**CORRECTED COPY**

**This is a correction to Grant of Exemption No. 10420, dated December 23, 2011.**  **Limitation No. 6 is corrected to specify that, for Category 5 doors, a placard must be installed in a conspicuous position on both sides of the door requiring th**  **at the door be in the “closed” position during taxi, takeoff, and landing.**  **This must be corrected in the Limitations Section of the Airplane Flight Manual.**  **Exemption No .**  **10420**
**UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**  **FEDERAL AVIATION A DMINISTRATION**  **RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057**
- **3356**

Inthe matter of the petition of **Gore Design Completions, Ltd.** for an exemption from §§ 25.785( d), 25.785(h)( 1 ), 25.813(e), and 25.853( a) (1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations **Reg ulatory Dock**  **et No. FAA -**  **2011 -**  **105 6** 

**GRANT OF EXEMPTION** By letter dated June 8 , 20 11 , submitted September 28, 2011, Mr. Steve Kincaid , ODA Administrator , Gore Design Completion, Ltd., 607 N. Frank Luke Drive, San Antonio, Texas, 78226, petitioned the Federal Aviatio n Administration (FAA) for an exemption from the following sections of Title 14 , Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) : 25.785( d), 25.785(h)( 1 ), 25.813(e) , and 25.853( a) (1) . The proposed exemption, if granted, would permit relief from the requirements of flight
- attendant direct view , firm handholds in the passenger compartment, interior doors between passenger compartments, and maximum heat
- release and sm oke
- emissions flammability requirements for large interior panels
. The proposed exemption is specifica lly

for the installation of an executive interior on Airbus Model A 340
- 211 airplane s , which would be designated as private use, not for hire, not for common carriage. **The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations: Section 25.785(** 

**d ), Amendm**  **ent 25**

- **64** , which requires a firm handhold along each aisle.2

**Section 25.785(h** 

**)( 1**  **), Amendment 25** 

- **64** , which requires that f light attendant seats must be located to provide direct view of the cabin area. **Section 25.813(e), Amendment 25** **- 46**  , which prohibits in stallation of a door in any partition between passenger compartments. **Section 25.853(**

**a )**  **(1) , Amendment 25** **- 66**  , which l imits maximum heat
- release rates and smoke emissions for large
- panel cabin interior materials. **The petitioner supports**  **the request with th**  **e following information :**  This section quotes the relevant information from the petitioner’s request with m inor editorial changes for clarity
. The complete petition is available in the Department of Transportation’s F ederal Docket Management Sy stem on the Internet at http://regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA
- 2011
- 1 0 5 6
. Gore Design Completion, Ltd
. , (GDC) has been contracted for the completion of an executive business interior for an Airbus Model A340
- 211 airplane
. T he FAA Organization Management Team (OMT) has reviewed and accepted our ODA Project Number GDC
- P515
- STC for this project
. The certification basis for the Airbus Model A340
- 211 is p art 25, Amendment 25
- 1 through 25
- 63 inclusive plus Amendments 25
- 65, 25
- 66 , and 25
- 77. T he airplane will be configured for a much lower passenge r density compared to normal airline service. The airplane will not be operated for hire or offered for common carriage, although this will not preclude the operator from receiving remuneration to the extent consistent with 14 CFR parts 125 and 91, Subpart F, as applicable. The operation of the aircraft will be of a restricted nature as compared to a commercial transport, and the flight and cabin crews will have familiarity with the interior configuration. For the reasons listed above, GDC has prepared a petition for exemption to the following regulations: 14 CFR 25.785(h)(1), Amendment 25
- 64

—F light attendant seats must be located to provide direct view of the cabin area. 14 CFR 25.8 13 (e), Amendment 25
- 46

— No door may

be installed in any

partition between passenger compartments. 14 CFR 25.785(d) , Amendment 25
- 64

—Requires a “firm handhold” along each aisle. 14 CFR 25.853( a) (1) , Amendment 25
- 66

—Li mits maximum heat release rates for lar ge panel cabin interior materials. DI SCUSSI ON:3

