Exemptio n No
. 1000 2

UNITED STATE S O FAMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVUTIO N ADMINISTTIATIO N WASHEvrGTO H D C 2059 1

I n th e matte r

o f th e petitio n o f AI RTRANSPOR T ASSOCIATIO N O F AMERIC A fo r a n exemptio n from§ 121.1105(e ) o f Titl e 14 , Cod e of Federa l Regulation s Regulator y Docke t No , FAA-2009-064 S

D|;NIA LO FEXEMPTIO N B y lette r date dJul y 9 , 2009 , Mr
. Crai g Fabian , Directo r o f Technica l Operations , Ai r Transpor t Association , (ATA) , 130 1 Pennsylvani aAvenue , NW , Suit e 1100 , Washingto n D C 20004 , petitione dth e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) o n behal f o f it s membe r

airline s for an exemptio n from § 121.1105(e ) o f Title 14 , Cod e o f

Federal Regulation s (1 4 CFR)
. Th e propose dexemption , i f

granted , woul dreliev e membe r airline s fromth e 60-day notic e requiremen t

whe n a n ai r

carrie r use s adesignate dairworthines s representativ e t o accomplis h th e require daircraf

t record s review s an dinspections
. Th e petitione r

request s relie f

fro mth e followin g regul^ition : Sectio n 121.1105(e ) prescribe s that — (e ) Notificatio n to Administrator
. Eac hcertificate holde r mus t notif y th e Administrato r at leas t 6 0 day s before th e dat e o n whic hth e airplan e an dairplan e record s wil l b e mad e availabl e fo r

th e inspectio n an drecord s review
. Th e petitione r

support s it s reques t

^it hth e followin g information : Th e petitione r

state s i n it s petitio n tha t

th e inten t o f § 121.1105(e ) t o provid e advanc e notic e t o th e FA A s o th e FA A can properl y allocat e th e us e o f it s resource s i s AFS-09-322- E

2 0 3E)y

d DNi>iyw3nn a j o aouj o 

### siBSissze s ST:t' T 0I02/ST/E 0inapplicabl e wher e designee s ar e used , becaus e tli e FA A n o longe r need s suc h planning
. Thi s requiremen t is , therefore , unnecessar

y whe n adesignate dairworthines s representativ e perform s th e inspection
. Grantin g thi s petitio n i s i n th e publi c interes t becaus e i t

woul dallo w ai r

carrier s t o avoi dcritical applicatio n o f th e 60-day notic e provisio n whe n designee s ar e use di n plac e of FAA employees
. Air

carrier s woul dthe n b e abl e t o timel y provid e full y inspecte daircraft , minu s th e cos t o f th e notic e requirement
. More saf e aircraf t woul d b e availabl e fo

r publi c transportation
. Grantin g thi s petitio n woul dnot adversel y affect

safety , becaus e i t

doe s not affect tli e inspectio n requiremen t

o f § 121.1105
. A summar

y o f th e petitio n wa s publishe di n th e Federal Registe r o n Augus t

21 , 200 9 (7 4 FR42362)
. N o comment s were received
. Th e FAA' s analysi s i s a s follows : Th e FAA ha s carefull y reviewe dth e petitio n andfind s that agrant o f exemptio n woul d no t b e i n th e publi c interest
. First , th e FA A rarel y issue s an exemptio n t o a n industr y trad e organizatio n for

us e b y it s individual members
. W e canno t suppor t "blanket " exemption s that remov e alarg e numbe r o f regulate dentitie s fromth e effec t o f arule , sinc e doin g s o i s effectivel y arul e chang e tha t

bypasse s th e regulatory process . Second , th e FA A find s tha t thi s petitio n i s not

i n th e publi c interest
. Th e FA A use s th e notic e requiremen t

o f § 121.1105(e ) t o schedule : (1 ) an FAA inspecto r for record s review ; (2 ) surveillanc e over an ai r carrier' s inspectio n an drecord s revie w procedure s an dpreparations ; an d(3 ) surveillanc e ove r th e designe e performin g th e record s review
. Third , th e FAA finds tha t grantin g thi s petitio n woul dnot provid e particula

r cos t benefit s t o ATA members
. Mos t o f it s majo r ai r carrier s already provid e th e FA A wit h aschedul e fo

r heav y maintenanc e check s an dinspections , whic hinclude s th e requirement s o f

§ 121.1105(e ) a

t n o adde dcost . For

AT A air carrier s withasmal l flee t (whic hd o no t

provid e suc hschedules) , thei r cost s are negligibl e becaus e § 121.1105(e ) i s require donl y onc e every seve n years . Finally , w e disagre e tha t

exemptio n fromth e notic e requiremen t woul dhav e n o effect o n safety
. Th e FA A ha s adut y t o properl y overse e th e procedures , an dperson s performin g thos e procedures , ttiat coul dnegativel y impac t

safety
. Grantin g thi s exemptio n woul dincreas e th e chanc e fo r inconsisten t

practice s t o g o undetected , whic h woul dultimatel y increas e th e ris k o f overlookin g critica l safet

y issue s tha t

creat e unsaf

e conditions
.

^ 0 3^^ ^ 9NI>1W3-in a J O 3DIJJ 0 5l0giSZZQ Z Ql-.P X 8I02/ST/E 0Th e FAA' s Decision :

I n consideratio n o f

th e foregoing , I fiindthat

agrant o f exemptio n woul dnot

b e i n th e publi c interest
. Therefore , pursuan t t o th e authorit

y containe di n 4 9 U.S.C
. § § 4011 3 an d44701 , delegate dt o m e by th e Administrator , th e petitio n o f Ai r Transport

Associatio n for a n exemptio n from1 4 CFR§ 121.1105(e ) i s hereb y denied
. Issue di n Wasllington , D.C. , o n Januar y 25 , 201 0



### /i.^ i John W . McGra w Actin g Director , Fligh t Standard s Servic e

1- 0 3DV d 9NI>1WW3nn d J O 30IJ3 0 Si0Si9SS0 S ST:17 T 0t0S/ST/e 0