AFS-09-297-E December 28, 2009 Exemption No. 9982 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0590

Mr. Steve Altnau Director of Operations Air Cargo Carriers, Inc.

4951 South Howell Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53207

Dear Mr. Altnau:

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our decision and explains its basis.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated June 19, 2009, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Air Cargo Carriers, Inc. (Air Cargo) for an exemption from §§ 61.57(d)(1)(i), 61.58(e), and 61.63(e)(3) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Air Cargo pilots to complete a 24-month pilot in command check conducted by Air Cargo in an FAA-approved f light simulator without Air Cargo holding a part 142 certificate.

Although you requested relief from § 61.63(e)(3), the FAA recognizes that Air Cargo would require relief from § 61.64(b). On August 21, 2009, the FAA published the “Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School Certification” fi nal rule (74 FR 161) that revised existing regulations.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Air Cargo.

The FAA issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 6906 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Tenneco had not shown how its situation was unique when compared to other2

similar operators subject to the same rule, who continue to comply with the rules for training and testing.

As discussed in the preamble to the final rule for part 142, “Aircraft Flight Simulator Use in Pilot Training, Testing and Checking at Tr aining Centers” (61 FR 34508, July 2,1996), a training program can be thought of as a system of related elements, which include instructor and evaluator qualification and training, curriculums, and courseware other than flight simulators. In adopting part 142, the FAA chose to maximize the efficiency of its resources and ensure a high quality of training and testing by evaluating and approving an operator’s overall training program instead of addressing individual training components for operators. Therefore, if Tenneco chose to use only the simulators of an outside company, in conjunction with its own training curriculum, the petitioner must be certified under part 142.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed denial of exemption;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed exemption also apply to the situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny the petition of Air Cargo Carriers, Inc., for an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.57(d)(1)(i), 61.58(e), and 61.63(e)(3).

Sincerely,

/s/

John W. McGraw Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service

Enclosure