Page 1 

## RECORD OF EX PARTE CONTACT
**IDENTIFICATION OF NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (NPRM) DOCKETS:**  **AD Docket Number Directorate** 

**Identifier Date published in** 

**the Federal Register**  **Date comment**

**period closed Affected airplane** 

**models FAA** **- 2013**  **- 1071**  **2013 -**  **NM -**  **204 -**  **AD J**  **anuary 10, 2014 February 24, 2014**  **The Boeing Company Model 777**  **airplanes FAA** **- 2014**  **- 0126**  **2013 -**  **NM -**  **236 -**  **AD March 5, 2014**  **April 21, 2014 The Boeing**  **Company Model 757 airplanes**  **FAA -**  **2014 -**  **0127 2013**  **- NM**  **- 237**  **- AD**  **March 5, 2014 April 21, 2014**  **The Boeing Company Model 7**  **67 airplanes**  **FAA -**  **2014 -**  **0194 2014**  **- NM**  **- 022**  **- AD**  **April 14, 2014 May 29, 2014**  **The Boeing Company Model**  **737NG airplanes FAA** **- 2014**  **- 0773**  **2014 -**  **NM -**  **068 -**  **AD November 17, 2014**  **January 2, 2015 The Boeing**  **Company Model 787**  **- 8 airplanes**  **TYPE OF CONTACT** : Teleconference
**D ATE**  **AND TIME OF**  **TELECONFERENCE :**  Wednesday, January 21, 2015 ; 13 00 **NAMES OF ALL PERSONS INVOLVED IN CONTACT, INCLUDING TITLES AND AFFILIATION:** FAA participants: Jeff Duven, Transport Airplane Directorate (TAD) Manager, ANM
- 100 Dionne Palermo, TAD AFS Li aison PM, ANM
- 106 Douglas Anderson, Deputy Chief Counsel, ANM
- 7 Chris Glover, FAA Counsel, ANM
- 7 Rebel Nichols, Senior Aerospace Engineer, ANM
- 140S Ross L andes, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) Manager, ANM
- 100S Scott Fung, Branch Manager, ANM
- 1 40S Rose Opland, AD Program Manager, ANM
- 114 Steve Douglas, Flight Standards Service, Maintenance Division Manager, ANM
- 300Page 2 Industry participants: Bob Ireland, Airlines for America (A4A) Mark Lopez, A4A Ed Walton, United Parcel Service (UPS) Mike Arata, United Airlines Kent Horton, Southwest Airlines Mark Molin , FedEx Ray Carroll, FedEx Larry Slate, The Boeing Company Jon Oberdick, American Airlines Joe Nolan, Alaska Airlines Gregg Brown, Southwest Airlines Doug Hill, Airbus Valentino Venier, Airbus **TOPI C(S) DISCUSSED**  : **Background:** The purpose of the telecon ference was to provide an opportunity for A4A/operators to clarify to the FAA the operational impacts to operators related to the Notice s of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM s ) listed above
. The NPRMs were p rompted by reports of latently

failed fuel shutoff valves discovered during fuel filter replacement. The NPRMs propose to require revising the maintenance or inspection program to include new airworthiness limitations. The FAA proposed these NPRM s to det ect and correct latent failures of the fuel shutoff valve to the engine, which could result in the inability to shut off fuel to the engine and, in case of certain engine fires, an uncontrollable fire that could lead to wing failure. **FAA Discussion:**  Mr
. Duven opened the discussion by explaining that the TAD takes issues raised by industry seriously
. He said the TAD appreciates industry raising the issues now , rather than waiting until after the final rules are issued. He indicated that, when necessary, this is the best way of approaching such concerns . Ms. Palermo reviewed the agenda for the teleconference. The purpose of the telecon ference is to provide an opportunity

for the FAA to hear concerns from industry regarding the NPRMs identified previously so the FAA can move forward appropriately
. The FAA is in a listening mode and will request clarification as necessary
. Ms. Palermo explained the ground rules for the telecon ference , and clarified that the FAA cannot discuss any potential changes that might be made to any ADs. Mr. Glover explained the concept of ex parte (one
- sided) communications , as discussed in Chapter 3 of the AD Manual, FAA Order 8040.1C. He e xplained what the chapter means in the context of this meeting. Since we have not yet published final rule s for the AD s in question, this discussion is considered an ex parte communication. Ex parte discussions after the comment period has closed are “ strongly discouraged” under DOT policy (14 CFR Part 11, App. 1) , and we are limited to s eeking clarification of comments to the NPRMs that have been published. In these cases, the FAA can ask for more info rmation regarding specific comments to the public docket. Discussions must be limited to those comments.Page 3 Mr. Glover noted that a record of the discussion must be made available in the AD dockets for all ADs that address the identified issue so the public has a fair view of this discussion before the FAA makes its final determination. Therefore, the minutes of this telecon ference will be posted in the associated online AD dockets in the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) to provide notice to industry . The FAA will consider all comments given today

along with other comments that have been received in response to the NPRMs
. If there i s any substantive change to the ADs because of this meeting, the FAA might consider reopening the comment period s . Mr. Landes provided the context for the discussion, including a brief overview of the NPRMs to be discussed
. He explained the general proce ss the TAD uses for all ADs that address operational or maintenance issues, including involvement of flight test pilots, maintenance inspectors, Flight Standards (Aircraft Evaluation Group) offices , and the Certificate Management Offices ( CMOs ) that overse e air carriers. I f any ADs contain issues in question, the FAA has pilots that will fly on air carriers (as part of the surveillance of CMOs ) and evaluate any required operational checks. Mr. L andes added that the TAD “does the right homework” in advance of issuing NPRMs for comment to ensure operational impacts are considered
. **Industry Discussion:** Mr. Ireland said that the overarching concern for the teleconference is the accomplishment of checks by pilots versus maintenance personnel, as well as timing and potential impacts of a finding in the operational environment. Mr. Horton, on behalf of Southwest Airlines, said that the NPRMs predominately involve equipment malfunction check s and stated the airline’s preference is that a maintenance technician accomplish the AD , rather than a pilot ; however, the timing of the required checks drives this. He emphasized that the check interval must be safely

demonstrated. He noted that 10 days would be a viable interval to keep the actions in the maintenance re alm. Any thing less ( e.g., 7 days ) would require the airline to find alternatives and involve flightcrews , which would be their second preference for ensuring compliance.
. Mr. Arata, on behalf of United Airlines, also expressed concern about the check interval. He stated that the airline wants to know

—from a safety

and risk assessment

— what drove the interval. Mr. Arata noted the high impact on operations. He requested clarification regarding the term “calendar days.” That is, does this term mean once a day

for an airplane in operation, i.e., once per “operational day?” Or does the calendar day count even if an airplane is undergoing maintenance, for example ? The requirement does not appear to provide flexibility for different situations. Mr. Arata said the airline interprets “calendar day” to mean a day when the airplane is in operation. He indicated that, if the interval remains at a daily check, the involvement of flightcrews would be necessary . However, if it is changed to a more reasonable inter val, they can make it a maintenance check. Additionally, the availability of the valve is a concern. Mr. Duven asked if, as part of Safety Management System (SMS) or other internal procedures, airlines have done a risk assessment. He noted there is no t much detail or data provided in the comments to the NPRMs, so it is unclear how the conclusions were reached and it is more meaningful to have that information in these situations. Mr. Horton stated Southwest Airlines did not do a risk assessment, but c ould take an action and provide the information to the FAA.Page 4 Mr. Arata added that no SMS assessment was done with regard to the technical aspect s of the motor
- operated valve ( MOV)
. He stated that the airline relies on the original equipment manufacturers ( OEMs ) for this assessment . The airline does the compliance planning. They assess the technician’s availability and accessibility to do the check s . Mr. Arata also stated that they assessed the various scenarios and determined an end
- of
- day checklist to be the lowest risk scenario to maintain compliance. Mr. Duven asked for clarification concerning reliance on an OEM ’s assessment

– i.e., does Boeing give the airline an assessment, and did Boeing share the work the FAA did with them? Also, what degree of info rmation is given to operators if they are depending on others to do the assessment for them? Mr. Arata said Boeing’s engagement with United Airlines has been around logistical aspects to retrofit the fleet. A risk assessment done by Boeing has not been shared. The airline trust s the sa fety review process at Boeing and the FAA and does not expect it to be shared with them. Mr. Oberdick, on behalf of American Airlines, noted that he has the same comments concerning daily checks of the 737, 757, and 767 fleets. He raised a concern about the ability to obtain approvals of alter n ative methods of compliance (AMOCs). The airline wants to retrofit quickly but also wants to avoid any compliance issue. They first want to be sure the
- 76 (part) will be an approved term inating action b efore they spend several million dollars o n it. Mr. Duven asked if there were any additional clarifying comments about AMOCs. Mr. Nichols said these concerns will be con sidered and addressed in responses to comments in the final rules. Mr. Duven wrapped up the discussion by stating the TAD will consider all comments and, if we find that adjustments are necessary, changes will be explained in the final rules. Mr. Duven also noted that the TAD works hard with Boeing on safety assessment s, and s ometimes Boeing and the FAA reach diff erent positions. Mr. Duven suggested that sometime in a future A4A meeting, an “after action” review could be held to share information regarding our respective safety processes. This would provi de a broader awareness of those processes ( disconnected from these particular AD actions )
. He noted that in light of maturing safety processes, people operate with assumptions that may no longer be correct . We need to figure out how we can build better understanding of safety

processes, considerations, steps taken, etc. A4A took this suggestion as an action for a future agenda
. **COMMITMENTS MADE BY FAA/DOT PERSONNEL:** Ms. Palermo closed the meeting with an outline of the next steps:

- FAA will post the minutes of the telecon ference in summary form into the AD dockets of affected proposed rules.

- FAA will notify A4A when the minutes are posted.

- FAA will proceed with evaluating the comments received today.

- FAA will notify A4A when the first final rule is issued. Were any documents discussed? ( X ) YES (attach copies or reference) ( ) NoPage 5 Links : (1) Notice s of proposed rulemaking: Click here and enter the FAA docket number listed above : http://www. regulations.gov
. ( 2 ) Chapter 3, Ex parte, from the AD Manual, 8040.1C: Click here and enter 8040.1C : http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory _and_Guidance_Library

/rgOrders.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameset
. **PREPARED BY: Ms.**  **Rose Opland, FAA DATE:**  **January 21, 2015**

**THIS FORM IS TO BE PLACED IN THE PUBLIC DOCKET S**  **FOR THE SUBJECT RULEMAKING ACTION S**  **.**