Exemption No. 9717

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION\
WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

**UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS**

**COMMUNITY COLLEGE AT**

**BATESVILLE** **Regulatory Docket No.** **FAA-2007-0241**

for an exemption from §§ 65.17(a),

65.19(b), and 65.75(a)

of Title 14, Code of

Federal Regulations

# DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

> By letter dated November 19, 2007, Mr. Stephen L. Paull, Director of
> Aviation Maintenance, University of Arkansas Community College at
> Batesville (UACCB), 1128 Batesville Road, Batesville, Arkansas 72501,
> petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of
> UACCB for an exemption from §§  65.17(a), 65.19(b), and 65.75(a) of
> Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed
> exemption, if granted, would permit UACCB to: (1) administer the FAA
> oral and practical mechanic examination to students at times and
> places identified in UACCB FAA-approved operations manual; (2) conduct
> oral and practical mechanic examinations as an integral part of the
> education process rather than conducting the tests upon students'
> successful completion of the mechanic written examinations; (3) allow
> applicants to apply for retesting within 30 days after failure without
> presenting a signed statement certifying that additional instruction
> has been given in the failed area; and (4) administer the Aviation
> Mechanic General (AMG) written test to students immediately following
> successful completion of the general curriculum, prior to meeting the
> experience requirements of § 65.77.

**The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:**

> Section 65.17(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that tests prescribed
> by or under part 65 are given at times, places, and by persons
> designated by the Administrator.
>
> Section 65.19(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that an applicant for
> a written, oral, or practical test for certificate or rating, or for
> an additional rating under part 65, may apply for retesting after
> failure before 30 days have expired if the applicant presents a signed
> statement from an airman holding the certificate and rating sought by
> the applicant certifying that the airman has given the applicant
> additional instruction in each of the subjects failed and that the
> airman considers the applicant ready for retesting.
>
> Section 65.75(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that each applicant
> for a mechanic certificate or rating must, after meeting the
> applicable experience requirements of
>
> § 65.77, pass a written test covering the construction and maintenance
> of aircraft appropriate to the rating sought, the regulations in
> subpart D of part 65, and the applicable provisions of parts 43 and
> 91. The basic principles covering the installation and maintenance of
> propellers are included in the powerplant test.

