Exempt i o n No. 11851 UNITE D STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AV IATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON , DC 2059 1

ln th e matter of th e p e titi o n of 

### AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.

for an exemption fro m 

### § 1 2 1. 3 l I (b) of Title 14 , Code of Fede ra l Regulations 

### Regulatory Docket No. 2015-0409

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION By l ette r dated Feb ruary 9 , 20 15 , American Airlines (Amer ican ) petitioned th e Federal Av iation Ad mini strat io n (fo AA) for an exem pti o n from T itl e 14 Co d e of Federal R eg ul a tion s (CFR) 

### § 121.311 (b) to the exte nt necessary for inf a nt s/c hildre n traveling on American to be able to u se an FAA -app roved C hild Res traint Sys te m (CRS) in a n oblique seat (no t forward fac in g) on Boeing 777 and Boeing 7S7 aircraft during all phases of flight. 

### The petitioner requires relief from the following regulation: Sectio n 1 2 1. 3 11 (b) presc rib es , in pertinent part, that , in order to u se a C R S o n a ircraft , the cer tifi cate holder must comply w ith th e requirement th a t the r es tra int syste m mu st be properly secured to an app ro ved forward-facing seat o r berth. 

### The petitioner supports its request with the following information:
In the petition dated February 9 , 2015 , A m erican n o tes th at 14 CF R 

### § 25. 7S5(d) req uires that eac h occupant of a seat that m akes more th a n an IS-d egree ang le w ith the vertical plane conta inin g th e a irplan e centerl ine must be protected 

### fi·01n h ead inju ry by a safety belt a nd an e n e rgy absorbi n g rest that will s upport th e arm s , s hould ers , h ead , a nd sp in e , or by a safety belt a nd s h o uld er harn ess th at wi ll prevent th e h ea d from contacting any injuriou s object. America n f urth e r adds that thi s provision , adop ted in 196 9 , r e fl ecte d th e FAA's conclusion that a m ax imum IS-d egree angle wo uld provide a n adequate leve l of safety based on tests th at2

were p e rformed at that time

. America n not es that this re quirement clarified the definition of sideward-facing seats. Additiona ll y , American s tat es that the seating configuration , for the oblique-facing premium class pa sse nger seats in Boein g 777 and Bo e ing 787 aircraft operated by American and approved by the FAA may r es ult in up to a ma ximum ang l e of 28 degrees to the aircraft centerlin e for th e seat occupant. Therefor e , thes e seats are not forward facing as defined by reg ulation. American also notes that an Equival en t Level of Safety (ELOS) finding was made to the r e quir e me nts of 14 CFR 

### §§ 25.652' and 25 .785 relative to the Zodiac Seats U.S. (ZSUS) Z938 mod e l oblique

- facing Busines s C lass Passenger Seats on the American fl eet to address th e classification of thi s seat mod e l design as forward and aft facing. American states that 14 CFR 

### § 121.311 (b )(2)(iii)(A) requires certificate hold e rs to e nsure that CRS are properly secured to an approved forward -f acing seat or berth. Becau se the ob li quefacing premium class pa sse nge r seats in Boeing 777-200 and Boeing 787 aircraft operated by Am e rican are not forward fac in g, FAA-approved CRS cannot b e used in those seats. American notes that , as a result of thi s , sa fety is diminished f or children travelin g with parents in th e premium cabin in that they would have to be held in the pare nt 's lap. American further notes that this re s triction also creates operational challenges in th e eve nt of aircraft equipment changes if the parent tra ve ling with a child in a C RS ha s booked a flight on an aircraft typ e that allows u se of C RS in premium cabins (and th e e quipm e nt change is to a n aircraft w here th e u se of CRS is not allowed in premium cabins). American propos es that based on th e equival e nt lev e l of safety demonstrated during cet1ification of th e ZSUS Z93 8 model seats , American should b e ab le to a ll ow us e of CRS in th e obliquely oriented premium cabin seats. American a lso not ed that they do not propo se allowing C RS in obliquely oriented seats toward th e aft of the a ircraft. American notes that th ey und e rstand the regulation is written to create a high leve l of s af ety for eac h individual passenger by ensuring that th ey are securely r es trained in an aircraft during all phases of flight. Additionally , American also notes the ir understanding that the regulation e nsures that the operational us e ofF AA-approved CRS , only in a forward facing seat, is consistent with th e certification basis and p e rformance testin g for CRS. American a lso s ta tes .that th e ir proposal w ill provid e an eq uivalent leve l of safety to that of th e affected regulation based on th e equi valent level of safety justifications docum e nt e d in FAA Transport Airplane Dir ectora t e (TAD) ELOS Memorandum B 1313-C-1 , dated March 5 , 20 14 and approved for th e Type Design certification of the seat d es ign and installation. Am e rican also notes th at B 1313- C-1 es tablish ed an ELOS for th e forward oblique angled seats with respect to occupant injury testing.

