### RECORD OF EX PARTE CONTACT

DOCKET NO.: FAA-2012-0102

DIRECTORATE IDENTI FIER: 2012-NM-004-AD

FAA EMPLOYEES CONTACTED:

Mr. Ali Bahrami Manager FAA Trans port Airplane Dir ectorate, ANM-100

Mr. Mike Kaszycki Manager FAA Transport Airplane Directorate Transport Standards Staff, ANM-110

Mr. Jeff Gardlin Aerospace Engineer F AA 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 F AA Transport Airplane Directorate Standardization, ANM-113

Mr. Matthew White Air Traffic Control Specialist FAA Centennial Air Tra ffic 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 expl ained 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) instea d of parts 25 and 121 rulemaking. The main driver in th is decision is the desire to rest ore oxygen in the lavatory in a four year time period. FAA has held many meeti ngs 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 fo r hosting the meeting on short notice

.Page 2 of 11

Background on Chemical Oxygen Generators in the Lavatories

Mr. Bert Bailey (Boeing) explaine d 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 cata strophic loss of the airp lane. 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 Pr oposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 2012-NM-004-AD.

The ARC was formed in April of 2011. On Au gust 3, 2011, the FAA presented the ARC final report which started the four year clock for rest oring oxygen back into the lavatories. In early November, FAA Policy Memo PS-ANM-25-04 was pr oposed, and subsequently issued as final in December. The FAA stated that the polic y memo is based on the ARC recommendations. The audience for the policy memo is i ndustry, the public, and FAA field offices.

On February 27, 2012, the FAA issued NPRM 20 12-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 ha d 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 reta in the requirements of AD 2011-04-09 which would

be in conflict of reinstalli ng oxygen in to the lavatories.

Rulemaking Approaches Evaluated

The FAA provided some background on NPRM 2 012-NM-004-AD and explained that the FAA is in ex parte communication, and that the F AA 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 propos ing. The information shared in this meeting

will be recorded. It was noted th at if a person feels strongly ab out 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 inst alled 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 la vatory, an AMOC would not be required, although these other areas may be evaluate d 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 su ch a way that they would notPage 3 of 11

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

to issuance of the final AD mi ght not be realistic.

The FAA considered several rulemaki ng 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 st ate that you could not install a COG in th e lavatory, and the SFAR would no longer provide reli ef to operate with supplementary oxygen in the lavatory. This would be an indirect way of imposing the re quirement to restore oxygen in the lavatory in a secure manner. There is a huge potential confusion fact or 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 cas e, 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 expe dited 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 th ree of the four years needed, and only allow for one year to retrofit. Note that the FAA’s safety risk asse ssment 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 th at 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 indefini tely 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 point s of the proposed AD. The proposed AD makes a distinction

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

of COGs in the lavatories necessitates considera tion 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 app licability. There are currently two airplane configurations in the U.S. fleet: (1) airplanes no t 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 inst alled 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 confi guration (2) in the proposed AD, there would bePage 4 of 11

no means to prevent a person from installing a C OG 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 in stallations, 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 ente ring 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 th e proposed AD is currently written, a new airplane from the production line is also comp elled to meet the proposed AD.

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

Many attendees responded that ther e was a lot of confusion over th e applicability of the proposed AD, and the reason for it. The FAA’s explan ation 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 no rmally in place for an AD would not apply to these installations. For example, ODAs with the authority to appr ove major modifications can do so even though this is an AD action. A design approval is still required.

Mr. Paul Lewis (US Airways) expressed conc ern 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 stil l need to be documenta tion that there is a nonCOG installation as a means of compliance to th e AD. The design approval process would be a

lot more flexible. There were concerns e xpressed by operators in the ARC related to AD compliance. The FAA has tried to address these concerns in th e proposed AD with paragraph k. Paragraph k of the proposed AD provides an altern ative 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 di fferent. There are no form al 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 w ould not need to go through the formal AMOC process. Again this is di fferent than the normal AD process.

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

manufacturer would still be re quired to document how complian ce was shown to the AD. In these cases, the operator would point to para graph k. Industry comment ed 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 shoul d 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 certifica tion offices (ACOs) and FAA Flight Standards (AFS).Page 5 of 11

Several individuals commented on documenti ng 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 re quired. 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 a doption of the final proposed AD, any reinstallation of COGs in affected lavatories would requi re an AMOC approval with re spect to AD 2011-04-09. Industry

asked if an AMOC is received to AD 2011-04-09 woul d 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 propo sed 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 th at a statement be added that previous AMOCs to the original AD be found to be ac ceptable AMOC for the new final AD.

