Exemption No.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

LESL Y SANCHEZ LANDRON Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0747

for an exemption from § 65.91 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL O F EXEMPTION

By letter dated September 3

, 2014 , Mr . Lesly Sanchez Landron, Urb. Marina Bahia, R C

- 10 Ave, Punta Las Marias, Catano, PR 00962

- 6718 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from § 65.91 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The exemption, if granted, would allow Mr. Lesly Sanchez Landron to qualify to take the Inspection Authorization written test without waiting for the three (3) year requirement required by § 65.91(c) (1).

The petitioner requests reli ef from the following regulation:

Section 65.91 (c) prescribes , in pertinent part, that a n application for an inspection authorization is made on a form and in a manner prescribed by the Administrator and an applicant who meets the requirements of this sect ion is entitled to an inspection authorization. To be eligible for an inspection authorization, an applicant must ;

(1) H old a currently effective mechanic certificate with both an airframe rating and a powerplant rating, each of which is currently effective and has been in effect for a total of at least 3 years;

(2) Have been actively engaged, for at least the 2

- year period before the date he applies, in maintaining aircraft certificated and maintained in accordance with this chapter;

(3) Have a fixed base of opera tions at which he may be located in person or by telephone during a normal working week but it need not be the place where he will exercise his inspection authority;AFS

- 14

- 510

- E 2

(4) Have available to him the equipment, facilities, and inspection data necessary to properl y inspect airframes, powerplants, propellers, or any related part or appliance;

and

(5) Pass a written test on his ability to inspect according to safety standards for returning aircraft to service after major repairs and major alterations and annual and prog ressive inspections performed under part 43 of this chapter.

An applicant who fails the test prescribed in paragraph (c)(5) of this section may not apply for retesting until at least 90 days after the date he failed the test.

The petitioner supports his request with the following information:

The petitioner states he has been actively engaged without interruption for more than 40 years

in aviation maintenance and certification activities.

Mr. Landrons airframe certificate was revoked by the Administrator in March of 2010

, where

he then surrendered his Inspection Authorization to the FAA. Mr. Landron’s a irframe

c ertificate was later reissued to him in June of 2012.

Mr. Landron states

, he should be considered in compliance with the experience requirement s of § 65.91 , based on more than 40 years in aviation maintenance and certification activities.

Mr. Landron also claims the exemption would not adversely affect safety, and will provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule.

The FAA’ s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has considered the petitioner’s request and finds that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest nor has the petitioner clearly shown how an exemption would not adversely affect safety.

In his pet ition, Mr. Landron requests the FAA to waive the three year airframe and powerplant rating requirement to be eligible for an Inspection Authorization . Particularly, the petitioner is requesting such an exemption to be eligible to take the written test as r equired in part § 65.91 (c) (5).

The petitioner surrendered his certificate to the FAA in March of 2010, which he later recovered in June of 2012 after retesting for his oral and practical tests. The petitioner has not met the 3 year requirem ent required by § 65.91 (c)(1) to apply for an Inspection Authorization.

FAA certificated mechanics that hold an Inspection Authorization play a vital and important

role in the promotion of aviation safety

. The b asic functions of an Inspection Authorizati on (IA) are set forth in part 65, § 65.95. An IA may inspect and approve for return to service any aircraft or related part or appliance after a major repair or major alteration. Also, the holder ofAFS

- 14

- 510

- E 3

an IA may perform an annual inspection and he or she may supervise or perform a progressive inspection.

Although Mr. Landron states he should be considered in compliance with the exp erience requirements of § 65.91 based on more than 40 years in aviation maintenance and certification

activities , this is contradi ctory with FAA records. Furthermore, Mr. Landron does not provide supporting information regarding his role in certification activities.

In a ddition, § 6 5.91 stipulates the requirement s to be eligible for an IA . Specifically, Subpart (c) of this part pro vides the criteria for an IA which states: (1) “Hold a currently effective mechanic certificate with both an airframe and powerplant rating, each of which is currently effective and has been in effect for a total of at least 3 years”, and (2) “Have been ac tively engaged, for at least the 2

- year period before the date he applies, in maintaining aircraft certificated and maintained in accordance with this chapter.” Once these eligibility requirements have been met, the applicant is then entitled to apply for the authorization to

take the written test.

The applicant must hold a current mechanic’s certificate, with both airframe and powerplant ratings that have been in effect for at least 3 years. Because the petitioner surrendered his certificate in 2010, he d oes not meet the requirements of § 65.91 (c) (1).

In reference to § 65.91 (c) (2), “Actively Engaged” means having an active role in exercising the privileges of an A&P mechanic certificate in the maintenance of civil aircraft. Applicants who inspect, over haul, repair, preserve, or replace parts on aircraft, or who supervise (i.e., direct and inspect) those activities, are actively engaged.

Although Mr. Landron still held a Powerplant rating, b ecause his Airframe certificate was surrendered, the petition er was not able to be actively engaged because he was incapable of exercising the privileges of his surrendered Airframe certificate during the required 2 year period prior to June 2012.

In a letter dated May 23, 2013, Mr. Landron, also petitioned the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from § 65.91

. In Mr. Landron’ s May 23

, 2013 exemption request, the FAA did consider th e petitioner’s request but concluded that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest nor did the peti tioner clearly shown how an exemption would not adversely affect safety.

The FAA believes there is no reason to warrant an exemption based on the petitioners request.

The FAA do es not believe, nor has the petitioner substantiated, that an exemption t o take the

written test for an IA would be in th e best interest of the public. Additionally, adequate resources have long been available in the San Juan

, Puerto Rico area to support any such IA requirements as specified by FAA Regulations.AFS

- 14

- 510

- E 4

The FAA’s Deci sion:

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. §§ 106(f), 40113

, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Lesly Sanchez Landron for an exemption from 14 CFR § 65.91 is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D

. C

. , on December 3, 2014

/s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards S ervice

.