LAW OFFICES OF 

MARSTON & COLE, P.C . 

ERIN B. MARSTON 821 N STREET. SUITE 208 TELEPHONE (907) 277-8001 

BRENT R. COLE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-2136 TELECOPIER (907) 277-8002 

marslonfSimtrsloiicolf.coni 

Direct Dial: (907) 277-8004 

January 27, 2012 •':; 

L1.1 —'- -. i 

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED _ - :: : •; 

U.S. Department of Transportation J y^'^\'^, 

Docket Operations, M-30 ~ I o o 

West Building ground floor, n: 

Room W12-140 "'^ 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: Iditarod Air Force - Request for Extension of Exemption No. 9810 

Our File No. 3082.001 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

This responds to the FAA's December 30, 2011 postcard notification directed to Gregory 

A. Miller concerning the Iditarod Air Force's request to extend Exemption No. 9810. Mr. Miller 

was recently appointed a Superior Court Judge in Anchorage, Alaska. I will be representing the 

"Iditarod Air Force" ("lAF") relating to the exemption and would appreciate receiving future 

correspondence concerning this matter. Please accept this letter as a request on behalf of the lAF 

and on behalf of the Iditarod Trial Committee to extend Exemption No. 9810 (Regulatory 

Docket No. FAA-2008-1246 for five years. 

Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 11, and in particular 14 CFR § 11.81, 1 am providing the FAA 

with the following information. I am also providing a complete copy of our November 6, 2008 

petition, our March 20, 2009 request for extension, the FAA's Exemption No. 9810 and the 

January 29, 2010 Corrected Copy granting the petition. (Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4) 

(a) Your name and mailing address and, if vou wish^ other contact information 

such as a fax number, telephone number, or e-mail address. 

Erin B. Marston 

Law Offices of Marston & Cole, P.C. 

821 N Street, Suite 208 

Anchorage, Alaska 99501 

(907)277-8001 

(907) 277-8002 (facsimile) 

emarston@marstoncole.com 
U.S. Department of Transportation 

Page 2 of3 

January 27, 2012 

(b) The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which vou seek an exemption. 

14 CFR §61.113(a) and 14 CFR § 119.21(a)(1). 

(c) The extent of relief vou seek, and the reason vou seek the relief. 

We seek the same terms and conditions as stated in Exemption No. 9810, excepting that 

we request the expiration date be extended to April 30, 2017. The reasons are also the same as 

set out in our November 6, 2008 and January 7, 2009 petition, and at pages 1-5 of the FAA's 

Exemption No. 9810. 

(d) The reasons why granting your request would be in the public interest; that 

is, how it would benefit the public as a whole. 

The reasons why granting the extension would be in the public's interest are the same as 

stated by the FAA at pages 4-5 of its Exemption No. 9810. We agree with the FAA's analysis, 

and nothing has changed factually that would in turn alter that analysis. Rather than repeat that 

analysis, a copy of Exemption No. 9810 is attached hereto. 

(e) The reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or 

how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the 

rule from which you seek the exemption. 

Here too, the lAF continues to agree with the analysis set forth by the FAA, at pages 4-5 

of Exemption No. 9810, regarding the lAF's operations being at least as safe (and in the lAF's 

mind, far safer) than operations would be without the exemption. Nothing has changed factually 

in this respect, either, that would alter that analysis. 

(f) A summary we can publish in the Federal Register, stating: 

(1) The rule from which you seek the exemption; and 

(2) A brief description of the nature of the exemption you seek. 

'A five year exemption is sought by the Iditarod Trail Committee and the 

'Iditarod Air Force' as to 14 CFR 61.113(a) and 14 CFR 119.21(a)(1), for the Iditarod Air Force 

to continue flying support under 14 CFR Part 91 for the 1,100 mile Iditarod dog race in Alaska. 

Exemptions have been granted for the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 races. The exemption 

would permit the volunteer pilots to continue accepting gas, oil, insurance, food and minimal 

housing during the race, including the pre- and post-race staging efforts." 
U.S. Department of Transportation 

Page 3 of 3 

January 27, 2012 

(g) Any additional information, views or arguments available to support your 

request. 

Since the prior petition and Exemption adequately set forth the information, views, and 

arguments, nothing further is believed needed at this time. 

(h) If you want to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside the United 

States, the reason why you need to do so. 

No, the lAF does not wish to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the U.S. 

Thank you. I welcome your calls, as well as those from anyone else at the FAA. 

Very truly yours, 

OFFICE&OF MARSTON & COLE, P.C. 

^^OAM ^ 

Erin B. Marston 

EBM/ksg 

Enclosures 

cc; Mr. Clint Wease (Alaska Region, Flight Standards Division Manager)( w/encl.) 

Mr. Scott Norman (Anchorage FSDO Manager) (w/encl.) 

Ms. Robin Bloomfield (Anchorage FSDO) (w/encl.) 

Mr. Howard Martin (FAA Regional Counsel) (w/encl.) 

Mr. Stan Hooley (Executive Director, Iditarod Trail Committee) (w/encl.) 

Mr. Bert Hanson (Chief Pilot, Iditarod Air Force) (w/encl.) 
LAWOFf^lCES 

BIRCH, HORTON, BITTNER AND CHEROT 

t127WESTSEVENTHAVENUE • ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-3301 

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

TEIEPHONE (907) 276-1550 • (800)478-1550 FACSIMILE (907)278-3680 

HOJ. R. HORTOM I1>44 - 1»() 

RONALD G. HRCHT 

W1LUM* K BrrmER 

KATVVrVNA.BlACK 

ADAMW.COOK 

JON M. CeVORECHARLE8 R. EBEfV-ET 

SREOORV 8. FISHER 

DOUGLAS 6. PUU£RUiVXD. OAANCR 

DAVID KARL GROSS 

TINA M. OROVIEB 

WMJ.1AMP.HORW 

STEPHEN H. HUTCHINGS 

DANIEL C.KENT 

THOMA3 F. KUNKN^ 

•AVID E. LAMPT^ 

STANLEY T LEWS 

JAMES H. USTEPtO 

GREGORY *. MILLER 

JENNIFER L OVNENS. Ph.D. 

MIOUELJ PARIGE 

TIMOTHY J. PETUMENOS 

EUSABETHHROSaHOU.Y C. SOOZZO 

OF COUNSEL 

JENNIFER C. ALEXANDER 

KENMeTHE.VAESAR 

115! CONNECTICUT AVE, kW. 

SUITE 1200 

WASHrNOTON, D.C. M W 

FACGtMJLf (lOQ tSt-IIXa 

• D.C. BAR 

•• D.C. AfC ALASKA OAR 

T (MARYLAND BAR 

» VIRGINLA BAA 

ALL OTHERS ALASKA fiW 

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL (907) 263-7266 • WRITER'S DIRECT FAX (907) 276-3680 • amiller@bhb.com 

November 6, 2008 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Document Management System 

400 7th Street, NW 

Room PL 401 

Washington, D.C. 20591-0001 

Re: Iditarod Air Force - Petition for Part 135 Exemption 

BHBC File No. 999,999.9196 

Dear Sir or Madam; 

This is a formal petition by my client, the Iditarod Trail Committee, for an 

exemption to 14 C.F.R. Part 135 to permit the "Iditarod Air Force" to continue flying in 

support of the Iditarod dog race. I have met with pilots of the lAF and the Iditarod Trail 

Committee board of directors. The executive director of the Iditarod Trail Committee, as 

well as the Iditarod Air Force's ("lAF") chief pilot, have in turn reviewed and approved 

this submission, and both the Iditarod Trail Committee and the lAF pilots agree to follow 

all procedures and restrictions within this petition. 

For ease this petition follows the fonnat of Exemption No. 9619 granted to the 

lAF last Febnjary 15, 2008. I will simply incorporate by reference both the January 31 

Petition and the February 15 Exemption. Copies of both of those documents are 

attached. My suggested revised language as to each of the 13 "Conditions and 

Limitations" found at pages 5-6 of Exemption No. 9619 are set forth in caps, I also 

propose two new conditions (14 and 15), to address the length of this exemption and to 

define precisely what flights the lAF can conduct pursuant to this exemption. 

1. "On!y U.S. registered aircraft may be used in these flight operations." 

This continues to be acceptable to the lAF. None of the planes used by the lAF have 

ever been non-U.S. aircraft. 

2. "The Committee/IAF and each aircraft owner and operator will assume 

regulatory responsibility ensuring that each aircraft operated under this 

exemption will have a current annual inspection as required by Section 91.409(a) 

at the time of operation." This continues to be acceptable to the lAF. 

F:\99999B\9196\00031607.DOC Exhibit 1 

Page 1 of 22 
BIRCH, HORTON, BITTNER AU^ CHEROT 

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

Document Management System, DOT 

November 6, 2008 

Page 2 

3. "Only those pilots identified in Attachment 1 may operate under this 

exemption." This list is, at least at this juncture, the same as last year's list, and this 

condition is acceptable if the FAA deems it truly necessary for safety. But given that the 

list is hereby being submitted more than four months prior to race start, names can 

change. The lAF thus requests slightly more flexible language, as follovi^s: "Only those 

pilots identified in Attachment 1 may operate under this exemption, UNLESS 

ADDITIONAL NAMED PILOT(S) ARE APPROVED BY THE ANCHORAGE FSDO." 

4. "Private pilot certificate holders identified in Attachment 1 may only 

carry Inanimate property and/or dogs." This continues to be acceptable, but to 

incorporate the flexibility requested in Condition No. 3, above, this should read "Private 

pilot certificate holders identified in Attachment 1, AND ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL 

NAMED PRIVATE PILOTS APPROVED BY THE ANCHORAGE FSDO, may only 

carry inanimate property and/or dogs." 

