Exemption No. 10104

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADI~nNISTRATlON

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057-3356

In the matter of the petition of

Regulato~ Docket No. FAA~2010-0648

Evergreen International Airlines, Inc.

for an exemption from § 25.1415(b) of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated June 11, 20 I0, Mr. David R. Heath, Di~ector of Engineering, Evergreen

International Airlines, Inc., 3850 Three Mile Lane, MCfYlinnville,Oregon, 97128, petitioned fOlia

temporary exe~ption from the :et~uir~me~ts ofTit~e Ii, Code of Federal Regulations (1.4C~R~

25.1415(b), as It relates to the ImlltatJOl1sIIITechnIcal ptandard Order (TSO) C70a, whIch IlltlltS

Type II Iiferafts to non-transport category airplanes. Ev:ergreen International Airlines has 14

airplanes with these liferafts installed.

The petitioner requests relief from the foHowing regulation:

Section 25.1415(b) requires that each Iiferaft [1. a transport~category airplane be

approved.

Section 25.1301 (a)(3) requires that each item of installed equipment be installed

according to limitations specified for that equiJment.

Tbe petitioner snpports its request witb tbe fOIlOWitg information:

This text is quoted from the petitioner's request. I

Evergreen International Airlines (EIA), petitions for a temporary exemption from the

provisions of Section 25.1415(b) for the airplarles listed in Table 1 below. Section

25.l415(b) requires that each life raft for a tranbport categOlYairplane be approved. EIA

requests relief from these provisions of part 251as it relates to the scope definition in
Technical Standard Order (TSO) C70A that sta es Type II Life rafts are for use in NonTransport Category Airplanes.

Section of the FAR affected:

Section 25 1415(b) requires that each life raft for a transport cateoory airplane be 0

approved.

Table 1 - Affected Aircraft

Tail Number VRBLNumber Line Number Serial Number

N470EV RJl33 2371 20653

N471EV RJ131 2091 70651

N482EV RD042 2191 20713

N485EV RD041 7181 20712

N486EV RD043 2401 20888

N487EV RD772 6141 23286

N488EV RD773 6171 23287

N489EV RD774 6331 23393

N490EV RRZ06 7061 24138

N491EV RR852 1042 26561

N747BC RT876 9041 25879

N249BA RT631 766 24309

N718BA RT743 932 27042

N780BA RT632 778 24310

Supportive information is as follows:

ElA has been compelled to petItion for an exem,ptIOn to SectlOn 25.1415(b) for the EIA I

B747-200C/F/SF andB747-400LCF as listed iJi Table 1 for a brief period of _

approximately 100 days. Within tbis request, EIiA will show that by granting this petitlOiI,

an equivalent level of safety is maintained. Fail{rre to grant the exemption represents an

economic hardship to EIA that was not avoidab e through actions on EIA's part.

Background:

Recently, ErA was contacted by its Certificate ~anagement Office (CMO) and was

provided a copy ofthe FAA Notice N8900.116 for review and action. EIA has reviewed

the FAA Notice. EIA understands the issue the letter is raising, but differs in the

assessment of the approval status of its current life rafts (Eastern Aere Marine (EAM)

Model T9, PIN ROI 03A 121), hereinafter referrcld to as a T91ife raft.

EIA agrees that FARs 25.1415 and 121.339 are valid and require the use of approved life

rafts on its 747 freighters. How-ever, ETA's position is that neither of these regulations

require a specific TSO life raft, but simply state that the life rafts must be approved.

2
There are many examples in the FARs where s~ecific TSOs are called out for various

items ofrequrred equipment. Life rafts are not pne of these cases. Life rafts used on

transport-category aircraft could be covered by rso ell, C69, or C70, or by any other

specification approved by the F.M.

EIA also agrees that TSO C70a, Appendix 1, Saope, states:

"TYPE I - For use in any category aircraft.

TYPE IT- For use in non-transport category aircraft."

However, ErA's secondary position is that tms slatement in TSO C70a is not the only

factor to be considered. Specific intended use rbust also be considered. There are ,

numerous cases on a 747 freighter where specia'l consideration is given to the fact that

only crewmembers and "supemumeraries" are darried. While FAR Part 25 does not

specifically mention "supernumeraries", there iJ long history of the FAA considering

these unique personnel during mlemaklng and dertification approvals. The history of

specific FAA approval of the use of the T91ife bft is evidence of this consideration.

EIA has used the T9 life raft for almost 20 yeJ with full FAA knowledge and approval.

In the Ailvvortruness Directive 92-14-02, the F1A acknowledged the common usage of

the T9 life raft. The FAA did not deem the use ef this life raft a safety concern, but

simply required a lanyard no different than for TSO C70a Type I life rafts. This AD

required compliance with EA1v1SB T9-25-1 onllife rafts used on the 747 upper deck, with

which ElA has complied. Had the use of the T9ljfe raft been deemed a safety or

compliance concern during this FAA rulemakiJg process, the AD would have prohibited

T9 use on 747 freighters.

