U.S. Deportmenl

of Tronsportotion

Federal Aviation

Adminisfration

February 24, 2010

Mr. Robert Carlson

Manager, AEW&C Certification

Program Certification Office, 7-TE1W

Mail Code 84-08

The Boeing Company

PO Box 3707

Seattle, WA 98124-2207

Dear Mr. Carlson:

Transport Airplane DIrectorate

1601 Und Ave. SW.

Renton, Washington 98057-3356

Exemption No.1 0008

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0833

This letter is to infonn you that we have granted your request for exemption from § 26. [I of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Note that § 26.33 does not apply to

supplemental type certificates issued aft:er December 25, 2008, and therefore, the relief you

requested fr0111 this section is not applicable.

This letter transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and

lImitations of the exemption.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter no. 7-7FI W-RIC09-098 dated September 4,2009, The Boeing Company petitioned

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from S 26.11 regarding the

requirement for design approval holders (DAH) to develop instructions for continued

airworthiness (leA) applicable to an airplane's electrical wiring interconnection systems

(EWlS) for design changes. Section 26.11(c) also requires DARs to submit the EWlS ICA to

the FAA Oversight Office for review and approval. You requested that the deslgn changes

documented in FAA Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01999SE be exempt from these

requirements. This STC modifies Boeing Model 737-700 airplanes configured for military

service, with no practical use in commercial operation.
2

The FAA has determil1ed that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Boeing.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption no. 9811 (copy enclosed), the FAA

found that all of the airplanes 5ho\\ln in Table nofthal exemption \vere heavily modified

either for U.S. mJlitary use, or for head~of-state or nulitary use by a foreign government, and

that these airplanes are still operated under those uses. In exemption no. 98]1, the FAA used

several methods to verify that tbe airplanes are not presently operated, nor in the future will be

operated, in common carnage.

I-laving reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, 1 fmd thate they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed

grant of exemption;

e the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the

situation you present; and

<!I a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our- Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.c. 40113 and 44701, which the F,t.,A Administrator

has delegated to me, I hereby grant The Boeing Company an exemption from 14 CFR 26.11,

subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limhations

This exemption grants relief to The Boeing Company [Tomhaving to meet the requirements of

§ 26.11 for developing Electrical Wiring Interconnection Systems Instnlctions for Continued

AifV.Iorthincssfor the design changes documented in STC STn 1999SE. This exemption does

not grant relief from the related operational requirements contained in §§ 121.1111 or

129.111. Should a person choose to operate, underpm1121 or part 129, any airplane modified

in accordance with this STC, beyond the operational compliance deadlines as stated in

§§ 121.1111 and 129.111, that person will be required to comply witb those operational

requirements.

Sincerely,

'--I /--

.'/\ /

/-f·' .-/

,

!

Jeffrey Dllven

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate

Aircraft Certification Service

Enclosure
Exemption No. 9811

UNITED STATES OF A.I\1ERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTR<\TION

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057-3356

In the matter of the petition of

The Boeing Company - Wichita Division

for an exemption from §§ 26.47 and 26.49

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

Regulatory Docket No. I'AA-2008-0800

PARTIAL GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By a submission to the Department of Transportation's Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS) dated July 7, 2008, Mr. David J. Horn orThe Boeing Company - Wichita Division,

Wichita, Kansas, 67210, petitioned the Federal Aviation Admmistration (FAA) for an exemption

from the requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 26.47 and 26.49. This

exemption is requested [or 4 supplemental type certificates (STCs) installed on or lo be installed

on 11 airplanes.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

§ 26.47 Holders of and applicants for a supplemental type certificate - Alterations and

repairs to alterations, which requires developing damage tolerance data for aircraft alterations

and repairs.

§ 26.49 Compliance plan, which requires a project schedule and proposed means of compliance

for § 26.47.

The petitioner supports its request with tbe following. This information is quoted from Mr.

