AFS-13-559-E

Exemption No. 10837A

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 PETITION for RECONSIDERATION

 By letter dated September 20, 2013, Mr. Pat Hulsey, Ameristar A ir Cargo, Inc.,

dba Ameristar Charters (Ameristar), 4400 Glenn Curtiss Drive, Addison, TX 75001

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

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

Sections 121.1115(b) which states in pertinent 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:

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 demonstrates 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 following 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 original 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As historical reference and to provide context on the issue of the Aging Aircraft Program, 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 catastrophic 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 small 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 WFD will not occur 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 petitioner 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 

statement 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 utilization 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 cycles 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 

would 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 Ameristar 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 grant 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, reconsideration 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