Page 1

RECORD OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATION

The follow ex parte communication concerns airworthiness directive (AD) Docket Number 

FAA-2012-0187. This discussion may be relevant to similar rulemaking that the FAA may be 

planning for other airplane models.

AD Docket Number FAA-2012-0187 comprises the following actions:

Directorate 

Identifier

Affected 

airplane 

models

AD action Date published in the 

Federal Register

Date comment 

period closed

2011-NM-094-AD Boeing 757

Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) March 1, 2012 April 30, 2012

Supplemental NPRM February 23, 2015 April 24, 2015

TYPE OF CONTACT: Meeting/teleconference

DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: December 1, 2015, at 9 a.m.

NAMES OF ALL PERSONS INVOLVED IN CONTACT, INCLUDING TITLES AND 

AFFILIATION:

Industry participants:

Blair DuBois, Atlas Air

Kent Horton, Southwest Airlines (by phone)

Robert Ireland, Airlines for America (A4A)

David Springer, UPS

Jim Tisdale, FedEx

Ed Walton, United Parcel Service (UPS)

FAA participants:

Jeffrey Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate

Dionne Palermo, AFS Liaison Program Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate

Doug Anderson, Deputy Regional Counsel

Christopher Glover, FAA Counsel

Ross Landes, Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office

Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Standards Staff

Bob Breneman, Manager, International Branch, Transport Standards Staff

Scott Fung, Manager, Propulsion Branch, Seattle ACO

Jon Regimbal, Senior Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, Seattle ACO

Marcia Walters, Senior Technical Writer, Airworthiness and Technical Communications Branch, 

Transport Standards Staff
Page 2

TOPICS DISCUSSED:

Background

A4A requested a meeting to provide clarification to the FAA of the operational effects of 

planned ADs affecting fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) wiring on multiple Boeing 

airplane models. The FAA previously issued a related notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

and supplemental NPRM affecting Boeing Model 757 airplanes based on fuel system reviews 

conducted by the manufacturer. The NPRM and supplemental NPRM proposed to require 

modifying the FQIS wiring to prevent development of an ignition source inside the center fuel 

tank. The FAA proposed this AD to detect and correct prevent ignition sources inside the center 

fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions 

and consequent loss of the airplane.

FAA discussion

Ms. Palermo opened the discussion by explaining the purpose of the meeting and outlining the 

agenda.

Mr. Glover explained the legal concept of ex parte (one-sided) communication in the context of 

this meeting. Since the final rule for the Model 757 proposed AD has not been published, this 

discussion is considered an ex parte communication. The FAA is limited to seeking clarification 

of comments to the NPRM and SNPRM that have been published. In this case, the FAA can ask 

for more information regarding specific comments to the public docket, but discussions must be 

limited to those comments so that the meeting participants affected by the rule will not have an 

advantage over others who are also affected by the rule but not participating in the meeting.

Mr. Glover noted that a record of the discussion must be made available in AD docket

FAA-2012-0187, as well as any dockets for future similar NPRMs on other airplane models. 

Providing this record will give the public awareness of this discussion before the FAA makes its 

final determination. Therefore, the minutes of this meeting will be posted in the online AD 

docket in the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) to provide notice to industry. The 

FAA will consider all comments given today. If discussions during this meeting prompt any

substantive change to the AD, the FAA might consider reopening the comment period.

Mr. Duven introduced the discussion by explaining that the FAA will listen to what industry has 

to say and that it will be helpful to all parties involved, but that the FAA is not in a position to 

debate the merits of any position. Ms. Palermo explained the ground rules for the meeting, and 

reiterated that the FAA will be unable to engage in discussion but may ask questions to clarify

industry’s comments and concerns. Mr. Landes noted that the FAA carefully considered, 

studied, and responded to all comments to the NPRM and the supplemental NPRM.

A4A presentation

Mr. Walton, on behalf of UPS, presented A4A’s current concerns regarding planned FQIS ADs. 

He led off his presentation (posted in AD Docket Number FAA-2012-0187) by stating that 
Page 3

operators are beginning to review the associated service bulletins, and are concerned about the

lack of a design target or adequate rationale for the ADs. The following summary of the 

presentation includes additional comments from the meeting participants.

1. No unsafe condition exists.

• Air cargo operators have already incurred significant expense addressing ADs to 

respond to Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88. The initial flammability

reduction means (FRM) requirement did not account for the safety benefit of those 

actions. And since there have been no incidents since the above changes were 

implemented, Mr. Walton concluded that the SFAR 88 ADs have been successful, and 

FAA projections for additional incidents are overstated.