David J. Horn's September 29, 2008 letter. This letter, which contains supplementary

infoffimtion, and the original July 7, 2008 petition letter from Mr. Horn, may both be found in

the docket.
Reasons Why the Exemption \Vould Not Adversely Affect Public Safety

The STCs listed in me reference b) letter will never be installed on any atha aircraft

other than those listed. Since the STCs listed in the reference b) letter were crealed

specifically for the governments thai operatc these Foreign Military Aircraft with features

that are not applicable to civil operation,lile STCs will not be installed on any aircraf! Ihat

wil! [bel operated under Part 12l or 119.

Reasons \Vhy Granting the Exemption \Vould Be in the Public lntercst

Exclusion of these airplanes from the requirements of section 14 CFR §16A7 would

pemnt Boeing Wichita to apply more resources to the development of the damage

101era'ncedata for alterations for those remailling STCs to which the rule is applicable.

Federal Register publication

A swnmary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on January 16, 2009 (74 FR

3129). Although the summary sent to the Federal Register for publication stipulated a comment

period of 10 days, when the summary appeared in print the comment period ending date was

identified as January 20,2009, thus effectively establishing a 4-day commcnt pcriod. The

Federal Register was unable to issue a correction by January 26,2009, the date the comment

period should have closed. No COIllil1entswere received regarding the exemption request, but as

a result of the closing date error \-vewill consider comments submitted after January 20, 2009_

Only supportive comments have been received for similar exemption petitions that have been

posted for comment in the past.

The FA...A's analysis

The FAA has developed criteria to consider when deciding whether to grant or deny a design

approval holder's (DAH's) petition for exemption from part 26 requirements. These critena are

meant as a general guide to making decisions about such requests and were not developed for

any specific request. The FAA uses these criteria as a starting point for making its decision.

However other [actors may also be considered before a final decision is made on any particular

exemption request.

The criteria are illustrated in the table that follows.

2
Table I

Criteria for Considering Eligibility for Exemption

from §§ 26.11, 26.43, 26.45, 26.47, or 26.49

--- --

Utile. And And And Then

airworthiness

~Llthority for the

state of design is

1 The FAA No airplanes "re No airplanes are operating No airplanes are being The DAII

operating under part 121 underpart 129 (N- operated by a forelgn air may be

and it is unlikely that any registered) and it is unlikely carrier and it is unlikely eligible for

,"vill do so in the future 3 that any \\'ill do so in the that any will do so In the on

future

,

futUre :l exemption

2 The FAA Airplanes are operating Airplanes are operating Airplanes are being The OAK

under part 121 but no under part 129 (N- operated by a foreign air may be

airplanes wi]] be operated registered) but no airplanes carrier but no airplanes eligible for

under pan 121 afreTthe will be operated under part will be operated by a ,n

operational rule 129 (N-registered) after the foreign air carrier after the exemption

compliance date I and it operational mle compliance operational rule

is unlikely that any will date I and it is unlikely that compliance date I and it is

retum to such service in any will return to such unlikely that any wiU

the future -, service in the future 3 return to such service in

the turure 3

3 Not the FAA No airplanes are No airplanes arc operating The DAB

operating under part 121 under part 129 (N- may be

and it is unlikely that any registered) and it is unlikely eligible for

\'vill do so III the funlre l that any will do so in the

"'

ntnlIe 3 excmpuon

4 Not the FAA Airplanes are operating Airplanes are operating The DAB

under paJ1 ]2 [ but 110 under part 129 (N- may be

airplanes will be operated registered) but no airplanes eligible for

under part 121 after the will be operated under part ,n

operational rule ]29 (N-registcred) after the exemption

compliance date! and it operational rule compliance

is unlikely that any will date 2 and it is unlikely tbat

retum to sucb service in anv will return to such

the future . sc;"'JCe in the future 3

,

The design approval holder must demonstrate that these airplanes \vill not be operating under part 121 or part 129, or operated

by a foreign air carrier, "Her the operational rule compliance date by obtaining documentation of such fTomthe CUJTell!

owners/operators orthe airplanes.

2 The design approval holder must demonstrate that these airplanes will not he operating under pan 121 or part 129 after the

operational rule compl iauce d<lteby obtaining documcntation of such from the current owners/operators of the airplanes.