The STC SA2121 CE-D was used to convert E~'s retired transport category aircraft

N477EV and N478EV from passenger to freigh~er by Boeing. This STC installed life

rafts per the Boeing drawing 65B58005, -509 ccmfiguration on these aircraft. Please note

that the life raft is listed as "EAMT9-121". Thif is the model number for our life raft PrN

RO103A 121. The "EAM" refers to Eastern Aerp Marine; the "T9" is the basic life raft I

model; and the" 121'~identifies the FAR part 121 kit included in the life raft. STC

SA2125CE-D and Boeing drawing 016U5920, 11 configuration arc essentially the same,

but are effective to aircraft N485EV.

In both cases, these STCs were reviewed and approved by the FAA for use of the T9 life

rafts on 747 freighters. These life rafts are inclJded in the certification data of these

aircraft and are therefore approved as required By FAR 25.1415 as part of the type design.

STC STOO185SE is an ErA STC allowing the CLriage of grooms on the main deck of a

properly equipped 747 freighter aircraft. As pa~ ofthjs STC, a palletized groom station

was constructed and approved as part of the reqpired equipment. This pallctizcd groom

station is defined by the EIA drawing 25-4-002 -92 Rev 1. This drawing calls out the use

3
oflife raft PIN RO103-1 05 or ROlO3Al 05. These are the same as life raft PIN

RO1O3A121, except they do not have lanyard rriodification described in AD 92-14-02.

This is because these life rafts are intended to bb used from the main deck (door 5L or

5R) and therefore the lanyard length is not the slafety concern it would be ifused on the

upper deck.

This groom station STC package was given extremely close scmtiny by the FAA Seattle

ACO at the time ofsubmLttal because it was th~ fint 747 STC to specifically allow the

carriage of grooms in the main deck cargo COm~3J.1ment.Life raft information was

submitted with the data package and the appro~al was granted. Therefore, as was the

case in the other STCs discussed, the T91ife raft was included in the certification data of

this STC. This meets the FAR 25.1415 requiretnent for the Iife raft to be approved as

part of the type design.

The above discussion provides fOUT completely separate occasions where FAA ACOs

have specIfically approved the use of the T9life rafts for use on 747 freighters. These

approvals constitute part of the type design for these aircraft. If the FAA deems the use

ofthese life rafts to be a safety concern, ElA w6uld expect the FAA to issue new

rulemaking and invite public comment, as is thJ long-standing normal process used by

the FAA in safety-related matters.

Further, the four cases discussed above clearly demonstrate that the histoJieal, or defacto,

policy of the FAA regarding the T91ife raft is that it is approved for use on 747

freighters. Three separate STC projects, involving two ACOs, and an AD rulemaking

process reviewed and specifically approved theluse ofT9life rafts on 747 freighters. The

Transport Directorate in Seattle defines transpor aircraft certification policy and their

demonstrated policy, for at least the last 20 years, has been to approve the T9 \J re raft for

use on 747 freighters. This demonstrated FAA Ipolicy of approval of the T9 Iife raft is

contrary to the new supposed national policy described in FAA Notice N8900.116, issued

by the Flight Standards Service.

A review of the FAA website for the Flight Standards Service shows their mission to be:

I

"The Flight Standards Service promotes safe af' transportation by selling {he standards

jar certification. and oversight oj airmen, air operators, air agencies, and designees. We

also promote safety offlight of civil aircraft anti air commerce by:

• Accomplishing certification. inspection, surveillance, investigation, and

enforcement

• Setting regulations and standards

• Managing the system for registration 0 civil aircraft and all airmen records"

4
1n contrast, a review of the FAA website for Aircraft Certification Service shows their

mission to be:

"The Aircraji Certification Service of the FAA IS the office responsible jar:

• Admmistering safety standards gOVernil~gthe design, production, and

airworthiness of civil aeronautical prolets;

• Overseeing design, production, and air1lOrthiness certification programs to

ensure compliance with prescribed safety standards;

• Providing a safety performance managLent system /0 ensure continued

operational safety of aircraft; and,

• Working with aviation authorities, manLffacturers, and other stakeholders to help

them successfully improve the safety afthe international air lransporCOlion

5ystem. "

The FAA Notice N8900.116 appears to skirt the nomlal rulemaking process used by the

FAA and does not appear to be in compliance \{'ith the mission statement for the Flight

Standards Service.

EIA strongly objects to being compelled to remove the 1'9 life rafts from OUT 747 freighter

fleet at the present time for the following reasobs:

I. There has beeo no unsafe condition iderltified for T9 Iife raft usage on the 747

freighter;

2. There has been no out-of-compliance condition identified for T91ife raft usage on

the 747 freighter;

3. There has been no certification rulemak'ng prohibiting T91ife raft usage on the

747 freighter per Part 39;

4. There has been no opportunity for public comment that the aforementioned

rulemaking process would normally prl~ide;

5. Replace~nent of the 1'9 life rafts in our 147 freighter tleet \vould be a.significant

econonuc burden to EIA, yet the FAA nas not perfonned an economIC costbenefit evaluation that would be part of Ithe normal rulemaking process;

5
6. While removal and replacement of the T9life raft would satisfy the FAA Notlc~

N8900.116, it nms contrary to the actual certification policy issued by the

Transport Directorate as evidenced by ~umerous previously approved certification

projects that contained installation of the T9 life raft.

