RECORD OF EX PARTE CONTACT 

DOCKET NO.: FAA-2012-0102 

DIRECTORATE IDENTIFIER: 2012-NM-004-AD 

FAA EMPLOYEES CONTACTED: 

Mr. Ali Bahrami Manager FAA Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-100 

Mr. Mike Kaszycki Manager FAA Transport Airplane Directorate 

Transport Standards Staff, ANM-110 

Mr. Jeff Gardlin Aerospace Engineer FAA Transport Airplane Directorate 

Airframe/Cabin Safety, ANM-115 

Mr. Robert Hettman Aerospace Engineer FAA Transport Airplane Directorate 

Propulsion/Mechanical Systems, ANM-112 

Ms. Meghan Gordon Aerospace Engineer FAA Transport Airplane Directorate 

Standardization, ANM-113 

Mr. Matthew White Air Traffic Control 

Specialist 

FAA Centennial Air Traffic Control, TWB-APA 

DATE AND TIME OF CONTACT: March 7, 2012, 0800 – 1500 

TYPE OF CONTACT: Meeting, Boeing, Renton, WA 

NAMES OF ALL PERSONS INVOLVED IN CONTACT: 

See “Attachment 1” at the end of this record 

TOPICS DISCUSSED

FAA Introductory Remarks

The FAA thanked everyone for attending and explained that the FAA wants to continue working 

with industry to restore the oxygen in the lavatories in a timely manner. The FAA also explained 

that part of the FAA’s plan for restoring oxygen in the lavatories is outlined in FAA Policy 

Statement PS-ANM-25-04. For example, if you follow the policy statement, then you will not be 

subject to future rulemaking. 

The FAA is proposing to use an airworthiness directive (AD) instead of parts 25 and 121 

rulemaking. The main driver in this decision is the desire to restore oxygen in the lavatory in a 

four year time period. FAA has held many meetings evaluating the best rulemaking approach. 

The proposed AD is still open for comment. Note that during the comment period that the FAA 

is in ex parte communication. As such, whatever is shared in this meeting related to the 

proposed AD will be documented in the docket. 

The FAA concluded by thanking Boeing for hosting the meeting on short notice.
Page 2 of 11 

Background on Chemical Oxygen Generators in the Lavatories

Mr. Bert Bailey (Boeing) explained that there is a security concern related to the installation of 

chemical oxygen generators (COG) in lavatories. The COG can be manipulated in such a way 

that it can result in a catastrophic loss of the airplane. As a result of this security concern, the 

FAA has released the following items: (1) AD-2011-04-09, (2) SFAR 111 (covered items 

“missed” in the original AD, such as removing oxygen masks, crew procedures), (3) FAA Policy 

Memo PS-ANM-25-04, and (4) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 2012-NM-004-AD. 

The ARC was formed in April of 2011. On August 3, 2011, the FAA presented the ARC final 

report which started the four year clock for restoring oxygen back into the lavatories. In early 

November, FAA Policy Memo PS-ANM-25-04 was proposed, and subsequently issued as final 

in December. The FAA stated that the policy memo is based on the ARC recommendations. 

The audience for the policy memo is industry, the public, and FAA field offices. 

On February 27, 2012, the FAA issued NPRM 2012-NM-004-AD. The compliance time for this 

proposed AD (NPRM) is two years. 

Mr. Bailey provided the following observations with regards to the proposed AD: (1) 

Throughout the ARC process the compliance time had been stated many times as being 4 years 

with a starting point second half of 2011; now 2 years is stated. (2) Why a new AD instead of a 

final rule? (3) This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2011-04-09 which would 

be in conflict of reinstalling oxygen in to the lavatories. 

Rulemaking Approaches Evaluated

The FAA provided some background on NPRM 2012-NM-004-AD and explained that the FAA 

is in ex parte communication, and that the FAA cannot make any commitments. The FAA can 

only talk about commitments in a public meeting, and this meeting is not a public meeting. The 

FAA will be able to explain what they are proposing. The information shared in this meeting 

will be recorded. It was noted that if a person feels strongly about an item, they should make a 

formal comment to the proposed AD. 

