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 flight 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” final 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 other 
2 

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 Training 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