**The petitioner supports its request with the following information:**

> The petitioner states it is seeking relief from § 65.75(b) to permit
> the conduct of oral and practical tests as an integral part of its
> aviation maintenance technician education process. Also, the
> petitioner states the request is in the public interest. According to
> the petitioner, the proposed exemption will allow students to
> demonstrate FAA-required competence as part of the completion
> requirements for each instructional area. UACCB contends that this
> will expedite the evaluation process while maintaining a level of
> safety equal to that of the existing rule. In addition, it will
> significantly reduce the cost of oral and practical tests for the
> school (oral and practical tests are included in the total cost of the
> Aviation Mechanic Technician (AMT) program). UACCB states it will
> involve its Flight Standards District Office (FSDO SW-11) to develop a
> system for administering and monitoring oral and practical tests. This
> system will enhance consistency and uniformity to the testing process.
>
> The petitioner further states that the current FAA oral and practical
> testing requirements will remain in place, except for the manner in
> which the tests are administered. The petitioner states that rather
> than administering one oral and practical mechanic test covering the
> entire body of knowledge, UACCB would administer the oral and
> practical tests incrementally as an integral part of each of the 36
> instructional areas in its curriculum. UACCB contends that the scope
> of the FAA oral and practical test will be covered in its entirety by
> the time a student graduates from the curriculum. Also, because the
> scope and nature of oral and practical tests will not be changed, a
> level of safety equal to that provided by the rule would be
> maintained.
>
> The petitioner states that there should be no economic impact to the
> public as a result of granting this exemption. The petitioner believes
> that cost savings will be provided to the FAA because the FAA will
> need to monitor and audit the testing procedures and recordkeeping of
> one entity rather than several designated mechanic examiners (DME). By
> incorporating oral and practical tests as part of the approved
> curriculum, the cost of administering the tests would be absorbed as
> part of UACCB's overall cost. Since UACCB will coordinate oral and
> practical testing for its students, it will absorb the cost of either
> bringing the DME to its facility or pay the cost of sending students
> to the DME's base of operations. This also limits when the tests can
> be given and is an additional administrative cost for scheduling.
>
> The petitioner also requests an exemption from the requirement in §
> 65.19(b) that a signed statement from an airman holding the rating
> sought be obtained before retesting. Under the proposed exemption, the
> oral and practical testing will be an integral part of the curriculum
> and will take place in progressive increments as a student advances
> through training. Therefore, if a student fails an oral and practical
> test, retesting will be permitted based on the requirements for
> additional instruction contained in our operations manual. The
> petitioner contends that it is in the public interest to permit UACCB
> to control and monitor the retesting criteria for students who fail
> oral and practical tests under the proposed exemption. The retesting
> criteria will be contained in UACCB**'**s approved operations manual
> and would include procedures to document and track compliance.
>
> The petitioner believes that this portion of the proposed exemption
> will provide a level of safety equivalent to or greater than that
> provided by the regulation. Approval for retesting will be authorized
> by the school as currently approved in its operations manual, rather
> than by individuals as required by § 65.19(b). If a student fails an
> oral or practical test, it will also mean failure of the entire
> instructional unit. Therefore, as remediation, the student will be
> required to repeat the entire instructional unit.
>
> UACCB also requests relief from the knowledge requirements of §
> 65.75(a) to allow students enrolled in its part 147 AMT program to
> take the AMG written test after completion of the general curriculum,
> before meeting the experience requirements of
>
> § 65.77. The petitioner contends that the public interest will be
> served by allowing AMT students to the take the FAA written test on a
> body of knowledge immediately following their successful completion of
> study on that body of knowledge. This is currently allowed with both
> the airframe and powerplant curriculums but is not allowed following
> the completion of the general curriculum.
>
> UACCB has established a procedure with FSDO SW-11 to identify and
> report graduates who are eligible to take the FAA written, oral, and
> practical tests with an affiliate DME. The same procedure will be used
> to identify and report students who will qualify to take the AMG test
> after completion of the general curriculum. All other requirements
> governing written testing, including time requirements for the
> completion of certification will remain unchanged, and a level of
> safety equal to that provided by the rule will be achieved.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the
requirement for [Federal Register]{.underline} publication because the
exemption, if granted, would not set a precedent.

**The FAA\'s analysis is as follows:**

The FAA has fully considered the petitioner's supportive information and
finds that an exemption would not be in the public interest. The FAA
also finds that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate an equivalent
level of safety.

The FAA recognizes that it has granted a number of exemptions for these
sections of the regulations. However, the FAA has never issued an
exemption to a new AMT school certificated under part 147. It would not
be in the public interest to issue an exemption to a school that has not
yet proven that its program meets the national norms. The FAA believes
that UACCB lacks the experience at this time to prove that its program
meets the standards required of the students to take the FAA
examinations early.

To date, no student of UACCB has graduated from the UACCB curriculum to
become a certificated mechanic. Therefore, UACCB cannot guarantee that
its program will produce a certificated mechanic who meets the FAA
requirement and maintains the same level of safety.

The petitioner states that it will administer the oral and practical
testing and not a DME. The FAA finds that by UACCB's administering the
test, it does not reduce the burden on the FAA; it only moves the
surveillance of the testing activity from the DME to the school
performing the testing. The FAA believes that it is the responsibility
of the applicant to make arrangements for testing and to pay the
associated fee. For the school to make the arrangements for its students
is a business agreement and is not covered by part 147 and is outside of
the purview of the FAA.

To grant an exemption to the above mentioned regulations to a school
that has not established that its program and curriculum can produce an
individual who meets all of the qualifications for a mechanic
certificate would not be in the public interest.

# 

# The FAA's Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption
would not be in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the
authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by
the Administrator, the petition of University of Arkansas Community
College at Batesville for an exemption from 14 CFR §§  65.17(a),
65.19(b), and 65.75(a) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 23, 2008.

/s/

John M. Allen

Acting Director, Flight Standards Service