It has been approximately one year since the FAA issued the original AD. Right now, the AD 

states that an airplane cannot have a COG installed in the lavatory. SFAR 111 permits continued 

delivery of airplanes with no supplementary oxygen in the lavatory. If an applicant wanted to 

install a COG in a lavatory, say in a secure manner, an alternative method of compliance 

(AMOC) to the original AD would be required. The original AD is very specific to COG 

installations in a lavatory. If you install a COG outside the lavatory, an AMOC would not be 

required, although these other areas may be evaluated for security considerations. If the FAA 

grants approvals in advance of the final AD, then they would not be subject to the original AD 

any longer. The policy statement would be used as the basis for the approval. The final method 

(e.g., excluded from the AD or grandfathered from the AD) still needs to be determined by the 

FAA. The FAA would write the approvals and the final AD in such a way that they would not 
Page 3 of 11 

be subject to the final AD. From a timing perspective, developing and certifying a design prior 

to issuance of the final AD might not be realistic. 

The FAA considered several rulemaking alternatives to restore oxygen: 

Terminating the SFAR 111. If SFAR 111 was terminated, the relief provided by the SFAR 

would go away. The AD would state that you could not install a COG in the lavatory, and the 

SFAR would no longer provide relief to operate with supplementary oxygen in the lavatory. 

This would be an indirect way of imposing the requirement to restore oxygen in the lavatory in a 

secure manner. There is a huge potential confusion factor with this approach and ultimately it 

requires further rulemaking. 

Parts 121/129 Rule Change. Normally, when the FAA does this type of rulemaking, the FAA is 

trying to raise the level of safety. In this case, the FAA is only intending to restore the same 

level of safety. This approach also involves formal rulemaking. When the FAA looked at the 

time to issue a final rule, even using an expedited process, it would take multiple years. 

Whatever approach the FAA used, it would need to allow for a complete retrofit. Parts 121/129 

rulemaking may very well take three of the four years needed, and only allow for one year to 

retrofit. Note that the FAA’s safety risk assessment shows no longer than a four year compliance 

time. 

Superseding AD 2011-04-09. The security improvement is a necessary action to maintain the 

safe operation of the airplane. The net affect is that safety is back to where it was prior to the 

security improvement. AD 2011-04-09 was always considered an interim action. The FAA did 

not want to process AMOCs to the AD indefinitely which is what would happen if no other 

action was taken. ADs are typically resolved with a terminating action when the original action 

is known to be, or learned to be interim. From that perspective, the FAA’s proposal is typical. 

Proposed AD Key Points

The FAA explained the key points of the proposed AD. The proposed AD makes a distinction 

between COG and non-COG installations. As has been well documented and discussed, the use 

of COGs in the lavatories necessitates consideration of security measures. For the time being, 

the evaluation of the security aspects (e.g., tamper resistance) of a COG installation will require 

TAD involvement. 

Applicability

The FAA provided clarification with regards to the proposed AD applicability. There are 

currently two airplane configurations in the U.S. fleet: (1) airplanes not affected by the current 

AD as they have only non-COG installations in the lavatories, and (2) airplanes that have 

removed the COG installations from the lavatories per the original AD (the applicability of the 

original AD is transport airplanes with COGs installed in the lavatories). In determining the 

appropriate applicability for the proposed AD, the FAA needed to cover both configurations (1) 

and (2). For example, currently the only rulemaking that prohibits COGs in the lavatory is the 

original AD. If the FAA only addressed configuration (2) in the proposed AD, there would be 
Page 4 of 11 

no means to prevent a person from installing a COG in a lavatory for airplanes that currently 

have non-COG installations in the lavatories. In addition, since the original fleet has been 

modified, these airplanes no longer have COG installations, so these airplanes are no longer 

covered by the original AD. The FAA also needs to maintain the original AD applicability to 

prevent other airplanes from entering the U.S. fleet unmodified. Aircraft are added to the FAA 

Operations Specifcations often, and the proposed applicability prevents these airplanes from 

falling through the cracks. As the proposed AD is currently written, a new airplane from the 

production line is also compelled to meet the proposed AD. 

The proposed AD is clearly limited to lavatories only. This is consistent with the original AD. 