14 CFR p art 25 governs design certification of transport category airplanes
. The primary intent of these regulations, as written, are to be certain that airplane manufacturers provide the appropriate design features to meet the standards necessary to protect the traveling public. Clearly , there is a requirement “in the public interest” and in the interest of safety to provide regulatory

guidelines for certification. However, it is also very clear these regulations are intended to regulate the certification of “commercial” airplanes, which are “for hire” to the general public. While the greatest majority of these regulations represent a common sense inclusion for any aircraft regardless of its intended use, a few are obviously intended to regulate situations that are specific to an airline, or for
- hire operation. When a transport category airplane is operated under 14 CFR p art 91 or p art 125, some of the p art 25 rules have acceptance criteria that are not c ompatible with the ty pe of operation and the intended use of this airplane. The FAA clearly

recognizes these differences as evidenced by the is suance of Exemption Numbers 6820A, 6822, 7120A, 7489 , and numerous others , which eliminate many of the more onero us regulations when applied to “private
- use, not - for
- hire” operations under 14 CFR p art 91 and p art 125. BASI S FOR EXEMPTI ON : The airplane that is the subject of this petition is an Airbus Model A340
- 211 . It is privately owned and will be operated under p art 125 regulations or other equivalent non - US foreign national operational standard. Inaccordance with 14 CFR 11.81(h), we request to exercise the privilege of this exemption outside the United States since the operator of the airplane is located in Sa udi Arabia. The interior configuration being installed in this airplan e will provide seating for 77 passengers (see attached floor plan drawing)

— 5 passengers in the private lounge, 5 passengers in the mid cabin lounge, 1 passenger in the main entrance, 11 passengers in the main Majlis , 12 passengers in the dining lounge, and 43 passengers in the guest seating area. There is one aft facing flight attendant style seat in the communication center (located at the center of the aircraft aft of the center seats in the guest seating area), but it will not be usable for taxi, takeoff, and landing. The remaining seats in the cabin are to be occupied by

crew only

—2 Cabin Attendants in door 1L area, 2 Cabin Attendants in the door 2Larea, 1 Cabin Attendant each at d oor 3R and 3L , and 4 Cabin Attendants in the door 4 area. The maximum certified passenger count for this airplane is 375 seats. The passenger count of the subject airplane represents 24 % of the capacity allowed for this airplane. Regulation 14 CFR 25.78 5 (h)(1 ) Customers are buying these large airplanes as an extension of the office and are requiring privacy areas within the airplane sometimes spanning the whole cabin, such as board rooms, bedrooms, lavatories, and lounges rather than traditional airline ty pe seating. An4

exemption to the flight attendant direct view requirement is therefore needed to allow the full use of the airplane capabilities. In addition, this requirement was incorporated into the FAA rules through Amendment 25
- 51. Out of the comments submitted to the FAA during the NPRM comment period, two said that, if galley doors were used as emergency exits, the placement of an attendant seat near the exit preclude s compliance with the requirement that the attendant be provided with direct vi ew of the cabin area. To cover this situation, it was suggested that the requirement be conditioned to apply insofar as practicable and without compromising the proximity to required floor level exits. The FAA concurred and further stated in the preamble to the final rules that “location of the flight attendant seats near the floor level exits in this case is more important than the requirement to have a direct view of the cabin
. ” The final rule was revised from the NPRM proposal to ad dress this relative importance. Regulation 14 CFR 25.813(e) There will be 11 mechanical “pocket” ty pe doors located as follows: between the passageway

and the private lounge , between the passageway and the main entrance, a double pocket door between the main entrance and mid cabin lounge, between the main entrance and main Majlis , between the dining lounge and VIP lav atory areas (2), between the center passageway

and the RH/LH aft lounges (2), and a double pocket door between the aft lounge and the guest seating area. The re will be a swing door between the master bedroom and private lounge, and a swing door installed on the communication center (located at the center of the aircraft aft of the center seats in the guest seating area. However, these doors are not located be tween passenger compartments and these doors do not apply to this exemption request. D oor s between passenger compartment s will have the following design features: dual latches (each of which are able to withstand the forces defined by 14 CFR 25.561) to s ecure the door in the open position, cockpit annunciation of the door position for taxi , take off , and landing, and the doors will be frangible in the event that they should become stuck in the closed position. Lo gic will be provided in the door annunciati on sy stem such that , if passen ger(s) are located in the private lounge , the door to the hallway will be open for taxi, takeoff, and landing , and when there are no passengers in the private lounge this door will be closed. The master bedroom door will be p lacarded to be closed for taxi, takeoff , and landing , and this door will be frangible. The communication room door will be placarded to be closed for takeoff and landing, and this door should open in the direction that would be automatically closed by

the evacuation flow. Regulation 14 CFR 25.785(d) Customers are buying airplanes because they wish to create a spacious and impressive atmosphere they

are used t o. The very

wide body

of the A340 satisfies these requirements. On the other hand, the requirem ent for firm handhold along the aisles cannot be met for certain areas in the passenger cabin due to the wide open spaces,5

specifically , the main Majlis and the dining/lounge room . On a ty pical “commercial” flight this requirement is met by the individual seat backs , which ty pically provide an adequate handhold for a passenger to stabilize themselves in the aisle during turbulence. Infact , due to the spaciousness of the interior , there is no readily identifiab le “aisle” in the main Majlis and dining loun ge. Any construction hanging from the ceiling would ruin the appearance of the high quality interior, is not acceptable to the customer, and may add additional safety

concerns. Ithas been acknowledged by the FAA that the passengers on this ty pe of airplane are ty pically the same people on most of the trips. Familiarity with the airplane layout and operation provides an addition benefit towards the level of safety
. Regulation 14 CFR 25.853(a)(1) With the sudden growth in the VIP or executive transport a irplane market together with the simultaneous introduction of more stringent interior material flammability standards, aircraft interior modifiers have been faced with a serious dilemma in resolving the styling requirements of the private aircraft owner/op erator of these executive aircraft and the flammab ility

requirements imposed by § 25.853. For the most part, modifiers have been able to simultaneously

satisfy both the styling and interior material flammability requirements of § 25.853(a) and (c) with gr eat effort and diligence; however, some of the materials required in these aircraft interiors cannot pass the 65/65 heat release requirement of § 25.853(a)(1) , no matter how diligent the designer is. Itis not within the grasp of current technology to mak e certain natural materials conform to these standards , and the owners of these airplanes define, in fact demand, the use of these materials. It should be understood that these aircraft must be outfitted in a sty le not unlike fine executive board rooms or luxurious residences to satisfy their private users. OCCUPANT SAFETY CONSIDERATI ONS : 14 CFR 25.785(h)(1) The arrangement of the aircraft interior will provide that a majority of flight attendant seats will be oriented to face the passenger cabin. Inthe guest seating area, where a more traditional seating arrangement is used, the flight attendants will have a direct view of the cabin. Considering the smaller number of occupants in this aircraft, and the familiarity of the flight and cabin crews with the specific airplane, the passengers and the interior arrangement, and the wording of the existing rule that places the emphasis for safety on the proximity

of the exit to the attendant over the ability of the attendant to view the cabin area, there should be no degradation in the passenger safety as a result of this requested exemption. 14 CFR 25.813(e)6

The risk for occupants due to the use of doors between passenger compartments should be considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 All doors betwe en passenger compartments will be frangible.  The pocket doors installed between the aft lounge and the guest seating area will be placarded to be in the stowed position for taxi, takeoff , and landing.  Mechanical pocket doors will be placarded to be open fo r taxi, takeoff , and landing, with the following exceptions: i f passen ger(s) are not located in the private lounge , the door to the passageway will be closed , and the pocket doors leading into the RH/LH aft lounges from the center passageway will be placarded to be closed during taxi, takeoff , and landing.  The doors between passenger compartments will have dual means to retain them in the open position for taxi, takeoff , and landing , each of which will be capable of withstanding the inertia loads s pecified in § 25.561.  The airplane will be operated under p art 125 and will be not be operated for hire or offered for common carriage.  The airplane flight manuals will provide procedures and limitations to ensure that the doors are in the proper position for taxi , takeoff , and landing. 14 CFR 25.785(d) The risk for occupants due to the non
- availability of direct handholds in certain areas of the airplane should be considered accept able for the following reasons:

