**Regulatory Docket No s**  **. FAA**  **- 2012**  **- 1132**  **, FAA**  **- 2012**  **- 1137,**  **FAA -**  **2012 -**  **1324 , FAA**  **- 2013**  **- 0106** 

Meeting Date: May

3, 2013 Attendees: FAA

–Ross Landes, Victor Wicklund, Scott Fung, Robert Duffer, Jon Regimbal, Mike Dostert Boeing

– Jeff Schario, Richard Johnson, Rod Graham, Farzad Bayat, Mike Force, Everett Gro at , Doug Saltarelli, Todd Esselsty n Meeting Summary : The meeting was held in part to discuss what information we still needed in order to proceed with the Boeing petition for exemption s for fuel quantity process or unit replacement and other changes affecting fuel quantity

indication sy stem wire routing on 737, 747, 767, and 777 series airplanes
. The FAA explained that the fuel quantity processor unit was a component of the overall fuel quantity indication sy ste m that is the subject of a planned airworthiness directive. In order to establish public interest for granting the exemption, the FAA explained that we needed to show that we are addressing the unsafe condition associated with the fuel quantity indication sy stem. The primary remaining aspect of the airworthiness directive that had not been established was the date b y which Boeing would submit the design change and service information to implement the fix that would be mandated. Boeing technical experts in attendance said that they would coordinate with in the company and determine whether they

could commit to specific dates for providing the design change and service information. Meeting Date : May

6, 2013 Attendees : FAA

– Ali Bahrami, John Piccola, Ross L andes, Angelos Xidias, Victor Wicklund Boeing

– John Hamilton, Dan Mooney Meeting Summary : The meeting was held in part to discuss specific aspects of the Boeing petition for exemption for fuel quantity processor unit replacement and other changes affecti ng fuel quantity indication s ys tem wire routing
. As in the meeting of May 3rd, the FAA explained that the fuel quantity processor unit was a component of the overall fuel quantity indication s ys tem that is the subject of a planned airworthiness directive. The primary remaining aspect of the airworthiness directive that had not been established was the date by which Boeing would submit the design change and service information to implement the fix that would be mandated. Boeing agreed that they

would provi de the design change and service information. They stated that they would commit to a date by which they would provide the data within one week of the meeting.**Regulatory Docket Nos. FAA**  **- 2012**  **- 1137,**  **FAA -**  **2012 -**  **1324, FAA -**  **2013 -**  **0106**

Discussion Date: June 6, 20 13 Participants: FAA

–Victor Wicklund Boeing

– John Hamilton, Douglas M. Lane, Julie Arndt Discussion Summary : The FAA and Boeing discussed specific aspects of the Boeing petitions for exemptions for fuel quantity processor unit replacement and other cha nges affecting the fuel quantity indication sy stems on 737, 747, and 777 series airplanes. Boeing wanted to clarify

that although the petition cited a late
- 2014 date by which they would run out of obsolete parts, the actual need for a response to the peti tion was much sooner. Boeing explained that they were making arrangements to incorporate certain structural changes in some of their airplanes that involved rerouting FQI S wiring. Boeing needed to know if they would receive the exemptions before committing to specific incorporation dates for those design changes. The FAA acknowledged the request to respond to the petition sooner than the 120
- day standard response time. T he FAA requested the flow time required for Boeing to incorporate a full y compliant des ign in production airplanes for each of the models. Boeing said that they would coordinate within the company and respond as soon as they have that information
. Subsequent email discussion: From: Victor Wi cklund/ANM/FAA

ANM - 112, Propulsion & Mechanical Systems To: "Lane, Douglas M" <douglas.m.lane@boeing.com>, Cc: John Piccola/ANM/FAA@FAA Date: 06/11/2013 07:55 AM Subject: RE: Exemption Regulations question
Doug, No problem. I'm happy to help. The answer to your question is provided in 14 CFR 11. 81(e) itself. The regulation requires Boeing provide "The reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety..."In petitioning for an exemption, Boeing must show why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety as compared to what Boeing would provide to fully comply if we did not grant the exemption. Setting aside SFAR 88, if Boeing did not change the design, it could continue to produce airplanes per 14 CFR 21.183(a), as you alluded to in your initial note below. If that we re the case, Boeing would not need the exemption. Of course this is only theoretical, because the parts for the existing design are no longer available, and Boeing itself requires a design change.Add the specific background of fuel tank safety, the FAA's planned SFAR 88 ADs, and

the FAA letters to Boeing requiring design changes to support those planned ADs, all of which was largely left out of the petition, and the petition lacks public interest supporting a full exemption. Victor Wicklund Manager, Prop ulsion & Mechanical Systems, ANM - 112 FAA Transport Airplane Directorate Standards Staff Phone 425 - 227 - 2192