Many attendees responded that there was a lot of confusion over the applicability of the proposed 

AD, and the reason for it. The FAA’s explanation was helpful in understanding the reasoning. 

Approval Process

If the installation is a non-COG installation, the design approval process can remain the same. 

The usual constraints that are normally in place for an AD would not apply to these installations. 

For example, ODAs with the authority to approve major modifications can do so even though 

this is an AD action. A design approval is still required. 

Mr. Paul Lewis (US Airways) expressed concern with ensuring that the documentation over 

time, say ten years from now, is correct. Will an operator have to constantly prove to the FAA 

that there is a non-COG installation? In the industry, there is an expectation that there will need 

to be an AMOC. As proposed, there would still need to be documentation that there is a nonCOG installation as a means of compliance to the AD. The design approval process would be a 

lot more flexible. There were concerns expressed by operators in the ARC related to AD 

compliance. The FAA has tried to address these concerns in the proposed AD with paragraph k. 

Paragraph k of the proposed AD provides an alternative for approval of non-COGs installations. 

Mr. Lewis stated that if the wording remains the same in paragraph k, US Airways would find 

the wording acceptable. 

AMOC provisions are also different. There are no formal AMOC required for non-COG 

installations if deviations to approved service instructions are needed. If you want to change the 

installation, you still need to get it approved. However, you would not need to go through the 

formal AMOC process. Again this is different than the normal AD process. 

Even though an AMOC is not required for non-COG installations, an operator or airplane 

manufacturer would still be required to document how compliance was shown to the AD. In 

these cases, the operator would point to paragraph k. Industry commented that it would be 

helpful to have better language in the AD or a global AMOC to address this item. The FAA 

suggested that a comment should be provided via the docket. 

For COG installations, all AMOCs will be approved by TAD. There will also be close 

coordination with the FAA aircraft certification offices (ACOs) and FAA Flight Standards 

(AFS). 
Page 5 of 11 

Several individuals commented on documenting compliance with the AD when changes are 

made to a COG installation (e.g., removing COGs from a 737 airplane and installing gaseous 

oxygen). What happens to the AD paperwork? The FAA responded that the modification 

should reference the AD. The operator will need to document that the non-COG installation is 

subject to the AD, and that an AMOC is not required. The FAA stated that the FAA needs to 

consider these comments and develop guidance on how this documentation takes place. The 

FAA suggested that this would be a good comment to make to the docket. 

The FAA stated that prior to adoption of the final proposed AD, any reinstallation of COGs in 

affected lavatories would require an AMOC approval with respect to AD 2011-04-09. Industry 

asked if an AMOC is received to AD 2011-04-09 would a separate AMOC need to be issued for 

the proposed AD. The FAA stated that it is the FAA’s intent for previously approved AMOCs 

to AD 2011-04-09 to remain valid for the proposed AD. The fact that the proposed AD 

references the policy memo, the AMOC should remain valid if the proposed AD is adopted as 

written. US Airways plans to make a comment that a statement be added that previous AMOCs 

to the original AD be found to be acceptable AMOC for the new final AD. 

Compliance Time

The FAA stated that generally AD compliance time cannot be more restrictive than proposed 

without going out with another comment period. The timing in the proposed AD is a proposal. 

The compliance time starts from when the final AD is issued. The FAA wants the AD to be 

issued as soon as possible, but it will take a little bit of time to disposition the comments and 

issue the final AD. 

Mr. Lewis stated that US Airways is working aggressively for solutions, but would have 

difficulty meeting the two year time frame. 

It was also noted by several individuals that if there is more time, industry will end up with better 

solutions. A shorter time frame will drive significant compromises. 

There was concern expressed by several individuals about the level playing field. The FAA 

explained that the FAA TAD will assure that the level of compliance is in line with what was 

discussed in the ARC. The TAD has a process where they review all transport airplane projects 

at a high level. This process will allow visibility of all COG installation projects, and TAD will 

request involvement in these projects. 

Mr. Chris Witkowski (AFA) expressed concern with the crew having necessary protection in 

case of a rapid decompression. AFA has previously presented an interim proposal in the ARC. 