1 American ' s petit ion for exemption r e f

e r

ed to§ 25

. 652 , however, § 25.652 does n ot ex i s t in part 25. Based on an exis tin g ELOS finding to th e r equire m e nt s of§ 25.562 , th e agency assumes that the petitioner intended to r efe rence § 25

. 562.

### 3 American furt her note s that this means of compliance estc i b li shed th at the desig n of the ZSUS Z938 mod e l forward side-fac in g seat s a r e s uc h th at th e reactions of th e occ up a nt to dynamic loads are the same as tho se fo r a n occupant in a s tandard fac in g seat in sta ll ed at an angle 1 8 degrees o r le ss from th e airp l ane centerl in e. S uppl eme ntal Type Certificate (STC) ST I 0498SC approved co mplianc e to th e ELOS f or th e design and in sta ll at io n of these seats on A m erican 's Boe i ng 777-200. In stallati on of this m odel seat o n A m erican ' s Boeing 787

- 8 was accomplished v ia a si mil ar ELOS i ssued to the Boei ng Co mpany and Type Design approval und er Type Cer tifi cat e (TC) T00021 SE. Amer i can notes th at e nhan c in g safety i s in th e public inte rest. American add iti o n a ll y notes th a t allowing u se of C RS in o bliqu e ly orien ted se at s e nh ances th e leve l of safe ty by allowing c hildren und er the age of two to b e secu r ed in a C RS rather than on a p are nt' s lap. In response to American· s peti ti on, the F AA requested , by letter dated March 1 9 , 2015, that Ame rican pro v ide ad dition a l data to be considered during the FAA ' s te ch nic a l an a lysis. In thi s Jetter , the F AA informed Ame ri can that dynamic t es tin g data (ge nera ted under the co ndi tions prescribed i n 14 C FR 

### § 25.562) r egard in g the e ffi cacy of FAA

- approved CRS in oblique ly orie nte d seats was necessary to demo n s trate that , if th e petit ion for exe mption was g ranted, American 's proposa l wou ld result in an equival e nt leve l of safe t y to 14 CF R 

### § 12 l.3ll (b) regarding the re quire m e nt th at a CRS b e prop e rly sec ured to an app roved forwa rd-f ac in g seat o r b e rth

. On Ap ril 21, 2015 , the FAA se nt a second l etter to American requ esti ng the necessary dy n a mic testing da ta. The FAA requested that d ata be submi tt e d prior to June 2 , 20 15. The FAA d id not receive a respo n se to e ith er requ es t as of J u ne 8 , 2015. The FAA a lso f o und th a t the p e titi on, if gra nted , wou ld se t a precede n t. Th erefore, to allow a n oppo rtunity for th e pub li c to co mm e nt o n th e p e titi on, a s umm ary of thi s petition was published in th e Federal R eg i s te r on May 1 8 , 20 1 5 (80 FR 28340). Th e close of the comment pe ri od was Jun e 8. 20 15. The FAA received one com m ent on th e pet ition f or exe mptio n. The Assoc iat io n of Fli g ht Attendan t s (AFA) was gene rall y support ive r egardi ng the use of C R S o n a irc raft and note d that for man y years AF A h as advocat e d the e l imin at ion of th e FAA r egul atio n allowing chi ldre n under the age o f two to be the o nl y passengers o nboar d an a ircraft to b e le ft unrest rain ed du rin g m ove men t o n the surface , takeoff, la ndin g and durin g flig ht w hen the fa s te n seat b e lt s ig n is illumin ated. In the ir comments, AFA a lso co n s id ered Ame ri can's p os iti o n th at th e ir p e tition fo r exe mpti o n to a ll ow th e u se of CRS in ob li que seats s hould be g ra nted becau se th e fAA h as a lready mad e an eq uival e nt leve l of safe t y finding re lated to th e ce r tification of th e ob li que seat s on American ' s airpl a nes. Ho weve r , AF A no t ed tha t th ey ar e not aware th at A m e ri can h as prov ided suffic ie n t , testderived and ve r ified data of an e qui valent leve l of safety betwee n a dult s a nd CRS occupants in ob liqu e seats. AFA a dditi o na ll y conm1ented that , in the interest of public sa f ety, American4 must provide the results of dynamic testing data , both for an ad ult and a ch ild seated in an app r oved CRS, in th at specific type of oblique seat. AFA noted that th ese data are necessary to prove ho w the CRS will react in an oblique seat and how the body of the occupant of the CRS w ill react in a dynamic event. AFA commented that the FAA s hould only grant American's petition f o r exe mption after American ve rifie s with empirical data that CRS occupants are provided with an e quival e nt le ve l of sa f ety to that of adults seated in oblique seats

. 

### The FAA's analysis is

**~•s** follows: Sect ion 121.311 (b) requires, in pertinent part , that in o rd er to us e a CRS on a ircraft, the cert ificat e hold e r mu s t comp ly w ith the requirement th at the restraint system must be properly sec ured to an approved forward-facing seat or berth. The FAA ha s co n sidered all th e information presented by the petition er in its request for re lief from 14 CFR 

### § 121.31 1 (b ) to the exte nt necessary to permit American to allow infant s/c hildren trav e lin g on Amer i can to b e ab le to use an FAA-appro ve d CRS in an ob l ique sea t (not forward facing) on Boeing 777 and Boeing 787 aircraft during all phases of flight. The FAA notes that in its petition, American indicated that an ELOS finding was made to the requirements of 14 er R§§ 25.652 and 25.785 r e lative to th e ZSUS Z938 model obliquefacing Busines s Class Passenger Seats on the American fleet to address the cla ss ification of this seat mod e l de s ig n as forward and aft facing. In fact , the ELOS findin g was made to the requirements o f 14 CF R 

### §§ 25.562 and 25.785 relative to the ZSUS Z938 m ode l obliquef ac ing Busine ss C la ss Pa sse ng e r Seats on the American fleet. The in correc t reg ulatory refe rence contained in American ' s petition does not affect th e substantive facts of the petition or th e FAA ' s technical ana lys is.

I In res ponse to American's stateme nts concerning an equivalent leve l of sa f e ty to that of the affected regulation , th e FAA finds the key is s ue to be the dynamic p e rformance testing u sed as the basis for r AA app roval regarding th e u se of certain C RS in aircraft. During the dynamic p erformanc e testing , th e CRS is in stalled in a forward facing FMV SS

- 2 1 3 s ta ndard seat assemb ly te st fi xtu re. In sta ll at io n of the CRS in a n ob lique seat assembly te st fixture is not part o f the tes t protocol. American note s that TAD ELOS Memorandum B 1 313-C-1, dated March 5, 2014, established an ELOS for th e for ward ob liqu e angled seats with respect to occupant injury t es ting. However, the FAA i s not aware

**ot ~**  and AALA did not provide , dynamic te s ting data (generated under the condi ti ons prescribed in 14 CF R 

### § 25.562) regarding the efficacy of FAA-approved CRS in ob lique seats (t h at ma y res ult in up to a maximum angle of28 d eg rees to th e aircraft cen te rlin e for th e seat occupant). The se data are necessary to demonstrate that th e relief sought in Americ a n 's p e tition for exemption would result in a leve l of safety th a t is at lea s t equiva le nt to th at p rovided b y the

### 5 14 CFR 

### § 12 1 .3 1 1 (b) req uirement fo r the CRS to be properly secu red to an approved forwardfacing scat or berth. An FAA determinati o n of an eq ui valen t level of safety to that of the affected regulati o n is nece ssary to ensure that a gra nt of exempt ion is in th e pub li c interest. In addition , the FAA has considered comme nts r ece ive d on th e s u mmary of American's petition that was pub lis hed in th e Federa l Register on May 18 , 20 15 (8 0 FR 28340). Th e FAA agrees wi th AFA's position that without dy namic te s tin g data regarding th e use of an approved CRS in a n ob lique seat, the FAA is unabl e to make a determi natio n that these CRS occupan ts are prov ided w ith an equiva l ent leve l of sa fety t o that provided by the affected regu lati on. 

### The FAA's Decision : In cons id erati on o f the foregoing , I find that a grant of exe mpti on wo uld not be in the p ublic inte rest. T herefo re, pursuant to the auth ority contai ned in 49 U.S.C. 

### §§ 401 1 3 and 44701 , delegated to me by the Admin is trator, th e petition of American Airl i nes for an exemption from 14 CF R 

### § 121.311 (b) to the exte nt n ecessary for infants/c hil dre n tra ve ling o n American A irlin es to be ab le to u se an FAA-approve d Child R estrai nt Sys t e m (C RS) in an oblique seat (not forward facing) on Boeing 777 and Boeing 787 ai rcraft duri ng all phases of flight i s de ni ed.

Iss ued i n Wash ing t on, DC , on 

# JUN 1 7 2015

John Barbagallo Deputy Direc tor, Flight Standards Service