 All furniture in the passenger cabin has rounded corners and edges to avoid serious injury

in case of turbulence.  The installed seat and divans are heavily upholstered and will not cause injuries when contacted.  Inthe main Majlis and dining lounge, occupants can use seat arms and seat backs to steady th emselves in case of turbulence during flight. Tables and furniture are readily within reach with one or two steps.  There will be a recommendation to passengers to remain seated with their seat belts fastened in c ase of turbulence during flight.  Occupants are intimately familiar with the interior arrangement.  The airplane will be operated under p art 125 and will not be operated for hire or offered for common carriage. 14 CFR 25.853(a)(1) The vast majority

of the rule was driven by the post
- crash fire expe riences in airline operations. The 65/65 heat release regulation was specifically developed to reduce the likelihood of the flash
- over phenomenon , which was proven by tests to be a prime contributor to the rapid propagation of post
- crash cabin interior fi res and the generation of blinding smoke. Rapid fire propagation combined with the relatively slow rate of passenger evacuation from densely packed air carrier airplanes has proven to be a deadly7

combination during actual airline accidents. Since it is c lear that material selection is being controlled by

aesthetics i n this application, we cannot exercise any real control over the actual heat release but the exposure time to this heat release is still within the designer’s control. Therefore , it is propos ed as a first step in mitigating the fire hazard that an evacuation analy sis be performed to show that all souls on board can be safely evacuated in less than 45 seconds. This would be possible because of excess emergency exits for the airplane passenger capacity , smooth evacuation routes , and the small number of seats in the cabin
. Inaddition, GDC will install fire detectors in the master bedroom, private lounge, and mid cabin lounge that would compensate for the potential for an increased in
- flight fir e threat. PUBLIC INTEREST: As in the cases of numerous already established e xemptions, granting this petition for exemption would be clearly in the public interest for the following reasons:

 Itallows efficient and safe carriage of Head of State and exe cutives in the sought for environment that would otherwise not be possible
.  There is no degradation of safety involved with this request and , therefore , no detrimental impact to the public at large
.  In creased sales of these executive configured transport a irplanes will ultimately result in some portion of those airplanes being completed at US owned or operated aircraft completion facilities, providing improved financial performance and work force stability

for those organizations as well
.  Improved financial performance of US owned or operated corporations, and increased work force stability translates into continued and improved tax revenue for all governmental organization involved
.  Improved financial performance allows US corporations to continue to invest in new R & D research , which will allow the US to maintain or improve its competitive position in the world economy
.  A large number of these ty pes of sales can be predicted to be to “offshore” clients, improving the US balance of trade deficit. PUBLIC CO MMENT: Inaccordance with 14 CFR 11.87, Gore Design Completions, ltd., requests that the period for public comment be waived because of numerous similar exemptions that have previously

been granted. **Federal Register publication** A summary

of this petitio n was not published in the Federal Register
. The FAA determined that good cause existed for waiving the publication requirement because this exemption would not set8

a precedent and any

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Gore Design C ompletions, Ltd. **The FAA’s analysis** The FAA considers that granting this petition is in the public interest for the reasons stated by the petitioner and because the FAA is directed to take into account the ty pe of operation when establishing standards und er Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. 44701(d)). As more transport category airplanes have been configured (or re
- configured) for private use, the FAA has given considerable attention to the issue of appropriate regulation of such airplanes. S ome of the current regulations governing design certification of transport category airplanes are not compatible with private use of such airplanes. Because of this, we have received a number of petitions for exemption from certain regulations. We have granted such exemptions when we find that to do so is in the public interest and does not adversely affect the level of safety provided by

the regulations. As a result of these previous exemptions, the FAA issued S pecial F ederal Aviation R egulation 109 (SF AR 109) , Special Requirements for Private Use Transport Category Airplanes , which is intended to alleviate the need for issuing exemptions from these requirements. I n this case, however, the airplane’s capacity exceeds the 60 pass enger maximum limit set i n SFAR 109; therefore, an exemption is needed. Our analy sis of this petition considered each of the following design features proposed by the petitioner: **1. Firm Handholds**  We have considered the requirement for firm hand holds in the context of private
- us e airplanes and have determined that it would be impractical for this ty pe of operati on and interior configuration. **2. Interior Doors**  The placement of interior doors is clearly quite significant to the owner/operator of the airplane. The flexibility

to p artition the airplane into individual rooms, such as private meeting rooms or bedrooms, is paramount to an acceptable interior. The availability of private meeting rooms and bedrooms is essential. The FAA acknowledges the desirability of these features f

rom the operator’s point of view. When the regulations pertaining to interior doors were adopted, they did not consider “rooms.” They

considered two possible ty pes of interior doors in a passenger compartment. The first ty

pe is an interior door between passenger compartments. The second ty pe is an interior door between an exit and the passenger compartment.9

Until recently , only

the first typ e of door was prohibited by § 25.813(e). However, part 25, as amended by

Amendment 25
- 116, prohibits interior do ors between the exit and the passenger compartment. In addition, Amendment 121
- 306 prohibits these doors in airplanes manufactured after November 27, 2006, operated under 14 CFR part 121. Amendments 25
- 116 and 121
- 306, titled Miscellaneous Cabin Safety C hanges , were published in the Federal Register on October 27, 2004. Since Amendment 25
- 116 is not in the certification basis for the airplane and the airplane is not operated under part 121 , the pocket door located between the forward exits and the passen ger compartment is not subject to this exemption. Airplanes configured for privat e - use, not - for
- hire, not
- for
- common carriage ty pically use any of five different categories of door in the passenger cabins: **Category 1.** A door in a room and the room is le ss than the full width of the airplane. An aisle is outside the room. This ty pe of room may

be occupied during takeoff and landing, and only

the occupants of the room must use the door to reach an exit. **Category 2.** A door in a room and that is the same as Category 1, except a single emergency

exit or pair of emergency exits is within the room. **Category 3.** A door or doors in a compartment and the compartment is the full width of the airplane. Passengers are seated on both sides (fore and aft) of the d oor(s), and the main aisle leads out of, or passes through, the compartment. The compartment does not have emergency

exits. This ty

pe of compartment may

be occupied during takeoff and landing. **Category 4.** A door in a room and the room is the full width of the airplane. Passengers are seated on both sides (fore and aft) of the door, and a pair of emergency exits is at one end of the room. This ty

pe of room may

be occupied during takeoff and landing. **Category 5.** A door in a room that may be the full w idth of the airplane. This ty pe of room is not occupied during takeoff and landing. This room is only occupied during flight. Passengers are not seated on both sides of the door during taxi, takeoff, and landing. Passengers seated in taxi, takeoff, and landing seats must not need to pass through this door to get to any emergency

exits. Because not all interior doors between passenger compartments are equivalent, the FAA has determined that the following requirements will produce an adequate level of sa fety : 1. To maximize the level of safety , doors in Category 2, 3, or 4 installed across the main cabin aisle must open and close in a transverse direction. That is, the direction of motion of the door must be at a right angle to the longitudinal axis of the airplane. A “pocket door” is one example of such a design. This will tend to minimize the chance that the inertia forces of an accide nt could force the door closed.10

2. Redundant means are necessary to latch doors open for takeoff and landing. Each latchin g means must have the capability of retaining the door in the takeoff and landing position under the inertia forces of § 25.561. 3. Each interior door must be frangible, in the event that it is jammed in the closed position in flight or during taxi, takeoff, or landing. Frangibility is intended to ensure that if a door is jammed closed, occupants can escape in either direction and emergency

equipment can be moved. Frangibility may be demonstrated in either of the following way s:

 A 5th percentile female can b reak through the door, creating a large enough opening that a 95th percentile (or larger) male can pass through. (See Advisory Circular 25
- 17 A , Transport Airplane Cabin Interiors Crashworthiness Handbook, paragraph 43b(2)).

 A 5th percentile female can bre ak a hinge on the door or a hinge on a smaller door within the door such that the door can swing, so as to allow a 95th percentile (or larger) male to pass through the opening with the door swung open. This evaluation must be made with any cabin furnishin g or equipment installed that could limit the swing arc of the door and placed in the most adverse position. Inusing this approach, one must consider the possibility that the door is phy sically

jammed in the closed position by distortion of the fuselage or furnishings. This possibility must be considered even if the door normally translates into the open and closed positions. 4. Doors that fall into Category 1 must be in the open position during taxi, takeoff, and landing only

when the room is occupied. 5. Doo rs that fall into Categories 2, 3, or 4 must be in the open position during taxi, takeoff, and landing, regardless of occupancy
. 6. Doors that fall into Category 5 must be in the closed position during taxi, takeoff, and landing. With respect to the possibili ty that a door remains closed when it should not be, we have determined that a higher level of awareness is required to address this issue. Due to the relative complexity

of the cabin interior, we have determined that inspection by flight attendants prior to takeoff and landing is not sufficient to verify that interior doors are in a required open position. Consequently , some ty pe of remote indication is considered necessary . The petitioner’s proposal to provide remote indication to the flightcrew is con sidered adequate.11

**3. Interior**  **Materials** With respect to the flammability of interior materials, the petitioner has accurately summarized the requirements. The petitioner correctly notes that the requirements are related to prolonging the time available f or evacuation. When the standards for heat release and smoke emissions of interior materials were developed, the FAA incorporated a discriminant based on passenger capacity
. This approach was intended to address smaller airplanes where the ratio of exits to passengers is ty pically quite good and the evacuation times are expected to be quite low. Under these conditions, the benefits of improved materials were expected to be negligible. The airplane ty pe discussed in the petition was not envisioned by the rulemaking, insofar as the large size with low passenger count is concerned. We have considered the issue of the evacuation capability of the airplane relative to the flammability of the materials, and find that some relief may be possible. However, the issue of flammability is not limited to post
- crash scenarios; the in
- flight fire threat must also be addressed. We note that the petitioner has not proposed an alternative to the heat
- release and smoke
- emissions standards , but rather an exemption from th e requirement to assess the heat release and smoke emissions of certain materials. Because the main benefit of improved interior materials is to lengthen the time available for evacuation, an arrangement that effectively provides the same evacuation capab ility would satisfy many of the concerns addressed by the requirement, albeit indirectly
. The FAA has reviewed the full
- scale, fire
- test data used in develop ing the heat
- release and smoke
- emissions requirements, and also considered accident data relevant to this issue. This review is not complete, but it does suggest that a quantifiable improvement in evacuation capability could warrant a relaxation of the heat
- release and smoke
- emissions requirements. The petitioner has proposed that an evacuation analysis be performed to show that all occupants, including crew, can be safely evacuated in less than 45 seconds. T he FAA has determined that a 45
- second evacuation time would provide an acceptable level of safety over that allowed by

the regulation, and woul d allow a relaxation of the heat
- release and smoke
- emissions requirements. Precedents have been set for this decision and apply to other private
- use airplanes. The remaining issue of the in
- flight fire scenario needs to be addressed as well. The major i ssue with respect to in
- flight fires is timely recognition. On some airplanes, the interior includes isolated areas that do not lend themselves to timely detection of a fire. For the purposes of this exemption, an isolated passenger compartment is define d as a room that does not contain an egress path (e.g., main cabin aisle, cross aisle, or passageway ), or is isolated by a door. To address the in
- flight case, the FAA believes that installing a smoke detector in such areas would compensate for the potent ial for an increased in
- flight fire threat. Therefore, each isolated passenger compartment must incorporate a fire
- detection sy stem that meets the requirements of § 25.858. While this section is written for cargo
- compartment fire
- detection sy stems, the c riteria contained therein are considered appropriate to this application.12

**4. Direct View**  The petitioner has identified the requirement for flight attendant seats to be located to provide a direct view of the passenger cabin as not practical for compliance with the executive
- ty pe interior to be used on the Airbus Model A340
- 211 airplanes. The complexity of the interior arrangement, coupled with the need to retain proximity to emergency

exits, is cited as the primary reason that compliance is impractical. The FAA has considered the requirement for direct view in the context of private
- use airplanes and agrees that much of the justification for the requirement is based on air
- carrier
- ty

pe operations. The practicality of locating flight attendant seats near emergency exits so that there is a direct view of occupants inside the rooms is questionable, at best. In this regard, we believe that some relief may be appropriate for airplanes intended for private use. However, we note that the justification for the requirement for direct view is not limited to observation of passengers who are not familiar with the interior. Flight attendant seats should be located so that a direct view is provided for the cabin area whenever practical. For example, flight attendant seats should not face away from the cabin. Inthose areas of the airplane where traditional seating arrangements are used, the FAA believes that a direct view should be provided. Inconsidering the need for direct view, the FAA agrees that the restrict ed nature of the operation of a private
- use airplane mitigates much of the need. That is, the operator has control of, and can restrict the population of, passengers, unlike an air carrier. The risk of passengers engaging in hazardous or malicious activi ty is essentially

