AFS

- 14

- 353

- E 

## Corrected Copy

This letter corrects the May 7 , 2015, letter denying your petition for Exemption No. 11 496

. The wrong version was inadvertently sent to you and c orrections were made to reflect a more descriptive analysis for the basis of the denial . Below is the amended Exemption No. 11 496 that includes the aforementioned changes. We have made the correction in our records as of May 11 , 2015.

May 7, 2015

Exemption No. 11496 Reg ulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0442

Mr. Richard J. Durden

General Counsel IFL Group, Inc.

6860 South Service Drive Waterford, MI 48327

Dear Mr. Durden:

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

decisio n and explains its basis.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated June 27, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of IFL Group, Inc. (IFLG) for an exemption from § 119.3 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CF R) to the extent necessary to allow IFLG to operate aircraft with a maximum payload capacity greater than 7,500 pounds in all

- cargo service under part 135.

Although you requested relief from § 119.3, that section has been redesignated to § 110.2.

The red esignation was included in the “Operations Specifications” final rule published in the Federal Register on February 10, 2011 (76 FR 7482 ).2

In your petition for exemption, you reference Exemption No. 8480, wherein such an exemption was granted. The FAA fi nds that the circumstances are not sufficiently similar. In the case of Exemption No. 8480, the relief sought by the petitioner pertained to its Embraer

EMB

- 120 aircraft and was relatively minor compared to your request. In that case, the petitioner sough t, and was granted, a payload increase only to allow the difference between basic operating weight plus the crew and the aircraft’s certificated maximum zero

- fuel weight. For the petitioner’s EMB

- 120 aircraft, this results in a maximum payload increase of approximately 633 pounds above the 7,500 limit. The relatively small increase over the 7,500 payload capacity allowed by Exemption No. 8480 is limited by the size and capacity of the

EMB

- 120 aircraft.

In comparison, IFLG is seeking a far greater inc rease over the regulatory limit of 7,500 pounds than that granted in Exemption No. 8480; nearly an order of magnitude greater. Specifically, IFLG requests to use this exemption for the Convair 580 and Convair 5800, which have a payload capacity far above the 7,500 limit. Therefore, the FAA finds that the rationale for denying previous requests for relief from the 7,500 pound payload limit is applicable to IFLG’s circumstances.

In Denial of Exemption No. 7864 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that if the pe titioner

wanted to conduct all

- cargo operations with an airplane that had a payload capacity greater than 7,500 pounds, it must do so as supplemental operations under part 121. The FAA highlighted that part 121 and part 135 each include a unique set of re quirements that, when taken together, establish the minimum requirements that must be met to ensure safe operations under each part. The FAA found that allowing the petitioner to selectively comply with isolated sections of part 135 and part 121 rather th an complying with all of the applicable requirements of each part would not provide an equivalent level of safety. Further, the FAA found that the petitioner had not articulated how a grant of relief would be appropriate in its particular circumstances as compared to other operators who might wish to operate airplanes with payload capacities greater than 7,500 pounds under part 135.

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 s of Exemption No s

. 8480 and 7684 ;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial s of Exemption

No s

. 8480 and 7684 also apply to the situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption would not be in th e public interest.3

Our Decision

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

Administrator has delegated to me, the petition of IFL Group, Inc. for an exemption from

14 CFR § 11 0.2 is hereby denied.

Sincerely,

/ s/

Michael J. Zenkovich Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service