## RECORD OF EX PARTE CONTACT
**AD DOCKET NUMBER: Docket No. FAA**  **- 2013**  **- 1064; Directorate Identifier 2012**  **- NM**  **- 101**  **- AD**  **FAA EMPLOYEE CONTACTED** : ( Comments to AD docket ) **DATE AND TIME**  **OF CONTACT:** Wednesday , May 7, 2014; 0800 **TYPE OF CONTACT** : Phone call **NAMES OF ALL PERSONS INVOLVED IN CONTACT, INCLUDING TITLES AND AFFILIATION:**  FAA participants: Bob Breneman, Manager, ANM
- 116 , Transport Airplane Directorate (TAD) Dionne Palermo, TAD AFS Liaison PM, ANM
- 106 Holly Thorson, Manager, ANM
- 114 , TAD Rose Opland, AD P rogram Manager, ANM
- 114 , TAD Douglas Anderson, Deputy Regional Counsel, ANM
- 7 Chris Glover, FAA Counsel , ANM
- 7 Industry participants: Stacey Bechdolt, Directo r of Safety , Regulatory Affairs, and Counsel , R egional A irline A ssociation (RAA) E d Walton, Direc tor of Engineering , United Parcel Service (UPS) Bruce Nord, Structural Engineering Manager , UPS Mark Hil born, S tructures Engineer , UPS Bob Ireland, Managing D i rector of Engineering and Maintenance , A irlines for America (A 4A ) **TOPIC DISCUSSED** : **Background:** The purpose of the telecon was to provide the FAA with a better understanding of comments received regarding clarifying language that was proposed in Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) FAA
- 2013
- 1064, Dir. ID 2012
- NM
- 101
- AD (see “Links” below) . This clarifying language is intended to be included in all Airworthine ss Directives (ADs) for foreign
- manufactured airplanes. This NPRM was published in the Federal Register on 12/26/13, and the comment period closed on 2/10/14. The proposed clarifying languag e (highlighted in the linked NPRM below ) is a result of the FAA becoming aware that some U.S. operators have used repair instructions that were previously approved by

a State of Design Authority or a Design Approval Holder (DAH) as a method of compliance w ith certain pr ovisions in FAA ADs for foreign
- manufactured airplanes. In these cases, the previously approved repair instructions come from the airplane structural repair manual or the DAH repair approval statements that were not specifically developed to address the unsafe condition that is being corrected by the AD. Using repair instructions that were not specifically

approved for a particular AD may result in repairs being accomplished that were not developed to address the unsafe condition identified by the State of Design Authority ’s AD, the FAA ’s AD, or the applicable service information, which could result in the unsafe condition not being fully corrected. To prevent the accomplishment of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, certain new requirements highlighted in the corrective actions paragraph and A irworthy P roduct paragraph in the linked NPRM would require that the repair approval specifically refer to the FAA AD. This change in the NPRM is intended to c larify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically

developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition.The FAA has received public comment s to the linked NPRM, as well as other NPRMs that contain the same proposed clarifying language. The comments that have been received identify concerns about the impact this proposed clarifying language will have on the operators. The FAA wants to ensure it has a clear understanding of the concerns befo re finalizing the rule language. **FAA Discussion:**  Dionne Palermo , FAA, reviewed the agenda items and reminded par ticipants that the focus of this discussion must be kept to the clarifying language in the Airworthy Product paragraph of the AD. The purpo se of the telecon is to provide an o pportunity for the FAA to better understand concerns from industry regarding the clarifying language so we can move forward appropriately
. Ms. Palermo explained the ground rules for the telecon, and clarified that the F AA cannot discuss any potential changes it might make to any ADs. Chris Glover, FAA counsel, provided a description of ex parte communications
. Chapter 3 (“Ex parte Contacts”) of FAA Order IR
- M 8040.1C, Airworthiness Directives Manual, dated May 17, 2010 ( see “Links” below) , had been distributed previously to telecon participants. Mr. Glover e xplained what that chapter means in the context of this meeting. Since we have not yet published a final rule for the AD in question, this discussion is considered an ex parte communication. T he FAA can ask for more info rmation regarding specific comments to the public docket. Discussions must be limited to the comments. The discussion must be documented and made available in the AD dockets for NPRMs that have bee n published with the clarifying language so the public has a fair view of this discussion before the FAA makes its final determination. The minutes of this telecon will be posted in the associated online AD dockets in the Federal Docket Management Sy stem (FDMS) to provide notice to industry . The FAA will consider all comments given today along with other comments that have been received. If there is any substantive change to the ADs because of this meeting, the FAA might reopen the comment period. Bob B reneman gave an overview of the issue. He stated that FAA Order 8040.5, Airworthiness Directive Process for Mandatory

