Proposed Grant of Exemption; Ameriflight, Inc., 6307-6309 [06-1087]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2006 / Notices
Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written
communications relating to the
proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the
public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in
the Commission’s Public Reference
Room. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at
the principal office of the Phlx. All
comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You
should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File
Number SR–Phlx–2006–08 and should
be submitted on or before February 28,
2006.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated
authority.11
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6–1613 Filed 2–6–06; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
[Docket No.: FAA–2005–20109]
Proposed Grant of Exemption;
Ameriflight, Inc.
Federal Aviation
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice; Request for comments.
AGENCY:
erjones on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES
SUMMARY: This notice contains the text
of a proposed grant of exemption from
specified requirements of 14 CFR. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the
public’s awareness of, and participation
in, this aspect of the FAA’s regulatory
activities. Neither publication or this
notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the text of the proposed
exemption is intended to affect the legal
status of the petition or its final
disposition.
Comments must be received on
or before March 9, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments
[identified by Docket Number FAA–
11 17
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:23 Feb 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Comments Invited
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
DATES:
2005–20109] using any of the following
methods:
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
https://dms.dot.gov and follow the
instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
• Governmentwide rulemaking Web
site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Katherine Perfetti, Air Transportation
Division, Flight Standards Service,
Room 831, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone:
(202) 267–3760, e-mail:
Katherine.perfetti@faa.gov.
The FAA invites interested persons to
submit written comments, data, and
views on the agency’s analysis
contained in the proposed grant of
exemption contained below. The most
helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the analysis, explain the
reason for any recommended change,
and include supporting data. We ask
that you send us two copies of written
comments.
We will file in the docket all
comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive
public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed grant of
exemption. The docket is available for
public inspection before and after the
comment closing date. If you wish to
review the docket in person, go to the
address in the ADDRESSES section of this
notice between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. You may also review the
docket using the Internet at the Web
address in the ADDRESSES section.
Privacy Act: Using the search function
of our docket Web site, anyone can find
and read the comments received into
any of our dockets, including the name
of the individual sending the comment
(or signing the comment on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov. Before acting on this
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6307
proposal, we will consider all comments
we receive on or before the closing date
for comments. We will consider
comments filed late if it is possible to
do so without incurring expense or
delay. We may change this proposal in
light of the comments we receive.
If you want the FAA to acknowledge
receipt of your comments on this
proposal, include with your comments
a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on
which the docket number appears. We
will stamp the date on the postcard and
mail it to you.
The Proposal
On January 13, 2005, Mr. John W.
Hazlet, Jr., Vice President of Flight,
Ameriflight, Inc. (Ameriflight)
petitioned the FAA for relief from
§ 119.3 of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) to allow
Ameriflight to operate certain
EMBRAER Brasilia EMB–120 (EMB–
120) airplanes with a maximum payload
capacity greater than 7,500 pounds in
all-cargo service under part 135 rather
than part 121. This petition was denied
on February 4, 2005, because
Ameriflight sought to comply with
certain sections of part 121 instead of
complying with all the applicable
sections of 121. In addition, Ameriflight
did not show how its situation was
different from the general class of
regulated entities. On March 22, and
April 5, 2005, Ameriflight petitioned the
FAA for a reconsideration of Denial of
Exemption No. 8480. The FAA has
reconsidered its position and is
considering granting Ameriflight’s
petition. The FAA is publishing the text
of this proposed grant for comment
because the increase in the payload
capacity for all-cargo operations is a
change to the basic applicability
standards contained in part 119 and
could potentially have broader
applicability to other all-cargo
operations. Further, the part 125/135
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)
has submitted a recommendation on
this subject. That recommendation has
broader applicability and higher
payload capacity limits than proposed
by Ameriflight. The ARC
recommendation is currently under
consideration by the FAA for general
rulemaking action. Although elements
of the ARC’s recommendation were
considered in the FAA’s analysis of this
petition, the FAA’s decision to grant
this exemption is based solely on the
merits of Ameriflight’s petition. The
entire content of the proposed grant of
exemption, including the FAA’s
analysis and conditions and limitations
of the grant follows:
E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM
07FEN1
6308
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2006 / Notices
erjones on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES
The Petitioner Requests Relief From the
Following Regulation
Section 119.3 prescribes, in pertinent
part, that an on-demand operation
means any operation for compensation
or hire that is an all-cargo operation
conducted with airplanes having a
payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or
less.
