Hogan Lovells US LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in the District of Columbia. “Hogan Lovells” is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP, with offices in: Alicante Amsterdam Baltimore Beijing Berlin Brussels Caracas Colorado Springs Denver Dubai Dusseldorf Frankfurt Hamburg Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Luxembourg Madrid Miami Milan Moscow Munich New York Northern Virginia Paris Philadelphia Prague Rio de Janeiro Rome San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Tokyo Ulaanbaatar Warsaw Washington DC Associated offices: Budapest Jakarta Jeddah Riyadh Zagreb. For more information see www.hoganlovells.com

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 4747281 v11 Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 +1.202.637.5600 Tel +1.202.637.5910 Fax

Robert E. Cohn Partner +1.202.637.4999 Direct Line robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com

August 2, 2013
By Electronic Submission and E-mail
Mark W. Bury, Esq. Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20591
U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 http://www.regulations.gov

Re: Request for Interpretation by the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel and to the Extent Necessary, Petition for Exemption From Certain Hazardous Materials Training Requirements of FAR Part 121

Dear Sir or Madam:
Atlas Air, Inc. (“Atlas”) hereby requests that the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) issue an interpretation of 14 C.F.R. § 121.1005(c) responsive to the two questions and circumstances described in Section II (“Request for Interpretation”) of this letter. If the FAA is unable to issue an interpretation responding in the affirmative to Atlas’s Question 1, then Atlas requests, in the alternative, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 11.61(b) and 11.63(a), an exemption from § 121.1005(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FAR”) for the reasons set forth in Section III.- 2 -

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 4747281 v11 I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Atlas holds Air Carrier Certificate number UIEA784U, with Operations Specifications issued under FAR Part 119 for flight operations under FAR Part 121. As an FAR Part 121 air carrier, Atlas is obligated to comply with requirements in FAR Part 121, including FAR § 121.1005, which addresses hazardous materials (“hazmat”) training requirements.
Paragraph (c) of § 121.1005 states:
(c) Persons who work for more than one certificate holder . A certificate holder that uses or assigns a person to perform or directly supervise a job function specified in § 121.1001(a), when that person also performs or directly supervises the same job function for another certificate holder, need only train that person in its own policies and procedures regarding those job functions, if all of the following are met:
(1) The certificate holder using this exception receives written verification from the person designated to hold the training records representing the other certificate holder that the person has satisfactorily completed hazardous materials training for the specific job function under the other certificate holder's FAA approved hazardous material training program under Appendix O of this part; and
(2) The certificate holder who trained the person has the same operations specifications regarding the acceptance, handling, and transport of hazardous materials as the certificate holder using this exception.
Paragraph (c) of § 121.1005 was designed to create an efficient process by which individuals who work for more than one certificated entity do not need to receive duplicative training from both entities. Typically, these individuals are employed by one air carrier, which provides the full training meeting international training requirements for the handling of hazardous materials. The exception is available to any Part 121 air carrier that seeks to use such an individual, allowing the Part 121 air carrier to provide training only with respect to the differences between that air carrier’s program and the hazardous materials program of the certificated entity with whom the individual is employed.- 3 -

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 4747281 v11 II. REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION
Atlas requests that the FAA answer the following questions:

Question 1 : “Can an individual, who is employed by, and has been given hazardous materials training by, a Foreign Air Carrier that has been certificated under FAR Part 129, be used by a Part 121 air carrier for handling hazardous materials if the Part 121 air carrier (i) determines that the Foreign Air Carrier’s training program is substantially similar to the Part 121 air carrier’s program and meets international hazardous materials training requirements and (ii) trains that individual (and properly documents that training) only on differences between the Part 121 air carrier’s hazardous materials training program and the hazardous materials training program of the certificated Foreign Air Carrier?”

For the reasons articulated below, Atlas believes the answer to Question 1 should be “yes”. If the FAA does not agree with Atlas’s position, then, in the alternative, Atlas respectfully requests that the FAA treat Section III of this letter as a Petition for Exemption (“Petition”).
Atlas also requests that the FAA respond to Question 2, regardless of the FAA’s conclusion on Question 1.

Question 2: “Can an individual, who has been given hazardous materials training by an entity that holds an FAR Part 145 repair station certificate, be used by a Part 121 air carrier for handling hazardous materials if the Part 121 air carrier trains that individual (and properly documents that training) only on differences between the Part 121 air carrier’s hazardous materials training program and the hazardous materials training program of the repair station?”

