10 hours of supervised OE and accomplished no fewer than two takeoffs and landings; and c. The qualifying PIC candidate is performing PIC duties during a complete flight leg, including flightdeck preparation, before starting engines checklist, takeoff, all other flight phases, landing, taxi, and securing checklist. 2. Each Chautauqua check airman or aircrew program designee conducting a PIC observation in place of an FAA inspector must— a. Be approved by the Administrator to conduct the observation; b. Have served as check airman or aircrew designee for Chautauqua for no less than 6 months; and c. Not supervise the OE or conduct the initial line check for the qualifying PIC candidate being observed.\\DC - 040601/000002 - 5683623 v1 4

3. Chautauqua must maintain student, check airman, and aircrew program designee records that demonstrate compliance with the conditions and limitations of this exemption. The FAA previously determined that compliance with these conditions and limitations would ensure an equivalent level of safety and would be in the public interest. Chautauqua will continue to comply with the conditions and limitations to the exemption, thereby ensuring an equivalent level of safety for the continuation of these operations. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Chautauqua respectfully requests that prior to the September 30, 2014 expiration date, the FAA extend Exemption No. 7353F for a minimum period of two years, through September 30, 2016. Respectfully submitted,

Patrick R. Rizzi Counsel for Chautauqua Airlines, Inc. patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com Direct Dial: +1 202 637 5659
Attachment

cc: Linda Baker, Indianapolis FSDO Ethan J. Blank, Vice President and General Counsel, Republic Airways Holdings Inc. Alex Osleger, Chautauqua Airlines, Inc.\\DC - 040601/000002 - 5683623 v1 ATTACHMENT
FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY As stated in the foregoing petition, Chautauqua Airlines respectfully requests a waiver of the publication and comment requirements under 14 C.F.R. § 11.87. Nevertheless, in accordance with § 11.81(f), a summary of this Petition for an Extension of Exemption No. 7353F, for publication in the Federal Register is as follows:
Docket No.: FAA-2002-12009

Petitioner: Chautauqua Airlines, Inc.
Section of the FAR Affected: 14 C.F.R. § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) Description of Relief Sought: To extend Exemption No. 7353F to permit Chautauqua Airlines, Inc. to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) while that PIC is performing prescribed duties during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing when completing initial or upgrade training as specified in 14 C.F.R. § 121.424.