\\DC - 040601/000004 - 3500919 v1 Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Direct phone +1 202 637 8898 Direct fax +1 866 728 1992 www.hoganlovells.com
September 28, 2012
By Electronic Submission U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Re: Petition of Shuttle America Corporation for Extension of FAA Exemption No. 8819B, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26589

Dear Sir or Madam: Shuttle America Corporation (“Shuttle”) hereby petitions the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, for an extension of FAA Exemption No. 8819B, issued to Shuttle on October 26, 2010, exempting Shuttle from the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 121.434(c)(1)(ii), thereby allowing Shuttle 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. 8819B terminates on January 31, 2013. Shuttle respectfully requests that this exemption be extended for at least two additional years, through January 31, 2015. Shuttle hereby incorporates by reference all relevant information previously submitted in the instant docket. Shuttle submits that 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 Shuttle on January 10, 2007.2 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 Shuttle.

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.

2 The FAA has made similar findings and has granted (and extended) exemptions to similarly situated applicants. See, e.g., Docket FAA-2002-12009 (Chautauqua Airlines, Inc.); Docket FAA-2002- 12947 (Trans States Airlines); Docket FAA-2005-21877 (Freedom Airlines); Docket FAA-2006-24900 (Air Midwest); Docket 2006-24996 (Alaska Airlines), and Docket FAA-2007-28086 (Republic Airline Inc.)U.S. Department of Transportation

September 28, 2012 Page 2

\\DC - 040601/000004 - 3500919 v1 Shuttle urges the FAA to grant this non-controversial request for an extension of Exemption No. 8819B prior to the January 31, 2013 expiration date. In the event that the FAA does not act on this petition prior to that date, Shuttle 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 Shuttle’s current exemption pending the FAA’s final determination on this petition. Shuttle 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 almost 40 years of experience with visual simulators and advanced simulation. The airlines have successfully trained tens of thousands of pilots using sophisticated advanced simulators. Shuttle believes 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, 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. Shuttle submits that (a) the facts presented by Shuttle do not differ materially from those previously presented previously by Shuttle and by similarly situated petitioners; (b) the reasons stated by the FAA for previously granting the exemption to Shuttle and to similarly situated petitioners also apply to the situation presented herein by Shuttle; and (c) extension of the exemption to Shuttle is in the public interest. Shuttle currently expects that it may need to certify new PICs each year. Shuttle states that granting this exemption would allow -- 1. The FAA greater flexibility and better use of its inspection force by focusing on higher priority safety functions; 2. Shuttle to use a qualified pilot immediately after completing OE; 3. Shuttle to significantly increase the use of qualified pilots and improve its ability to provide on-time, dependable air service to the public; and 4. Shuttle 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 8819B, Shuttle proposes that the extended exemption be subject to the same conditions and limitations, as follows: 1. A Shuttle check airman or aircrew program designee may conduct a PIC observation in place of an FAA inspector when—U.S. Department of Transportation

September 28, 2012 Page 3

\\DC - 040601/000004 - 3500919 v1 a. The Administrator preapproves that substitution for each observation of a qualifying PIC candidate, thus reserving first right of refusal to the FAA in each case. Shuttle, 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 operating experience (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, taxi, takeoff, all other flight phases, landing, taxi, and securing checklist. 2. Each Shuttle 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 Shuttle 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. 3. Shuttle must maintain student, check airman, and aircrew program designee records that demonstrate compliance with the conditions and limitations of this exemption.
The FAA has previously determined that compliance with these conditions and limitations would ensure an equivalent level of safety and would be in the public interest. Shuttle will continue to comply with the conditions and limitations to the exemption, thereby ensuring an equivalent level of safety for its operations. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Shuttle respectfully requests that FAA issue an exemption, as requested herein. Respectfully submitted,

Sheryl R. Israel Counsel for SHUTTLE AMERICA CORPORATION sheryl.israel@hoganlovells.com D +1 202 637 8898
AttachmentU.S. Department of Transportation

September 28, 2012 Page 4

\\DC - 040601/000004 - 3500919 v1 cc: Paul Tursi, Indianapolis FSDO Kenneth BarthelU.S. Department of Transportation

September 28, 2012 Page 5

\\DC - 040601/000004 - 3500919 v1 ATTACHMENT
FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY As stated in the foregoing petition for exemption, Shuttle America Corporation 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. 8819B, for publication in the Federal Register is as follows:

Docket No.: FAA-2006-16589
Petitioner: Shuttle America Corporation Section of the FAR Affected: 14 C.F.R. § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) Description of Relief Sought: To extend Exemption No. 8819B to permit Shuttle America Corporation 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.