A. DISCUSSION IN SUPPORT OF QUESTION 1. 1. A Foreign Air Carrier certificated under FAR Part 129 should be considered “another certificate holder” for the purposes of FAR § 121.1005(c) because of the qualifications and authority the Foreign Air Carrier holds.
FAR § 121.1005(c) allows a domestic air carrier to provide only differences training when it uses an individual to handle hazmat if that individual “also performs or directly supervises the same job function for another certificate holder,” provided certain conditions are satisfied. The first issue is whether a Foreign Air Carrier may be considered “another certificate holder” for the purposes of FAR § 121.1005(c). Atlas- 4 -

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 4747281 v11 believes that a Foreign Air Carrier should be viewed as “another certificate holder” for several reasons.
First, the authority section of FAR Part 129 cites to the FAA’s statutory authority to issue “certificates” ( e.g. , 49 U.S.C. § 44702 (“Issuance of certificates”)). Thus, the statutory basis for the FAA’s authorization of Foreign Air Carriers to operate within the United States strongly suggests that the FAA considers such Part 129 authority as a type of “certificate.”
Second, FAR Part 129 itself uses the term “certificate holder” for Foreign Air Carriers operating under Part 129. For instance, FAR § 129.109(b) states: “[a]fter December 20, 2010, a certificate holder may not operate an airplane under this part unless the following requirements have been met...(1) Baseline Structure. The certificate holder’s maintenance program....” (emphasis added). FAR § 129.115(c) also uses the term “certificate holder”, cautioning that “[n]o certificate holder may operate an airplane...” under certain circumstances (emphasis added). The FARs thus use the term “certificate holder” to refer to a Foreign Air Carrier authorized to operate under FAR Part 129.
Third, the FAA generally refers to Foreign Air Carriers as “certificate” holders. Thus, the FAA’s online database of “airline certificate information” ( See http://avinfo.faa.gov/OpCert.asp) lists “certificate” information for Foreign Air Carriers. For instance, using Deutsche Lufthansa AG as an example, the FAA database shows a “Certificate Number” of DLAF225D for Lufthansa’s Part 129 authority. The database goes on to say that the “Certificate Issue Date” for Lufthansa is June 6, 1955. The FAA definitions associated with the database ( See http://av-info.faa.gov/Definitions.asp) define “Certificate Issue Date” as “[t]he date the Airline received its air carrier certificate from the FAA” (emphasis added). Thus, the FAA database shows that Lufthansa “received its air carrier certificate from the FAA” on June 6, 1955 (emphasis added).
Fourth, FAA guidance documents further support the position that Foreign Air Carriers should be considered “certificate holders”. A key FAR Part 129 document, issued on March 21, 2011, notes that prospective Foreign Air Carriers must undergo a “certification process.” 1 In fact, the document is titled: “Certification Process Document for 14 CFR Part 129 Foreign Air Carriers” (“CPD”). The document states that it is for

1 See “Certification Process Document for 14 CFR Part 129 Foreign Air Carriers,” issued March 21, 2011 [hereinafter CPD].- 5 -

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 4747281 v11 use “during the certification of all Part 129 Foreign Air Carriers.”2 The term “certification” is used throughout the document to describe the final approval that prospective Foreign Air Carriers seek. For example, on page 5 of the CPD, the FAA states that a Statement of Compliance Checklist should be used by the applicant as “a roadmap during the certification process.” Also on that page, the FAA calls on the applicant to submit a “formal request letter for certification”. On page 10 of the CPD, the FAA states that OpSpecs system documents should “show the active certificate number.”
The Department of Transportation also uses the term “certificate” in connection with Foreign Air Carriers. The DOT document, OST Form 6411, requires that the Foreign Air Carrier provide the “Name, address, and FAA Certificate number of Insured Foreign Air Carrier” (emphasis added).
Thus, FAR Part 129, the FAA’s online database of Foreign Air Carriers, FAA guidance material for FAR Part 129 applicants, and DOT documentation all treat Foreign Air Carriers as having been “certificated”, and refer to the authority issued by FAA to Foreign Air Carriers to operate under FAR Part 129 as a “certificate”. Once having been issued authority under FAR Part 129, it is reasonable to conclude that the Foreign Air Carrier must be the “holder” of any such “certificate”.
Even if, despite FAA’s common application of the term certificate for Foreign Air Carriers, the FAA authority given to Foreign Air Carriers were not considered to be a certificate, a Foreign Air Carrier should nonetheless be considered a “certificate holder” for the purposes of FAR § 121.1005(c) since the underlying authority for international operations held by the Foreign Air Carrier is an Air Operator Certificate (AOC) issued by the competent aviation authority of the Foreign Air Carrier.
Fifth, the plain language of FAR § 121.1005(c) does not limit itself only to certificates that are issued by the FAA under Parts 121 or 135. This is significant because the FAA knows how to be specific when a term such as “certificate holder” is meant to apply only to limited categories of certificate holders. For instance, the applicability section of FAR Part 121 (121.1) does not use the unmodified term “certificate holder.” Instead, it consciously narrows the range of certificate holders to refer only to a “certificate holder conducting operations under this part.” However, the plain language of FAR § 121.1005 does not include any such limitation. Thus, the FAA is quite capable of specifying in the FARs when a term is not intended for its broadest use. Absent such explicit narrowing of the term “certificate holder” in FAR § 121.1005,

