P.O. Box 700548, Dallas, Texas 75370-0548 (972) 725-9000

 FAX (972) 725-9090 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

February 19, 2013

Subject Petition for Exemption from 121.1115

Model: B-737-200 Advanced

S/N: 22732

Line#: 877

This letter is a request for an exemption from 14 CFR Part 121.1115

A. Name and Address of the Petitioner

Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc, dba Ameristar Charters

4400 Glenn Curtiss Drive

Addison, Tx 75001

B. Section of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) that are Affected 14 CFR part 121.1115 Amendment. 121-351 (121.1115)

Where it states in part: “Limit of validity. No certificate holder may operate an airplane identified in paragraph (a) of this section after the applicable date identified in Table 1 of this section unless an Airworthiness Limitations section approved under Appendix H to part 25 or § 26.21 of this chapter is incorporated into its maintenance program.”

C. The Extent of Relief Being Sought Ameristar respectfully requests it be allowed to continue to operate one specific aircraft, a Boeing 737-200 Advanced, N733TW and Boeing Serial Number 22732 (N733TW) listed in Paragraph D085 of its current Operations Specifications.

D. Why Relief is Being Sought Ameristar is requesting relief from the existing ru le due to the fact that Boeing just recently (January 2013) indicated that they would not support the engineering data to substantiate a Limit of Validity (LOV) beyond that called out in the FAA’s final rule – Docket ID FAA-2006-24281 (See Figure 3 page 69768). Ameristar depended on Boeing to continue to support its aircraft to comply with the Limit of Validity (LOV). If Ameristar had known that Boeing would not support its aircraft, it would have attempted to find an alternative aircraft and begin the process of placing the new aircraft on its certificate. Boeing’s decision to discontinue its support of Ameristar’s aircraft coupled with the amount of time it would take to find a replacement aircraft and place that aircraft on its certificate is improbable in the time left stated in the rule. In addition, Ameristar believes that the rule specifically considered that low utilization aircraft, such as N733TW, would not be required to comply with the 121.1115.Exemption Request from 14 CFR Part 121.1115 Page 2 February 18, 2013

E. Description of the Issue The rationale for 121.1115 is to prevent Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD) to a metallic structure when the structure is subjected to repeated loads, such as the pressurization and depressurization that occurs with every flight of an airplane. Over time this fatigue damage results in cracks in the structure, and the cracks may begin to grow together. WFD is the simultaneous presence of fatigue cracks at multiple structural locations that are of sufficient size and density that the structure will no longer meet the residual strength requirements of Sec. 25.571(b).

Ameristar understands that the primary intent of 121.1115 was to amend FAA regulations pertaining to certification and operation of transport category airplanes to prevent widespread fatigue damage in those airplanes. For certain existing airplanes, the rule requires design approval holders to evaluate their airplanes to establish a limit of validity of the engineering data that supports the structural maintenance program (LOV). Design approval holders and applicants must demonstrate that the airplane will be free from widespread fatigue damage up to the LOV. The rule requires that operators of any affected airplane incorporate the LOV into the maintenance program for that airplane.

F. Arguments Ameristar currently operates its B737-200 in a ni che market serving primarily college teams and private charters within the contiguous U.S. on an ad hoc basis. The data and information below describes the utilization, maintenance schedules and current state of N733TW.

1. This aircraft has a very low utilization rate with a current “C” Check interval of 24 months. The following times substantiate this low utilization:

Total Flight Hours Since September of 2005: 2511 Total Cycles since September of 2005: 1495 Yearly average hours: 334 Yearly average cycles: 199 Hours Flown February 1, 2012 through February 1, 2013 332 Cycles per year February 1, 2012 through February 1, 2013 215

In context, this means that a “C” check is conducted with less than 800 flight hours and 450 cycles. This is approximately 26% of the hours and 23% of the cycles that would be expected in a normal “C” Check with a schedul ed air carrier. The FAA’s NPRM, dated April 18, 2006, Docket FAA-2006-24281 page 19934, indicates more of concern for the scheduled carriers vs an aircraft with low utilization, such as Ameristar’s B-737, where it

states:

“...the group of airplanes of most concern is that group operating under parts 121 and 129. Because carriers in scheduled operations fly airplanes operated under those parts, they are flown more often than other airplanes of comparable size and are accordingly more likely to develop WFD. Thus, this proposal would exclude airplanes over 75,000 pounds that are not operated under parts 121 or

129...”

2. The Boeing Company – Submitted an Anticipated Limit of Validity Data for the B737-200 of 85,000 cycles and 100,000 hours. See letter to Docket FAA-2006-24281-0084, dated

march 23, 2009.Exemption Request from 14 CFR Part 121.1115 Page 3 February 18, 2013

3. In the Final Rule (Docket FAA-2006-24281 beginning at page 69750) previous aircraft incidents and accidents that involved WFD were discussed, specifically:

a. April 1988, when an 18-foot-long section of the upper fuselage of a Boeing Model 737 airplane separated from the airplane during flight. The airplane, operated by Aloha Airlines, was en route from Hilo to Honolulu, Hawaii, at 24,000 feet. At the time of the accident, the airplane had accumulated 89,680 flight cycles and 35,496 flight hours. Contrasted with Ameristar’s aircraft that is well below the Aloha’s number cycles and is also below the number of hours and cycles in Boeings anticipated LOV. Aloha’s operation in an exclusively salt water rich environment, coupled with the lack of maintenance programs that exist today (See Paragraph F.5. below, Ameristar’s aircraft is not even remotely in the same category as this accident aircraft.

b. References to aircraft found with WFD along a lap joint (a B727 and B-737) is also not representative of Ameristar’s aircraft since there are no longer suspect lap joints on the aircraft due to compliance with AD 2002-07-08, incorporating Boeing SB 737-

53A1177.