eliminated, and the need for direct view is limited to those cases where a passenger might need assistance. We consider that this objective is met by requiring that a majority

of flight attendant seats face the cabin. **5. Fire Extinguish**  **ers** The intent of the regulation as defined by § 25.851(a) is to ensure that there are a sufficient number and ty

pe of fire extinguishers available to address the kinds of fires likely to occur. Section 25.851 requires that the number of handheld fire ext inguishers be proportionate to the number of passengers. As with SFAR 109 “ Special Requirements for Private Use Transport Category Airplanes , ” this exemption would require the installation of a fire extinguisher for every pair of exits certified on the original ty pe certificate, regardless of whether the exits are deactivated in the proposed configuration. This requirement is intended to maintain the currently established level of safety for large private
- use airplanes by considering the size of the airpl ane as a factor in determining the number of handheld fire extinguishers rather than being only

proportionate to the number of passengers. Since the assumption that the size of the airplane is proportional to the number of passengers onboard is inaccurate for an Airbus Model A340 airplane in private use, as such the standard method for determining the number of fire extinguishers is not adequate.13

**The FAA’s decision** Inconsideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public inter est. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, I

grant the petition of Gore Design Completion, Lt d
. , for an exemption from 14 CFR 25.785( d) , 25.785(h)( 1 ), 25.813(e), and 25.853( a) (1) to the extent necessary to allow installation of an executive interior on private, not
- for
- hire, not
- for
- common - carriage Airbus Model A340
- 211 airplane s . This exemption is subject to the following condition s , and limitation numbers 1, 3, 4, 5 , 6 , and 7 must be documented in the L imitations Section of the Airplane Flight Manual : 1. The airplane must not be operated for hire or offered for common carriage. This provision does not preclude the operator from receiving remuneration to the extent consistent with 14 CFR parts 125 and 91, S ubpart F, as applicable. 2. A majority

of flight attendant seats must be oriented to face the passenger cabin. 3. Each door between passenger c ompartments must be frangible from both sides. A placard describing the frangibility proced ure must be installed in a conspicu ous location on both sides of the door
. 4. Doors that fall into Category 1 must be latched in the open position during taxi, takeoff, and landing when the room is occupied
. A placard requiring the door to be in the open pos ition must be installed in a conspicuous position on both sides of the door. 5. Doors that fall into Categories 2, 3, or 4 must be latched in the open position during taxi, takeoff, and landing, regardless of occupancy of the room
. A placard requiring the do or to be in the open position must be installed in a conspicuous position on both sides of the door. 6. Doors that fall into Category 5 must be latched in the closed position during taxi, takeoff, and landing. A placard requiring the door to be in the closed position must be installed in a conspicuous position on both sides of the door. 7. Appropriate procedures must be established to both signal the flightcrew in the event a door between passenger compartments is not in the proper position, and prohibit taxi, t akeoff , or landing. Doors in Category 5 do not need to comply

with this requirement. For Category

5 doors, placards located on or near the door, and indicating that the door must be closed for takeoff and landing, is acceptable. 8. Doors between passenger c ompartments must have dual means to retain them in the open position. Each means must be capable of withstanding the inertia loads specified in § 25.561. Doors in Category 5 do not need to comply

with this requirement because they are required to be clos ed for takeoff and landing.14

9. When materials are installed that do not comply with the requirements of appendix F, parts IV and V, it must be shown that the passengers and crewmembers can be evacuated in 45 seconds or less, under the conditions described in part 25, appendix J. 10. A means to signal the flightcrew , which meets the requirements of § 25.858(a) through (d) , must be in place in the event of a fire in an isolated passenger compartment. 11. The number of hand
- held fire extinguishers installed in the passen ger cabin must be the greater of (1) that provided in accordance with the requirements of § 25.851, or (2) a number equal to the number of originally ty pe certificated exit pairs, regardless of whether the exits are deactivated for the proposed configurati on. Extinguishers must be evenly di stributed throughout the cabin. Is sued in Renton, Washington, on December 23, 2011
. /s/
John Piccola Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service