AFS-10-028-E 

September 12, 2014 

 Exemption No. 11053 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0966 

Mr. James Bowman 

Director of Operation 

FedEx Express 

3131 Democrat Road 

Building C, Suite C112 

Memphis, TN 38118 

Mr. Jeff Kilmer 

Executive Chairman, Pilot Assistance Committee 

Air Line Pilots Association, International 

1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW. 

Washington, DC 20036 

Dear Messrs. Bowman and Kilmer: 

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our 

decision and explains its basis. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated October 13, 2009, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of FedEx Express (FedEx) and Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) for an 

exemption from § 121.333(c)(3) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the 

extent necessary to allow FedEx and ALPA to have one pilot to leave his or her station at the 

controls of the airplane when operating at flight altitudes above flight level (FL) 250, while 

the remaining pilot at the controls could remove their oxygen mask from the stowage unit and 

have it in his or her lap until the other pilot has returned to his or her duty station. 

Initially, the FAA interpreted your ‘request to suspend the regulations’ as a request for 

rulemaking. However, it was determined subsequently that this request was the equivalent of 
2 

a petition for exemption since it was asking only for a suspension of the regulations and not a 

change in the regulations. 

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

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting 

on this petition would be detrimental to FedEx and ALPA. 

The FAA issued a denial of exemption to a separate December 17, 2009 petition from FedEx 

Express in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in this petition. In 

Denial of Exemption No. 10136 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that a grant of exemption 

would not provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided under the current regulation. If 

an emergency were to occur when one pilot has left the flight deck, the remaining pilot would 

have to immediately initiate and accomplish multiple tasks that would otherwise be 

accomplished by two pilots working in coordination with one another. Therefore, it is critical 

that a lone pilot have his or her oxygen in use. Further, the FAA found that the operational 

safety risk of rapid decompression to the flying public by a single pilot not wearing the 

oxygen mask outweighs the risk of a single pilot catching a life-threatening communicable 

disease. 

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

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Denial 

of Exemption No. 10136; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 10136 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

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

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, FedEx Express and Air Line Pilots Association is denied 

an exemption from 14 CFR 121.333(c)(3). If you continue to believe that the regulation 

should be changed, you may submit a petition for rulemaking. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John S. Duncan 

Director, Flight Standards Service 

Enclosure