4. Ameristar’s B737 has had no major alterations to the original design – no doors, windows, cargo doors/floors, no increase in design ZFW, Gross weight or other initial operating conditions from original design.

5. Ameristar’s B737 has been subject to numerous maintenance programs and repetitive Airworthiness Directives that are directly related to the promulgation of 121.1115. These repairs, inspections and programs include:

a. A Corrosion Prevention and Control Program (CPCP), based on Boeing document# D6-38528, is in place to comply with the intent of AD 90-25-01 for inspection procedures, compliance times and reporting requirements. b. An Aging Aircraft Inspection accomplished July 10, 2007. Repetitive due July 2014. c. Compliant with the Repair Assessment Guidelines. Based upon Boeing document D6-38669 and mandated by FAR 121.1107, this program is in place to repetitively inspect structural areas of the fuselage pressure boundary. d. Compliant with the Structural Significant Inspection Program (SSIP) mandated by AD 98-11-04 for the required Damage Tolerance Rating (DTR) for each Structural Significant Item (SSI) listed in Boeing document D6-37089. e. Compliant with the Damage Tolerance Assessments for repairs and/or alterations to Primary Structural Elements (PSE’s) of the aircraft structure. f. All required repetitive Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) is current.

6. Current status of aircraft

a. Boeing factory lap joints required repair/termination by AD 97-22-07 (superseded by AD 2002-07-08) in accordance with Southwest Airlines Aircraft Change Order# 7143- 53, based on Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177. b. Suspect lap joints at S-4L and S-4R were removed from the aircraft structure between body stations 360 and 908. Fillers were installed with doublers and triplers installed on top of the fillers, joining the upper and lower skin panels. c. Suspect lap joints at S-10L, S-10R, S-14L and S-14R were removed from the aircraft structure between body stations 360 to 540 and 727 to 908. Fillers were installed with doublers and triplers installed over the fillers, joining the upper and lower skin panels.

7. N733TW is not routinely operated in a rich salt water environment such as coastal and offshore areas.Exemption Request from 14 CFR Part 121.1115 Page 4 February 18, 2013

G. Statement of Public Interest Ameristar provides service in a niche market that is well suited for this specific aircraft and at a

cost and benefit to those customers that it serv es. Ameristar can continue to provide existing customers an aircraft at prices that they expec t and reliable service that this aircraft has provided them. It is also in the public interest to provide service on an aircraft that is operated under the highest standards of 14 CFR Part 121 vs. this aircraft being operated under 14 CFR part 125 1

(Part 125) with a similar amount of hours and cycles that Ameristar currently operates on a yearly basis. N733TW, if this exemption is approved, would continue to be inspected and maintained under all of the current programs, stated in Paragraph F.5. of this petition, providing inspection intervals, in relationship to cycles and hours, at a fraction of those of aircraft operated by

scheduled carriers.

H. Statement of No Adverse Effect on Safety The data presented in this petition strongly suggests that there would be no adverse effect on safety and in fact would provide a wider margin of safety for the following reasons:

1. Due to the low utilization of this aircraft, both cycles and hours, the intervals for major inspections is significantly less than envisioned in the NPRM and final rules for Part 121.1115. This is consistent with the FAA’s own analysis of low utilization aircraft such as those aircraft operated under the authority of Part 125 in a non-scheduled environment.

2. The Department of Transportation’s and FAA’s current position allows a Part 125 air

operator to serve numerous customers 2 . If this exemption is not granted, Ameristar would more than likely sell this aircraft to a Part 125 air operator. The introduction of service for this aircraft by a Part 125 air operator will lessen the FAA oversight, decrease the number of regulatory layers and overall decrease the level of safety currently required by operation of this aircraft under 14 CFR Part 121. Allowing the requested relief, will maintain the current levels of safety that are currently in place with this aircraft.

3. Low cycles and utilization compared with a scheduled carrier or even an all-cargo carrier that flies consolidated freight.

4. Ameristar would propose that this exemption, if approved, would limit it to no more than 500 hours and 300 cycles in any calendar year.

I. Summary of Petition Ameristar respectfully requests that this petition for exemption be approved based upon the foregoing information.

J. Request for Reduced Comment Period Due to the time sensitive nature of this request, Ameristar respectfully requests that the public comment period be kept as short as permissible.

1 14 CFR part 125 operators are not required to comply with the LOV, do not require the management structure of a 14 CFR Part 121 air carrier, no economic authority requi red, significantly less FAA surveillance, no drug program, no restrictions on pilot age, limited flight and duty ti me restrictions (can fly over 8 hours in a duty period), pilot and flight attendant training requirements are signif icantly less stringent, and operat ional control procedures are also significantly less.

2 See DOT’s The Role Of Air Charter Brokers In Arranging Air Transportation , dated October 8, 2004 http://www.dot.gov/airconsumer/Role-of-air-charter-brokers

.Exemption Request from 14 CFR Part 121.1115 Page 5 February 18, 2013

K. Privileges of this Exemption Outside the United States Per the requirements of §11.83, Ameristar requests that the relief granted by this exemption remain in effect for operations outside of the United States to include those areas of operations specified in its Operations Specifications Paragraph B050 (North America, South America,

islands in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean.

Your consideration of this exemption petition is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely

Pat Hulsey Director of Operations Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc.