Exemption No. 9779B

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADl\IINISTRATION RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057-3356

Inthe matter ofthe petition of
THE BOEING COMPANY for exemption from §§ 25.7850), 25.857(e), and 25.1447(c)(I) ofTitle 14,Code ofFederal Regulations Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-0323

DENTAL OF EXEMPTION By letter dated March 8, 2010, Jordan B. Zundell, Lead Project Administrator, Production and Retrofit Projects, The Boeing Company, PO Box 3707, Seattle" Washington, 98124-2207, petitioned for an amendment to Exemption No. 9779A. The proposed amended exemption, if granted, would allow the installation ofalocking feature on the access doors between the supernumerary seating area andthe Class E cargo compartment on Boeing Model 777F airplanes. Itwould also alia\\'-in~flightaccess from the supernumerary seating area into the Class Ecargo compartment during night forthe purpose ofattending to cargo types requiring care or inspection, orboth (e.g., live animals and/or hazardous materials). The petitioner requests relieffrom the following re~ulations: Section 25.857(e), atAmendment 25~93,requires, in p~rtinent part, that when aClass Ecargo compartment is installed on the airplane, the airplane is used for carriage ofcargo only. Related regulations: Section 12l.S83(a) contains, in pertinent part, alisting ofcategories ofpersons who may be carried aboard anairplane inpart 121 service without complying with all therequirements of part 121pertaining to carriage ofpassengers. The petitioner supports its request with the following information: This section quotes therelevant information tram the ~etitioner's request, with editorial changes for consistency and clarity. The complete petition isallailable atthe Department of Transportation's Federal Docket Management System, on the Internet at http://regulations.gov, inDocket No. FAA~2007-0323.Revision ofthe Exemption [9779AJ isrequested to include changes affecting supernumerary access to the Class Ecargo compartment during flight. Exemption 9779A, as written, does 110t address the effects of 10,ckableRigid Cargo SalTier Access Doors orthe conditions required to permit access to the cargo compartment when such devices are installed onthe airplane. Existing Excmption 9779A allows, inpart, access t6 the main deck cargo compartment during flight. Upto eleven (11) supernumeraries can be inside the compartment provided live animals needing their care/attention are being c,arried. Ifonly regular cargo isbeing carried, the exemption limits the number tothree (3) [supemumeraries]. Any person entering the compartment must take a portable oxygen bottle (with full face mask) with them.
When Boeing originally petitioned the FAA, an optional airplane configuration (currently limited to one customer) was not described, that includes alock feature added to the rigid cargo barrier (RCB) access doors that separate the ~upernumerary area and the Class E cargo compartment. The customer required the locfable doors inorder to preclude a potentially harmful stowaway inside the cargo compartment from gaining access to the flightdeck. Itisan airplane security issue with this birline. As such, the sliding access doors can only be either locked orunlocked from the forward side ofthe RCB. The supernumerary seating area is immediately forwardlofthe ReB, and the flightdeck is forward ofthat.
This request for an amendment to Exemption 9779A isnot regulation specific. When the Exemption was developed prior to certification ofthe first 777F airplane, alock on both RCS doors and access to the Class E cargo compartment by supernumerary personnel was not envisioned. Consequently, further review, bonsideration, design solutions, and limitations are required to ensure safety ofthe supefnumerary personnel. SuppOlting lnfonnation:
The addition ofalock tothe cargo access doors serres to address contractual obligations between the airline operator and itspilots' union. TIle lock is added to address pilot concerns regarding the potential for stowaways to apcess the supernumerary compartment and flightdeck from the cargo compartment when np lock is inplace.
The intended operations would be forthe access doors to be locked at all times unless the cargo compartment isoccupied. There is past precedence where locks have been added to cargo access doors (MD~10,MD-Il, 767, 747, a?d 777F). Ingeneral, the primary difference inthese designs isthat access to the cargp areas is prohibited during taxi, takeoff, flight and landing. Flight Manual instructions and placards installed inthose configurations prohibit access tothe Class Ecargo ?ompartments during those phases of flight. One significant difference inthis statement j'sinregard to an MD-l I configuration that was developed and certified for UPS, which in¢luded a lock all the RCB access door and also allowed access tothe cargo compartment.

2A safety concern has been identified concerning supernumerary entrapment. Personnel could be inadvertently entrapped inthe Class Ecargo compartment ifacrewmember or other supernumerary were to lock the door because they did not know the compartment was occupied, or, ifthey locked the door out ofbabit.
Discussion regardiug risk ofentrapment
Afunctional hazard assessment has been completed! to assess and categorize specific hazard scenarios associated \\lith the locking RCB access doors.
Justification for amendment to exemption
To provide an acceptable level of safety that addres,;;esthe concern ofentrapping an individual inthe Class E cargo compartment, additional precautions will be implemented. Flightcrew and supernumerary communication protocols will be improved. The supernumeraries will be required to announce their intent to enter the Class Ecargo compartment To ensure all personnel onthe airplane are awme that personnel will be in the Class Ecargo compartment, the flightcrew will be notified prior to entry. Inthe case where multiple supernumeraries are onthe airplanel a "buddy" system may beemployed where each supernumerary can be paired with abU9dyand will be responsible to be aware oftheir buddy's whereabouts. Prior to entry into the cargo compartment, ifthere is one or more supernumeraries remaining inthe supeh1Umerary compartment, at least one ofthe remaining supernumeraries will be designated to ensure the access doors remain unlocked. Lastly, the f1ightcrew must be advised when all personnel have exited the Class Ecargo compartment. Flightcrew and supernumerary communications bet\veen the Class Ecargo compartment and flightdeck will also be improved through techn6logy. 

# I 1. Two new Cargo Assist push button switches will be installed aft ofand within six feet (2to 3 [Tames)ofthe Rigid Cargo Barrier Doors. Tpe cargo assIst push button switches will be located within the left and right sidewall lim~rs
2. Th, '"'go assist alening system will pmvide an fucaIannunciation", well as avisual indication onthe flightdeck inorder toraise awareness ofthe flightcrew regarding the need for assistance inthe cargo compartment. Public interest The demand for shipment ofgoods by aircargd continues to grow worldwide. The 777F freighter airplane is being built to support this ihcreasing demand in amanner that is very economical to air cargo operators. The 777F c6nfiguration provides main deck cabin seating for supemumeraries (who must meet th~criteria defined in §§ 121.583(a)(1) through (a)(7)). Having necessary supernurnerJries inunediately available for cargo handling and management reduces operational basts bynot having supernumeraries take separate commercial f1ightsto the cargo destinJtion, which also reduces the turn-around 

# I

" 

## -,time forthe cargo carrier. Granting access to the cargo compartment eliminates certain

limitations forthe operators when transporting hazardous materials or live animals. This serves the overall public interest by virtue ofthe net cost savings for cargo shipment, resulting in lower costs for goods and material transported as air cargo, as ultimately reflected in lower consumer costs for goods transported as air cargo. The addition of alocking feature on the RCB doors safeguards the llightcrew and supernumerary areas against potential intrusion. Though this feature isnot intended for, orqualified as asecurity item, the introduction of such afeatrne could serve the overall public interest by virtue ofanenhanced security benefit. Federal Register publication A summary ofthepetition was published inthe Federal Register on March 30, 20I0 (75 FR 15771). The FAA did not receive any comments. The FAA's analysis The originaJ version ofthis exemption aHowed access into the Class Ecargo compartment during flight forthree types ofoperation. Inthis petition to amend the exemption, the petitioner requested that the FAA continue togrant access to the Class Ecargo compartment inflight, and, in addition, allow the installation ofalock onboth ofthe access doors to the cargo compartment. The stated reason forrequesting permission to install the locks isto address contractual obligations between an airline operator and their pilots' union. The lock isintended to address the union's concern regarding the potential for stowaways to access the supernumerary compartment from the cargo compartment and then the flightdeck. While the FAA recognizes the importance ofcontractual obligations between the airline operator and itspilots' union, our focus ison the safety aspect oftheproposal. Per ourrequest, Boeing made several attempts to have the operator engage indiscussions toexplore alternatives to the locking feature. We were told that the operator preferred tohave Boeing discuss:the issue with us. Recognizing the safety concern ofthe proposed design we explored alternative design features with Boeing butwere unsuccessful inidentifying an acceptable alternative.

tn analyzing this request we weighed the harmfuJ stowaway issue against the possibility of accidentally locking anoccupant inthe Class Ecargo compartment. We have carefully reviewed theposition ofthe petitioner and determined that the potential negative ramifications on supernumeraries locked in the cargo compartment faroutweigh the potential gain in security. Below isadiscussion on how we arrived atthis decision. The issue ofa secure door to protect the flightdeck on cargo airplanes was discussed inthe FAA's finalrule, request for comment, Security Considerations in the Design o/the Flightdeek on Transport CategolY Airplanes, Amendment No. 25-106, Docket FAA-200 1-11032 (67 FR2118, January IS, 2002). We received several comments during the public comment period and after considcrable discussion determined that ifanoperator has anapproved Transportation Security Administration (TSA) security program alocking door isnot needed. At that time, we stated lhat improvements in security are rtecessary for all-cargo operations that

I 4permit the carriage ofpersons, whether on the flightdeck or aftofit. As such, the FAA issued

the final nile forFlightdeek Security 0/7Large Cargo Airplanes, Amendment Nos. 12]-299 and 129-38, Docket FAA-2003-15653 (68 FR 42882, July 18,2003). We also stated that we did not intend topursue any additional rulemaking regarding this issue. The petitioner stated that this amended exemption was necessary because ofa security issue raised by the pilots' union ",ith one operator. Itspurpose is topreclude a stowaway inthe cargo compartment fTomgaining access to the supernumerary compartment and then to the flightdeck. The operator inquestion has an approved security program that isdesigned to prevent, among other things, apotentially harmful stowaway from gaining access to the airplane. The TSA has implemented abroad Air Cargo Strategic Plan that employs alayered approach to security critical elements ofthe entire aircargo supply chain. The plan incorporates athreat-based risk management approach to ensure that all cargo deemed high risk is inspected. It focuses on strategies to secure air cargo perimeters, facilities, equipment, and personnel who have access to cargo orcargo aircraft. For security reasons we will not go into further details ofthis approved program. However, each operator ofan all-cargo airplane isrequired to maintain such a program, and nothing inthe petition explains why thisparticular operator is inasituation that requires an additional security feature. In fact, this Model 777-200F is buta small percentage of the operator's fleet. We are not aware ofthe locking door being an issue with this union andthe other models inthe operator's fleet. With respect tothe proposed additional security feature, the FAA notes that the benefit that is gained when the cargo compartment access doors are closed and locked is immediately lost as soon aseither access door isopened bya supernumerary entering the cargo compartment totend to the cargo. Any stowaway hidden inthe cargo compartment could then immediately rush through the unlocked door. Further, the FAA notes that the security that is gained when the cargo compartment access doors are closed and locked isofindeterminate value, since there are no standards forresistance to forcible intrusion orballistic penetration forthese doors orcargo smoke barriers, as compared to flightdeck doors on passenger airplanes (see: §25.795(3)(1) and (2)). The petitioner did not propose to require similar or identical design standards forthe cargo compartment access doors. Finally, ifaperson orpcrsbns can stowaway undetected inthe cargo compartment, itis reasonable tobelieve that they would have resources attheir disposal to counter alocked door. After determining that the locking feature on the access door is, atbest, ofminimal value in addressing theproposed security threat, we analyzed what the likelihood and impact ofalocking feature on the access door ·wouldhave with regard to an occupant accidentally being locked in the Class Ecargo compartment. First, we analyzed the current cargo fleet todetermine to what extent the combination ofa locking feature onthe access door and concurrent approved access into the Class Ecargo compartment isused. The petitioner did acknowledge that, with one exception, the addition ofa locking feature on the access door tothe Class Ecargo compartment was only fordesigns where in-flight access to the Class Ecargo compartment was specifically prohibited. We agree that there is one configuration forthe MD-Il identified by the petitioner which is an exception to cargo fleet operations and the current level ofsafety allowed by various FAA-issued exemptions.

5

### In the case of the MD-l1, however, we note that the exemption itself (No. 6753, Partial Grantof

Exemption, issued April 21, 1998) does not authorize a lock and specifically prohibits access into the Class E cargo comparhnent during all phases offlighl. In 2001 the FAA approved a design change for tllis one MD-l1 that permitted access into the Class E cargo compartment, but this design change was approved in error because it conflicts with the limitation included in Exemption No. 6753. We wi! Ire-examine this approval and determine if corrective action is appropriate. For airplanes where in-flight access into tbe Class E cargo compartment is prohibited, we will continue to allow a locking feature. Second, we evaluated what the potential safety impact of the proposed locking feature would be. Under the current regulations, an exemption is needed for a cargo airplane to have additional occupants (supernumeraries) other than crew and, separately, for those individuals to have access to the Class E cargo compartment Allo\ving supernumeraries in-flight access to Class E cargo compartments does not provide a level of safety equal to that provided when access is not allowed, i.e., the level of safety is reduced. We have mitigated the increased risk by requiring additional equipment, alerts, and procedures, which provide an acceptable level of safety for persons in the categories listed in § 121.583(a).
The addition of a lock on each of the cargo access doors has the potential of trapping one or more supernumeraries in the cargo compartment ifthe doors were to become locked for any reason. The doors are not capable of being unlocked from the cargo compartment side of the door. Additionally, because there are no cargo loading instructions which would establish clear crossover paths in the cargo compartment, it is possible that a supernumerary entering the compartment from One door could not exit through the :other door, even if it were unlocked.
As means to mitigate the increased tisk to supernumerq.ries in the cargo compartment during flight, the petitioner offered the following:
1. Having the supernumeraries who would enter the cargo compartment announce their intent to the flightcrew and other supernumeraries and installing a placard to remind supernumeraries to do so. 2. Having the supernumerary entering the cargo C0mpartment designate another supernumerary (if present) to ensure the door locks remain unlocked. 3. Installing placards to advise that the doors should remain unlocked if persons are inside the cargo compartment. 4. Installing placards on how to lock and unlock d\e doors. 5. Installing a "cargo assist" system that includes an activation switch on the cargo compartment side near each access door, which would sound an aural annunciation and light an indicator in the .t1ightdeck.
The FAA notes that there is no device or system on the:airplane to determine whether or not a supernumerary is in the cargo compartment or through which door he or she entered the compartment. Also, relying on a sLlpernumerary to remember another supernumerary saying they were going into the c-argo compartment, which mJy have been made an hour or more ago, is not an infallible system. Finally, since the intent ofthd locks on the doors is to keep the doors locked as much as possible, the tendency for the supenrumeraries would be to lock each door

6Issued inRenton. Washington, on

Therefore, we do not agree that all risk ofinadvertently locking the door would bemitigated by the proposed placard and procedures. As for the cargo assist system, we agree that this should provide aclear indication to the flightcrew. However, such indication may come atatime when the flightcrew is extremely busy addressing major flight issues. This would significantly delay the crew's ability to effect action tounlock the appropriate access door and release the trapped supernumerary. Therefore, the FAA's assessment isthat the negligible increase in security does not offset the increased risk for supernumeraries ifthey are allowed to enterthe cargo compartment inflight when locks are installed on the access doors. The FAA's decision In consideration ofthe foregoing, Ifind that agrant ofexemption is not inthe public interest. Therefore, pursuant tothe authority contained in49 U.S.c. 

### §§40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, Ideny the petition ofThe Boeing Company to amend Exemption No. 9779A to allow the installation oftheproposed locking feature on the access doors between the supernumerary seating area andthe Class Ecargo compartment on Boeing Model 777F airplanes ifaccess into the Class E cargo compartment isallowed during flight. AUconditions and provisions ofExemption Nos. 9779 and 9779A remain ineffect. 

## J\-., ,. n lO- 

### JI'. j 1I ••!Jill 

# ~a

, Todd Dixon Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service

7