5. "Commercial pilot certificate holders and airiine transport pilot 

certificate holders identified in Attachment 1 who do not possess valid second or 

first class medical certificates may conduct operations that include carriage of 

inanimate property and/or dogs. No persons may be carried." This continues to be 

acceptable, although with the same change as noted in 3 and 4 to add "...identified in 

Attachment 1 AND PRIVATE PILOTS APPROVED BY THE ANCHORAGE FSDO 

may only carry..." 

6. "On flights in which passengers are carried (e.g., veterinarians or 

physicians), the pilots must hold at least commercial pilot certificates and at least 

second class airman medical certificates." This continues to be acceptable to the 

lAF. 

7. "Only U.S. certificated airmen may act as required crewmembers on 

aircraft operated under this exemption." This continues to be acceptable to the lAF. 

8. "All operations will be conducted under day visual flight rules (VFR). No 

nighttime or instrument flight rules Qf^^) operations will be conducted in any 

operation affected by or subject to this exemption." This continues to be 

acceptable to the lAF. 

9. "Aii passenger-carrying operations conducted under this exemption 

shall be conducted in accordance with part 135 weather minimums found in 

Section 135.205(a)." This continues to be acceptable to the lAF. 

{F:\999999\9196»0031607.DOC} ExhJbJt 1 

Page 2 of 22 
BIRCH, HORTON, BITTNER ANL^ CHEROT 

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

Document Management System, DOT 

November 6, 2008 

Page 3 

10. "All passenger-carrying operations conducted under this exemption 

shall be conducted in full compliance with altitude restrictions contained in 

Section 135.203(a)(1)." This continues to be acceptable to the lAF. 

11. "All personnel affected by, relying on, or otherwise included in 

Attachment 1 of this exemption shall be provided a written copy of the 

exemption." This continues to be acceptable to the lAF. 

12. "A copy of this exemption shall be carried aboard each aircraft 

operated under the exemption." This continues to be acceptable to the lAF. 

13. "The Committee/IAF will conduct a one-time briefing on the conditions 

of the exemption for all persons described above before any person commences 

any flight operations conducted under any such exempt/on." This continues to be 

acceptable to the lAF. 

There are three other issues beyond the thirteen conditions contained in last 

year's exemption. 

First, the lAF hereby proposes that this be a five year exemption, to allow for 

resolution of a closely-related issue, non-profit "mercy flights." Since 2007 certain 

nonprofit flights have been expressly authorized by 14 C.F.R. §91.146. Clearly the 

lAF's flights are not for profit, but this regulation nonetheless applies only to flights that 

begin and end at the same place, and only if the flights are very limited in number. 

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski recently introduced a bill to slightly expand this scope 

(S 3553, attached). If Congress passes this law, or if the FAA othenA/ise expands 

§91.146, this should permanently resolve the lAF situation. The lAF strongly supports 

Senator Murkowski's bill. A five year exemption period would allow either Congress or 

the FAA to resolve this issue, without the need for either the lAF or the FAA having to 

needlessly go back to the drawing board each year for another exemption. The lAF 

therefore proposes the following language, which is designed to maintain the lAF's 

safety while accommodating any changes Congress or the FAA may make to the mercy 

flight regulation: "14. THIS EXEMPTION SHALL CONTINUE FOR FIVE YEARS, 

UNLESS THE FAA (a) FURTHER EXTENDS THIS EXEMPTION, OR (b) THE lAF 

FLIGHTS ARE ENCOMPASSED WITHIN ANY REGULATIONS THAT ARE THE 

RESULT OF REWRITING 14. C.F.R. §91.146." To be very clear, it is my 

understanding that the FAA is considering a three year exemption, whereas by this 

petition the lAF is requesting a five year exemption. But per my proposed language, 

above, there would be no downside to granting a five year exemption because 

(1) safety is not being compromised during the additional two year period, and (2) the 

exemption would be shortened if/when Congress and/or the FAA resolve the mercy 

(F:\999999\9196\00031507DOC} ExhlbJt 1 

Page 3 of 22 
BIRCH, HORTON, BITTNER ANL* CHEROT 

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

Document Management System, DOT 

November 6, 2008 

Page 4 

flight issue through a re-writing of the regulation (or passage of a statute). I thus urge 

your careful consideration to our five year request. 

Second, the FAA has previously inquired whether the lAF can reduce its carriage 

of certain passengers by utilization of local Part 135 operators. To do its job the lAF 

needs to transport not just dogs and straw, but also mushers, volunteers, veterinarians, 

etc., and the exemption would continue to permit such flights, which in turn is 

acceptable to the lAF. An issue beyond this exists, however, as to the carriage of 

media personnel. To eliminate any confusion, some discussion is needed about 

precisely who can be flown by the lAF. 

The lAF continues to strongly maintain that the lAF is far safer than any 135 

operator who might desire to make these same flights. The lAF has literally thousands 

and thousands of Iditarod-specific flying hours that span two decades. As mentioned 

above, notwithstanding the lAF's experience and safety record there is still an issue 

about the carriage of media personnel. By way of background, the media personnel 

that in prior years the lAF has carried fall into three groups: two of ITC's licensees 

("Original Productions-Discovery Channel" and "Versus"), and ITC's own media staff. 

Both Original Productions-Discovery Channel and Versus market their products 

commercially on cable TV. Of the total 1,486 flights made by the lAF for last year's 

race, 58 flights were conducted for Original Productions/Discovery Channel and Versus 

combined. Original Productions-Discovery Channel had a crew of 19 people; of these 

19, the lAF flew 15 at one time or another (others moved by snowmachine, were based 

only in Anchorage, or otherwise did not fly by small plane). Versus's crew totaled three 

people, and the lAF flew all three of them at one time or another. 

The lAF and the Iditarod Trail Committee agree that 100% of these Original 

Productions-Discovery Channel and Versus flights will not be flown by the lAF under 

Part 91 and/or this exemption, and instead that certificated 135 operators will carry 

these people. Pursuant to the Iditarod Trail Committee's contracts with these two 

organizations, the ITC is required to provide these crews with housing and logistical 

support, including air transportation for up to three people per day along the race route. 

The ITC will thus attempt to locate 135 operators willing to carry these two production 

company members, even though the ITC will likely end up having to pay for that 

transportation. If a local 135 operator is not available or economically reasonable, the 

lAF will fly these people only with lAF pilots who possess a valid 135 certificate, and all 

such flights will be operated under Part 135. To be clear on this point, five lAF pilots 

have now submitted applications to the FAA to become single pilot 135 operators, and 

once those certificates are issued these pilots could carry the two production crews for. 

100% of the race. Please know that these lAF pilots will not resort to using their 135 

privileges, however, unless a local 135 operator is unavailable or not economically 

{F:\999999\9196\0003I607DOC) Exhlbl t 1 

Page 4 Of 22 
BIRCH, HORTON. BITTNER ANU CHEROT 

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

Document Management System, DOT 

November 6, 2008 

Page 5 

reasonable. The lAF will also keep records of its solicitations to 135 operators for such 

non-essential flights, and produce such records upon request by the FAA. 

That leaves only the issue of ITC's media personnel and their air transport. 

These people are vital to the iditarod, and in no sense does the ITC deem them to be in 

the same category as Discovery or Versus. Operationally they are treated and deemed 

the same as the race officials, veterinarians, etc. It is essential that they be able to fly 

with lAF pilots (subject to the above Terms and Conditions, including #5 and 6 that only 

Commercial or ATP pilots holding at least a current second class medical be utilized). 

ITC's mission, in part through its media staff, is to preserve the sport of mushing and to 

stage the world's premier sled dog race along the Historic Iditarod Trail, ITC 

accomplishes much of its mission through the efforts of its media staff. ITC's media 

staff films the race and provides a web based product for race fans known as "Iditarod 

Insider." It also produces a 90-minute documentary each year, the proceeds of which 

are used to help stage the race. 

During last year's race the ITC's media crew was comprised of eleven people. 

Of those eleven, three flew in a helicopter operated under Part 135. Four more traveled 

by snowmachine. The remaining four, at one time or another, traveled in lAF planes. 

Of the 1,486 total lAF flights last year, these four people flew on only 39 lAF flights. So 

at issue is really just 2.6% of the lAF's 1,486 total flights. All of these flights were short 

(generally under one hour). Like all the other Iditarod crews, these people literally 

"lived" the race, slept on floors with our other volunteers, etc. Neither the lAF nor the 

Iditarod Trail Committee sells them space on any lAF plane. Nor would a 135 operator 

be willing to stay with these people 24 hours/day, flying perhaps just one or two short 

flights per day. Because the Iditarod media crew's job is to document the race, flying is 

just "incidental to" getting to where this documentation will take place. With football and 

many other sports, the athletes are surrounded by fans in a 100-yard stadium. With the 

Iditarod, the "stadium" is 1049 miles long. The only way to keep the fans involved is to 

bring them the race via the "Insider Report." Without this involvement from the fans, the 

race would lose interest or, worse yet, not gain interest with new fans. This makes the 

work of the ITC media staff crucial to the success of the race. 

Accordingly, to eliminate any confusion the lAF proposes the following language; 

"15. lAF PILOTS HOLDING AT LEAST A COMMERCIAL OR ATP LICENSE AND A 

CURRENT SECOND CLASS MEDICAL MAY CARRY NOT ONLY INANIMATE 

OBJECTS AND ANIMALS, BUT ALSO VETERINARIANS, RACE OFFICIALS, 

MUSHERS, VOLUNTEERS, IDITAROD INSIDER CREW, AND SIMILAR PEOPLE. 