----- "Lane, Douglas M" <douglas.m.lane@boeing.com> wrote: -----

======================= To: Victor Wicklund/ANM/FAA@FAA, John Piccola/ANM/FAA@FAA From: "Lane, Douglas M" <douglas.m.lane@boeing.com> Date: 06/10/2013 01:08PM Subject: RE: Exemption Regulations question

======================= Victor & John - Sorry to re - visit this subject, but I'm struggling a little to fully understand what you are saying below, in particular the baseline for an "affects safety" assessment. Is there any additional explanatory material/documentation for the "affects safety" criteria that I could consult? (e.g. any guidance material on Part 11?) Or is thi s a subject better left for our respective legal staff to discuss between themselves? Thank you for your help - Doug From: Victor.Wicklund@faa.gov [mailto:Victor.Wicklund@faa.gov] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 8:34 AM To: Lane, Douglas M Cc: John.Piccola@ faa.gov Subject: Re: Exemption Regulations question Doug, The baseline for judging how the proposed design "affects safety" is not the current system that is being changed or a design that has been determined to be "unsafe" per 14 CFR part 39. Instead, the baseline for comparison is the system that would fully comply with the standard from which the exemption is sought. The scope of the changes required for full compliance compared to the proposed design should provide a reasonable indication of the effe ct on safety in most cases. The time - limited exemption limits the effects on safety presented by the non compliance by bringing the design into full compliance in a timely manner. Victor Wicklund Manager, Propulsion & Mechanical Systems, ANM - 112 FAA Tran sport Airplane Directorate Standards Staff Phone 425 - 227 - 2192 We value your feedback. Click here to send us yourfeedback.<http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/stakeholder_

feedback/air/field/>
From: "Lane, Douglas M" <do uglas.m.lane@boeing.com<mailto:douglas.m.lane@boeing.com>>

ANM - 112, Propulsion & Mechanical Systems To: Victor Wicklund/ANM/FAA@FAA, Date: 06/06/2013 01:59 PM Subject: Exemption Regulations question

________________________________ Based on our conversation this morning, I went back and re - read Part 11 relative to exemptions. 11.81 states: What information must I include in my petition for an exemption? You must include the following information in your petition for an exem ption and submit it to FAA as soon as you know you need an exemption. (a) Your name and mailing address and, if you wish, other contact information such as a fax number, telephone number, or e - mail address; (b) The specific section or sections of 14 CFR fr om which you seek an exemption; (c) The extent of relief you seek, and the reason you seek the relief; (d) The reasons why granting your request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole; (e) The reasons why grant ing the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek the exemption; (f) A summary we can publish in the Federal Register, stating: (1) The rule from which you seek the exemption; and (2) A brief description of the nature of the exemption you seek; (g) Any additional information, views or arguments available to support your request; and (h) If you want to exercise the privileges of your exempt ion outside the United States, the reason why you need to do so. Amdt. 11 - 46, Eff. 9/20/2000 I highlighted (e), because that is where my procedural question lies. You advised this morning that a full/non
- time - limited exemption wasn't possible because it would not provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by Amdt 102. Paragraph (e) seems to allow for a path that is based only on "not adversely affect safety" - because the word "or" is used between the two parts of the paragraph it does not appear that applicants would be required to meet both halves. I think the petitions the Programs submitted made a case that allowing the FQPU replacement would not adversely affect safety relative to continued production (which is allowable). I believe that in the case of the 737, some of the changes should slightly enhance safety, suggesting that the first half of paragraph (e) would be applicable. What guidance is available that would direct me to the 2nd half of paragraph (e) instead of the 1st half ?Thank you - as we discussed today, John and I will need to be able to explain the

requirements to the Programs so I appreciate any insight you can provide. Thanks! Doug