The Petitioner Supports Its Request
With the Following Information
The petitioner presents additional
information to serve as the basis for a
Grant of Exemption. The petitioner
incorporates the recommendation of
February 24, 2005, Part 125/135
Aviation Rulemaking Committee’s
(ARC) Steering Committee,
‘‘Applicability 32’’ with one dissenting
vote from the Air Line Pilots
Association (ALPA). (Hereafter,
Recommendation Document.)
Ameriflight states that the
Recommendation Document proposes to
increase the maximum payload for part
135 cargo-only operations from the
current 7,500-pound limit to 18,000
pounds, subject to certain requirements
intended to provide an equivalent level
of safety.
The Ameriflight petition includes
equipment, maintenance, and training
requirements, which Ameriflight states
provide a compelling argument in favor
of a Grant of Exemption. This includes
a requirement for a § 135.411(a)(2),
Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance
Program, which Ameriflight states
essentially parallels requirements for
part 121 supplemental operations.
The petitioner presents the following
information. First, Ameriflight states
that it is requesting a payload increase
only to allow the difference between
basic operating weight, plus the crew,
and the aircraft’s certificated maximumzero fuel weight. Ameriflight states the
greatest weight difference this
exemption would permit is only 633
pounds above the current 7,500-pound
payload standard.
Ameriflight states that it has
accumulated more than 18,000 hours in
the EMB–120 in all-weather operations.
This has been accomplished with
perfect safety, while operating seven
EMB–120 airplanes with a reduced
payload capacity under part 135.
Ameriflight states that it is also
important to note that it is permitted to,
and in some cases does, carry the
additional weight increment for which
Ameriflight is petitioning as fuel, rather
than payload. Ameriflight states that
there is clearly no safety issue, because
this total aircraft weight is within the
airplanes’ certificated maximum weight
limits.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:23 Feb 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
A summary of the petition was
published in the Federal Register on
May 16, 2005 (70 FR 25874). One
comment was received.
The Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA) is opposed to
granting the Petition for
Reconsideration. ALPA also opposes
taking part 121 turbo-propeller aircraft
out of part 121 by increasing the weight
from 7,500 pounds and allowing them
to operate in part 135.
ALPA supports the FAA’s original
denial in which the FAA stated that
picking and choosing isolated sections
from each part to comply with would
not provide an equivalent level of
safety. Additionally, ALPA disagrees
with Ameriflight’s claim that a major,
significant change has taken place since
the filing and denial of the original
Petition for Exemption. ALPA asserts
that nothing has changed except an
opinion vote on a recommendation
document in the 135 ARC. Furthermore,
there have been no studies or analyses
completed concerning the proposed
changes.
The FAA’s Proposed Analysis Is as
Follows
In reviewing the Reconsideration of
Denial of Exemption No. 8480, the FAA
has fully evaluated all of Ameriflight’s
supportive information and the
opposing comments submitted by
ALPA.
The FAA finds for the reasons
presented below, the proposed
exemption would be in the public
interest. First, this exemption meets the
equivalent level of safety standard. This
exemption is limited to Ameriflight’s
all-cargo operations in EMB–120
airplanes. This exemption is limited to
an increase of 633 pounds payload
capacity above the part 135 standard of
7,500 pounds and it does not increase
the maximum certificated takeoff weight
of the airplane.
These airplanes must be equipped
with an operable cockpit voice recorder
(CVR), flight data recorder (FDR), traffic
alert and collision avoidance system
(TCAS), ground proximity warning
system (GPWS) and autopilot
navigation. This equipment provides an
equivalency to part 121 supplemental
operations and exceeds part 135
requirements for passenger or all-cargo
operations.