Mr. DuBois, on behalf of Atlas Air, and Mr. Tisdale, on behalf of FedEx, reported that their 

companies have focused significant efforts on wiring issues by enhancing training and awareness 

and updating manuals in addition to incorporating required actions associated with ADs related 

to fuel tank safety. The original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and other regulatory agencies 

are having difficulty calculating the true safety value associated with the FQIS AD. Mr. Tisdale 

considered that all the unsafe conditions have been mitigated, operationally and across industry, 

and that all previous rules have been effective. Mr. Tisdale reported that in light of FedEx’s 

financial and technical investment to mitigate the unsafe conditions in all areas, this AD is 

difficult to understand technically relative to the amount of mitigation that would be required, in 

light of a true assessment of the risk.

Mr. Walton stated that this situation is unique because the OEM is equally unsure of the goal 

because there is no definitive design target. Mr. Duven responded by stating that the OEM’s 

perspective has changed over time, and that the goal with this AD is to address one of the key

unsafe conditions revealed during investigation into the TWA accident.

2. Only the FAA believes that a safety issue still exists.

• The NTSB has no open safety recommendations related to SFAR 88.

• Foreign civil aviation authorities (FCAAs) have not mandated retrofitting inerting

procedures, and will not do so in the future.

Mr. Walton added that foreign authorities are satisfied that the unsafe condition has been 

addressed.

3. Industry has raised a number of concerns regarding the proposed wire separation.

• Service bulletins with wire separation procedures do not meet the new design criteria. 

For Model 757 airplanes, only about 5% of FQIS wires can be separated to 2 inches, 

and most can be separated only up to 0.5 inch.

• The AD would necessitate considerable access and intrusive work, with no safety 

benefit.

• The service bulletins will not be issued as alert service bulletins.
Page 4

The concern was that only 5% of the relocated wiring in the service bulletin directly meets the 

wire separation distance requirements for alterations and repairs that are contained in a CDCCL

required to be added to the maintenance program by previous AD actions. Mr. Ireland stated that 

the FAA’s willingness to accept this 5% criterion indicates that the FAA does not believe this is 

a safety issue. He encouraged the FAA to reconsider the AD in light of the data. Mr. Tisdale 

added that access conditions vary, and wiring maintenance can affect and disrupt other systems. 

Mr. DuBois stated that wiring work, often with unique procedures for different airplanes,

becomes further complicated for work that is mandated by an AD because differences can’t be 

resolved quickly through local engineering but must be addressed via FAA approval for 

deviations from the service bulletin procedures. 

Mr. Wicklund asked for the source of those figures. Mr. Regimbal stated that the FAA 

understands the comment, and did not need further clarification. 

4. The cost impact on operators will be significant.

• U.S. air cargo operators have already spent tens of millions over the past 20 years in 

fuel tank safety improvement and compliance with ADs to respond to SFAR 88. This 

includes $35.5 million to do the requirements of 51 SFAR88 ADs, recurring expenses 

for Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Airplane Safety (EAPAS) maintenance, and 

improved and more expensive fuel tank component maintenance manual (CMM)

repair/overhaul.

• UPS estimates that the FQIS AD will cost about $16 million for the four affected fleet 

types.

Mr. Regimbal asked whether this figure was an overall U.S. fleet estimate based on the perairplane cost estimated by Boeing. Mr. Walton replied that the actual costs will likely be triple 

the estimates provided in the service bulletins; he added that this applies to service bulletins 

across the board (not only on this issue, but other issues as well). Mr. Ireland questioned 

whether it is possible to extrapolate from these figures if exemptions were not allowed. Mr. 

Walton replied that the $16 million cost figure applies to all four fleets.

Mr. Tisdale added that because access conditions vary, additional work hours are necessary to do 

the work to comply with the AD. Further, wiring maintenance often disrupts other systems, 

further increasing the work-hour estimate. Mr. Walton expressed A4A’s appreciation of the 

FAA’s effort to ease the burden on airlines, but also expressed concern that the work specified in 

the service bulletins is always more disruptive than is accounted for in the service bulletin workhour estimate because of the different configurations within a fleet and the potential problems 

created by disturbing the wiring for other systems.

5. The global market will put U.S. operators at a disadvantage.

• The air cargo industry is currently a competitive global market. U.S. air cargo 

operators compete directly with foreign operators since other authorities may not 

require similar actions of their operators.
Page 5

• In addition to the current global competition among air cargo operators, the air cargo 

industry is competing with the ability of passenger airplanes to carry certain freight in 

their decks below the passenger floor. 

