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 (b y 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 L iaison Program Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate Doug Anderson, Deputy

Regional Counsel Christopher Glover, FAA Counsel Ross L andes, M anager, 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 Aerospa ce Engineer, Propulsion Branch, Seattle ACO Marcia Walters, Senior Technical Writer, Airworthiness and Technical Communications Branch , Transport Standards StaffPage 2

**TOPICS DISCUSSED: Background**  A4A request ed a meeting to provide clarification to the FAA of th e operational effects of planned ADs affecting fuel quantity indication s ys tem (FQIS) wiring on multiple Boeing air plane models
. The FAA previously issued a related notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and supplemental NPRM affecting Boeing M odel 757 airp lanes based on fuel sy stem reviews conducted b y 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 an d 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 d iscussion**  Ms. Palermo opened the discussion by explaining the purpose of the mee ting 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 th e Model 757 proposed AD has not been published, this discussion is con sidered 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 di scussion s must be limited to those comments so that the meeting participants affected b y the rule will not have an advantage over others who are also affected b y the rule but not participating in the meeting
. Mr. Glover noted that a record of the discussion must b e made available in AD docket FAA
- 2012
- 0187 , as well as an y 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 mi nutes of this meeting will be posted in the online AD docket in the Federal Docket Management Sy stem (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 an y 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 FQ IS AD s . He led off his presentation (posted in AD Docket Number FAA
- 2012
- 0187 ) by stating thatPage 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 AD s . The following summary of the presentation includes addi tional 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 inco rporating 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 FQI S AD
. Mr. Tisdale conside red 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 technicall y 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 goa l 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 accid ent. **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 w ire separation procedures do not meet the new design criteria. For Model 757 airplanes, only about 5% of FQ IS wire s 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 w ork, 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 sy stems. 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 quickl y 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 c**  **ost 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 compl i ance with ADs to respond to SFAR 88. This includes $35.5 million to do the requirements of 51 SFAR88 ADs, recurring expenses for Enhanced Airwo rthiness Program for Airplane Safety ( EAPAS ) maintenance, and improved and more expensive fuel tank component maintenance manual ( CMM ) repair/overhaul.

• UPS estimates that the FQI S AD will cost about $16 million for the four affected fleet ty pes. Mr. Regi mbal asked whether this figure was an overall U.S. fleet estimate based on the per airplane 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 applie s 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 disrupt s other sy stems , further increasing the work
- hour estimate
. Mr. Walton expressed A4A’s appreciation of the FAA’s eff

ort to ease the burden on airlines , but also expressed concern that the work specified in the service bulletins is alway s more disruptive than is accounted for in the service bulletin work
hour estimate because of the different configurations within a fleet and the potential problems created b y disturbing the wiring for other s ys tems
. **5. The global market will put**  **U.S. operators at a disadvantage.** 

• T he air cargo industry is currentl y 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 carg o 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 onl y b y U.S. operators, will make them less competitive wi th foreign operators and ultimately cause lost revenue and jobs
. Some air cargo operators have gone out of business due to the highl y 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 is sues 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 full y understood
. He reiterated the p urpose 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 b y the cargo industry
. **Other discussion** FAA/FCAA position on the 757 F QIS AD Mr. Duven stated that generall y, operators rel y 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
- o f
- 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 th e 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 M r. 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. A lthough 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 bull etins are especially problematic because of their technical complexity and the multiple configuration s within the fleet
. Mr. Walton stated that the A300 software AD affected onl y 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 FQI S service bulletins because Boeing does not consider there to be a safety issue, and Boeing does not understand what the FAA wants or wh y 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 b y 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 flee t to be all in the same configuration
. **COMMIT MENTS 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 an y f

uture 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 an y documents discussed? ( X ) YES (attach copies or reference) ( ) NO The A4 A 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.**