Continuing Airworthiness Information,” dated September 29, 2006 (see “Links” below) , was issued to provide the FAA directorates a process for receiving ADs from airworthiness authorities and to provide instructions on how to issue our corresponding AD. The MCAI Order includes standard AD template s and instructions for implementation. One instruction relates to “contacting the manufactur er.” Some ADs might include instructions to contact a manufacturer for repairs or other corrective actions. In the past, there were differences among the FAA directorates on how this issue was addressed. Some FAA directorates stated in their ADs to cont act the FAA for repair information. The “Airworthy Product” paragraph was introduced in the MCAI Order, and was intended to be included in each AD to clarify when to contact the manufacturer for further information to address the unsafe condition . The Ai rworthy Product paragraph allows for use of actions approved by the foreign airworthiness authority , or the manufacturer as its delegated agent, without the need to obtain a separate approval from the FAA
. Mr. Breneman noted that the FAA thought this paragraph was understood by industry
. However, we learned that operators were using information that has been developed prior to the identification of the unsafe condition stated in the AD , such as repair instructions provided by the manufacturer (and appro ved by a foreign airworthiness authority

), as a method of compliance to correct an unsafe condition stated in a particular AD. That is, the method of compliance being used had not been designed specifically to address the unsafe condition identified in th e AD. This leaves a potential for unsafe repairs to be incorporated into fleets. Mr. Breneman stated that the FAA recognizes the Airworthy P roduct p aragraph needs clarification to ensure operators do not misunderstand or misuse the paragraph. W e found there was language already included in domestic ADs that specifies the corr ective action must refer to the AD number. In this way , operators alway sknow the repair is linked to the specific unsafe condition. Inthe AD being discussed today , the clarifyi ng language indicate s that the repair approval must refer to FAA AD number
. Mr. Breneman then described the proposed changes in the NPRM, Docket No. FAA
- 2013
- 1064, Directorate Id entifier 2012
- NM
- 101
- AD. He noted that the NPRM p reamble gave an explanatio n of the issue he just explained. He described what the Airworthy Product paragraph states. He also noted that, on page 17 of the NPRM, there is a paragraph that requires a new action to be taken, as well as a requirement for follow
- on action
. Inshort, cracking is to be repaired using a method approved by the FAA, or EASA or its delegated agent, or the Design Organization Approval ( DOA ) . The NPRM also states that for a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must refer to the AD number. He a lso noted that the Airworthy Product paragraph is included in all ADs issued against foreign products. The Airworthy Product paragraph is located o n page 20 of the NPRM, and includes the same sentence to require that the FAA AD number be included in the r epair approval. Ms. Palermo said that the clarifying change to the Airworthy Product paragraph is the addition of the sentence requiring that approvals reference the AD . Another change provides clarification concerning the definition of a “delegated ag ent.” Different countries’ authorities have different ways to delegate their approvals. She then opened the discussion for comments from industry
. **Industry Discussion:** In dustry comments and any

clarifying questions and responses are recorded in this section of the record. The FAA perspective on industry comments or concerns is not included in this record, but will be addressed in the comment disposition for the related NPRMs. Ed Walton, UPS , stated for the record that UPS is acting on behalf of A4A conc erning this topic. Bob Ireland, A4A, stated for the record that A4A is engaged in the lead airline process. As the lead airline, UPS is representing all A4A operators impacted by the change being discussed today
. Mr. Ireland stated that we should no t misconstrue that only UPS is interested in this issue . In order to make it easier for everyone, in the telecon today , UPS is representing all A4A members that operate Airbus and Embraer products . He noted that only Airbus and Embraer aircraft are operated by A4A member airlines. Mr. Ireland then yielded to UPS. Mr. Walton stated they