EIA is committed to aircraft safety. EIA has sJcesSfUlIY and safely operated 747

freighters for over 20 years using the T9 life raft. ElA has never had any reported inserVIce, or shop, issues reported that would sugr10est this life raft is unsafe or incapable of

perfonning its intended function.

Not withstanding all of the above discussion, E~ has been compelled by FAA Flight

Standards, through its CMO, to petition for exe ption from Section 25.1415(b).

Safety:

EIA believes that the level of safety will not be compromised if EJA.is allowed to operate

these 14 aircraft with TSO C70A Type IT life rafts in lieu of the Type I life rafts for the

period requested.

EIA believes that EAM PINROI03A1211ife rafts, with incorporation of the modification

described in Airworthiness Directive 92-14-02,lwhen installed in 747 Freighters, will ,

perform their intended function. ErA therefore aoes not believe that the installation of the

EAM PiN ROI03Al21 life rafts on Model 747 feries airplanes, operated as freighters,

certificated in any category constitutes a safety issue.

This is supported by the fact that the FAA has not published a finding of an unsafe

condition associated with the use of the T91ife bft.

Projected usage during the requested exemPtioA period of 100 days represents very

limited exposure on a fleet with an exceptional safety record. Usage shall be limited to

the 14 aircraft as listed in Table 1.

Economic Hardship:

A cessation of extended overwater operation due to a Type n life raft restriction on these

14 aircraft would have an immediate impact onlboth EIA and its customers. Flights may

have to be cancelled, re~routed (at great expense and inconvenience to our customers) or

operated with more expensive equipment (if avhilable). ErA respectfully requests that an

exemption be granted until October 1, 2010 by rhich time the new life rafts will be

installed. ErA further requests that this exemption be approved on an expedited basis to

minimize impact on currently planned flights.

6
Public Comment:

EIA requests that the FAA not post a Summar I Notice oJ Petition Received on the

Federal Register for public comment in the norlnal fashion as the request is virtually

identical to Exemptions 9856, 9874, and 9976 kanted for other airlines; and due to the

fact that the nonnal comment period would ha Ie adverse effects on EIA should it be

forced to cancel currently plamled flights.

Use Outside of the United States:

ErA requests the petition for exemption be app oved for use outside of the United States

(US) as a large portion of its nonnal flight acti ity takes place beyond US borders.

Federal Register publication

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

publication because this exemption, if granted, would riot set a precedent, and recent, similar

petitions have received no public comments.

The FAA's analysis

The FAA notes that the petitioner has several reasons for requesting this temporalY exemption.

Underlying each of the arguments, however, is the relatively low risk associated with a temporary

grant of exemption. While the FAA agrees that the oc+pants of a freighter airplane are more

likely to be familiar with the airplane and its equipment, this is not relevant to the capability of

,

the liferaft itself. The liferafts presently installed are T$O C70a approved, Type II liferafts.

,

However, the TSO has a limitation such that the Type II liferafts are for use on non-transportcategory airplanes only. The TSO states that Type I lif6rafts are for transport-categOlY airplanes.

Section 25.1301 (a)(3) requires that each item of il1stallbd equipment be installed according to

limitations specified for that equipment. 1

Type I liferafts are designed to be more robust and sea orthy than Type II liferafts, and arc better

suited to the extended overwater operation typical of tt:allsport-category airplanes. Under such

conditions, the raft may need to be occupied for 10nge~periods oftime than would be necessary

for airplanes equipped with Type II liferafts. For these feasons, the FAA requires liferafts

meeting the standards of the Type I liferaft (principal1~, multiple innation chambers and

redundant inflation systems) on this type ofairplane.!i0netheless, given the relatively short time

period of the requested exemption and small number of airplanes affected, the FAA considers

that an exemption would not materially affect the leve] of safety provided by the regulations.

Since both Type I and Type II rafts are readily availablr for the airplane industry to purchase, the

FAA typically allows only a very short time to exchange the rafts. In this case, Evergreen

International Airlines has made arrangements to purchase replacement Type I liferafts and is

~aiting for the liferafts to be manufactured and ?eliVe~e? The FAA co~siders that addjti~nal

tIme ISwananted to allow for procurement and Install 'hon of the new hferafts on the subject

7
airplanes, a timeframe which \\'il1 not measurably degrade safety. Granting the exemption will

enable the petitioner to fulfill its contractual Obligationr! and avoid Ulmecessary disruptions of air

commerce, which would he in the public interest.

In consIderation of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest and will

not affect the level of safety provided by the regulationh. Therefore, pursuant to the authority

contained in 49 U.S.c. 40113 and 44701, delegated to be by the Administrator, Evergreen

International Airlines, Inc., is hereby granted an exem~tion from 14 CFR 25.1415(b). The

petition is granted to the extent required to permit oper

l

tlon of 14 Boeing Model 747 airplanes,

listed in Table 1, with TSO C70a Type n liferafts. Thi exemption expires on October 1, 2010.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

;fit

JUL 27 2010

Ali BahraIni

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate

Aircraft Certification Service

8