• The additional cost of the proposed ADs, which will be incurred only by U.S.

operators, will make them less competitive with foreign operators and ultimately cause 

lost revenue and jobs. Some air cargo operators have gone out of business due to the 

highly competitive market, and some operators with both passenger and air cargo 

operations have ceased their cargo operations.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Mr. Duven thanked the industry participants for sharing their perspective. He stated that for the 

past 20 years, all parties have continued to learn about the issues related to the TWA accident

and fuel tank safety. He emphasized the importance of industry and the public understanding the 

reasons behind the FAA’s deferral of this AD until the broader implications of FRM were fully 

understood. He reiterated the purpose of the 757 AD – to address an identified unsafe condition 

– which has consistently been the FAA’s position. Mr. Duven recognized the unique economic 

and competitive issues faced by the cargo industry.

Other discussion

FAA/FCAA position on the 757 FQIS AD

Mr. Duven stated that generally, operators rely on FAA to take responsibility for safety. 

Mr. Walton questioned the reasons other FCAAs might not concur on this action. Mr. Wicklund 

stated that EASA has not mandated retrofitting inerting, but others might do so or already have. 

Mr. Walton stated that UPS has not heard of any mandated retrofitting, but if compelling 

technical data exist, the FAA should encourage other authorities to take similar actions. Mr. 

Duven stated that the state-of-design authorities have unique insight into the design and potential 

unsafe conditions for products they oversee. Other authorities likely have different, and often 

more limited, insight into the specific conditions associated with U.S. products. If the FAA 

issues an AD it is expected that most, if not all, other authorities will follow, regardless of what 

industry may have understood their earlier position to be.

Future communication on common air cargo issues

Mr. Duven, Mr. Walton, Mr. Regimbal, and Mr. Horton, suggested it would be valuable to have 

a dialogue outside the ex parte forum to discuss common issues. Mr. Walton expressed 

appreciation for Mr. Duven’s offer for a more open discussion of the unique issues faced by air 

cargo operators.

Related rulemaking

Mr. Duven indicated that any future similar NPRMs on other airplane models will include a 

discussion of the relationship of the ADs and the concerns that have already been discussed.
Page 6

NTSB recommendations

Mr. Wicklund reported that the NTSB expects the FAA to address the FQIS wire separation 

issue. Mr. Walton, however, reported that a person he had contacted at the NTSB had indicated 

to him that none of the fuel tank safety recommendations called for FQIS wire separation. 

Mr. Duven stated that the FAA has told the NTSB of its intentions and plans in responding to the 

safety recommendations. Although the safety recommendations are closed, the NTSB expects 

the FAA to follow through with its commitments.

Service bulletins

Noting FedEx’s proactive stance related to safety, Mr. Tisdale stated that FedEx may delay

initiating work in a service bulletin in an effort to avoid rework because service bulletins are 

often revised. He suggested that wiring service bulletins are especially problematic because of 

their technical complexity and the multiple configurations within the fleet. Mr. Walton stated 

that the A300 software AD affected only U.S. air cargo operations. He expressed concern that 

quality could be compromised without full OEM support. He stated that he did not believe 

Boeing was using their most experienced engineers to prepare the FQIS service bulletins because 

Boeing does not consider there to be a safety issue, and Boeing does not understand what the

FAA wants or why the FAA considers there to be a safety issue. Mr. Regimbal stated that 

Boeing does understand the issues and the FAA’s expectations, but does not agree with the 

FAA’s position. Mr. Walton agreed that Boeing faces the dilemma of preparing service 

bulletins, as requested by the FAA, for airplanes Boeing considers to be safe.

Mr. Landes asked whether the service bulletin validation process is working. Mr. Walton 

affirmed that it is, but he emphasized the need for an operator’s fleet to be all in the same 

configuration.

COMMITMENTS MADE BY FAA/DOT PERSONNEL

Ms. Palermo closed the meeting with an outline of the next steps:

• The FAA will post the minutes of the meeting in summary form in the 757 AD docket, as 

well as dockets for any future similar NPRMs on other airplane models.

• The FAA will notify A4A and other industry participants when the minutes have been 

posted.

• The FAA will evaluate the comments received today.

• The FAA will notify A4A and other industry participants when a final rulemaking action

has been issued/published.

Were any documents discussed? ( X ) YES (attach copies or reference) ( ) NO

The A4A presentation, NPRM, and SNPRM are posted in AD Docket No. FAA-2012-0187.

PREPARED BY: Marcia Walters DATE: December 29, 2015

THIS FORM IS TO BE PLACED IN THE PUBLIC DOCKET FOR THE SUBJECT 

RULEMAKING ACTION.