The FAA notes that Ameriflight, in its
original petition of January 13, 2005,
proposed to conduct operations in
which Ameriflight would utilize the
services of a chief inspector and a
director of quality control. Ameriflight
proposed that the chief inspector report
to a director of quality control.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Ameriflight offered to use a voluntary
required inspection item process.
Ameriflight states that it would accept
these practices as a condition upon
which a grant of the proposed
exemption would be predicated. The
FAA finds that Ameriflight must meet
the requirements of § 135.411(a)(2) as a
condition and limitation of this grant.
Ameriflight does not address part 121
flight following in its petition. The FAA
finds that the flight locating
requirements of 135 do not provide an
equivalent standard to part 121.
Ameriflight must institute a flight
following program equivalent to that as
specified in § 121.125 as a condition to
this grant. This will ensure adequate
monitoring of each flight.
The FAA points out that the
Ameriflight petition discussed
transition and initial cadre
considerations. Ameriflight stated that if
this exemption is granted, its employees
will need additional training. It
proposed that flight crewmembers,
flight instructors, check airmen, flight
following personnel, mechanics, and
inspectors qualified under Ameriflight’s
previous authorizations in the same
type of aircraft will have to satisfactorily
complete a training program acceptable
to the Administrator addressing any
differences associated with the
increased weight or additional
equipment installed on the aircraft.
Although not noted by Ameriflight,
these seven airplanes could be operated
in a passenger configuration in ondemand service under part 135 if they
were properly converted. The removal
of passenger seats and furnishings
increases the payload capacity to above
7,500 pounds. It should be noted,
however, that the FAA does not intend
to increase the 7,500-pound payload
capacity applicability standard for ondemand passenger service under part
135; nor does it intend to change the 10
or more passenger seat part 121
applicability standard for scheduled
passenger service.
Second, this exemption serves the
public interest by more efficiently
meeting market demands with a high
degree of safety. Ameriflight has
presented a convincing case that there is
an ever-increasing demand for cargo
operations of this size and classification
of aircraft. Ameriflight would satisfy
that market need with fewer flights than
would be necessary under the weight
limits of part 135. Fewer operations
provide an environmental incentive
through the saving of fuel, reducing air
traffic, and reducing exposure to risk.
Ameriflight holds an air carrier
certificate under part 119 to operate allcargo operations under part 135. It is
E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM
07FEN1
6309
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2006 / Notices
erjones on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES
currently operating seven EMB–120
airplanes under part 135 complying
with the 7,500 pounds payload capacity
limit. Ameriflight has accumulated over
18,000 hours of all-cargo operations in
these airplanes. The FAA finds that an
equivalent level of safety can be
maintained because of Ameriflight’s safe
operation of this aircraft in all-cargo
operations, use of a two pilot crew, use
of a part 25 certificated airplane, newer
technology and the conditions and
limitations specified in this grant.
Third, in response to ALPA’s
comment that this exemption will result
in airplanes moving from part 121 to
part 135, the FAA finds that Ameriflight
is somewhat unique in its
circumstances. Although it is possible
for some aircraft to move from 121 to
135 operations, this transition is limited
by the total number of available EMB–
120 aircraft and the number of EMB–120
aircraft configured for all-cargo
operations. There are only two operators
operating a total of three EMB–120
airplanes in all-cargo operations under
part 121. Additionally, there are three
operators, including Ameriflight,
operating a total of 11 EMB–120
airplanes in an all-cargo operation
under part 135. There is a limited
population of airplanes that are, or
could potentially be, retired from
scheduled passenger service that could
be reconfigured for use in an all-cargo
operation. The FAA recognizes that
other companies in similar situations
could petition for an exemption;
however, the FAA would consider each
petition on its own merits.