NON-ESSENTIAL CREW SUCH AS 'ORIGINAL PRODUCTIONS/DISCOVERY 

CHANNEL' AND VERSUS' SHALL NOT BE CARRIED PURSUANT TO THIS 

EXEMPTION, ALTHOUGH SUCH NON-ESSENTIAL CREW MAY BE CARRIED BY 

lAF PILOTS WHO OTHERWISE HOLD AND OPERATE SUCH FLIGHT(S) 

{F:\9999W\9196\00031607.DOC} Exhlbit 1 

Page 5 of 22 
BIRCH, HORTON, BITTNER AI.O CHEROT 

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

Document Management System,"DOT 

November 6. 2008 

Page 6 

PURSUANT TO A VALID PART 135 CERTIFICATE. THE lAF WILL ALSO KEEP 

RECORDS OF ITS SOLICITATIONS TO 135 OPERATORS FOR SUCH NONESSENTIAL FLIGHTS, AND PRODUCE SUCH RECORDS UPON REQUEST BY THE 

FAA." 

Third and finally, it is my understanding that the FAA has discussed the 

possibility of requiring each plane used by the lAF to undergo a 125 hour inspection. 

This presents two problems. First, some of the pilots fly at least this much during the 

race itself, and obviously it is not feasible to require the aircraft to undergo a mid-race 

inspection (the race lasts only two weeks, plus staging activities on either end, and is 

conducted in the remotest parts of Alaska). Second, at least for this year many of the 

pilots have already undergone an annual and logged hours on their planes, and 

requiring this additional inspection mid-cycle for this quickly-approaching 2009 race 

would impose a large economic burden, while not advancing safety. It is my 

understanding that there have been no maintenance-related accidents or incidents 

during the thousands and thousands of hours of lAF flying over the years, and thus 

imposing an additional 125 hour inspection requirement would not advance safety. 

With this said, the lAF would suggest the following two solutions, in this order: 

(1) Do not create as a new condition of the exemption a requirement for any inspections 

beyond the requirement set forth in Condition No. 2, above, for an annual inspection; or 

(2) require an inspection in the prior 200 flight hours (not 125 hours). 

[ welcome your caffs, as well as from anyone else at the FAA. 

Very truly yours, 

BIRCH, HORTON, ^TTNER & CHEROT 

GAM:srm 

Enclosures: Exhibits A-C 

(F.\999999\9196\00031607.DOC} Exhlblt 1 

Page 6 of 22 
Iditarod Air Force 

A Division of Iditarod Trail Committee, Inc. 

P.O. Box 870800 

Wasllla, Alaska 99687 

(907) 376-5155 X 100 

January 31,2008 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Document Management System 

400 7"^ Street, SW 

Room PL 401 

Washington D.C: 20591-001 

VERY URGENT, PLEASE EXPIDITE 

Dear Sir or Madam; 

In accordance with Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 11, specifically Federal 

Aviation Regulation (FAR) 11.61 (b). The Iditarod Committee and the Iditarod Air Force hereby 

petition the Federal Aviation Administration seeking exemption from certain requirements 

referenced below, and also petition on behalf of the pilot/owners, who are identified by name and 

pilot certificate number as listed in Attachment 1 to this petition. All petitioners shall simply be 

referenced hereafter as "petitioners" and given the broad definition of "operator" set out in FAA 

regulations, interpretations and associated case law, the use of "petitioners" means all seek the 

same relief, unless specifically identified herein. 

In order to provide clarity and context to this petition, petitioners shall describe herein a current 

and historical perspective of the flight operations and the event these operations support. The 

Iditarod Trail Committee operates and directs the annual sled dog race commonly refeiied to as 

•the Iditarod". The Coirmiittee is a 503 C Not for Profit Corporation based in Wasilla, Alaska. 

As is well known, the Committee has historically depended on volunteers in many areas to keep 

the race economically viable, and to secure services in ai-eas with very limited commercial 

sources. One indispensable group of volunteers organized and incorporated as a non-profit, 

adopting the name Iditarod Air Force (lAF). The LAF includes pilots and aircraft owners who 

volunteer themselves and their aircraft to support race functions. Neither the Committee nor the 

lAF hold any form of certificate issued by the FAA to conduct commercial transportation 

services. The pilot-owners receive fuel, insurance, food and lodgii^ in return for transporting 

dog food and other materials to points along the route. They also transport veterinarians, tliere 

own media personnel as well a small number of media Hcensee and other people to various 

points, again receiving the described compensation for these operations. 

The Committee also charges race participants an entrance fee that is used in part to cover the cost 

of flying dogs, foods, and equipment along the race route. The entrant fee is not a direct charge 

for aviation services but covers a wide-range of race-related costs. 

Page ] of 5 

Exhibit 1 Page 

Page 7 of 22 
The route stretches over a 1049 miles, varying slightiy according to trail conditions and 

alternative starting points, but generally runs the historical route from north of Anchorage in 

south central Alaska to Nome located on the Bering Sea in the nortliwest comer of this vast state. 

It approximates the historic route traveled by dog teams when the entire community of Nome 

relied on mushers to deliver serum during an epidemic affecting and endangering an entire town. 

It is the pre-imminent athletic/sporting event in Alaska, and is followed by millions across the 

Earth as real-time news coverage is literally carried across the globe. In a state often 

characterized by cultural splits between urban and rural areas, it has a dramatic unifying effect 

for the people of the state, where urban town-dwellers and small villagers of diverse etJmic and 

economic backgrounds unite under a single banner and puipose. This race literally represents the 

entire culture of a state. In a state characterized by a slowdown m tourism industry during the 

winter, it gives a needed and importaiit infiision of economic boosters when most small 

businesses find themselves at a slow and difficult time. This race does not simply reflect a form 

of unusual entertainment; rather it is of huge public interest m a very vast and unique state. The 

Iditarod is literally the most visible symbol of a frontier that has vanished from the rest of the 

nation. 

For almost two decades the Committee has relied on the aviation volunteers and related fee 

structure to operate the race successfully. The Committee viewed its system as merely 

ameliorating the substantial costs shouldered by these aviation volunteers. Nevertheless, the 

Conmiittee has been advised that these matters and methods are subject to the more rigorous 

standards of Part 119 and 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and other regulatory 

requirements in Parts 61 and 67 directed to individual pilots, The FAA has identified 

interpretations it believes require these more stringent standards, those interpretations setting out 

the agency'5 position and policy regarding these matters. Two of these in particular are identified 

as FAA Interpretation 1993-4 and 1997-23, issued in accordance with statutory authority by the 

general coujiseTs organization of the FAA. Petitioners concede that the positions set out in those 

interpretations conflict with the system previously in use by the Committee/Air Force, without 

admitting any violation of regulations. Immediate imposition of those requirements would 

literally maKe support of the race impossible, and could permanently end this historical event. It 

is of critical public interest, particularly to the cultural and economic interests of an entire state, 

that the Conmiittee/Air Force be allowed to operate under current conditions, subject to specific 

restrictions put in place to assure the highest level of safety for human participants, observers, 

employees and non-aviation volunteers. As will be indicated below, we believe with the 

additional safeguai-ds in place, our proposal will enhance safety more than simply requiring 

service by small, seasonal, certificated operators. 

Petitioners seek exemption fi:om FAR 119.21(a) for the Committee/Air Force and pilots to allow 

them to accept monetary and non-rnonetaiy compensation in return for transportation or people 

or property, ^ d the use of fuel, food and equipment either purchased by the Committee/Air 

Force or otherwise made available by private donations. The compensation considered herein 

includes any money or donations made to or charged by the Committee/Air Force to transport 

people or property associated with the operation of the Iditarod Race, and any fijel, insurance, 

housing, footi or other support costs paid to individual pilot-aircraft owners. Additionally any 

and all private pilots identified in Attachment 1 petition for exemption from FAR 61.113 (a) but 

only to the extent persons are not carried aboard their aircraft, only inanimate property and/ or 

A 

P^gc2of5 gxhibrt . ' 

Exhibit 1 ^^® 

Page 8 of 22 
dogs. Commercial pilot certificate holders and Airline Transport Pilot certificate holders who do 

not possess valid 2nd or 1st class medical certificates and who are included in Attachment I 

hereby petition for rehef fi-om FAR 61.3(c) and FAR 61,23(a), for operations involving 

compensation that include carriage of inanimate property and/or dogs and only to the extent 

persons are not carried aboard such aircraft. 

All petitioners agree and represent that several universal conditions shall apply to operations 

conducted pursuant to any exemption that may be granted by tiic FAA and pursuant to the instant 

petition: 

1. Only U.S. registered aircraft may be used in these flight operations. 

2. The Committee, Air Force and each aircraft owner and operator will assume regulatory 

responsibility ensuring that each aircraft operated pursuant to this requested exemption 

will have a current annual inspection as required by FAR 91.409(a) at the time of any 

operation. 

3. Only U.S. certificated airmen may act as required crewmembers in aircraft operated 

under any exemption. 

4. All operations will be conducted under Day Visual Flight Rules (VFR). No nighttime or 

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations will be conducted in any operation affected by 

or subject to the requested exemption, 

5. All passenger-carrying operations conducted under the requested exemption shall be 

conducted in accordance with Part 135 weather minimums found in 135.205(a). 

6. All passenger-carrying opertitions conducted under the requested exemption shall be 

conducted in fiill compliance with altitude restrictions contained in 135.203 (a)(1). 

7. All personnel affected by, relying on, or otherwise included in Attachment 1 of this 

petition for exemption shall be provided a written copy of any exemption granted, 

including any limitations determined necessary the FAA, and in addition, the 

Committee/Air Force will conduct a one-time briefing on the conditions of the exemption 

for all persons described above before any person commences of any flight operations 

conducted pursuant to any such exemption. 