AFA is concerned about the compliance time, and does not want the compliance period longer 

than two years. AFA recognizes that there will likely be changes (e.g., oxygen restored to 

lavatories) prior to 2 years on some airplanes, and are pleased with the possibility of part of the 

fleet being modified earlier than the proposed compliance time. Mr. Witkowski also commented 

that the proposed AD does not provide any requirement for interim measures and allowing 
Page 6 of 11 

operators additional time to implement a final solution if interim measures are incorporated into 

the fleet. 

Boeing commented that the proposed two year compliance time does not meet their business 

plans. The FAA responded that the risk assessment performed for the original AD determined 

that four years (starting from the time the ARC recommendations were made) was an acceptable 

risk. The FAA asked industry to provide any comments that support a different compliance time 

(e.g., shorter or longer). The FAA stated that data driven, cost estimations, and risks are the 

three items that are strongly considered in comments. 

Unsafe Condition of Proposed AD

Boeing commented that the original AD described a security issue that presented an unsafe 

condition for continued safe flight and operation. The proposed AD seems to be a little 

inconsistent with the original AD. The proposed AD states an unsafe condition and implies that 

there is an unsafe condition now. The FAA responded that the proposed AD is meant to state the 

same original unsafe condition. We accept a risk during the compliance period (e.g., having the 

lavatories “secure”, but without supplemental oxygen). The FAA tries to come up with a 

terminating action to the original AD. The proposed AD is analogous to a terminating fix. Note 

that any AD corrects an unsafe condition. And the FAA does not ground the fleet every time an 

AD is issued. To reiterate, the proposed AD does not state a new unsafe condition, but restates 

the same unsafe condition in the original AD. 

Costs

Industry requested information on how the costs in the proposed AD were determined. The FAA 

stated that the costs are estimates. The labor costs estimates assumed that the modification could 

be completed in an overnight (even if it was sequential – such as accomplished over three 

overnights). From a parts standpoint, the FAA used catalog prices on parts (e.g., equivalent of 

certain gaseous systems). For the number of lavatories requiring modification, the FAA used an 

approximation on how many lavatories are on wide body airplanes vs. narrow body airplanes. 

The objective was to provide a realistic estimate that allowed the public to comment. The cost is 

estimated based on the fleet affected by the AD which is not the world wide fleet. The cost 

estimate is open for the public to comment on. The FAA is required to provide a cost estimate 

and believes it is in the general ballpark, but it is an estimate. The estimate does not include the 

cost associated with the certification and approval effort. 

FAA Team 

The FAA has identified focals at each of the field offices (ACOs). There have been periodic 

telecons between TAD, the focals, and the FAA Airplane Evaluation Group (AEG) to provide 

updates on the actions. This team approach should lend itself to a standardized process. The 

FAA has committed that this activity will be given priority. There have been questions on 

whether an applicant is required to have a customer to apply for an STC. The FAA will start the 

process without a customer identified. However, an airplane will need to be identified prior to 

the approval. 
Page 7 of 11 

It is expected that the TAD involvement will be similar to flight deck doors activity. The TAD 

wants to ensure consistency with regards to the application of standards. 

There is also close coordination between FAA Aircraft Certification and Flight Standards. There 

is a draft InFO (information bulletin) to inform both operators and field inspectors of the unique 

proposed AD provisions. The Flight Standards organization is also planning outreach meetings 

to explain the unique features/distinctions of this proposed AD (e.g., what is meant by certain 

provisions and the intent of how it should be applied). Flight Standards has been involved from 

the beginning of this activity, and have reviewed and concurred on the proposed AD. 

Differences from Part 26 Approach

Unlike part 26 rules, the proposed AD does not require design approval holders to come up with 

solutions for their designs (e.g., STC that installs a lavatory with a chemical oxygen generator). 

