Exemption No. 10131 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

Humanitarian Air Logistics, Inc. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0164

 

for an exemption from § 21.27(a) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

 By letter dated February 8, 2010, Mr. Paul Asmus, President, Humanitarian Air Logistics, 

Inc., (HAL), P.O. Box 61088, Palo Alto, CA 94396, petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) on behalf of HAL for an exemption from § 21.27(a) of Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow The 

Boeing Company’s (Boeing) military model C-17 aircraft to be exempt from the eligibility 

requirements of § 21.27(a), specifically, the need for the aircraft to be "accepted for 

operational use, and declared surplus by, an Armed Force of the United States.” The HAL 

petition is for use of the C-17 for humanitarian and commercial purposes. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 21.27(a) prescribes the following requirements for issuance of type certificates (TCs) 

for surplus aircraft of the Armed Forces: 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section an applicant is entitled to a type 

certificate for an aircraft in the normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, or transport 

category that was designed and constructed in the United States, accepted for 

operational use, declared surplus by an Armed Force of the United States, and is 

shown to comply with the applicable certification requirements in paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

AIR-10-171-E 
2

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

HAL requests the Boeing military C-17 aircraft [U.S. Air Force (USAF) C-17 Globemaster 

III] be made eligible for FAA transport category type certification even though the specific 

aircraft proposed to be type certificated has not been declared surplus, by an Armed Force of 

the United States as required by § 21.27(a). 

HAL claims a need for additional airlift capacity because of the lack of oversize cargo aircraft 

in the United States and the need to contract with foreign air carriers operating heavy-lift 

aircraft that are similar in capabilities to the C-17. HAL also cites the denied exemption to 

Boeing (regulatory docket no. FAA-2006-25210, Exemption No. 9759) and argues that 

HAL’s petition provides the public interest support lacking in the Boeing petition. A 

summary of the Boeing petition was published in the Federal Register on July 18, 2006 

(71 FR 40776). HAL states its petition for exemption is in the public interest and should be 

granted because it will: 

1. Not adversely affect flight safety. 

2. Facilitate the most cost effective and efficient use of the C-17 for humanitarian and 

commercial service. 

3. Address any national security concerns over the use of foreign aircraft for “oversize” 

charter flights by the Department of Defense as expressed by the General Accounting 

Office and shared with Congress. 

4. Contribute to the enhancement of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) program. 

5. Fulfill the “Sense of Congress” (found in Public Law 110-417 Section 1037) whereby 

the Secretary of Transportation was encouraged to consider providing such an 

exemption under 21.27(a); 

6. Reduce the dependence on USAF pilots for humanitarian flights and help to mitigate 

any shortage of said pilots. 

7. Take advantage of the advanced technology in the C-17 to increase the level of flight 

safety found in the U.S. airspace over that of the older less advanced airframes found 

with foreign operators utilizing U.S. airspace. 

HAL states that the USAF C-17 was designed and built to USAF airworthiness standards and 

began its operational service with the USAF in 1993. The aircraft uses modern Primary 

Flight Display equipment that enhances flight safety. In typical commercial applications, the 

C-17 would have outsize-cargo delivery capabilities that are not available in any other 

airplane type certificated by the FAA. 

HAL declares the C-17 would: 

1. Replace U.S. military aircraft currently engaged in humanitarian relief operations to 

victims of disaster, and its use will help fulfill U.S. foreign policy objectives. 

2. Facilitate production of oil and gas pipelines and refineries, reducing losses from 

political instability and other geopolitical problems. 

3. Aid national security by its use in transporting spent nuclear fuel and for fighting 

forest fires as a tanker aircraft. 
3

4. Continue to support military operations as part of a CRAF aircraft program should 

there be a need for the C-17 to support military operations. 

5. Support CRAF initiatives because an equivalent aircraft does not exist in the civilian 

fleet. 

HAL provides examples of the uses for the C-17 where currently the only commercial 

alternative is to use the Russian Antonov AN-124 cargo aircraft. According to the docket 

information provided, DOT-OST-2010-0016, the use of the AN-124 was to transport Bell 

UH-1N and Bell AH-1W rotorcraft, because this cargo was too large for any other 

commercial aircraft. The C-17 would have been able to provide this service. 