Fourth, the FAA finds that if
Ameriflight is ‘‘picking and choosing’’
the regulations it wishes to follow, it has
done so judiciously. The maintenance,
equipment, training and flight locality
required by conditions and limitations
in this grant of exemption will ensure
the equivalency to part 121,
supplemental operations. Ameriflight
has conducted all-cargo operations for
more than 36 years. It currently has a
fleet comprised of 180 aircraft and has
accumulated over 350,000 flight-hours
under part 135. It currently has seven
EMB–120 aircraft and has accumulated
over 18,000 hours and 15,000 landings
in those airplanes. This experience adds
considerable merit to this grant of
exemption.
Ameriflight cited as part of its petition
the Recommendation Document
submitted by the Part 135/125 Review
ARC. While that documentation has
been formally sent to the FAA and is
currently being reviewed, this grant of
exemption stands on its own merit as
presented by Ameriflight, not on the
basis of the justification or
recommendation for general rulemaking
by the ARC.
Proposed Conditions and Limitations
1. Prior to conducting operations
under this exemption, Ameriflight must
obtain amended operations
specifications that include this
exemption.
2. Operations under this exemption
are limited to EMB–120ER airplanes
modified into dedicated freighters under
STC00598WI, or Embraer’s own factorydedicated freighter conversion.
3. A copy of this exemption must be
carried on board each EMB–120ER
airplane operated under this exemption.
4. EMB–120ER airplanes operated
under this exemption must be
maintained in accordance with the
maintenance requirements set forth in
§ 135.411(a)(2).
5. Ameriflight must institute a flight
following program in accordance with
§ 121.125.
6. The increase in payload capacity,
in excess of 7,500 pounds, is limited to
633 pounds. Ameriflight must compute
the increase in weight, in excess of
7,500 pounds by determining the
difference between the certificated
Maximum Zero-Fuel Weight and the
actual Empty Operating Weight plus
crew weight.
7. All operations conducted under
this exemption must be conducted with
EMB–120ER airplanes that are equipped
with an operable CVR, FDR, TCAS,
GPWS, and autopilot.
8. Prior to conducting any operations
under this exemption, Ameriflight must
amend its approved training program, in
a manner acceptable to its principal
operations inspector, to include training
with the additional equipment listed in
Condition and Limitation No. 7 and any
other differences.
Issued in Washington, DC on February 1,
2006.
Thomas K. Toula,
Manager, Air Transportation Division.
[FR Doc. 06–1087 Filed 2–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Application
No.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Office of Hazardous Materials Safety;
Notice of Delays in Processing of
Special Permit Applications
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, DOT.
AGENCY:
List of Application Delayed
more than 180 days.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c),
PHMSA is publishing the following list
of special permit applications that have
been in process for 180 days or more.
The reason(s) for delay and the expected
completion date for action on each
application is provided in association
with each identified application.
Ann
Mazzullo, Office of Hazardous Materials
Special Permits and Approvals, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001, (202)
366–4535.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Key to ‘‘Reason for Delay’’
1. Awaiting additional information
from applicant.
2. Extensive public comment under
review.
3. Application is technically complex
and is of significant impact or
precedent-setting and requires extensive
analysis.
4. Staff review delayed by other
priority issues or volume of special
permit applications.
Meaning of Application Number
Suffixes
N—New application.
M—Modification request.
X—Renewal.
PM—Party to application with
modification request.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 31,
2006.
R. Ryan Posten,
Chief, Special Permits Program, Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety, Special Permits
& Approvals.
Reason for
delay
Applicant
Estimated date
of completion
New Special Permit Applications
13281–N ......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI ...................................................................................
15:23 Feb 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM
07FEN1
4
03–31–2006
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6307-6309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1087]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
[Docket No.: FAA-2005-20109]
Proposed Grant of Exemption; Ameriflight, Inc.