concur that if a service bulletin states to contact the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for repair instr

uctions , then operators should not use previous repairs unre lated to the AD. That intent is clear. Mr. Walton noted that UPS oper ates both Boeing and Airbus airplanes, and that they operate some aircraft outside the U.S. Through reviewing records for airplanes that were owned previously and introduced into their fleet, Mr. Walton said they have noticed a significant difference in understanding among operators concerning when alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) are needed. This gi ves some perspective on how operators perceive the need for an AMOC and what i s considered an accept able AD record package. Mr. Walton said they have had calls previously with the Transport Airplane Directorate (TAD) about the disparity between the number of AMOCs on Airbus versus Boeing airplanes
. Indiscussion with the TAD and i ts Certificate Management Office ( CMO ) , UPS understood that use of the Airworthy Product para graph as of 2006 has provided a competi t i v e balance for operators of foreign
- manufactured aircraft
. However, UPS noted this may not be the FAA’s understanding. M r. Walton said they

do not have concerns about how the ADs were worded previously , i.e., without requiring reference to the AD in the repair approval s . FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 120
- 77, “Maintenance and Alteration Data,” dated October 7, 2002 (see “Links ” below), makes it clear that repairs approved prior to the issuance of an AD would need further evaluation for use when incorporating the AD. However, h e expressed that a requirement to reference an AD could change the AFS perspective. That is, Flight St andards might ask for AD numbers on things not related to the AD
. T his is s imilar to what they see today on AMOCs associated withBoeing products , i.e., UPS believes some AMOCs being issued are not necessary , but are issued to be conservative and avoid de bate with CMOs
. Mr. Walton understands that delegated AMOC s are close to 10,000 per year on Boeing products, while Airbus reported that EASA AMOCs are well less than 100, which shows a significant difference. Mr. Walton indicated that Airbus reported to the U.S. operators that adding the FAA AD number to their repair approvals is considered a chargeable service
. While Airbus is willing to do this, the cost for this service is up to $6,800. Mr. Walton explained that this puts U
. S
. operators in a compet itive disadvantage when foreign competitors are not burdened with that charge. Inaddition, Mr. Walton indicated that Airbus may take more time to investigate if an FAA AD is affected that will cause repair approval delay s, and may result in their aircraf t not be ing available when planned
. Regarding both pre
- and post
- 2006 ADs, Mr. Walton explained that trying to keep things straight with the CMO will be difficult when a third ty pe of requirement is added. He added that e very process U.S. operators are r equired to do that foreign operators don’t have to do makes a competitive difference
. F or example, f oreign o perators of Airbus A300
- 600 freighter airplanes will not be burdened with th is change and will have a competitive advant age . Mr. Walton pointed out that there are o ther way s to address the FAA’s concern. A C 120
- 77 discusses the need to confirm the effect of repairs on ADs, and the FAA could place emphasis on enforcing it. Also, Airbus c ould be more firm on the wording of the required actions in th eir service bulletins
. Mr. Walton commented that the p roposed new wording increases the r isk of perceived non
- compliance. The number of AMOC s on Boeing aircraft is “ exploding ” to the point where operators feel they need them because “ we ’re better safe th an sorry . ” There also are big issues with airworthiness limitations ( ALI ) ADs, i.e., knowing when you need an AMOC
. Mr. Walton remarked that “ i t comes at a cost. ” Mr. Walton concluded they do not believe requiring the AD reference in repair approvals in creases safety , and that there are other way s to mitigate the FAA’s concerns without changing the current competitive balance. Regarding the inconsistency , Mr. Ireland asked if A i r bus was one of the manufacturers with whom the FAA had discussed the effe ct of using repairs that had been approved before the AD was issued . Mr. Breneman responded that he had discussed several exampl es with Airbus where an oper ator had used the Structural Repair Manual (SRM) because it was EASA
- approved, and they could demon strate they

complied with the AD. In addition, there were several examples where an operator had used an Airbus Repair design Approval Sheet (RAS) that was issued up to 10 years prior to an AD for compliance with the repair required by the AD. Airbus agr eed these examples illustrated misunderstanding and/or a misuse of the Airworthy Product para graph in ADs. Doug Anderson, FAA Deputy Regional Counsel, asked Mr. Walton for clarification on his comments regarding AC 120
- 77. Mr. Walton referenced pages 7 and 13 of the AC, and replied that they have to use the AC , which has a paragraph that confirms the effect on AD
- affected areas. Ms. Palermo a sked Mr. Walton if he could expand on his comment and give rationale regarding the operators’ belief that the Ai rworthy

Product paragraph provides competitive dis parity
. Mr. Walton noted that during the AD Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) activities, he talked with Mr. Anderson and Steve Fox (FAA engineer) about Boein g - delegated AMOCs. Airbus does not have th e ability to issue delegated AMOCs. Boeing “ pumps them out ” because “it’s better to be safe than sorry
. ” They discussed this issue with Jim Greenwood (FAA CMO) and on conference calls with Dan Rodina (FAA engineer)
. Mr. Walton provided an example involv ing lightning strike s in areas affected by ADs where they would g e t an AMOC from Boeing with the repair , but on an Airbus product no AMOC would be needed. He explain ed that

~ 85% of delegated AMOCs from Boeing have nothing to do with the intent of the AD; the AMOCs cover other things
. He added that an i nspector would be confused as to why an Airbus product does not have the paperwork burden
. According to Mr. Walton, the Airworthy Product paragraph is being used to cover those other things.Ms. Palermo asked about the nature of the AMOCs if they weren’t being requested. Mr. Walton gave the example of the lightning strike on a Model 747 lap splice . The issue they were working with was not related to the AD and UPS did not believe an AMOC was really need ed , but because it was in an area affected by an AD, Boeing issued an AMOC . He added an example of c orrosion blendouts on seat tracks that result ed in delegated AMOCs. He also mentioned multiple ADs listed on a Boeing AMOC for the 747 fleet
. Ms. Palermo indicated the FAA understood these points, and asked for any other comments from A4A or RAA
. Stacey Bechdolt, RAA, stated that RAA concurs with the statements from A4A , and ha d nothing additional. Mr. Ireland stated that A4A only submitted comments on the initial NPRM to bring the issue to the FAA, but has the same concern on other NPRMs with the same wording. He asked if he needed to comment on those other NPRMs. Ms. Palermo stated that no additional comments would be necessary . Mr. Ireland said they had heard there was some diff erent info rmation from other oper ators on whether they would have as much of a financ ial char ge, and that the e xpense burden is applicable to anyone who will request this new service. Ms. Bechdolt added that aircraft flown by the regional airlines are foreign
- manufactured aircraft
. **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 in summary form into the AD dockets of affected proposed rules.

- FAA will notify

participants when the minutes are posted.

- FAA will proceed with evaluating the comments received today
.

- FAA will notify

A4A and RAA when the first final rule is issued. Were any documents discussed? ( X ) YES (atta ch copies or reference) ( ) No Links : (1) FAA Notice of proposed rulemaking; AD Docket No. FAA
- 2013
- 10 64; Directorate I dentifier 2012
- NM
- 101
- AD
. http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA
- 2013
- 1064 (2) FAA Order IR
- M 8040.1C, Airworthiness Dir ectives Manual, dated May 17, 2010, Chapter 3(“Ex parte Contacts”). http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory _and_Guidance_Library

/rgOrders.nsf/0/66DDD8E1D2E95DB3862577270062AAB D?OpenDocument&Highlight=8040.1c (3) FAA Order 8040.5 , Airworthiness Directive Process fo r Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information , dated September 29, 2006. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory _and_Guidance_Library

/rgOrders.nsf/0/A26FA6F6B7CF3EFE862571FD0046DFB D?OpenDocument&Highlight=8040.5 (4) Advisory

Circular 1 20
- 77 , “Maintenance and A lteration Data , ” dated October 7, 2002. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory _and_Guidance_Library

/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/199E798C7EE4347786256C4D 004AE5DC?OpenDocument&Highlight=120
- 77 **PREPARED BY: Rose Opland, FAA**  **DATE: May 7, 2014** 

**THIS FORM IS TO BE P LACED IN THE PUBLIC DOCKET**  **FOR THE SUBJECT RULEMAKING ACTION.**