Exemption No. 10466 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

In the matter of the petition of 

MN Airlines, LLC d/b/a 

Sun Country Airlines 

for an exemption from§ 93.123(a) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0089 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated January 26, 2012, MN Airlines, LLC d/b/a Sun Country Airlines (Sun 

Country) petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from 

Section 93.123(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CPR). The proposed 

exemption, if granted, would grant to Sun Country two air carrier slots at Ronald Reagan 

Washington National Airport (DCA) to operate between DCA and Lansing's Capital Region 

International Airport (LAN). 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations: 

Subparts K and S of 14 CPR part 93 prescribe special air traffic rules that apply to high 

density traffic airports (commonly known as the High Density Rule or HDR), which 

apply to DCA. Section 93.123(a) limits, in relevant part, the number of instrument 

flight rules (IFR) operations per hour at DCA to 3 7 for air carriers and 11 for commuter 

carrwrs. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

By DOT Order 2010-12-16 (dated December 10, 2010), the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) withdrew two DCA within-perimeter slot exemptions from 

Republic Airlines, Inc., which had been using them since its acquisition of Midwest 

Airlines, and allocated those slot exemptions to Sun Country. Pursuant to that Order, 

Sun Country began round-trip operations between DCA and LAN on April 1, 2011. 

The slot exemptions awarded to Sun Country were in the II 00 and 1400 time periods, 
2 

but Sun Country operated flights in the 1000 and 1100 time periods following a slot 

trade with another carrier. On January 6, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated DOT Order 201 0-12-16 and ordered the DOT to 

return the slot exemptions to Republic Airlines, Inc. 1 

To continue its DCA-LAN service, Sun Country requests an exemption granting it one 

daily slot each in the 1000 and 11 00 time periods. 

Sun Country contends its DCA-LAN service has provided consumer benefits by 

decreasing average fares and increasing the number of passengers served on that route. 

Sun Country asserts there is public consumer support for this service. Sun Country 

states it invested more than $500,000 in advertising, marketing, and startup costs after 

being awarded the slot exemption in reliance on long-term operation of the DCA-LAN 

service. Furthermore, Sun Country states the LAN airport authority and surrounding 

regional authorities made substantial economic investment in Sun Country's DCALAN service. Without a grant of exemption, Sun Country argues these investments 

would be wasted because there are no other means for it to obtain DCA slots. 

Furthermore, Sun Country maintains the FAA previously granted exemptions to Part 

93 for reasons similar to those presented where the slot availability is lost through no 

fault of the carrier. See, e.g., Exemption No. 10063 (May 10, 2010) (granting to Air 

Canada an exemption from § 93.123 to permit the carrier to continue operating six 

commuter slots to and from DCA). 

The FAA published a summary of this petition for exemption in the Federal Register for 

comment. 77 Fed. Reg. 5293 (Feb. 2, 2012). The comment period closed on February 22, 

2012. As of February 28,2012, the FAA received 137 comments generally supporting a grant 

of exemption, including a letter from Congressmen Mike J. Rogers and a joint letter from 

Senators Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin. The FAA received one comment opposing a grant 

of exemption, which is discussed in detail later in this document. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

The FAA's standard for granting an exemption requires the petitioner to show (1) why 

granting the request is in the public interest (i.e., why it would benefit the public) and 

(2) why granting the request would not adversely affect safety or would provide an 

equivalent level of safety provided by the rule. 14 C.P.R. § 11.81. 

For this petition, the safety prong is not at issue. Air traffic control procedures ensure 

the safety of operations conducted at DCA regardless of the total number of operations 

authorized. Accordingly, the FAA fmds there is no adverse effect on safety. 

1 Republic Airlines, Inc. v. U.S. Dep 'I ofTransp., No. 11-1018 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 6, 20 12). 
3 

Sun Country commenced DCA service using slot exemptions it acquired through a 

DOT proceeding. The Court's Order vacating those slot exemptions was beyond the 

control of Sun Country. Given the unusual circumstances presented, it is in the public 

interest to assist Sun Country in continuing its existing service and avoiding an 

inequitable result. As noted by commenters supporting this exemption, the loss of Sun 

Country's DCA-LAN service could detrimentally impact the traveling public. 

