AFS

- 13

- 258

- E Exemption No. 10843

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

ALAM EDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2013

- 0167 AIR SQUADRON

for an exemption from § 61.113(c) of

T itle 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated Febru ary 15 , 201 3

, Mr. Matthew C

. Weisman

, Alameda County Sheriff’s Air Squadron ( ACSAS ), 4217 Oakmore Road

, Oakland, CA 94602

- 1811 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of ACSAS for an exemption from § 61.113(c) of Title 14, Code of Fe deral Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow pilots to be reimbursed for certain costs related to operating flights sanctioned by ACSAS and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO)

.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Section 61.113 (c) , which prescribes t hat a private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental f ees.

Although ACSAS only requested relief from § 61.113(c), the FAA finds that ACSAS also requires relief from the following regulation:

Section 61.113(a), which prescribe s , in pertinent part, that no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.2

The petitioner supports its request with the following informa tion:

ACSAS seeks an exemption allow ing reimbursement for pilots for expenses related to flights by the ACSAS . Those flights would involve transport of passengers, animals, and/or cargo

, and all operations will be controlled by ACSAS. Flight operations i nclude flights related to:

1. Sheriff’s Office business

2. Alameda County Office of Emergency Services personnel on official business

3. R esponse to major disaster

4. L aw enforcement investigation

5. M utual aid responses

6. C arriage of rescue, cadaver detection, or explos ive detection dogs

The petitioner states the expenses are limited to fuel, oil, airport expenditures, rental fees, crew travel expenses such as meals, ground transportation, hote ls, and supplies for passengers. The FAA requested supplementary informatio n about those expenses, and ACSAS clarified those expenses include landing/takeoff fees, parking/transient fees, aircraft fuel, aircraft oil, crew out of pocket expens es while travelling , and any other aircraft consumables or special supplies required by t he trip

. ACS AS further explained the reimbursed expenses may include ground transportation, lodging at the destination, and overnight transient hangar fee s

.

The petitioner states its petition is in the public interest because ACSAS missions facilitate public service s provided by the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) and the Alameda County Office of Emergency Services.

The petitioner states its petition meets an equivalent level of safety because its Transport Policy Procedures document (submitte d with ACSAS’s petition) ensures standards that meet
or exceed the certification requirements for other individuals currently operating under the privileges of an exemption from § 61.113(c) . ACSAS also states in its petition that its flights are subject t o more regulations than flights by public aircraft.

The flights would be operated in accordance with ACSAS ’s Transport Policy and Procedures

document . That document includes guidance for ACSAS members on the following topics:

1. Training and operating pr ocedures

2. General Organizational

3. Risk Management

4. Maintenance

5. Pilot and Aircraft Requirements

6. Flight Rules

7. ACSAS Records and reports3

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on April 23, 2013 ( 78 FR 24291 ). No comments were r eceived.

The FAA ’ s analysis is as follows:

ACSAS made a timely response to an FAA inquiry requesting clarification and specifics on

the relief it seeks. The FAA determined from the petitio n and supplementary information that

ACSAS seeks regulatory relief to allow reimbursement for expenses related to following operations:

1. Search

- and

- location flights

2. Transportation of people and cargo to support ACSO activity

3. Charitable medical flights

Search

- and

- location flights

Section 61.113(e) allows individual s exer cising private pilot privileges to be reimbursed for aircraft operating expenses that are directly related to search and location operations

, provided

the operations are sanction ed by, and und er the direction and control of, a local, State, or Federal agen cy , or an organization that conducts search and location operations

. W e interpret the proposal from ACSAS to be requesting reimbursement of expenses other th an those identified in the CFR (specifically, fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees).

The supplementary information from ACSAS requests relief to allow reimbursement of landing/takeoff fees, parking/transient fees, aircraft fuel, aircraft oil, any other aircraft consumables or special supplies required by the trip, crew out of pocket expens es reimbursable by the ACSO or ACSAS such a s meal expense while travelling, ground transportation, lodging, and overnight transient hangar fee. ACSAS also point s out that those expenses are not an exhaustive list of all direct expenses that might be assoc iated with a flight.

The FAA finds no reason to expand its list of permitted reimbursable expenses for ACSAS. The petitioner has not shown how it is unique as an organization or the missions that it conducts that justifies, as in the public interest, des cribed in an expansion of the reimbursable

expenses beyond the expenses permitted under § 61.113(e)

.

The FAA has in the past granted limited exemption s similar to ACSAS’s request. For example, Exemption No. 6771 (and subsequent extensions ) i ssued to Civi l Air Patrol (CAP)

, expanded the types of reimbursement that may be offered for individuals involved in search

and location missions with the CAP . We f ound that the CAP is sufficiently unique (as an organization chartered by the U.S. Congress, established in the United States Code, and as an auxiliary of the United States (U.S.) Air Force) that the public interest supports an expansion

of the expenses for reimbursement for flights directly related to U.S. Air Force assigned4

missions. The FAA further state d that it did not find it in the public interest to allow the same reimbursement for corporate missions.

Transportation of people and cargo to support ACSO activity

In its petition, ACSAS requests relief to allow reimbursement for expenses for operations involving transportation of ACSO property and personnel. These operations are normally conducted using public aircraft (using, for example, a S heriff’s D epartment helicopter to move equipment and personnel). Some sheriff’s office s charter aircraft for th ose missions from an air carrier certificated by the FAA under p art 135. These air

- taxi operations employ the safety procedures and are subject to special FAA oversight. For these reasons, they achieve a high level of safety, compared to private pilot op erations that are not under an FAA operating

certificate.

The FAA has determined that the petitioner’s request would be contrary to the requirements of § 61.113(c). S ince s uch operations include r eimbursement for more than the pro rata share of operating expenses for transporting ACSO personnel or cargo, the reimbursement would

constitute compensation and would be considered a commercial operation for which a part
119 operator’s certificate would be required.

Since an alternative method of transportati on (using a public aircraft or an air carrier) is available to the ACSO, we find no compelling public interest or equivalent level of safety argument in support of this request

.

Charitable medical flights

The FAA has previously determined that it is in th e public interest to allow certain flight operations by volunteer pilots holding at least a private pilot certificate. We found that it was appropriate to allow limited reimbursement for expenses for individuals providing flights that

we felt were in the public interest. We added conditions and limitations to those exemptions that improved the safety of the operation to meet an equivalent level of safety. Accordingly, the FAA has granted relief to organizations that provide charitable medical flights.

S ection 821 of Public Law 112

- 95 defines a “volunteer pilot organization” as an organization that (1) is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code . ACSAS has described itself as an organization holding a designation under Section 501(c) ( 4 ) of the Internal Revenue Code. Because ACSAS does not hold the appropriate status under 501(c)(3), the FAA cannot grant

the relief identified in the statute.5

The FAA’s Decision

In co nsideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not meet an equivalent level of safety. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Alameda Coun ty Sheriff’s Air Squadron for an exemption from 14 CFR § 61.113(c) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D

. C

. , on August 14, 2013.

/s/

John M. Allen

Director , Flight Standard s Servic e