8. The exemption, if granted, shall expire April 30, 2008. 

The petitioner believes this request is in the public interest because many, if not most of the 

current part 135 operators in Alaska are seasonal and are not inclined nor equipped for winter 

operations along remote routes. Very few have the logistical wherewithal to ensure fuel, 

maintenance and crew quarters along the race route. Many of the pilots-unlike long-tenn 

volunteers operating under an established route structure have little, if any, familiarity with 

particularly lakes, trails and villages. Return to and from established bases or operations in more 

urban area even after a few days would prove impractical, or worse, push operators to travel long 

routes through demanding mountainous terrain as compared to the volunteers who are equipped 

to stay along the trail route for extended periods and who almost all have extensive experience 

with the local conditions, alternative landing sites and other idiosyncrasies gained fi-om 

experience, such as knowledge of localized weather patterns. Finally, the Air Force has 

considerable experience coordinating and supervising these flight operations. Meaningful 

operational control by a certificated operator/carrier, without months of planning and 

coordination between numerous operators, even for such simple things as common radio 

Page 3 of 5 

Exhibit 1 

Page 9 of 22 

Exhibit. 

P«ge 

h 

3 di ^ 
frequencies in a given area, could be jeopardized, and the potential for dangerous confijsion is 

significant. Notwithstanding the aforementioned discussion, die petitioner recognizes that this 

exemption shall not be renewed in subsequent Iditarod events and hereby acknowledges that all 

future Iditarod events shall utilize certificated 14 CFR Part 135 air cartiers when transporting 

persons or cargo to support this event. 

In conclusion, a petition for exemption fi-om the identified regulations, subject to the identified 

conditions, will protect the substantial public interests attached to this race, protect the FAA's 

interest in proper and legal compliance with its regulatory stmcture, and provide the highest level 

of safety reasonably achievable under the circumstances. 

sctfuUv submitted. 

)hn R. Norris 

Chief Pilot, Iditarod Air Force 

Page 4 of 5 

Exhibit 1 Pafle 

Page 10 of 22 
Attachment 1 

Wi}} be upgraded to higher class medical by February 19, 2008 

Page 5 of 5 

Exhibit 1 

Page 11 of 22 
Exemption No. 9619 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL A VIA nON ADME^STRA nON 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

In the matter of the petition of 

IDITAROD AIR FORCE Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-0146 

for an exemption fit)m §§ 61.3(c), 

61.23(a), 61.113(a), and 119.21(a)(1) 

ofTitleH, Codeof 

Federal Regulations 

PARTIAL GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated February 1,2008, Mr. John R. Nonis, Chief Pilot, Iditarod Air Force (lAF), 

P.O. Box 870800, Wasilla, Alaska 99687, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalfoflAP for an exemption from §§ 61.3(c), 61.23(a), 61.113(a), and 

119.21(a)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), The proposed exemption, if 

granted, would allow lAP to accept monetary and non-monetary compensation in return for 

transportation of people or property and the use of fuel, food, and equipment either purchased 

by the Iditarod Trail Committee (Comniittee)/IAF or otherwise made by private donations. 

The compensation considered nicludes any money or donations made to or charged by the 

Committee/IAF to transport people or property associated with the operation of the Iditarod 

Race and any fuel, insurance, housing, food, or other support costs paid to individual pilotaircraft owners. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations: 

Section 61.3( c) prescribes, in pertinent part, that a person may not act as pilot in 

command (PIC) or in any other capacity as a required flight crewmember of an 

aircraft, under a certificate issued to that person under this part, unless that person has 

a current and appropriate medical certificate that has been issued under part 67 of this 

chapter, or other documentation acceptable to the Administrator, which is in tiiat 

person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft. 

AFS-08-198-E 

Exhibit 1 

Page 12 of 22 

• I 

I I 
The petitioner states the route stretches over 1,049 miles, varying shghtly according to 

trail conditions and aftemafive starting points but generally runs the historical route 

from north of Anchorage in south central Alaska to Nome located on the Bering Sea in 

the northwest comer of the State. It approximates the historic route traveled by dog 

teams when the entire community of Nome relied on mushers to deliver serum during 

an epidemic affecting and endangering an entire town. It is the preimminent 

athletic/sporting event in Alaska and is followed by millions across the Earth as realtime news coverage is carried across the globe. In a State often characterized by 

cultural splits between urban and rural areas, it has a dramatic unifying effect for the 

people of the State, where urban towndwellers and small villagers of diverse ethnic 

and economic backgroimds unite under a single bannerand purpose. The petitioner 

states that this race represents the entire culture of a state. In a state characterized by a 

slowdown in tourism industry during the winter, businesses find themselves at a slow 

and difficult time. This race does not simply reflect a form of unusual entertainment; 

rather it is of huge public interest in a vast and unique state. Literally, the most visible 

symbol of a frontier that has vanished from the rest of the Nation, 

For almost two decades the Committee has relied on the aviation volunteers and 

related fee structure to operate the race successfully. The Cotxunittee viewed its system 

as merely ameliorating the substantial costs shouldered by these aviation volunteers. 

Nevertheless, the Connraittee has been advised that these matters and methods are 

subject to the more rigorous standards of parts 119 and 135 and other regulatory 

requirements in parts 61 and 67 directed to individual pilots. The petitioner states that 

the FAA has identified interpretations it believes require more stringent standards. 

Two of these in particular are identified as FAA Interpretations 1993-4 and 1997-23, 

issued in accordance with statutory authority by the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel. 

The petitioner concedes the positions set out in those interpretations conflict with the 

system previously in use by the Committee/IAF, without admitting any violation of 

regulations. Immediate imposition of those requirements would make support of the 

race impossible and could permanently end this historical event. The petitioner states 

that this event is of critical public interest, particularly to the cultural and economic 

interests of an entire State, that the CommitteellAF be allowed to operate under 

current conditions, subject to specific restrictions put in place to ensure the highest 

level of safety for human participants, observers, employees, and nonaviation 

volunteers. As further indicated below, the petitioner beheves with the additional 

safeguards in place, its proposal will enhance safety more than simply requiring 

service by small, seasonal, certified operators. 

The petitioner seeks an exemption from § 119 ;21 (a) for the Committee/IAF and 

pilots to allow them to accept monetary and non-monetary compensation in return 

for transportation of people or property and the use of fuel, food, and equipment 

either purchased by the Committee/IAF or otherwise made available by private 

donations. The compensation considered herein includes any money or donations 

made to or charged by the Committee/IAF to transport people or property , ... i. 

Exhibit 1 *'=^^*^'*-

Page 14 of 22 Page 
associated with the operation of the Iditarod Race and any fuel, insurance, 

housing, food, or other support costs paid to individual pilot-aircraft owners. 

Additionally, any and all private pilots identified in Attachment 1 petition for 

exemption from §61.113(a) but only to the extent persons are not carried aboard 

his or her aircraft, only inanimate property and/or dogs. Commercial pilot 

certificate holders and airline transport pilot certificate holders who do not possess 

valid second or first class medical certificates and who are included in Attachment 

1 hereby petition for relief from §§ 61.3(c) and 61.23(a) for operations involving 

compensation that include carriage of inanimate property and/or dogs and only to 

the extent persons are not carried aboard such aircraft. 

The petitioner believes this request is in the pubhc interest because many, if not 

most, of the cmrent part 135 operators in Alaska are seasonal and are not inclined 

nor equipped for winter operations along remote routes. The petitioner states that 

very few operators have the logical wherewithal to ensure fuel, maintenance, and 

crew quarters along the race route. Many of the pilots unlike long-term volunteers 

operating under estabhshed route structure, have little, if any, famiUarity with 

particular lakes, trails, and villages. The petitioner states that the return to and from 

established bases or operations in more urban areas even after a few days would 

prove impractical, or worse, push operators to travel long routes through 

demanding mountainous terrain as compared to the volunteers who are equipped to 

stay along the trail route for extended periods and who ahnost all have extensive 

experience with the local conditions, alternative landing sites, and other 

idiosyncrasies gained from experience, such as knowledge of localized weather 

patterns. Finally, the lAF has considerable experience coordinating and supervising 

these flight operations. The petitioner states that operational control by a 

certificated operator/carrier, without months of planning and coordination between 

numerous operators, could be the potential for dangerous confusion. 

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on February 6,2008 

(73 FR 7028). No comments were received. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has considered fully the petitioner's supportive information. The FAA finds 

that the proposed exemption is in the public interest and provides an equivalent level 

of safety. 

In evaluating the petition, the FAA has considered that without the air transportation 

support of the LAP the Iditarod race could not be safely or efficiently conducted. The 

FAA understands that this is largely because many, if not most, of the current part 

135 operators in Alaska are seasonal and are not capable of effectively and safely 

supporting this year's race with the short preparation time available. The FAA also 

understands that canceUng this year's race would create an economic hardshii) frg:. 

Exhibit 1 pL'JlZI^f^X. 

Page 15 of 22 ^^^— ^ ^ ^ 

^ 
many communities in Alaska and, in fact, for the entire State, The FAA, therefore, 

finds the public interest is served by allowing the safe-conduct of this year's Iditarod 

race. 

Further, the FAA finds that the lAF has many years of experience in safely 

coordinating and supervising these flight operations. The FAA also understands that 

operational control by certificated operators/carriers, without time for proper planning 

and coordination, would create considerable added risk. The FAA beheves that 

operations under the conditions and limitations stipulated in this exemption will 

preserve an equivalent level of safety. Therefore, the FAA finds that a partial grant of 

exemption for the Committee/ lAF and pilots allowing them to accept monetary and 

non-monetary compensation in return for transportation of people or property is in the 

public interest. 

