AFS

- 13

- 559

- E Exemption No. 10837 A

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

AMERIS T

AR AIR CARGO

, INC Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2013

- 0180

for an exemption from § 121.1115

of Title 14, Code of

Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF PETITION for RECONSIDERATION

By letter dated September 2 0

, 2013, Mr. Pat Hulsey, A meristar A ir Cargo, Inc

. , dba Ameristar Charters (Ameristar)

, 4400 Glenn Cur t i ss Drive, Addison, TX 75001

requested reconsideration of denial o f Exemption No. 10837. The proposed

exemption, if granted, would allow operation of Ameristar Charters B737

- 20 0

, N733TW, airplane beyond the applicable date identified in the regula t i o n wi t hout

having the requisite Lim i t of Validity (L O V ) Airworthiness Li mitatio n s incorporated

in to Ameristar's m ai n tenance Progra m

.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Sections 121.1115 (b) which states in pertinent part : "Lim i t of validity. No certificate

holder may operate an airplane identified in paragraph (a) of this section after the

applica b le date identified in Table 1 of this section unless an A irworthiness

Limita t i ons section a p proved under Appen d ix H to part 25 or § 2 6

. 21 of this chapter

is incorporated into its m aintena n ce pro g ram

.

”

The p etitioner supports its request with the following information:

In its request, the petitioner asserted that:2

1. The FAA made a factual error;

2. Ameristar omitted a significant fact from its original petition;

3. Ameristar has provided a sound plan that demonstrat es the relief sought would not

adversely affect public safety.

The FAA published a summary of the original petition in the Federal Register on March 22,

2013. No comments were received.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

Section 11.101 provides the foll owing guidance and conditions under which we will accept a

petition for reconsideration:

(a) That you have a significant additional fact and why you did not present it in your

original petition;

(b) That we made an important factual error in our denial of your or iginal petition; or

(c) That we did not correctly interpret a law, regulation, or precedent.

As historical reference and to provide context on the issue of the Aging Aircraft Program

, section 26.21 , among other things, requires certain actions to prevent ca tastrophic failure due to

widespread fatigue damage (WFD) throughout the operational life of certain existing transport

category airplanes. The rule evolved out of concern for structural fatigue characteristics beyond

the point where analyses and testing of the structure are valid. We know that WFD is

increasingly likely as the airplane ages, and is certain if the airplane is operated long enough. We

also know that existing inspection methods do not reliably detect WFD because cracks are

initially so sma ll and may then link up and grow so rapidly that the affected structure fails before

an inspection can be performed to detect the cracks.

For these reasons and to preclude WFD related incidents in existing transport category airplanes,

the rule requires holders of design approvals for certain airplanes, including your B737

- 200, to

perform the following actions:

1. Establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that supports the structural

maintenance program;

2. Demonstrate that W F D will not occ ur in the airplane prior to reaching the LOV; and

3. Establish or revise the Airworthiness Limitations section in the Instructions for

Continued Airworthiness to include the LOV.

The FAA determined as part of our analysis of your petition that your Boeing 737

- 200

(N733TW) aircraft has accumulated more than the maximum number of flight cycles during its

operational use. This fact is the overwhelming basis for our decision to deny your petition.3

FAA’s assessment of the petitioner’s assertions:

The petition er states that in its denial the FAA incorrectly states that Ameristar did not provide

“predicted” current aircraft cycles and flight hour computations.

The petitioner is mistaken in its characterization that the FAA erred in its statement. Our actual

s tatement was “The petitioner provided only recent flight cycle/hour computations and predicted

annual utilization estimates.” More specifically, Ameristar provided seven years of average usage

airplane flight cycle/hour computations and predicted annual ut ilization estimates. Ameristar did

not provide current (total) aircraft cycles and operation hour information. The FAA subsequently

found and confirmed, through a records search, the airplane serial number has flown past the

required maximum number of cy cles noted in the final Boeing approved Flight Cycle LOV

requirements noted in the current Boeing 737

- 200 Airworthiness Limitations section (emphasis

added).

Although Ameristar contends that it has provided a sound plan that demonstrates the exemption

wo uld not adversely affect public safety, the petitioner fails to recognize that the aircraft in

question has already accumulated more than the maximum number of flight cycles for continued

operational use.

Finally, the FAA disagrees that the petitioner’s submission contained any new facts that

ultimately would sway the denial decision. Further, Ameristar provided no explanation

concerning why the additional information it did provide was not known and made available in

its original petition. While Ameri star provided more detail than previously presented to the FAA

concerning limitations on the aircraft configuration, we fail to see how this information is

relevant to our decision.

The FAA’s Decision

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

interest and that the case presented on reconsideration does not warrant a change to the original

conclusions. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and

44701, reconsiderati on of the petition of Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc., for an exemption from 14

CFR 121.1115 is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, DC on June 2, 2014

/s/

Michael P. Huerta

Administrator