Exemption No. 10002 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVUTION ADMINISTTIATION 

WASHEvrGTOH DC 20591 

In the matter of the petition of 

AIR TRANSPORT 

ASSOCIATION OF 

AMERICA 

for an exemption from § 121.1105(e) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No, FAA-2009-064S 

D|;NIA L O F EXEMPTION 

By letter dated July 9, 2009, Mr. Craig Fabian, Director of Technical Operations, Air 

Transport Association, (ATA), 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington DC 

20004, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of its member airlines 

for an exemption from § 121.1105(e) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The 

proposed exemption, if granted, would relieve member airlines from the 60-day notice 

requirement when an air carrier uses a designated airworthiness representative to accomplish 

the required aircraft records reviews and inspections. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regul^ition: 

Section 121.1105(e) prescribes that— 

(e) Notification to Administrator. Each certificate holder must notify the Administrator 

at least 60 days before the date on which the airplane and airplane records will be made 

available for the inspection and records review. 

The petitioner supports its request ^ith the following information: 

The petitioner states in its petition that the intent of § 121.1105(e) to provide advance 

notice to the FAA so the FAA can properly allocate the use of its resources is 

AFS-09-322-E 

20 3E)yd DNi>iyw3nna jo aoujo siBSisszes ST:t'T 0I02/ST/E0 
inapplicable where designees are used, because tlie FAA no longer needs such 

planning. This requirement is, therefore, unnecessary when a designated airworthiness 

representative performs the inspection. 

Granting this petition is in the public interest because it would allow air carriers to 

avoid critical application of the 60-day notice provision when designees are used in 

place of FAA employees. Air carriers would then be able to timely provide fully 

inspected aircraft, minus the cost of the notice requirement. More safe aircraft would 

be available for public transportation. 

Granting this petition would not adversely affect safety, because it does not affect tlie 

inspection requirement of § 121.1105. 

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on August 21, 2009 

(74 FR 42362). No comments were received. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has carefully reviewed the petition and finds that a grant of exemption would 

not be in the public interest. 

First, the FAA rarely issues an exemption to an industry trade organization for use by 

its individual members. We cannot support "blanket" exemptions that remove a large 

number of regulated entities from the effect of a rule, since doing so is effectively a rule 

change that bypasses the regulatory process. 

Second, the FAA finds that this petition is not in the public interest. The FAA uses the 

notice requirement of § 121.1105(e) to schedule: (1) an FAA inspector for records 

review; (2) surveillance over an air carrier's inspection and records review procedures 

and preparations; and (3) surveillance over the designee performing the records review. 

Third, the FAA finds that granting this petition would not provide particular cost 

benefits to ATA members. Most of its major air carriers already provide the FAA with 

a schedule for heavy maintenance checks and inspections, which includes the 

requirements of § 121.1105(e) at no added cost. For ATA air carriers with a small fleet 

(which do not provide such schedules), their costs are negligible because § 121.1105(e) 

is required only once every seven years. 

Finally, we disagree that exemption from the notice requirement would have no effect 

on safety. The FAA has a duty to properly oversee the procedures, and persons 

performing those procedures, ttiat could negatively impact safety. Granting this 

exemption would increase the chance for inconsistent practices to go undetected, which 

would ultimately increase the risk of overlooking critical safety issues that create unsafe 

conditions. 

^0 3^^^ 9NI>1W3-ina JO 3DIJJ0 5l0giSZZQZ Ql-.PX 8I02/ST/E0 
The FAA's Decision: 

In consideration of the foregoing, I fiind 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 Air Transport Association for 

an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.1105(e) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Wasllington, D.C., on Januar y 25, 2010 

/i.^ i 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

Service 

1-0 3DVd 9NI>1WW3nnd JO 30IJ30 Si0Si9SS0S ST:17T 0t0S/ST/e0