Considering the rationale for the partial grant of exemption in the discussion above, 

this exemption wiU be limited to the duration of the 2008 Iditarod race and shall not be 

renewed for subsequent Iditarod events. All fatuie Iditarod events will have the lead 

time necessary to plan for appropriate air transportation to support fijture events. 

Therequest for exemption from the requirements of §§ 61.3(c) and 61.23(a) is denied. 

All pilots participating under this exemption must possess at least a current third class 

airman medical certificate. 

The FAA's Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, 1 find that a grant of exemption is in the pubhc interest. 

Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113(f) and 44701, delegated 

to me by the Administrator, Iditarod Air Force is granted an exemption from 14 CFR 

§§ 61.113(a) and 119.21(a)(1) to the extent necessary to allow the petitioner and the aircraft 

operators identified in Attachment 1 to accept monetary and non-monetary compensation in 

return for transportation of people or property and the use of fuel, food, and equipment either 

purchased by the Committee/IAF or otherwise made by private donations, subject to the 

conditions and limitations listed below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Only U.S,-registered aircraft may be used in these flight operations. 

2. The Committee/IAF and each aircraft owner and operator will assume regulatory 

responsibility ensuring that each aircraft operated under this exemption will have a 

current annual inspection as required by § 91.409(a) at the time of any operation. 

3. Only those pilots identified in Attachment 1 may operate under this exemption. 

4. Private pilot certificate holders identified in Attachment 1 may only carry inanimate 

property and/or dogs. Ex^ab^l 

Exhibit 1 Page ^ of 7 ^ 

Page 16 of 22 

^ 
5. Commercial pilot certificate holders and airline transport pilot certificate holders 

identified in Attachment 1 who do not possess vaHd second or first class 

medical 

certificates may conduct operations that include carriage of inanimate property and/or 

dogs. No persons may be carried. 

6. On flights in which passengers are carried (e.g., veterinarians or physicians), the pilots 

must hold at least commercial pilot certificates and at least second class airman 

medical certificates. 

7. Only U.S,-certificated airmen may act as required crewmembers in aircraft operated 

under this exemption. 

8. All operations will be conducted under day visual fUght rules (VFR). No nighttime or 

instrument flight rules (IFR) operations will be conducted in any operation affected by 

or subject to this exemption. 

9. All passenger-carrjqng operations conducted under this exemption shall be conducted 

in accordance with part 135 weather minimums found in § 135.205(a). 

10. All passenger-carrying operations conducted under this exemption shall be conducted 

in full compliance with altitude restrictions contained in § 135i203(a)(I). 

11. All personnel affected by, relying on, or otherwise included in Attachment 1 of this 

exemption shall be provided a written copy of the exemption. 

12. A copy of this exemption shall be carried aboard each aircraft operated under the 

exemption. 

13. The CommitteellAF will conduct a one-time briefing on the conditions of the 

exemption for all persons described above before any person commences any fiight 

operations conducted under any such exemption. 

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2008, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on FEB It15\ 2 D 

M-en alL 

Acting Director, Plight Standards 

Service 

Enclosure 

iXx'^^^U^ ^ 

Exhibit 1 Pafle—_/i_of_X 

Page 17 of 22 
Attachment 1 

*** Will be upgraded to higher class medical by February 19, 2008 

Exhibit 1 

Page 18 of 22 

Page ^^^ 7 
n 

llOTH CONGRESS 

2 D SESSION S. 3553 

To exempt certain charitable flights from certain reg:iilations applicable to 

commereia! flights. 

IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. S'ravENS) introduced the following- bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To exempt certain charitable flights from certain regulations 

applicable to commercial flights. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 fives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Volunteer Pilot Act". 

5 SEC. 2. EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN CHARITABLE FLIGHTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 44701(f) of title 49, 

7 United States Code, is amended— 

8 (1) by striking "The Administrator" and insert9 ing the following; 

10 "(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator"; and 

Page 

Exhibit 1 

Page 19 of 22 

loT ^ 
2 

1 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

2 "(2) CHARITABLE FLIGHTS.—Notwithstanding 

3 any other provision of law, a passenger or cargo car4 lying flight for the benefit of a nonprofit organiza5 tion recognized under Federal or State law that does 

6 not involve any payment from the benefLciary of 

7 such flight shall not be required to obtain an air car8 rier or commercial operator certificate under section 

9 44705, shall not be recfuired to obtain an air carrier 

10 and commercial operator certificate under part 119 

11 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, and shall 

12 not be subject to drug and alcohol testing under sec13 tions 121.457 and 121.459 of such title 14, if— 

14 "(A) the flight is conducted from an air15 port that is adequate for the airplane or heli16 copter used; 

17 "(B) the airplane or heUcopter has a max18 imum of 9 seats, excluding each crew member 

19 seat, and a maximum payload capacity of 7,500 

20 pounds; 

21 _ "(C) the flight is not an acrobatic or a for22 mation flight; 

23 "(D) the airplane or heheopter used for 

24 the flight holds a standard airworthiness certifi25 cate, is airworthy, and is operated in complia. 

•S 3653 IS 2:-Mi3li 

Exhibit 1 P^^—f^o?Ji _ 

Page 20 of 22 
3 

1 ance with all applicable Federal Aviation Ad2 ministration airworthiness standards; 

3 "(E) reimbursement of, or donations to, 

4 the pilot in command of the airplane or heh5 copter does not exceed the total cost of owning, 

6 operating, and maintaining the aircraft for that 

7 flight, which may include fuel, oil, airport ex8 penditures, rental fees, insurance, and mainte9 nance; 

10 "(F) a private pilot acting as pilot in com11 mand has at least 500 hours of flight time; 

12 "(G) the flight is conducted in accordance 

13 with apphcable Federal Aviation Administration 

14 safety regulations; and 

15 ^'(H) the pilot in command maintains a 

16 record with the Federal Aviation Admioistra17 tion that shows that the pilot is in compliance 

18 with aJl apphcable Federal Aviation Administra19 tion regulations. 

20 " (3) CLASSIFICATION OF CHARITABLE 

21 PLIGHTS.—^Any flight meeting the requirements. 

22 under paragraph (2) shall not be considered to be a 

23 flight for compensation or hire for purposes of the 

24 Federal Aviation Administration.". 

<s 3553 IS i";:;;btt V -

Exhibit 1 J^ags-^f • ^'-^^L -

Page 21 of 22 
1 (b) RULEMAKING.—The Administrator of the Fed2 eral Aviation Administration shall promulgate regulations 

3 to carry out the amendment made by subsection (a). 

O 

•S 3553 IS 

Exhibit 1 

Page 22 of 22 

^age_J7^'^--^ 
) ) 

LAW OFFICES 

BIRCH, HORTON, BITTNER AND CHEROT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

1127 WEST SEV^rfTM AVENUE • ANCHORAGE, ALASKA BBS01-$301 • TELEPHONE (007) 276-1550 • (600) 47S-1550 • FACSIMILE (907)278-3680 

lUL R. HOniDN (tM4 - < Ml ) 

ROMtLDO. MKH " 

VVUMKH. 1171101 

SUZANNE OCKT r 

MMUW.COOK 

JOHM.DGVOftEowRLE* R. taeu r 

cRSGomra.piMCH 

JOSEPHS HACK 

DOUGU«S.FUU£R' 

WWD.aMNEf t 

TPHMOROVER 

VWJJMI P. HGHN* 

STtPtCN R HUFCHIM3S 

CMNCLC.IUrT 

THCHUriaiMOE R 

CMMOCLMIPPV 

STANLEY T.ICWI* 

JWGB K LVIErrt t 

amaairrKmjja i 

MOWS . J. nuus E 

TUOTHT J. PETUtCNOe 

ClMMBETH K ROU " 

HDU.V C. aUQZZO 

OFCOJNBEl: 

JEMfFBR a ALEWNDER 

KEMETHE.VAS5iUt 

1135 CCNtCCnCUT AW.. NW. 

MJTEIBW 

WMII—fTOHPLC WK * 

OBONHn o 

FACaUBf {• « Sas-1037 

- D.C.IAR 

- 0£.AM>AUaCAH R 

t HUtVLAtBK M 

« MRaiNHBMt 

A U OTMBW MASKA BAR 

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL (907) 2S3-7286 • WRFTtR'S DIRECT FAX (907) 276-3680 • afnmerftbhbcwn 

March 20. 2009 

U.S, Department of Transportation CERTIFIED MAIL 

Docket Operations. M-30 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

West Building ground floor, 

RoomW12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: Iditarod Air Force - Request for Extension of Exemption No. 9010 

BHBC File No. 999.999.9196 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

This responds to the FAA's February 23, 2008 postcard notification and request 

that I let you know by March 25 if my client, the Iditarod Trail Committee and the 

"Iditarod Air Force" ("lAF"), is seeking to extend Exemption No. 9810 (Regulatory 

Docket No, FAA-2008-1246). Please know that the answer is "yes," my client does 

hereby apply to extend the exemption, preferably for five years. 

Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 11, and in particular 14 CFR 11.81, I am providing the 

FAA with the following information. I am also providing a complete copy of our 

November 6, 2008 petition (including attachn^ents and our January 7, 2009 

supplemental information), and the FAA's Exemption No. 9810 (Exhibits 1, 2 and 3). 

(a) Your name and mailing address and, if vou wish, other contact 

information such as a fax number, telephone number, or e-mail address. 

Gregory A. Miller 

Birch, Horton, Bittner & Cherot 

1127 West 7th Avenue 

Anchorage, Alaska 99501 

(907)276-1550 

(907) 276-3680 (facsimile) 

gmilfer@bhb.com 

F:^99BB09\S1W\OOO4e424 DOC 

Exhibit 2 

Page 1 of 4 
BIRCH, HORTON, BITTNER AND CHEROT 

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation 

Document Operations. M-30 

March 20, 2009 

Page 2 

(b) The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which vou seek an 

exemption. 