HAL includes in its petition two separate letters, one from the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense, and another from the Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, 

supporting the need to find a more efficient way to deliver humanitarian aid. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal 

Register publication of HAL’s petition because the FAA published a summary of the Boeing 

petition and requested comments on issues that are similar to those raised in the HAL petition. 

The FAA received numerous comments in response to that petition. Those comments 

supported Boeing’s petition. 

The Basis for Our Decision: 

By letter dated February 8, 2010, you petitioned the FAA on behalf of HAL for an exemption 

from 14 CFR § 21.27 (a). The exemption would allow HAL to apply for a type certificate for 

a Boeing military C-17 by exempting that aircraft from the eligibility requirements of 

§ 21.27 (a), specifically the need for the aircraft to be "accepted for operational use, and 

declared surplus by, an Armed Force of the United States.” 

The FAA denied an exemption to Boeing, the manufacturer of the C-17, in circumstances 

similar to those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 9759 (copy enclosed), 

the FAA found that: 

The petition also asserts that granting the exemption would benefit the public by 

providing a safe alternative, in lieu of the foreign-registered and certified AN-124, for 

transport of heavy and outsize cargo for commercial and government customers while 

facilitating operations into short field and austere airports. Although Boeing has 

asserted that there is a compelling need to provide outsized cargo civil service to 

smaller airports, it has not provided any information to substantiate that civil use of 

the BC-17 to fulfill this need is in the public interest. Without a compelling reason, 

the FAA does not find that circumventing the normal certification process through an 

exemption to § 21.27(a) is justified. 
4

The petition asserts that U.S. jobs will be created by the entry of the BC-17 into civil 

service. As most petitions of exemption could cite economic benefit to some degree, 

the FAA does not consider statements of positive economic impact, on the local or 

national scale, to be a persuasive argument in the justification that the petition is in the 

public interest. 

The alternative argument made by Boeing that an abbreviated certification process 

would be in the public interest is not sufficiently compelling to justify an exemption. 

The FAA reviewed HAL’s request to make a military C-17 eligible for type certification 

under § 21.27(a) and we find the information in the petition insufficient to support a grant of 

exemption. While the petitioner provides letters from the Assistant Secretary of Defense and 

the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command citing potential capacity and flexibility HAL’s 

proposed fleet of aircraft could provide, the letters did not make a compelling case of public 

interest. The two letters only provide general support for the availability of additional 

resources, but do not state a definite need for the availability of that particular aircraft. 

The movement of out-size cargo is possibly a beneficial business venture as indicated by the 

petitioner’s supporting documentation. And providing additional airlift capacity is not 

without merit; however, the FAA finds the petitioner has not shown how a grant of exemption 

to § 21.27 (a) would be in the public interest as defined in 14 CFR 11.81 (d). 

The petitioner has also not demonstrated how type certification of the C-17 would provide an 

equivalent level of safety to the certification requirements of 14 CFR § 21.21 or would not 

adversely affect safety if the FAA allowed a different certification standard under § 21.27 (a). 

The FAA is unaware of a C-17 being delivered and accepted for operational use by the U.S. 

Armed Forces. The FAA is also unaware of any C-17 being declared surplus by the Armed 

Forces and made available to the public. The petitioner, Boeing, and the U.S. Armed Forces 

has not provided any service history documentation to demonstrate that the C-17 has an 

acceptable level of safety for civilian type certification. The FAA cannot conclude that the use 

of § 21.27 type certification would provide an acceptable level of safety in civilian use for the 

C-17. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

they don’t differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the Boeing denial of 

exemption; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the Boeing exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption wouldn’t be in the public interest. 
5

The FAA’s Decision: 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny the petition of Humanitarian Air Logistics, 

Inc. for an exemption from 14 CFR § 21.27(a). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 10, 2010. 

/s/ 

K.C. Yanamura 

Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service 

Enclosure