Compliance Time

The FAA stated that generally AD compliance tim e 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 worki ng 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 individu als 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 wher e they review all transport airplane projects at a high level. This process will allow visibi lity of all COG installation projects, and TAD will request involvement in these projects.

Mr. Chris Witkowski (AFA) expressed concern w ith 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 possi bility 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 re quirement for interim measures and allowingPage 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 assessm ent 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 opera tion. 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 res ponded that the proposed AD is meant to state the same original unsafe condition. We accept a ri sk during the compliance period (e.g., having the lavatories “secure”, bu t without supplemental oxygen). The FAA tries to come up with a terminating action to the original AD. The propos ed 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 doe s 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 co sts 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 sta ndpoint, the FAA used catalog prices on parts (e.g., equivalent of certain gaseous systems). For the number of la vatories 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 real istic estimate that allowed the publ ic to comment. The cost is estimated based on the fleet affected by the AD wh ich 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 certi fication and approval effort.

FAA Team

The FAA has identified focals at each of the fiel d offices (ACOs). There have been periodic telecons between TAD, the focals, and the F AA 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 custom er 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 i nvolvement will be similar to flight deck doors activity. The TAD wants to ensure consistency with regard s to the application of standards.

There is also close coordination between FAA Aircra ft Certification and Fli ght Standards. There is a draft InFO (informa tion bulletin) to inform both operators and field inspectors of the unique proposed AD provisions. The Flight Standards or ganization is also plan ning outreach meetings to explain the unique features/d istinctions 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 re viewed and concurred on the proposed AD.

Differences from Part 26 Approach

Unlike part 26 rules, the proposed AD does not require design appr oval holders to come up with solutions for their designs (e.g., STC that installs a lavatory with a chemi cal 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 fa tigue). This particular activity is not deemed to have the same level of complexity. The FAA did discus s whether they should use a part 26 approach – where compliance is a shared responsibility betw een 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 th at 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 th ere is an unsafe condition, the FAA issues an AD. If a design approval holder does not prov ide the necessary service instructions, the FAA

can take certain actions to re quire the design approval holder to provide a design solution. The FAA stated that the FAA is confident that they wi ll 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 gua rantees 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 a dopted. The EASA representative stated that design solutions that are developed in Europe will be highly coordinated with the FAA, particul arly since the highest market ri ght 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 count ries that adopted the original

FAA AD would also issue a simila r or different follow-on AD. Th e 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 ha s 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 su bject 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 mean s that these airplanes can continue to operate with COGs in the lavatory, provided they are re gistered 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 th at this is purely a s ecurity concern, and not a airplane safety concern. However, there are certain airlines that wa nt to take some action voluntarily. It is possible that EASA could approve an installati on that does not quite meet the requirements in the FAA proposed AD (for installati on on an airplane register ed 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 aut horities, 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 relate d to the proposed AD, and provide support for this meeting, as needed.

Industry noted that one Asian c ountry 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 m eet 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. Administra tively, it was simpler to provide a reference in the preamble of the proposed AD than to incorporate the polic y statement into the AD by reference.

For COG installations, the means of compliance w ould be to the policy statement. The policy mentions that an issue paper will be required for COG installations. The issue paper is thePage 9 of 11

document that provides the project specific guidan ce. The initial issue paper (Stage 2) would have a statement of issue, background (e.g., ho w we got there), and an FAA position. The FAA position would be fairly generic. The issue pape r 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 provi des information on alternative methods for nonCOGs installations. Boeing commented th at 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 statem ent. 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 stag e prior to issuing the proposed AD. The policy statement also documents that a gaseous syst em is an acceptable method by the FAA and TSA (i.e., they do not pose th e same security risk).

Mr. Witkowski made a comment that using a C OG 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 st atement references § 25.1443, and the proposed AD does not mention § 25.1443. There is no significan ce that the policy statement mentions this rule, and the proposed AD does not mention it. So me 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 inconsiste nt application of the standards (e.g., unlevel playing field).

A question was raised by industry as to EASA’s in tent with regard to the policy statement. The EASA representative explained th at EASA plans to use the FAA policy statement as guidance for the approval of new design solutions to m eet the FAA proposed AD. There are only a handful of EASA individuals working on these approvals, and they ar e 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 ta ken 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 ma nufacturer 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 violat e these requirements.Page 10 of 11

COMMITMENTS MADE BY FAA PERSONNEL:

The FAA will consider comments made through the NPRM proce ss 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, 2012Page 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