14 CFR 61.113(a) and 14 CFR 119.21(a)(1). 

(c) The extent of relief you seek, and the reason vou seek the relief. 

We seek the same terms and conditions as stated in Exemption No. 9810, 

excepting that we request the expiration date be extended to April 30, 2014. The 

reasons are also the same as set out in our November 6, 2008 and January 7, 2009 

petition, and at pages 1-5 of the FAA's Exemption No. 9810. 

(d) The reasons why granting vour request would be in the public 

interest: that is, how it wouM benefit the public as a whole. 

The reasons why granting the extension would be in the public's interest 

are the same as stated by the FAA at pages 4-5 of its Exemption No. 9810. We agree 

with the FAA's analysis, and nothing has changed factually that would in tum alter that 

analysis. Rather than repeat that analysis, a copy of Exemption No. 9810 is attached 

hereto. 

(e) The reasons whv granting the exemption would not adversely affect 

safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that 

provided by the rule from which vou seek the exemption. 

Here too, the lAF continues to agree with the analysis set forth by the 

FAA, at pages 4-5 of Exemption No. 9810, regarding the lAF's operations being at least 

as safe (and in the lAF's mind, far safer) than operations would be without the 

exemption. Nothing has changed factually in this respect, either, that would alter that 

analysis. 

(f) A summary we can publish in the Federal Register, stating: 

(1) The rule from which you seek the exemption: and 

(2) A brief description of the nature of the exemption vou seek. 

"A five year exemption is sought by the Iditarod Trail Committee and the 

'Iditarod Air Force' as to 14 CFR 61.113(a) and 14 CFR 119.21(a)(1). for the Iditarod Air 

Force to continue flying support under 14 CFR Part 91 for the 1,100 mile Iditarod dog 

race in Alaska. Exemptions have been granted for the 2008 and 2009 races. The 

Exhibit 2 

(F\999999\9196\00W9424.DOC} PSQe 2 Of 4 
BIRCH. HORTON. BITTNER AND CHEROT 

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation 

Document Operations. M-30 

March 20, 2009 

Page 3 

exemption would pemnit the volunteer pilots to continue accepting gas, oil, insurance, 

food and minimal housing during the race, including the pre- and post-race staging 

efforts." 

(g) Any additional information, vievys or arguments available to support 

vour request 

Since the prior petition and Exemption adequately set forth the 

infomnatbn, views and arguments, nothing further is believed needed at this time. 

(h) If vou want to exercise the privileges of vour exemption outside the 

United States, the reason whv vou need to do so. 

No, the lAF does not wish to exercise the privileges of the exemption 

outside the U.S. 

Thank you. I welcome your calls, as well as those from anyone else at the FAA. 

Very truly yours, 

BIRCH, HORTON, BITT(NER & CHEROT 

GAMismi 

Enclosures 

cc: Ms. Angela Elgee (Anchorage FSDO Division Manager) (w/encl.) 

Mr. Hugh McLaughlin (Anchorage FSDO Assistant Division Manager) (w/encl.) 

Mr. Howard Martin (FAA Regional Counsel) (w/encl.) 

Mr. Stan Hooley (Executive Director, Iditarod Trail Committee) (w/encl.) 

Mr. John Norris (Chief Pilot, Iditarod Air Force) (w/encl.) 

Exhibit 2 

iF:\999999\9]96\00M9424.DOC} naQ B O O l 4 
BIRCH, HORTON, BITTNER AND CHEROT 

A PROFE&SIOHAL CORPORATION 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation 

Document Operations, M-30 

March 20, 2009 

Page 4 

bcc: Senator Lisa Murkowski (w/encl.) 

Zach Olson (w/encl.) 

Exhibit 2 

(r\W9999W196\0004M24JX>C J PSge 4 Of 4 
Exemption No. 9810 "ECE/VED 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ^^ B - ^ pQnQ 

>ARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 5:- ^ 

iRAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Bittn^A^ ^ 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 *'"*Cherof 

In the matter of the petition of 

IDITAROD AIR FORCE 

for an exemption from §§ 61.113(a) 

and 119.21(a)(1) 

ofTitIel4,Codeof 

Federal Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-1246 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated November 6,2008, and supplemental infonnation dated January 7, 2009, 

Gregory A. Miller, Esq., Birch, Horton, Bittner, and Cherot, Counsel for Iditarod Air Force 

(lAF), 1127 West Seventh Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, petitioned the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of lAF for an exemption from §§ 61.113(a) and 

119.21(a)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if 

granted, would allow the petitioner and the aircraft operators to accept monetary and nonmonetary compensation in return for transportation of people or property and the use of fuel, 

food, and equipment either purchased by the Iditarod Trail Committee (Committee)/IAF or 

otlttrwise made by private donations. 

The petitioner requests relief from the followiiig regulations: 

Section 61.113(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that DO person ^^o holds a private pilot 

certiflcate may act as 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. 

Section 119.21(a)(1) prescribes, in pertinent part, that each person who conducts 

airplane operations as a commercial operator engaged in intrastate common carriage of 

persons or property for compensation or hire in air commerce, or as a direct air carrier, 

shall comply with the certification and operations specifications requirements in 

AFS-09-062-E 

Exhibit 3 

Page 1 of 7 
subpart C of this part, and shall conduct its domestic operations in accordance with the 

applicable requirements of part 121 of this chapter and shall be issued operations 

specifications for those operations. However, based on a showing of safety in air 

commerce, the Administrator may permit persons who conduct domestic operations 

between any point located in the State of Alaska to comply with the requirements 

applicable to flag operations contained in subpart U of part 121 of this chapter. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

The petitioner requests a grant of exemption, similar to Exemption No. 9619 issued last 

year, to permit the lAF to continue flying in support of the Iditarod dog sled race. The 

petitioner proposes two new conditions that address the length of the exemption and to 

define precisely what flights the lAF can conduct pursuant to this exemption. 

The petitioner states the FAA previously inquired whether the lAF could reduce its 

carriage of certain passengers by using local part 135 operators. To do its job, the lAF 

needs to transport not just dogs and straw but also mushers, volunteers, veterinarians, 

etc. The petitioner acknowledges that the carriage of media personnel remains in 

question. 

The petitioner mainteuns that the lAF is far safer than any part 135 operators who may 

desire to make these same flights. The lAF has thousands of Iditarod-specific flying 

hours that span two decades. In the past, the petitioner has carried two of the 

Committee* s licensees (Original Productions/Discovery Charmel and Versus) and the 

Committee*s own media staff. Of the total 1,486 flights made by the lAF last year, 58 

flights were conducted for Original Productions/Discovery Channel and Versus 

combmed. Original Productions/Discovery Channel had 19 people; of these 19, the 

lAF flew 15 at one time or another (others moved by snowmachine, were based only in 

Anchorage, or otherwise did not fly by small plane). Versus's crew totaled three 

people, and the lAF flew all three of them at one time or another. 

The lAF and the Committee agree that 100 percent of these Original 

Production/Discovery Channel and Versus flights will not be flown by the LAF under 

part 91 and/or this exemption and, instead, that certificated part 135 operators will carry 

these people. Pursuant to the Committee's contract with these two organizations, it is 

required to provide these crews with housing and logistical support, including air 

transportation for up to three people per day along the race route. The petitioner will 

attempt to locate part 135 operators willing to carry these two production company 

members, even though the Committee will likely have to pay for that transportation. If 

a local part 135 operator is not available or economically reasonable, the petitioner will 

use its pilots who possess a valid part 135 certificate and all such flights will be 

operated under part 135. The petitioner states that five lAF pilots have submitted 

applications to the FAA to become single pilot part 135 operators, and once those 

certificates are issued, these pilots could carry the two production crews for 100 percent 

Exhibit 3 

Page 2 of 7 
of the race. The lAF pilots will not resort to using its part 135 privileges, however, 

unless a local part 135 operator is unavailable or not economically reasonable. Hie lAF 

will also keep records of its solicitations to part 135 operators for such non-essential 

flight and produce such records upon request by the FAA. 

The petitioner states that its media personnel are vital to the Iditarod. The Committee's 

media personnel are treated and deemed the same as race officials, veterinarians, etc. 

The petitioner states it is essential that it be able to fly with lAF pilots. The 

Committee's mission is to preserve the sport of mushing and to stage the world's 

premier dog sled race along the historic Iditarod Trail. The petitioner accomplishes 

much of its mission through the media staff. The staff films the race, provides Webbased products for the race fans, and produces a 90-minute documentary each year. 

During last year's race, the Committee's media crew was comprised of 11 people. Like 

all other Iditarod crews, these people "lived" the race, slept on floors with volunteers, 

etc. Neither the lAF nor the Committee sell the media staff space on any lAF plane. 

The media crew is to document the race, flying is an "incidental" to getting where the 

documentation takes places. To eliminate any confusion, the petitioner proposes the 

following language as an condition for the exemption. 

"lAF pilots holding at least a commercial or airline transport pilot license and a 

current second class medical may carry not only inanimate objects and animals 

but also veterinarians, race officials, mushers, volunteers, Iditarod Insider 

Crew, and similar people. Non-essential crew such as Original 

Production/Discovery Chaimel and Versus shall not be carried pursuant to this 

exemption, although such non-essential crew may be carried by lAF pilots who 

otherwise hold and operate such flight (s) pursuant to a valid part 135 

certificate. The lAF will also keep records of its solicitations to part 135 

operators for such non-essential flights and produce siKh records upon request 

by the FAA." 