The FAA went on to explain that the FAA has utilized part 26 in the past, and the FAA has 

received mixed reviews. In the past, the FAA has reserved part 26 for complicated issues (e.g., 

flammability reduction, widespread fatigue). This particular activity is not deemed to have the 

same level of complexity. The FAA did discuss whether they should use a part 26 approach – 

where compliance is a shared responsibility between design approval holders and operators. The 

FAA felt strongly that the nature of the problem and the safety/security risk would encourage all 

parties to work together. There is a risk that a design solution may not be available for a 

particular configuration. The FAA can utilize Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

21.99. For example, when the agency determines there is an unsafe condition, the FAA issues an 

AD. If a design approval holder does not provide the necessary service instructions, the FAA 

can take certain actions to require the design approval holder to provide a design solution. The 

FAA stated that the FAA is confident that they will not need to take this type of action as all 

parties are working together. 

Mr. Reginaldo Tinoco (JAMCO) commented that design approval holders have spent a lot of 

money on part 26 design solutions with no guarantees on monetary repayment. Mr. Tinoco 

prefers the non-part 26 approach, but this may present some difficulties for the operators. The 

FAA stated that the FAA will not be taking a passive role on this activity. The FAA has the 

ability to use “incentives” to encourage design approval holders to develop design solutions. 

This tool may be used if there is no activity over the next few months. 

Foreign Authorities

Boeing mentioned that it would be helpful to have consistencies across regulatory authorities. 

The FAA stated that the authorities that were part of the ARC (e.g., Transport Canada, ANAC 

and EASA) want to harmonize on any part 25 standards that are adopted. The EASA 

representative stated that design solutions that are developed in Europe will be highly 

coordinated with the FAA, particularly since the highest market right now is in the U.S. There 

were some European countries that did mandate the AD. It is not the intention of EASA to have 

any different requirements from the FAAregarding the certification of design solutions. 
Page 8 of 11 

A question was raised by industry as to whether the European countries that adopted the original 

FAA AD would also issue a similar or different follow-on AD. The EASA representative stated 

that the European countries could do something different in theory. However, EASA has not 

heard that they want to deviate from the FAA actions. The current understanding is that the 

DGAC would follow the FAA actions. EASA has been communicating with the DGAC and the 

other European countries. DGAC wants to find a solution that fits for the industry. It is 

expected that all of the design solutions will be approved by EASA and not by the local 

authorities. 

What will happen to airplanes that are not subject to an AD? The EASA representative 

explained that the European Commission has stated it is out of the scope of EASA in terms of 

making any decisions on this matter. This means that these airplanes can continue to operate 

with COGs in the lavatory, provided they are registered in a country that has not taken any 

mandatory action. National authorities are the only ones that can mandate this type of AD 

action. The European Commission has determined that this is purely a security concern, and not 

a airplane safety concern. However, there are certain airlines that want to take some action 

voluntarily. It is possible that EASA could approve an installation that does not quite meet the 

requirements in the FAA proposed AD (for installation on an airplane registered in a country that 

currently does not have an AD). However, EASA does not expect this to happen. The 

likelihood of a country taking a different path from the FAA is very low. It would have to be a 

very unusual situation for this to happen. 

Boeing expressed concern about the non-European authorities, such as in Asia. There is concern 

that they may require different requirements than the FAA and EASA. The FAA stated that 

there is a meeting in New Zealand with the Asia Pacific bilateral partners at the end of March. 

The FAA plans to prepare some materials related to the proposed AD, and provide support for 

this meeting, as needed. 

Industry noted that one Asian country has a slightly different approach than the FAA. If 

airplanes are operating only within the country, then the COGs may remain. If the airplanes are 

operating internationally, then the COGs are removed from the lavatories. 

FAA Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-04

The FAA policy statement provides guidance on acceptable design criteria and methods for 

installing COGs in lavatories. The policy statement was issued to provide advance insight. 

Industry raised a question as to why the information was not in the AD? The FAA responded 

that the Federal Register has additional requirements for documents that are incorporated into an 

AD by reference. The policy statement does not meet all of these requirements. The FAA did 

mention the policy statement in the preamble, and stated that the FAA planned to use the policy 

statement as guidance. Administratively, it was simpler to provide a reference in the preamble of 

the proposed AD than to incorporate the policy statement into the AD by reference. 

