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 isto infonn you that we have granted your request forexemption from §26. [I of Title 14,Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR). Note that § 26.33 does not apply to supplemental type certificates issued aft:erDecember 25, 2008, andtherefore, the relief you requested fr0111 this section is not applicable. This letter transmits our decision, explains itsbasis, and gives you the conditions and lImitations ofthe exemption. The Basis for Our Decision By letter no. 7-7FIW-RIC09-098 dated September 4,2009, The Boeing Company petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for anexemption from 

## S 26.11 regarding the requirement fordesign approval holders (DAH) to develop instructions for continued airworthiness (leA) applicable to an airplane's electrical wiring interconnection systems (EWlS) fordesign changes. Section 26.11(c) also requires DARs to submit the EWlS ICA to the FAA Oversight Office forreview and approval. You requested that the deslgn changes documented inFAA Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01999SE be exempt fromthese requirements. This STC modifies Boeing Model 737-700 airplanes configured for military service, with nopractical use incommercial operation.2

The FAA has determil1ed that good cause exists fornot publishing asummary ofthe petition in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not setaprecedent, and any delay inacting on this petition would be detrimental to Boeing. The FAA has issued agrant ofexemption incircumstances similar in all material respects to those presented inyourpetition. In Grant ofExemption no. 9811 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that allofthe airplanes 5ho\\ln in Table 

## nofthal exemption \vere heavily modified either for U.S. mJlitary use, or forhead~of-state ornulitary use by aforeign 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 inthe future will be operated, incommon carnage. I-lavingreviewed your reasons forrequesting an exemption, 1fmdthate they do not differ materially from those presented by thepetitioner inthe enclosed grant ofexemption; e the reasons stated bythe FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the situation youpresent; and <!I a grant ofexemption isinthe public interest. Our- Decision Under the authority contained in49 U.S.c. 40113 and44701, which the F,t.,A Administrator has delegated to me, Ihereby grant The Boeing Company an exemption from 14CFR 26.11, subject tothe conditions and limitations described below. Conditions and Limhations This exemption grants relief to The Boeing Company [Tomhaving to meet the requirements of §26.11 fordeveloping Electrical Wiring Interconnection Systems Instnlctions forContinued 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 aperson choose to operate, underpm1121 orpart 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 berequired to comply witb those operational requirements. Sincerely, '--I /--
.'/\ / 

## /-f·' .-/ 

## , ! Jeffrey Dllven Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service
EnclosureExemption No. 9811
UNITED STATES OF A.I\1ERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTR<\TION RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057-3356

Inthe matter ofthe petition of The Boeing Company

- Wichita Division for anexemption from 

### §§ 26.47 and 26.49 ofTitle 14,Code ofFederal Regulations Regulatory Docket No. I'AA-2008-0800

PARTIAL GRANT OF EXEMPTION By asubmission tothe Department ofTransportation'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) foran exemption from the requirements ofTitle 14,Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) 26.47 and 26.49. This exemption is requested [or 4 supplemental type certificates (STCs) installed on orlobe installed on 11 airplanes. The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations: §26.47 Holders ofand applicants for a supplemental type certificate

- Alterations and repairs to alterations, which requires developing damage tolerance data foraircraft alterations and repairs. §26.49 Compliance plan, which requires aproject schedule and proposed means ofcompliance 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 thedocket.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 14CFR §16A7 would pemnt Boeing Wichita to apply more resources to the development of the damage 101era'ncedata foralterations for those remailling STCs to which the rule is applicable.

Federal Register publication A swnmary ofthe petition was published in the Federal Register on January 16, 2009 (74 FR 3129). Although the summary sent to theFederal Register forpublication stipulated acomment period of 10days, when the summary appeared inprint the comment period ending date was identified asJanuary 20,2009, thus effectively establishing a4-day commcnt pcriod. The Federal Register was unable to issue acorrection by January 26,2009, the date the comment period should have closed. No COIllil1ents were received regarding the exemption request, but as aresult ofthe 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 forcomment inthe past.
The FA
... A's analysis The FAA has developed criteria to consider when deciding whether to grant or deny adesign approval holder's (DAH's) petition forexemption 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 astarting point formaking its decision. However other [actors may also be considered before afinal decision is made on any particular exemption request. The criteria are illustrated inthe table that follows.

2Table I 

### Criteria for Considering Eligibility forExemption from §§ 26.11, 26.43, 26.45, 26.47, or 26.49

--- 

### -- Utile. And And And Then airworthiness ~Llthority for the state ofdesign 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 itis unlikely carrier and it is unlikely eligible for ,"vill do so inthe future 3 that any \\'ill do so in the that any will do so Inthe 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 isunlikely that any will date I and itisunlikely that compliance date Iand itis 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 itis unlikely that any registered) and itis unlikely eligible for \'villdo so IIIthe funlre l that any will do so inthe 

# "' 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 2and itisunlikely tbat retum to sucb service in anv will return to such the future 

# . sc;"'JCein the future 3 

# , The design approval holder must demonstrate that these airplanes \vill not be operating under part 121 orpart 129, or operated by a foreign air carrier, "Herthe 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 compliauce d<lteby obtaining documcntation of such from the current owners/operators ofthe airplanes. 0 Arguments for tllelikelillOod ofan airplane not entering into air carrier service in the future should center ontile <lirplane's age and/ol"ClIlTCnt

configuration.

3The detemlination ofwhether an airplane is operating under part 121 orpart 129isbased on

whether the particular airplane is listed on an aircarrier's Operations Specifications. The rationale behind the criteria contained in the table above isthis: The rules require DAHs 10 develop data {-or

useby operators. Ifthere are no operators foraparticular airplane who are required by the rules to Lise such data, itwould bc apoor use ofresources forthe DAH to develop it. Therefore, ilwould benet!.tboth the DAB and the public as awhole to spend resources on more important safety Issues rather than on developing data that will notbe 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 itlikely 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 nothave an adverse effect on public safety and would be 111 the public interest based on the following infonnation. Seven ofthe 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 bereturned topali 121 or 129common carriage. (Refer to FDMS forthe "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 anold airplane, with no civil maintenance program, making itvery unlikely that itcould be used inconunercial service. The FAA rmdsthat this request meets the criteria outlined inTable 1 for3 ofthe 4 STCs forwhich exemption was requested. There arc no other factors tobe considered regarding the STCs installed in seven of the 11 aircraft named inthe petition for exemption. The FAA considers that, rather than developing data that will not be used, itwill benefit both the DAH and the public as awhole for the DAJ-:I

to spend resources on more important safety issues. For the 4 airplanes that have not yetreceived their STC, an exemption would not be inthe 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, noexemption will be needed asthe work to comply with §§ 26.47 and 26.49 is negligible. Additionallnformation This exemption grants relief toThe Boeing Company

- Wichita DiviSIOnfrom having to meet the requirements of §§ 26.47 and 26.49 fordevelopment ofdamage tolerance data forrepairs and alterations. This exemption does not granl relief fromthe related operational requirements contained in 

### §§ 121.1109 or 129.109. Should aperson choose to operate, underpart 121 orpart 129, any ofthe airplanes indicated inTable [Iforwhich 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.

4Table 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 Inconsideration ofthe foregoing, 1find that apartial grant ofexemption is inthe public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in49 U.S.c. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated tome by the Administrator, The Boeing Company·- Wichita Division is hereby granted an exemption from §* 26.47 and 26.49 for3 STCs installed on 7 airplanes as listed inTable II above.
Issued inRenton Washington on January 27, 2009. Is/Ah Bahrami Ali Bahrami Manager Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service

5