0 Arguments for tlle likelillOod of an airplane not entering into air carrier service in the future should center on tile <lirplane's age

and/ol" ClIlTCntconfiguration.

3
The detemlination of whether an airplane is operating under part 121 or part 129 is based on

whether the particular airplane is listed on an air carrier's Operations Specifications.

The rationale behind the criteria contained in the table above is this: The rules require DAHs 10

develop data {-oruse by operators. If there are no operators for a particular airplane who are

required by the rules to Lise such data, it would bc a poor use of resources for the DAH to

develop it. Therefore, il would benet!.t both the DAB and the public as a whole to spend

resources on more important safety Issues rather than on developing data that will not be used.

In addition, granting such an exemption would not adversely affect safety because there are no

airplanes that would be required to incorporate the data, nor is it likely that there will be any in

the future.

The FAA has reviewed The Boeing Company - Wichita Division petition and has determined

that granting this exemption would not have an adverse effect on public safety and would be 111

the public interest based on the following infonnation.

Seven of the 11 alTplanes under consideration have been modified specifically for foreign

government military usc. All II aircraft are foreign O\vned, as staled by the petitioner, who is

the STC installer and also the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). The petitioner has stated

that the subject aircraft will never be returned to pali 121 or 129 common carriage. (Refer to

FDMS for the "Additional Information" entries under this docket number.) The Model 767

atrplanes have had extensive structural modifications that make their use in future commercial

service unfeasible. The Model 737-200 is an old airplane, with no civil maintenance program,

making it very unlikely that it could be used in conunercial service. The FAA rmds that this

request meets the criteria outlined in Table 1 for 3 of the 4 STCs for which exemption was

requested. There arc no other factors to be considered regarding the STCs installed in seven of

the 11 aircraft named in the petition for exemption. The FAA considers that, rather than

developing data that will not be used, it will benefit both the DAH and the public as a whole for

the DAJ-:Ito spend resources on more important safety issues.

For the 4 airplanes that have not yet received their STC, an exemption would not be in the public

interest. New STCs will require compliance with § 25.57\, Amendment 25-45 or later, which

requires Damage Tolerance (DT) analysis, critical structure identification, and inspection plans.

Thereforc. since the DT data required for compliance with § 25.571 supports compliance with

§ 26.47, no exemption will be needed as the work to comply with §§ 26.47 and 26.49 is

negligible.

Additionallnformation

This exemption grants relief to The Boeing Company - Wichita DiviSIOn from having to meet

the requirements of §§ 26.47 and 26.49 for development of damage tolerance data for repairs and

alterations. This exemption does not granl relief from the related operational requirements

contained in §§ 121.1109 or 129.109. Should a person choose to operate, underpart 121 or part

129, any of the airplanes indicated in Table [I for which exemption is hereby granted, beyond the

operational compliance deadlines as stated in § 121.1109 or § 129.109, that person will be

required to comply with those operational requirements.

4
Table II

The Boeing Company - Wichita Division

Exemption Request - Docket No. FAA-2008-0800

STC Exemptions Requested STC Exemptions Approved

STC Number Aircraft Model Aircraft SIN STC Number Aircraft Model Aircraft SIN

27385, 27385,

STOO618WI-D Boeing 767 -27e 27391, STOO618WI-D BoeirlQ 761-27e 27391,

28016, 28016,

28017 28017

SA1445CE-D Boeing 737-2NI 21167 SA1445CE-D Boeing 737-2NI 21167

ST01429WI-D Boeing 767-2FK 33844,ST01429WI-D Boeing 767-2FK 33844,

33958 33958

33686.

TBD Boeing 167-2EY 33587.

33688,

33689

The FAA's decision

In consideration of the foregoing, 1 find that a partial grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.c. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me

by the Administrator, The Boeing Company·- Wichita Division is hereby granted an exemption

from §* 26.47 and 26.49 for 3 STCs installed on 7 airplanes as listed in Table II above.

Issued in Renton Washington on January 27, 2009.

Is/Ah Bahrami

Ali Bahrami

Manager

Transport Airplane Directorate

Aircraft Certification Service

5