The petitioner states the FAA has discussed the possibility of requiring each plane 

used by the lAF to undergo a 125-hour inspection. The petitioner states that this 

presents two problems. First, some of the pilots fly at least this much during the race 

itself, and it is not feasible to require the aircraft to undergo a mid-race inspection. 

Second, many of the pilots have already undergone an aimual inspection and logged 

hours on his or her plane and requiring additional inspection mid-cycle would impose 

a large economic burden, while not advancing safety. The petitioner suggests the 

following two solutions: (I) Do not create a new condition of the exemption for any 

inspections beyond the requirement for an annual inspection; or (2) require an 

inspection in the prior 200 flight-hours (not 125 hours). 

Exhibit 3 

Page 3 of 7 
In addition to the proposed language above, the petitioner proposes a 5-year exemption 

to allow for resolution of a closely related issue, nonprofit 'inercy flights." Since 2007, 

certain nonprofit flights have been authorized by § 91.146. lAF flights are not for 

profit, but this regulation applies only to flights that begin and end at the same place 

and only if the flights are limited in number. The petitioner states that Alaska Senator 

Lisa Murkowski introduced a bill to slightly expand this scope. lAF contends that if 

Congress passes the bill or the FAA expands § 91.146, this should permanently resolve 

the lAF situation. Thepetitioner strongly supports Senator Mukowski's bill. The 

petitioner believes that a 5-year exemption would allow either Congress or the FAA to 

resolve the issue. The petitioner states it is its understanding that the FAA is 

considering a 3-year exemption. The petitioner asserts that there would be no downside 

to granting a 5-year exemption because (1) safety would not be compromised during the 

additional 2-year period and (2) the exemption would be shortened iC^when Congress 

and/or the FAA resolve the mercy flight issue through rewriting of the regulation (or 

passage of a statute). The petitioner proposes the following language for this condition. 

"This exemption shall continue for five years, unless the FAA (a) further 

extends this exemption, or (b) the lAF flights are encompassed within the 

regulations that are the result of rewriting § 91.146." 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal 

Register publication because the exemption, if granted, would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to lAF. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has considered fully the petitioner's request and supportive information and finds 

that a grant of exemption would be in the public interest would provide an equivalent level of 

safety to that provided by the regulation. 

In evaluating the petition, the FAA has considered that without the air transportation support 

of the lAF the Iditarod race could not be safely or efficiently conducted. The FAA 

understands that this is largely because many, if not most, of the current part 135 operators in 

Alaska are seasonal and are not capable of effectively and safely supporting this year's race. 

The FAA also understands that canceling this year's race would create an economic hardship 

for many communities in Alaska and, in fact, for the entire State. The FAA, therefore, finds 

the public interest is served by allowing the safe conduct of the 2009 Iditarod race. 

The FAA has reviewed the petitioner's request and believes the petitioner has made a diligent 

effort to operate under part 135 in support of the race. However, the petitioner has 

encountered many obstacles. In order to carry passengers, &e petitioner attempted to obtain a 

part 135 certificate but was unsuccessful. Reportedly, six lAF pilots began the application 

process; however, they encountered difficulty regarding possible work conflict. These 

difficulties included conditions of hire and other contractual obligations with air carriers for 

whom they work. 

Exhibit 3 

Page 4 of 7 
The FAA recognizes that lAF pilots for the most part work full-time elsewhere, not only 

with other air carriers. As acquiring necessary certificates and maintaining currency is 

time consuming, two pilots withdrew. In addition, two pilots reported insufficient time to 

acquire certificates prior to the race. 

The FAA further recognizes the petitioner's attempt to contract area part 135 an- carriers; 

nonetheless, it was unsuccessfiil. Most operate seasonally (summer), refuse to operate offairport, or refuse to remain with the volunteers for the sometimes required 11 days 

sleeping on floors. 

In evaluating whether a grant of exemption to the petitioner would provide a level of 

safety equivalent to that of the regulations, the FAA considered the positive steps that the 

petitioner has made toward meeting part 135 safety standards. These include developing 

extensive flight training, inspecting its aircraft before the race by mechanics holding 

inspection authorizations, developing a hazardous materials training program, and drafting 

an operations manual. Further, the FAA finds that the lAF has many years of experience 

in safely coordinating and supervising these flight operations. The FAA also understands 

that operational control by certificated operators/carriers, without time for proper planning 

and coordination, would create considerable added risk. 

The lAF requested a 5-year exemption. The FAA has determined that a multiple year 

exemption would not be appropriate. Given the nature of the operations and the potential 

for change in certificated operator status, this exemption, with its particular conditions and 

limitations, is appropriate for the 2009 Iditarod race only. While the FAA has determined 

that the exemption with its conditions and limitations will provide an equivalent level of 

safety, it should be noted that the lAF is encouraged to take additional steps to continue to 

move closer to part 135 standards, such as creating more formal pilot records. 

The FAA believes that operations under the conditions and limitations stipulated in this 

exemption will preserve an equivalent level of safety. Therefore, the FAA finds that a 

grant of exemption for the Committee/IAF and pilots allowing them to accept monetary 

and non-monetary compensation in return for transportation of people or property is in the 

public interest. 

The FAA*s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, 1 find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Therefore, pursuant to die authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to 

me by the Administrator, Iditarod Air Force is granted an exemption fiom 14 CFR 

§§61.113(a) and 119.21 (a)(l) to the extent necessary to allow the petitioner and die aircraft 

operators identified in Condition and Limitation No. 3 below to accept monetary and nonmonetary compensation in return for transportation of people or property and the use of fuel. 

Exhibit 3 

Page 5 of 7 
food, and equipment either purchased by the Iditarod Trail Committee /lAF or otherwise made 

by private donations, subject to the conditions and limitations listed below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Only U.S.-registered aircraft may be used in these flight operations. 

2. The lAF must maintain a current aircraft listing to include the '*N" registration number 

of each aircraft used by the lAF, including the make-model-series. The list must be 

available for FAA review. 

3. Only those pilots identified in a list provided to and approved by the Anchorage Flight 

Standards District Office (the List) may operate under this exemption. The List must 

include each airman's name, type of FAA airman certificate, and class and date of 

issuance of FAA medical certificate. 

4. A flight following procedure must be implemented for each flight under this 

exemption. 

5. The Committee/IAF and each aircraft owner and operator will assume regulatory 

responsibility ensuring that each aircraft operated under this exemption will have a 

current annual inspection as required by § 91.409(a) at the time of any operation. 

Additionally each aircraft operated under this exemption must have a 125-hour 

inspection. 

6. Private pilot certificate holders identified in the List may only carry inanimate property 

and/or dogs. 

7. Commercial pilot certificate holders and au*line transport pilot certificate holders 

identified in the List who do not possess valid second- or first-class medical 

certificates may conduct operations that include carriage of inanimate property and/or 

dogs; no persons may be carried. Each pilot operating under this paErrhust liofd~at 

least a third-class airman medical certificate. 

8. Passenger-carrying flights are limited to personnel essential to the race (e.g., 

veterinarians or physicians). Said flights must be conducted by pilots holding at least 

a commercial pilot certificate and at least a second-class airman medical certificate. 

Only U.S.-certificated airmen may act as required crewmembers in aircraft operated 

under this exemption. 

9. lAF pilots who are not operating imder part 135 may carry only persotmel whose 

transportation is essential to race operations (such as dog food handlers, medical 

personnel, communications volunteers, etc.). The Committee must identify those 

personnel by name to lAF pilots. The operator of each aircraft operation shall 

maintain a record of each flight and make the same available to the FAA upon request. 

10. Pilots operating under this exemption and under part 135 shall carry only personnel 

essential to race operations. 

Exhibit 3 

Page 6 of 7 
^ 

11. All operations will be conducted under day visual flight rules. No nighttime or 

instrument flight rules operations will be conducted in any operation affected by or 

subject to this exemption. 

12. All passenger-carrying operations conducted under this exemption shall be conducted 

in accordance with part 135 weather minimimis found in § 135.205(a). 

13. All passenger-carrying operations conducted under this exemption shall be conducted 

in fiill compliance wiUi altitude restrictions contained in § 135.203(a)(1). 

14. All personnel affected by, or relying on, this exemption, or included in the List under 

Condition and Limitation No. 3, shall be provided a written copy of the exemption. 

15. A copy of this exemption shall be carried aboard each aircraft operated under this 

exemption. 

16. The Committee/IAF will conduct a one-time briefing on the conditions of the 

exemption for all persons described above before any person commences any flight 

operations conducted under this exemption. 

17. Each passenger will receive a plain-language safety briefing by the pilot before each 

lAF flight, be informed of the exemption, and be notified the flight is not being 

conducted by an FAA certificated air carrier. 

18. The lAF will keep records of its solicitations to part 135 operators and produce such 

records upon request to the FAA. 

This exemption terminates on April 30,2009, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Issuedin Washington, D.C,on January 23 , 2009, 

: m (ijuik^ 

ohn M. Allen 

irector. Flight Standards Service 

Exhibit 3 

Page 7 of 7 
o 

USDeportmem 800 independence Ave.. S.W. 

of iOnspCrlDlion Washington. D.C. 20591 

r I J I- 1 » , ,1 , li i • II 

rvuBrai Mnonon 

AdnMstraHon 

CORRECTED COPY 

This letter corrects the January 29,2010, letter we sent granting your petition. The 

FAA corrected the termination date in the exemption. We have made the correction 

in our records as of February 3, 2010. 

January 29,2010 

Exemption No. 9810A 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-1246 

Gregory A. Miller, Esq. 