For COG installations, the means of compliance would be to the policy statement. The policy 

mentions that an issue paper will be required for COG installations. The issue paper is the 
Page 9 of 11 

document that provides the project specific guidance. The initial issue paper (Stage 2) would 

have a statement of issue, background (e.g., how we got there), and an FAA position. The FAA 

position would be fairly generic. The issue paper is then responded to by the applicant. The 

issue paper is a means used to come to agreement with a means of compliance between the FAA 

and the applicant. 

The policy statement has a significant amount of discussion of installing COGs (e.g., tamper 

resistance, tamper evidence), and also provides information on alternative methods for nonCOGs installations. Boeing commented that they thought the non-COG discussion was 

somewhat out of place. The FAA responded that if an airplane already had a non-COG system, 

there would not be a need for the policy statement. However, the policy memo was meant to 

provide possible solutions for the security problem of COGs installations in the lavatories, which 

include non-COGs. It was intended to set the stage prior to issuing the proposed AD. The policy 

statement also documents that a gaseous system is an acceptable method by the FAA and TSA 

(i.e., they do not pose the same security risk). 

Mr. Witkowski made a comment that using a COG design solution will likely require a longer 

time than non-COG design solutions. The FAA responded that the FAA does not prescribe a 

design solution, but does permit various acceptable design solutions. There is good information 

that was prepared by the implementation ARC subteam. 

A question was raised as to why the policy statement references § 25.1443, and the proposed AD 

does not mention § 25.1443. There is no significance that the policy statement mentions this 

rule, and the proposed AD does not mention it. Some of the solutions may not directly comply 

with § 25.1443 (require an equivalent level of safety), so it was deemed necessary to include this 

in the policy statement. The policy statement is to say that any design solutions must meet all of 

the applicable rules. This would also be required by the proposed AD. 

There were some conflicting comments shared by industry. On one hand, industry wants to 

minimize the FAA involvement, but at the same time expressed concern that there will be lack of 

FAA involvement that may result in an inconsistent application of the standards (e.g., unlevel 

playing field). 

A question was raised by industry as to EASA’s intent with regard to the policy statement. The 

EASA representative explained that EASA plans to use the FAA policy statement as guidance 

for the approval of new design solutions to meet the FAA proposed AD. There are only a 

handful of EASA individuals working on these approvals, and they are aware of the policy 

statement. Most of these installations will also be FAA approved so it makes sense to use the 

FAA policy statement. The policy statement is not in contradiction with EASA Certification 

Specifications (CS) 25. The countries that have taken similar actions to the FAA, plan to have 

consistent requirements with the FAA. Countries that have not taken action are driven by the 

requirements of the airline, if any. EASA does not see any reason to have different requirements 

for the design solutions. If the airplane manufacturer decides to install an FAA approved 

lavatory oxygen system (compliant with the FAA policy statement), this would be in line with 

CS 25, as it would not violate these requirements. 
Page 10 of 11 

COMMITMENTS MADE BY FAA PERSONNEL: 

The FAA will consider comments made through the NPRM process as identified on the Federal 

Register web site for the NPRM and via the NPRM guidance for submittal of comments. 

Were any documents discussed? ( X ) YES ( ) No 

Included Attachments: 

Boeing Briefing (See Attachment 2) 

FAA Briefing of NPRM AD (See Attachment 3) 

PREPARED BY: Meghan Gordon 

DATE: March 9, 2012 
Page 11 of 11 

ATTACHMENT 1: Attendance List 

Name Affiliation

Ali Bahrami FAA 

Matthew White FAA 

Mike Kaszycki FAA 

Jeff Gardlin FAA 

Meghan Gordon FAA 

Bob Hettman FAA 

Thomas Ohnimus EASA 

Chris Witkowski AFA 

Norbert Augustin Airbus 

Carlos Lima Bombardier 

Bert Bailey Boeing 

Tim Holey Boeing 

Doug Dohrman Boeing 

Reginaldo Tinoco JAMCO 

Ben Thiesse American Airlines 

Paul Lewis US Airways 

Charles Duvall US Airways 

Andrew Looker United Airlines 

Joseph Contino Zodiac 

Craig Damlo AVOX Systems Inc. 

Jim Cannon BE Aerospace 

John Barker BE Aerospace 

Wade Price Boeing 

Stan Bracher Boeing