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice; Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice contains the text of a proposed grant of exemption
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication or this notice nor
the inclusion or omission of information in the text of the proposed
exemption is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its
final disposition.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments [identified by Docket Number FAA-2005-
20109] using any of the following methods:
DOT Docket Web site: Go to https://dms.dot.gov and follow
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
Governmentwide rulemaking Web site: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Perfetti, Air Transportation
Division, Flight Standards Service, Room 831, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone: (202) 267-3760, e-mail:
Katherine.perfetti@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to submit written comments,
data, and views on the agency's analysis contained in the proposed
grant of exemption contained below. The most helpful comments reference
a specific portion of the analysis, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send
us two copies of written comments.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed grant of exemption. The docket is available
for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you
wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES
section of this notice between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using
the Internet at the Web address in the ADDRESSES section.
Privacy Act: Using the search function of our docket Web site,
anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets,
including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing
the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider
all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We
will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the
comments we receive.
If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this
proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard
on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the
postcard and mail it to you.
The Proposal
On January 13, 2005, Mr. John W. Hazlet, Jr., Vice President of
Flight, Ameriflight, Inc. (Ameriflight) petitioned the FAA for relief
from Sec. 119.3 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to
allow Ameriflight to operate certain EMBRAER Brasilia EMB-120 (EMB-120)
airplanes with a maximum payload capacity greater than 7,500 pounds in
all-cargo service under part 135 rather than part 121. This petition
was denied on February 4, 2005, because Ameriflight sought to comply
with certain sections of part 121 instead of complying with all the
applicable sections of 121. In addition, Ameriflight did not show how
its situation was different from the general class of regulated
entities. On March 22, and April 5, 2005, Ameriflight petitioned the
FAA for a reconsideration of Denial of Exemption No. 8480. The FAA has
reconsidered its position and is considering granting Ameriflight's
petition. The FAA is publishing the text of this proposed grant for
comment because the increase in the payload capacity for all-cargo
operations is a change to the basic applicability standards contained
in part 119 and could potentially have broader applicability to other
all-cargo operations. Further, the part 125/135 Aviation Rulemaking
Committee (ARC) has submitted a recommendation on this subject. That
recommendation has broader applicability and higher payload capacity
limits than proposed by Ameriflight. The ARC recommendation is
currently under consideration by the FAA for general rulemaking action.
Although elements of the ARC's recommendation were considered in the
FAA's analysis of this petition, the FAA's decision to grant this
exemption is based solely on the merits of Ameriflight's petition. The
entire content of the proposed grant of exemption, including the FAA's
analysis and conditions and limitations of the grant follows:
[[Page 6308]]
The Petitioner Requests Relief From the Following Regulation
Section 119.3 prescribes, in pertinent part, that an on-demand
operation means any operation for compensation or hire that is an all-
cargo operation conducted with airplanes having a payload capacity of
7,500 pounds or less.
The Petitioner Supports Its Request With the Following Information
The petitioner presents additional information to serve as the
basis for a Grant of Exemption. The petitioner incorporates the
recommendation of February 24, 2005, Part 125/135 Aviation Rulemaking
Committee's (ARC) Steering Committee, ``Applicability 32'' with one
dissenting vote from the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA).
(Hereafter, Recommendation Document.)
Ameriflight states that the Recommendation Document proposes to
increase the maximum payload for part 135 cargo-only operations from
the current 7,500-pound limit to 18,000 pounds, subject to certain
requirements intended to provide an equivalent level of safety.
The Ameriflight petition includes equipment, maintenance, and
training requirements, which Ameriflight states provide a compelling
argument in favor of a Grant of Exemption. This includes a requirement
for a Sec. 135.411(a)(2), Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance
Program, which Ameriflight states essentially parallels requirements
for part 121 supplemental operations.
The petitioner presents the following information. First,
Ameriflight states that it is requesting a payload increase only to
allow the difference between basic operating weight, plus the crew, and
the aircraft's certificated maximum-zero fuel weight. Ameriflight
states the greatest weight difference this exemption would permit is
only 633 pounds above the current 7,500-pound payload standard.
Ameriflight states that it has accumulated more than 18,000 hours
in the EMB-120 in all-weather operations. This has been accomplished
with perfect safety, while operating seven EMB-120 airplanes with a
reduced payload capacity under part 135.