2 See CPD, at 1.- 6 -

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 4747281 v11 there is no basis to adopt a narrower meaning than what is plainly stated in the regulation itself. Thus, a Foreign Air Carrier holding authority under Part 129 should be deemed to be a “certificate holder conducting operations under this part.”
2. Treating a Part 129 air carrier as a “certificate holder” for the purpose of FAR § 121.1005(c) would be consistent with the purpose of FAR §121.1005(c); allowing credit for training performed by Foreign Air Carriers would minimize duplicative hazmat training.
In the interest of training efficiency, FAR § 121.1005(c) was intended to allow the U.S. air carrier to provide training only on the differences between the U.S. air carrier’s hazmat training program and the training program for the individual’s primary business. In its comments filed in the NPRM leading up to this rule, Atlas pointed out the nature of its global ACMI operations, and the importance of its being able to rely on another certificate holder’s, including a foreign certificate holder’s, training program to satisfy its training obligations. 3 The FAA’s response did not disagree with Atlas’s concerns. In fact, in response to Atlas’s comments, the FAA highlighted the efficiency benefits to domestic air carriers that would result from issuance of the final rule: “The FAA believes that the exception provided for in §121.1005(c)...will actually minimize the training burden on part 121 and 135 operators. 4

Allowing a Part 121 air carrier to use individuals who have already received hazmat training from a Foreign Air Carrier and allowing them to train the individuals only on the differences between the U.S. air carrier’s training program and the other certificate holder’s training program improves the efficiency of hazmat training for several reasons. These reasons work just as soundly where the other certificate holder is a Foreign Air Carrier.
First, it is more efficient for the individual who has been asked to perform some hazmat handling duties for two different entities. When the U.S. air carrier contracts to use the individual, it would be highly inefficient if the U.S. air carrier were required to provide that individual with full hazmat training. This type of training can take multiple days and must be repeated periodically. Moreover, most of the training that would be provided would be duplicative of the training that the individual had received from his primary employer, i.e., the other certificate holder. This duplicative training could cause the individual to miss days at work for the other certificate holder, just to receive for the

3 70 Fed. Reg. 58796, 58804 (Oct. 7, 2005).

4 70 Fed. Reg. at 58804.- 7 -

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 4747281 v11 U.S. air carrier training that the individual has already received for the other certificate holder. Again, the same inefficiencies would apply if the other certificate holder were a Foreign Air Carrier.

Second, it is more efficient for the U.S. air carrier, which would otherwise need to provide full training to individuals contracted at many potential facilities throughout the U.S. air carrier’s flight operations network. This full training would be composed predominantly of information that the individual had already received from the Foreign Air Carrier.
Third, while eliminating the need to conduct duplicative training, FAR § 121.1005(c) does place on the U.S. air carrier the critical responsibility to determine what differences exist between the U.S. air carrier’s hazmat training program and the training program of the other entity for whom an individual to be trained has already received full hazmat training. This Request for Interpretation assumes that the U.S. air carrier would be responsible for determining the contents of the other certificate holder’s (even if it is a Foreign Air Carrier) training program to ensure that any individual performing any function under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (“HMR”) or under the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (“ICAO TI”) has received all of the training required by the HMR or ICAO TI 5 (and satisfies all other requirements of the FAR) and had that training properly documented.
3. The provisions of FAR § 121.1005(c)(1) and 121.1005(c)(2) should not be read to make compliance with FAR § 121.1005(c) impossible where a U.S. air carrier seeks to use individuals employed by a Foreign Air Carrier.
FAR § 121.1005(c) includes paragraphs that define two criteria that must be met for a U.S. air carrier to provide only differences training.
FAR § 121.1005(c)(1) requires that the U.S. air carrier using the hazmat training exception receive a “written verification” from the holder of the other certificate holder’s training records representing that the person has satisfactorily completed hazardous materials training for the specific job function under the other certificate holder's FAA approved hazardous material training program. To the extent that this regulation

5 While this petition frequently proposes compliance with the HMR or the ICAO TI, we do so with an understanding that compliance with the ICAO TI is a permitted under most circumstances as a means of complying with the HMR. See 49 C.F.R. § 171.22.- 8 -

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 4747281 v11 requires that the other certificate holder have an FAA-approved hazmat training program, we ask that the FAA consider that this requirement would be just as safe if it respected the programs of Foreign Air Carrier’s whose programs satisfy FAA requirements.
FAR § 121.1005(c)(2) requires that the other certificate holder have the “same operations specifications regarding the acceptance, handling, and transport of hazardous materials as the certificate holder using this exception.” Based on the fact that the preamble of the regulation makes it clear that it permits a U.S. air carrier to rely on training provided by an FAR Part 145 repair station certificate holder6 , the FAA could not have intended that the phrase “same operations specifications” to be interpreted strictly. Otherwise, a U.S. air carrier, with Part 121 operations specifications (A055), would be unable to use a repair station’s employees, since the repair station would have operations specifications issued under FAR Part 145 rather than under FAR Part 121, meaning that the operations specifications could never be the “same.” The FSIMS indicates that OpSpec A055 (carriage of hazardous materials) “is an optional authorization applicable to certificate holders conducting operations under 14 CFR parts 121 or 135 that choose to comply with the applicable regulations to carry hazardous materials.”7 There is no suggestion that this OpSpec, which applies to the carriage of hazmat, would be appropriate for a repair station (which does not perform duties identical to those performed by air carriers).
Thus, although the regulation refers to “the same operations specifications”, in reality operations specifications are not identical to each other. Therefore, the notion that the other certificate holder needs to have the “same operations specifications” must mean something less than verbatim similarity. If this is the case, then the same standard should be able to be satisfied where the U.S. air carrier uses a Foreign Air Carrier and determines that the requirements imposed on a Foreign Air Carrier (for hazmat training), either by the FAA or by the Foreign Air Carrier’s Civil Aviation Authority are substantially similar to the U.S. carrier’s. The U.S. air carrier should be permitted to determine whether the operations specifications provide for substantially the same hazmat training by each entity, such that the U.S. air carrier can assure itself that the relevant training has already been provided and that the U.S. air carrier need only provide differences training.

6 70 Fed. Reg. at 58804.

7 FSIMS, at Vol. 3, Chpt. 18, Sec. 3, para. 3-737, OpSpec A055.- 9 -

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 4747281 v11 B. DISCUSSION IN SUPPORT OF QUESTION 2.
1. Because the language of FAR § 121.1005(c) refers only to a “certificate holder,” a U.S. air carrier should be able to provide only differences training when the U.S. air carrier uses an individual who has received hazmat training by the holder of a Part 145 repair station certificate, so long as the U.S. air carrier has reviewed the hazmat training program of the repair station to ensure that it satisfies hazmat training requirements.
As noted above, FAR § 121.1005(c) uses the unmodified term “certificate holder.” The preamble to the final rule clearly confirms that Part 145 certificate holders are covered by this provision. 8 As a result, a U.S. air carrier should be able to contract for an employee of a Part 145 certificated repair station to provide hazmat handling services, and train that individual only in areas that were not already covered by training provided by the repair station.

III. PETITION FOR AN EXEMPTION
If the FAA decides not to answer Atlas’s Question 1 in the Request for Interpretation in the affirmative, then, in the alternative, pursuant to FAR §§ 11.61(b) and 11.63(a), Atlas requests that the FAA grant to Atlas an exemption from FAR § 121.1005(c) to permit Atlas to provide only differences training to individuals used by Atlas for performing any pre-transportation functions related to handling hazmat (including but not limited to acceptance, rejection; handling, storage incidental to transport, packaging, or loading, or any function listed under FAR § 121.1001(a)), where those individuals have already received hazmat training from a Foreign Air Carrier issued operations specifications under FAR Part 129 and Atlas has determined that that training is substantially similar to Atlas’s FAA-approved training and satisfies international hazardous materials training standards provided by the HMR or the ICAO TI, and all other FAR requirements.
In support of this alternative exemption request, Atlas incorporates by reference the discussion set forth above in Section II.A. In addition, as required by FAR § 11.81, Atlas provides the following information:

