Regulatory Docket Nos. 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 Groat,

Doug Saltarelli, Todd Esselstyn

Meeting Summary:

The meeting was held in part to discuss what information we still needed in order to proceed with the 

Boeing petition for exemptions for fuel quantity processor unit replacement and other changes affecting 

fuel quantity indication system 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 system 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 system. 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 technical experts in attendance said that they would coordinate within 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 Landes, 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 affecting fuel quantity indication system 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 system 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 provide 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, 2013

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 changes affecting the fuel quantity indication systems 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 petition was much sooner. Boeing explained that 

they were making arrangements to incorporate certain structural changes in some of their airplanes that 

involved rerouting FQIS 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.

The FAA requested the flow time required for Boeing to incorporate a fully compliant design 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 Wicklund/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 were 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, Propulsion & 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 this 

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 effect on safety in most cases.

The time-limited exemption limits the effects on safety presented by the noncompliance by bringing the design into full compliance in a timely manner.

Victor Wicklund

Manager, Propulsion & Mechanical Systems, ANM-112

FAA Transport Airplane Directorate Standards Staff

Phone 425-227-2192

We value your feedback. Click here to send us your 
feedback.<http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/stakeholder_

feedback/air/field/>

From: "Lane, Douglas M" 

<douglas.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 exemption 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 from 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 granting 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 exemption 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