Ameriflight states that it is also important to note that it is
permitted to, and in some cases does, carry the additional weight
increment for which Ameriflight is petitioning as fuel, rather than
payload. Ameriflight states that there is clearly no safety issue,
because this total aircraft weight is within the airplanes'
certificated maximum weight limits.
A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on
May 16, 2005 (70 FR 25874). One comment was received.
The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) is opposed to
granting the Petition for Reconsideration. ALPA also opposes taking
part 121 turbo-propeller aircraft out of part 121 by increasing the
weight from 7,500 pounds and allowing them to operate in part 135.
ALPA supports the FAA's original denial in which the FAA stated
that picking and choosing isolated sections from each part to comply
with would not provide an equivalent level of safety. Additionally,
ALPA disagrees with Ameriflight's claim that a major, significant
change has taken place since the filing and denial of the original
Petition for Exemption. ALPA asserts that nothing has changed except an
opinion vote on a recommendation document in the 135 ARC. Furthermore,
there have been no studies or analyses completed concerning the
proposed changes.
The FAA's Proposed Analysis Is as Follows
In reviewing the Reconsideration of Denial of Exemption No. 8480,
the FAA has fully evaluated all of Ameriflight's supportive information
and the opposing comments submitted by ALPA.
The FAA finds for the reasons presented below, the proposed
exemption would be in the public interest. First, this exemption meets
the equivalent level of safety standard. This exemption is limited to
Ameriflight's all-cargo operations in EMB-120 airplanes. This exemption
is limited to an increase of 633 pounds payload capacity above the part
135 standard of 7,500 pounds and it does not increase the maximum
certificated takeoff weight of the airplane.
These airplanes must be equipped with an operable cockpit voice
recorder (CVR), flight data recorder (FDR), traffic alert and collision
avoidance system (TCAS), ground proximity warning system (GPWS) and
autopilot navigation. This equipment provides an equivalency to part
121 supplemental operations and exceeds part 135 requirements for
passenger or all-cargo operations.
The FAA notes that Ameriflight, in its original petition of January
13, 2005, proposed to conduct operations in which Ameriflight would
utilize the services of a chief inspector and a director of quality
control. Ameriflight proposed that the chief inspector report to a
director of quality control. Ameriflight offered to use a voluntary
required inspection item process. Ameriflight states that it would
accept these practices as a condition upon which a grant of the
proposed exemption would be predicated. The FAA finds that Ameriflight
must meet the requirements of Sec. 135.411(a)(2) as a condition and
limitation of this grant.
Ameriflight does not address part 121 flight following in its
petition. The FAA finds that the flight locating requirements of 135 do
not provide an equivalent standard to part 121. Ameriflight must
institute a flight following program equivalent to that as specified in
Sec. 121.125 as a condition to this grant. This will ensure adequate
monitoring of each flight.
The FAA points out that the Ameriflight petition discussed
transition and initial cadre considerations. Ameriflight stated that if
this exemption is granted, its employees will need additional training.
It proposed that flight crewmembers, flight instructors, check airmen,
flight following personnel, mechanics, and inspectors qualified under
Ameriflight's previous authorizations in the same type of aircraft will
have to satisfactorily complete a training program acceptable to the
Administrator addressing any differences associated with the increased
weight or additional equipment installed on the aircraft.
Although not noted by Ameriflight, these seven airplanes could be
operated in a passenger configuration in on-demand service under part
135 if they were properly converted. The removal of passenger seats and
furnishings increases the payload capacity to above 7,500 pounds. It
should be noted, however, that the FAA does not intend to increase the
7,500-pound payload capacity applicability standard for on-demand
passenger service under part 135; nor does it intend to change the 10
or more passenger seat part 121 applicability standard for scheduled
passenger service.
Second, this exemption serves the public interest by more
efficiently meeting market demands with a high degree of safety.
Ameriflight has presented a convincing case that there is an ever-
increasing demand for cargo operations of this size and classification
of aircraft. Ameriflight would satisfy that market need with fewer
flights than would be necessary under the weight limits of part 135.