8 70 Fed. Reg. at 58804.- 10 -

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 4747281 v11 1. Contact information:

Name:
Scot Ridgway Atlas Air, Inc. 2000 Westchester Avenue Purchase NY, 10577
Telephone number: 914-701-6634

E-mail address: Scot.Ridgway@atlasair.com

Atlas submits this Petition for Exemption, through counsel, to request that the FAA grant an exemption to Atlas:

Mailing address:

Robert E. Cohn William Elder Hogan Lovells US LLP Counsel to Atlas Air, Inc. 555 13th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004
Telephone number:
202-637-4999 (Robert Cohn) 202-637-8787 (William Elder)

Facsimile number:

866-604-8071

E-mail addresses: robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com william.elder@hoganlovells.com

2. The specific section or sections of the FAR from which exemption is sought: FAR § 121.1005(c).- 11 -

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 4747281 v11 3. The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought: Pursuant to FAR § 11.61, Atlas petitions the FAA for an exemption from FAR § 121.1005(c) to permit Atlas to provide only differences training to individuals used by Atlas for performing any pre-transportation functions related to the handling of hazmat or any function listed under FAR § 121.1001(a),where those individuals have already received hazmat training from a Foreign Air Carrier issued operations specifications under FAR Part 129 and Atlas has determined that that training satisfies domestic or international standards provided by the HMR or the ICAO, and all other FAR requirements.
4. The grant of this petition would be in the public interest: The grant of this petition would be in the public interest and will not impair or degrade aviation safety. The grant of the petition will eliminate unnecessary and duplicative hazmat training costs, enhance the efficiency of Atlas’s service and avoid placing Atlas at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace while providing an equivalent level of safety.
Atlas is one of the world’s leading ACMI providers of outsourced U.S. services to major U.S. and foreign airline customers throughout the world. Its ACMI customers have included such major air carriers as British Airways, Emirates, Etihad, DHL, and Qantas. The extensive flying by Atlas for foreign airlines creates economic growth and jobs in the United States.
In a typical year, Atlas operates to over 250 stations worldwide. Atlas would like to use fully trained employees of its Foreign Air Carrier customers who have been authorized to operate in the United States under FAR Part 129, to perform certain duties related to the handling of hazardous materials. The public interest goal of ensuring that hazardous materials are handled safely is not hindered by the use of fully trained individuals, regardless of whether the entity performing the training is Atlas or a Foreign Air Carrier that has a hazmat training program which conforms to ICAO and IATA international standards. Indeed, the FAA has said that FAR § 121.1005(c) is “closely aligned with” the ICAO TI and IATA DGR regulations. 9
A grant of the exemption would permit a more efficient process, without sacrificing the quality of the training, since Atlas would still be responsible for ensuring that any individual used by Atlas has been fully trained, either by the Foreign Air Carrier or by

9 70 Fed. Reg. at 58804.- 12 -

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 4747281 v11 Atlas when it trains the individual on differences between the Foreign Air Carrier’s training program and Atlas’s training program. And, since many of Atlas’s operations are conducted in distant foreign locales with many Foreign Air Carriers, the cost of training such individuals to Atlas’s program would be extremely high.
There is also a public interest in avoiding duplication from the point of view of the individual who will perform hazmat handling services for two entities, since that individual would otherwise be required to attend training for Atlas where a substantial portion of that training is duplicative of training already provided by the individual’s Foreign Air Carrier employer.
All of these efficiency benefits, which would be achieved with no sacrifice to the level of safety, demonstrate that a grant of the exemption would be in the public interest.
5. The grant of the requested exemption would not adversely affect safety. Atlas would provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought. Grant of the requested exemption would not adversely affect safety since Atlas will ensure that all individuals who would be performing any pre-transportation function related to the handling of hazmat or any function listed under FAR § 121.1001(a) on behalf of Atlas would continue to receive full hazmat training that satisfied the requirements of the HMR or the ICAO TI and all other requirements of the FAR. FAA Order 8900.1 states that the changes to the FAA’s hazmat regulations were made to “align U.S. implementation with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards for the carriage of hazmat...” Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Chapter 18, Section 3, Par. A (March 12, 2013). As already noted, the FAA itself recognized in the preamble to the Final Rule that “since this final rule is closely aligned with the 2005 edition of the ICAO TI and the IATA DGR requirements, there should be minimal differences in training.” 10

If the exemption is granted, Atlas will ensure that all individuals used by Atlas have received all required training, regardless of whether that training was provided by Atlas or by the Foreign Air Carrier. Atlas merely seeks to be exempt from providing training that would be duplicative of training already provided to the individual by the Foreign Air Carrier.

10 70 Fed. Reg. at 58804.- 13 -

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 4747281 v11 As a condition for this exemption, and to ensure an equivalent level of safety, Atlas agrees to be responsible for reviewing the training program of any Foreign Air Carrier to assure itself that the training program meets HMR or ICAO TI standards. If Atlas determines there are any differences between the hazmat training programs of the two air carriers, Atlas would then train on differences between Atlas’s hazmat program and the other air carrier’s hazmat program.
Atlas also seeks an exemption from § 121.1005(c)(1) to the extent that FAR § 121.1005(c)(1) requires that the entity being relied upon for a portion of the hazmat training would need to provide a written verification that the individual had received training in an FAA-approved training program. This is necessary to allow Atlas to utilize Foreign Air Carriers to perform hazmat functions because Foreign Air Carriers do not have FAA-approved training programs. However, Atlas would require the Foreign Air Carrier to provide written verification that the individual completed successfully the Foreign Air Carrier’s hazmat training program.
To the extent that FAR § 121.1005(c)(2) requires “the same operations specifications regarding the acceptance, handling, and transport of hazardous materials as the certificate holder using this exception,” the exemption would permit Atlas to review the operations specifications of the Foreign Air Carrier and determined whether they are substantially the same. Since the FAA’s hazmat regulations were made to “align U.S. implementation with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards for the carriage of hazmat...” (Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Chapter 18, Section 3, Par. A (March 12, 2013)), the OpSpecs of the major Foreign Air Carriers which Atlas would utilize would be consistent with Atlas’s OpSpec.
As noted in Section II.D., above, the requirement for “the same operations specifications” does not appear to be interpreted strictly such that the operations specifications are required to be verbatim of each other since FAR § 121.1005(c) allows a U.S. air carrier to use an employee of a repair station and since the U.S. air carrier and the repair station would not likely have “the same operations specifications.” If the exemption were granted, Atlas would be responsible for comparing the operations specifications for the Foreign Air Carrier to ensure that they are substantially similar. More importantly, Atlas would be responsible for ensuring that any individual used by Atlas for performing any pre-transportation functions related to the handling of hazmat or any function listed under FAR § 121.1001(a), would have received full training in accordance with the HMR or ICAO TI (and in accordance with all other FAR requirements) and that records of that full training are maintained satisfactorily.- 14 -

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 4747281 v11 6. Summary for publication in the Federal Register, including the rule from which exemption is sought, a brief description of the nature of the exemption sought: Atlas requests that, in keeping with FAR § 11.87, the FAA waive publication of a summary of the petition in the Federal Register, so as not to delay an FAA decision on the Petition. Any FAA delay in acting on this Petition would adversely affect Atlas, its employees, and its customers, since it might limit Atlas’s ability to handle hazmat at some locations where Atlas operates.
If the FAA elects to publish notice of this petition for exemption in the Federal Register, we propose the following:
“Pursuant to FAR §§ 11.61(b) and 11.63(a), Atlas requests that the FAA grant to Atlas an exemption from FAR § 121.1005(c) to permit Atlas to provide onlydifferences training to individuals used by Atlas for performing any pretransportation functions related to handling hazmat or any function listed under FAR § 121.1001(a), where those individuals have already received hazmat training from a Foreign Air Carrier issued operations specifications under FAR Part 129and Atlas has determined that that training is substantially similar to Atlas’s FAAapproved training and satisfies the domestic or international standards provided by the HMR or the ICAO TI, and all other FAR requirements.”
7. Request to Exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the U.S. In keeping with FAR § 11.83, Atlas requests that any grant of an exemption permit Atlas to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the United States to the extent necessary to accommodate Atlas global operations, which involve frequent aircraft operations to numerous destinations outside of the United States.- 15 -

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 4747281 v11 IV. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Atlas respectfully requests that the FAA take the following actions: (i) issue an interpretation responsive to Atlas’s questions in section II, above, and (ii) if the FAA does not issue the interpretation to Atlas’s first question in the affirmative, then the FAA should grant the Petition for Exemption, as requested in section III, above, on an expedited basis.
Please let us know if you have any questions or need any additional information.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________ Robert E. Cohn William L. Elder Counsel for Atlas Air, Inc.

cc: Adam Kokas George Kopcsay Russell Pommer Scot Ridgway Jaime Escobar