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 Program Manager, ANM-114, TAD

Douglas Anderson, Deputy Regional Counsel, ANM-7

Chris Glover, FAA Counsel, ANM-7

Industry participants:

Stacey Bechdolt, Director of Safety, Regulatory Affairs, and Counsel, Regional Airline Association (RAA)

Ed Walton, Director of Engineering, United Parcel Service (UPS)

Bruce Nord, Structural Engineering Manager, UPS

Mark Hilborn, Structures Engineer, UPS

Bob Ireland, Managing Director of Engineering and Maintenance, Airlines for America (A4A)

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 Airworthiness 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 language (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 with certain provisions 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 Airworthy Product 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 clarify 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 comments 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 before finalizing the rule language.

FAA Discussion: 

Dionne Palermo, FAA, reviewed the agenda items and reminded participants that the focus of this discussion 

must be kept to the clarifying language in the Airworthy Product paragraph of the AD. The purpose of the 

telecon is to provide an opportunity 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 FAA 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 explained 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. The FAA can ask for more information 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 been 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 

System (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 Breneman 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 templates

and instructions for implementation. 

One instruction relates to “contacting the manufacturer.” 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 contact 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 Airworthy 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 approved 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 the AD. This leaves a potential for unsafe repairs to be incorporated into fleets. 

Mr. Breneman stated that the FAA recognizes the Airworthy Product paragraph needs clarification to ensure 

operators do not misunderstand or misuse the paragraph. We found there was language already included in 

domestic ADs that specifies the corrective action must refer to the AD number. In this way, operators always 
know the repair is linked to the specific unsafe condition. In the AD being discussed today, the clarifying 

language indicates 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 

Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD. He noted that the NPRM preamble gave an explanation 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. 

In short, 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 also noted that the Airworthy Product paragraph is included in 

all ADs issued against foreign products. The Airworthy Product paragraph is located on page 20 of the NPRM, 

and includes the same sentence to require that the FAA AD number be included in the repair 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 agent.” Different countries’ authorities have different ways to delegate their approvals. She then 

opened the discussion for comments from industry. 

Industry Discussion:

Industry 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 concerning 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 

not 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 instructions, then operators should not use previous repairs unrelated to the AD. That intent is 

clear.

Mr. Walton noted that UPS operates 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 gives some perspective on how operators 

perceive the need for an AMOC and what is considered an acceptable 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. In discussion with the TAD and its Certificate 

Management Office (CMO), UPS understood that use of the Airworthy Product paragraph as of 2006 has 

provided a competitive balance for operators of foreign-manufactured aircraft. However, UPS noted this may

not be the FAA’s understanding.

Mr. 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 approvals. 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, he expressed that a 

requirement to reference an AD could change the AFS perspective. That is, Flight Standards might ask for AD 

numbers on things not related to the AD. This is similar to what they see today on AMOCs associated with 
Boeing products, i.e., UPS believes some AMOCs being issued are not necessary, but are issued to be 

conservative and avoid debate with CMOs. Mr. Walton understands that delegated AMOCs 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 competitive disadvantage when foreign 

competitors are not burdened with that charge. In addition, Mr. Walton indicated that Airbus may take more 

time to investigate if an FAA AD is affected that will cause repair approval delays, and may result in their 

aircraft not being 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 type of requirement is added. He 

added that every process U.S. operators are required to do that foreign operators don’t have to do makes a 

competitive difference. For example, foreign operators of Airbus A300-600 freighter airplanes will not be 

burdened with this change and will have a competitive advantage.

Mr. Walton pointed out that there are other ways to address the FAA’s concern. AC 120-77 discusses the need 

to confirm the effect of repairs on ADs, and the FAA could place emphasis on enforcing it. Also, Airbus could 

be more firm on the wording of the required actions in their service bulletins. Mr. Walton commented that the 

proposed new wording increases the risk of perceived non-compliance. The number of AMOCs on Boeing 

aircraft is “exploding” to the point where operators feel they need them because “we’re better safe than sorry.” 

There also are big issues with airworthiness limitations (ALI) ADs, i.e., knowing when you need an AMOC. 

Mr. Walton remarked that “it comes at a cost.” Mr. Walton concluded they do not believe requiring the AD 

reference in repair approvals increases safety, and that there are other ways to mitigate the FAA’s concerns 

without changing the current competitive balance. 

Regarding the inconsistency, Mr. Ireland asked if Airbus was one of the manufacturers with whom the FAA had 

discussed the effect of using repairs that had been approved before the AD was issued. Mr. Breneman 

responded that he had discussed several examples with Airbus where an operator had used the Structural Repair 

Manual (SRM) because it was EASA-approved, and they could demonstrate 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 

agreed these examples illustrated misunderstanding and/or a misuse of the Airworthy Product paragraph 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 asked Mr. Walton if he could expand on his comment and give rationale regarding the operators’ 

belief that the Airworthy Product paragraph provides competitive disparity. 

Mr. Walton noted that during the AD Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) activities, he talked with Mr. 

Anderson and Steve Fox (FAA engineer) about Boeing-delegated AMOCs. Airbus does not have the 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 involving lightning strikes in areas affected by ADs where they would get an 

AMOC from Boeing with the repair, but on an Airbus product no AMOC would be needed. He explained 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 inspector 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 needed, but because it was in an area affected by an AD, 

Boeing issued an AMOC. He added an example of corrosion blendouts on seat tracks that resulted 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 had 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 different information from other operators on whether they would have as much of a 

financial charge, and that the expense 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 (attach copies or reference) ( ) No

Links: 

(1) FAA Notice of proposed rulemaking; AD Docket No. FAA-2013-1064; Directorate Identifier 

2012-NM-101-AD. http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-1064

(2) FAA Order IR-M 8040.1C, Airworthiness Directives 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 for 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 120-77, “Maintenance and Alteration 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 PLACED IN THE PUBLIC DOCKET

FOR THE SUBJECT RULEMAKING ACTION.