Fewer operations provide an environmental incentive through the saving
of fuel, reducing air traffic, and reducing exposure to risk.
Ameriflight holds an air carrier certificate under part 119 to operate
all-cargo operations under part 135. It is
[[Page 6309]]
currently operating seven EMB-120 airplanes under part 135 complying
with the 7,500 pounds payload capacity limit. Ameriflight has
accumulated over 18,000 hours of all-cargo operations in these
airplanes. The FAA finds that an equivalent level of safety can be
maintained because of Ameriflight's safe operation of this aircraft in
all-cargo operations, use of a two pilot crew, use of a part 25
certificated airplane, newer technology and the conditions and
limitations specified in this grant.
Third, in response to ALPA's comment that this exemption will
result in airplanes moving from part 121 to part 135, the FAA finds
that Ameriflight is somewhat unique in its circumstances. Although it
is possible for some aircraft to move from 121 to 135 operations, this
transition is limited by the total number of available EMB-120 aircraft
and the number of EMB-120 aircraft configured for all-cargo operations.
There are only two operators operating a total of three EMB-120
airplanes in all-cargo operations under part 121. Additionally, there
are three operators, including Ameriflight, operating a total of 11
EMB-120 airplanes in an all-cargo operation under part 135. There is a
limited population of airplanes that are, or could potentially be,
retired from scheduled passenger service that could be reconfigured for
use in an all-cargo operation. The FAA recognizes that other companies
in similar situations could petition for an exemption; however, the FAA
would consider each petition on its own merits.
Fourth, the FAA finds that if Ameriflight is ``picking and
choosing'' the regulations it wishes to follow, it has done so
judiciously. The maintenance, equipment, training and flight locality
required by conditions and limitations in this grant of exemption will
ensure the equivalency to part 121, supplemental operations.
Ameriflight has conducted all-cargo operations for more than 36 years.
It currently has a fleet comprised of 180 aircraft and has accumulated
over 350,000 flight-hours under part 135. It currently has seven EMB-
120 aircraft and has accumulated over 18,000 hours and 15,000 landings
in those airplanes. This experience adds considerable merit to this
grant of exemption.
Ameriflight cited as part of its petition the Recommendation
Document submitted by the Part 135/125 Review ARC. While that
documentation has been formally sent to the FAA and is currently being
reviewed, this grant of exemption stands on its own merit as presented
by Ameriflight, not on the basis of the justification or recommendation
for general rulemaking by the ARC.
Proposed Conditions and Limitations
1. Prior to conducting operations under this exemption, Ameriflight
must obtain amended operations specifications that include this
exemption.
2. Operations under this exemption are limited to EMB-120ER
airplanes modified into dedicated freighters under STC00598WI, or
Embraer's own factory-dedicated freighter conversion.
3. A copy of this exemption must be carried on board each EMB-120ER
airplane operated under this exemption.
4. EMB-120ER airplanes operated under this exemption must be
maintained in accordance with the maintenance requirements set forth in
Sec. 135.411(a)(2).
5. Ameriflight must institute a flight following program in
accordance with Sec. 121.125.
6. The increase in payload capacity, in excess of 7,500 pounds, is
limited to 633 pounds. Ameriflight must compute the increase in weight,
in excess of 7,500 pounds by determining the difference between the
certificated Maximum Zero-Fuel Weight and the actual Empty Operating
Weight plus crew weight.
7. All operations conducted under this exemption must be conducted
with EMB-120ER airplanes that are equipped with an operable CVR, FDR,
TCAS, GPWS, and autopilot.
8. Prior to conducting any operations under this exemption,
Ameriflight must amend its approved training program, in a manner
acceptable to its principal operations inspector, to include training
with the additional equipment listed in Condition and Limitation No. 7
and any other differences.
Issued in Washington, DC on February 1, 2006.
Thomas K. Toula,
Manager, Air Transportation Division.
[FR Doc. 06-1087 Filed 2-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