Counsel for Iditarod Air Force 

Birch, Horton, Bittner and Cherot 

1127 West 7* Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

Dear Mr. Miller; 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 9810. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the 

revised conditions and limitations. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated March 20,2009, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Iditarod Air Force (lAF) for an extension of Exemption 

No. 9810. That exemption from §61.n3(a) and H9.21(a)(l)ofTitle 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations allows the petitioner and the aircraft operators to accept 

monetary and nonmonetary compensation in return for transportation of people or 

property and the use of fuel, food, and equipment either pim;hased by the Iditarod 

Trail Committee (ITC)/IAF or otherwise made by private donations. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and 

reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the 

original exemption. 

Exhibit 4 

Page 1 of 6 
The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the 

petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption is 

not precedent setting. 

In evaluating the petition, the FAA has considered that without the air transportation 

support of the lAF, the Iditarod race could not be safely or efficienfly conducted. 

The FAA understands that this is largely because many, if not most, of the current 

part 135 operators in Alaska are seasonal and are not capable of effectively and 

safely supporting the race. The FAA also understands that canceling the race would 

create an economic hardship for Alaska. The FAA, therefore, finds the public 

interest is served by allowing this exen^tion for the safe-conduct of the 2010 

through the 2012 Iditarod race. 

Based upon representation made by the lAF, the FAA believes the petitioner made a 

diligent effort to operate with part 13 5 support for the race. lAF attempted to obtain 

its part 135 certificate but was unsuccessful. However, approximately seven lAF 

pilots reportedly have received part 135 single pilot certificates. This has allowed 

the lAF the ability to carry passengers who had been classified in the past two 

exemptions as "non-essential persoimel" (e.g., ESPN film crewmembers). This is 

accomplished by requiring these "non-essential personnel" to be carried only by 

those LAF pilots who are part 135 certificated. 

An equivalent level of safety has been demonstrated by the lAF over the past several 

years. The lAF has made positive movement toward meeting part 135 standards 

such as developing an extensive flight training program, inspecting its aircraft before 

the race by mechanics with inspection authorization, developing a hazmat training 

program, and drafting an operations manual. The FAA also finds that the lAF has 

many years of experience in safely coordinating and supervising these flight 

operations. The FAA understands that operational control by certificated 

operators/air carriers, without time for proper planning and coordination, would 

create considerable added risk. Further, the FAA finds that the lAF has many years 

of experience in safely coordinating and supervising these flight operations. 

The FAA believes that operations under the conditions and limitations stipulated in 

this exemption will provide an equivalent level of safety. Therefore, the FAA finds 

that a grant of exemption for the ITC/IAF and their pilots allowing them to accept 

monetary and nonmonetary compensation in retum for transportation of people or 

property is in the public interest. In your petition, you requested that this exemption 

be granted for 5 years, the FAA finds that it is in the best interest of safety to review 

this exemption in 2 years. As stated above, the lAF has completed some steps 

toward meeting part 135 standards. In anticipation of the continued progression 

toward part 135 standards, we have included milestones that, while they do not 

require completion during this 2-year period, may be considered if further 

extensioiu of this exemption are requested. Considering the rationale for the grant 

Exhibit 4 

Page 2 of 6 
of exemption in the discussion above, this exemption will allow ITC/IAF to perform 

flights fiom February 15 until April 30 each year or until the Iditarod race ends, 

whichever comes first, for that year starting in 2010 and ending in 2012. 

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of 

Exemption No. 9810 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the 

public interest. Therefore, xmder the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 

and 44701, which the FAA Admirustrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, 

subject to the following revised conditions and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. The lAF must produce and submit documents to be accepted by its principal 

operations inspector (POI) according to the time table below: 

a. By February 28, 2010, submit the lAF operational control procedures, 

including, but not limited to, the IAF*s official definition of and the process 

used to identify "authorized passengers" (e.g., ITC personnel essential to the 

race, race volunteers and participants, race officials, mushers, veterinarians 

etc.). 

b. By October 30,2010, submit a flightcrew training program, written in 

accordance with the standards stated in FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards 

Information Management System, volume 3, chapter 19. Any training 

requirement in the guidance the FAA determines is not practical for its 

application shall be addressed by the FAA during the acceptance process. 

The lAF will also meet the recordkeeping requirements as listed in § 

135.63. 

V c. By October 30, 2011, submit a letter of compliance (LOC/Compliance 

Statement) to part 135 as required in FAA Order 8900.1, volume 2, chapter 

4, section 3, phase 3, paragraph 2-398. 

d. By October 30,2012, submit a generzd operations manual (GOM) for 

acceptance in accordance with requirement in § 135.21 and containing the 

infonnation listed in § 135.23. 

e. During the preparation period for, and during the race of, 2014 the lAF will 

be subject to FAA validation of training and checking in accordance with all 

previously accepted documents. At that time, the lAF will meet the 

regulatory standards set forth in part 135. 

2. The lAF must operate to the standard of any FAA-accepted lAF document or 

procedure, or condition/limitation, listed in this exemption, whichever is more 

restrictive. 

Exhibit 4 

Page 3 of 6 
3. The lAF must create and maintain a current aircraft list to include: 

a. the registration number of each aircraft used by the lAF, including the make, 

model and series; 

b. the date of each aircraft^s last armual inspection and the total time of the 

aircraft at its last 100-hour inspection; 

c. the designation of any listed aircraft that may be used in passenger-carrying 

operations; and 

d. the designation of any listed aircraft that may be operated under part 135 

during the same time period that the aircraft is also operating under this 

exemption, including the name of the part 135 operator as shown on its 

certificate. This list must be made available for FAA review upon request. 

4. At the begirming of each race season, the lAF must create and maintain a list 

noting the date and time each individual lAF pilot begins to operate under this 

exemption and the date and time when each iiKlividual lAF pilot is released from 

lAF duty and/or this exemption. This list must be available for FAA review upon 

request. The lAF need not update this list to indicate when a qualified part 135 

lAF pilot "temporarily" stops operating under this exemption to carry passengers 

not identified as "ITC/IAF authorized passengers" (Condition No. 13). 

5. The lAF must create and maintain a current pilot listing to include: 

a. each airman's name; 

b. the grade and number of FAA airman certificates; 

c. the class and date of issuance of each airman's FAA medical certificate; and 

d. each lAF pilot who may also operate under part 135 during the same time 

period he/she is operating under this exemption will be noted on this list. 

This list must be found acceptable by the Anchorage Flight Standards 

District Office (FSDO). 

6. Only U.S.-rcgistered aircraft may be used for any flight conducted under this 

exemption. 

7. The FAA accepted flight following procedure must be implemented for each 

flight conducted under this exemption. 

8. The ITC/IAF and each aircraft owner and operator will ensure each aircraft 

operated imder this exemption will have a current annual inspection as required 

by § 91.409(a) at the time of any operation. Also the ITC/IAF and each aircraft 

owner and operator must ensure each aircraft operated under this exemption that 

Exhibit 4 

Page 4 of 6 
6 

carries passengers have a current lOO-hour inspection during all operations under 

this exemption. 

9. Private pilot certificate holders identified in the list (Condition No. 5) may only 

cany cargo and/or dogs. 

10. Each pilot operating under this exemption must hold at least a valid third-class 

airman medical certificate. Coirmiercial or airline transport pilot certificate 

holders identified in the list (Condition No. 5) who do not possess valid second 

or first-class medical certificates are limited to the privileges or authorizations 

afforded private pilots. 

11. Passenger-carrying flights operating under this exemption are limited to 

"authorized passengers" (Condition No. 1). These passenger-carrying flights 

must be conducted by lAF pilots holding at least a commercial pilot certificate 

and at least a valid second class medical certificate. The ITC must identify all 

"authorized passengers" by name to lAF pilots. 

12. The operator of each aircraft operated under this exemption shall maintain a 

record of each flight, including the name of each passenger, and make that 

record available to the FAA upon request. 

13. Only lAF pilots qualified under part 135 (air carrier/operator) are allowed to 

carry passengers not identified by the ITC as "ITC/IAF authorized passengers" 

during the time periods they are listed as operating under this exemption 

(Condition No. 4). These "other than ITC/IAF authorized passengers" flights 

must be conducted in accordance with part 135 and the air carrier/operator's 

operation specifications. All lAF flights conducted by part 135 qualified pilots 

will be conducted in accordance with flight time and duty rules of § 135.267. 

14. Any lAF pilot who is subject to fight and duty time limitations will log all lAF 

flight time as "other commercial flying." 

15. All lAF operations will be conducted under day visual flight mles. No nighttime 

or instrument flight operation will be conducted in any operation subject to this 

exemption. 

16. All operations conducted under this exemption shall be conducted in accordance 

with the visibility requirements of § 135.205(a). 

17. All operations conducted under this exemption shall be conducted in accordance 

with the minimum altitudes of § 135.203(a)(1). 

Exhibit 4 

Page 5 of 6 
18. All persoimel affected by or relying on this exemption, including all listed lAF 

pilots (Condition No. 5), shall be provided a written copy of the exemption. 

19. A copy of this exemption shall be carried aboard each aircraft operating under 

this exemption. 

20. The rrC/IAF will conduct a briefing on the conditions of this exemption to all 

persons affected by or relying on this exemption before any person commences 

any flight operations conducted under this exemption. 

21. Each passenger will receive a plain language safety briefing by the pilot before 

each lAF flight, be informed of the exemption, and be notified that the flight is 

not being conducted by an FAA-certificated air carrier. This briefing will include 

the standards listed in § 135.117. 

22. The lAF will keep records of its solicitations to part 135 operators (including 

certified part 135 lAF pilots) and produce such records upon request to the FAA. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9810 to April 30,2012, 

unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

This letter must be attached to, and is a part of. Exemption No. 9810. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John M. Allen 

Director, Flight Standards Service 

Exhibit 4 

Page 6 of 6