JetBlue Airways Corporation (JetBlue) filed comments opposing this exemption, 

arguing that current law precludes such an exemption. In support of its position, 

JetBlue states the FAA previously denied a JetBlue request to operate seven commuter 

slots with larger aircraft than permitted under the HDR. JetBlue also contends the 

FAA lacks authority to grant an exemption from the HDR beyond the statutorilycreated exemptions in 49 U.S.C. § 41718. JetBlue distinguishes the current petition 

from the Air Canada petition because the Air Canada petition resulted in no net 

increase in operations at DCA. Finally, J etBlue contends granting an exemption to Sun 

Country undermines the investments made by other carriers, including JetBlue, in 

acquiring DCA slots on the secondary market. 

The FAA has considered JetBlue's arguments but is not persuaded by them. JetBlue's 

request with respect to the seven commuter slots, which it did not hold at the time of 

the request, is unrelated to the current petition. Under 49 U.S.C. § 41718, DOT has 

specific authority to grant exemptions to provide increased market access at DCA. 

However, this authority does not override the FAA's authority under 49 U.S.C. § 

40109 to grant exemptions from its rules when those exemptions are in the public 

interest. 2 The FAA has used its broad exemption authority in the slot context without 

controversy to address similar circumstances. See, e.g., Exemption No. 10063 (May 

10, 201 0) (granting to Air Canada an exemption from § 93.123 to permit the carrier to 

continue operating six commuter slots to and from DCA); Exemption No. 7434 (Feb. 

1, 2001) (granting to Comair an exemption from § 93.218 to permit Delta Connection 

carriers to conduct domestic operations using slots designated for international 

operations and thereby preserve service to small communities); Exemption No. 5133 

(Jan. 12, 1990) (granting to America West an exemption from§ 93.123 to permit the 

carrier to continue operating four flights to and from DCA). Although JetBlue 

correctly points out the Air Canada exemption resulted in no net increase in DCA 

operations, the public interest served by that exemption was to preserve existing 

service at DCA. Sun Country presents the same public interest. By granting this 

petition, the FAA would prevent the inequitable result of Sun Country losing slot 

exemptions through no fault of its own. Both Sun Country and the flying public 

reasonably relied on continued DCA-LAN service under those exemptions. This grant 

of exemption would maintain Sun Country's existing DCA service rather than 

introduce new operations at DCA. The FAA recognizes JetBlue's and other carriers' 

2 There is no statutory operational limit at DCA. 
4 

investments in acquiring DCA slots, but it also must weigh Sun Country's investment 

in, and the public benefits from, the existing DCA-LAN service. 

Although the slot times requested differ from those previously granted to Sun Country, 

the FAA fmds the difference does not significantly and detrimentally affect congestion 

and delays at DCA. 

Accordingly, the FAA finds that granting this request is in the public interest. 

The FAA's Decision: 

In consideration of the foregoing, I fmd that a grant of exemption to MN Airline, LLC 

d/b/a Sun Country Airlines is in the public interest and would not adversely affect 

safety. Pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated 

to me by the Administrator, Sun Country is granted an exemption from 14 C.F .R. § 

93.123(a) for the period beginning March 2, 2012, and terminating on March 31, 2014, 

unless sooner superseded or rescinded, and incorporating the following conditions and 

limitations: 

(1) A maximum oftwo total daily air carrier operations may be conducted under this 

exemption. 

(2) Operations authorized by this grant of exemption may be conducted only in the 

following local hours: 1000 and 1100. The time periods of each operation may be 

adjusted if necessary for air traffic control purposes. 

(3) This exemption authorizes operations only by Sun Country and by no other carrier. 

(4) Sun Country must use these slot exemptions to continue its DCA-LAN scheduled 

service permitted under DOT Order 2010-12-16. Sun Country must contact the 

FAA Slot Administration Office to confirm the scheduled operations and their 

frequencies under this exemption. The Slot Administration Office will then 

provide slot identification numbers. 

( 5) This exemption will be rescinded if Sun Country discontinues scheduled operations 

at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. 
5 

( 6) The operations authorized under this exemption are not part of the pool of 

permanent slots at the airport. However, these operations, while in effect, are 

subject to the provisions of 14 C.P.R. part 93, subparts K and S, except that the 

authority may not be bought, sold, leased, or otherwise transferred, except through 

an air carrier merger or acquisition. Sun Country may engage in temporary onefor-one trades of the authority to meet operational needs subject to the reporting 

requirements of subparts K and S. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 2, 2012. 

Kathryn B. Thomson 

Chief Counsel