Exemption No. 11851 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 2059 1 

ln the matter of the petition of 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 

for an exempt ion from § 12 1.3 l I (b) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No. 2015-0409 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated February 9, 20 15, American Airlines (American) petitioned the Federal 

Aviation Administration (fo AA) for an exemption from Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) § 121.311 (b) to the extent necessary for infa nts/children traveling on American to be 

able to use an FAA-approved Child Restraint System (CRS) in an oblique seat (not forward 

facing) on Boeing 777 and Boeing 7S7 aircraft during all phases of flight. 

The petitioner requires relief from the following regulation: 

Sectio n 12 1.3 11 (b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that, in order to use a CRS on aircraft, the 

certificate holder must comply with the requirement that the restraint system must be properly 

secured to an approved forward-facing seat or berth. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

In the petition dated February 9, 2015, American notes that 14 CFR § 25. 7S5( d) requires that 

each occupant of a seat that makes more than an IS-degree angle with the vertical plane 

containing the airplane centerline must be protected fi·01n head injury by a safety belt and an 

energy absorbing rest that will support the arms, shoulders, head, and spine, or by a safety belt 

and shoulder harness that will prevent the head from contacting any injurious object. 

American further adds that this provision, adopted in 1969, reflected the FAA's conclusion 

that a maximum IS-degree angle would provide an adequate level of safety based on tests that 
2 

were performed at that time. American notes that this requirement clarified the definition of 

sideward-facing seats. 

Additionally, American states that the seating configuration, for the oblique-facing premium 

class passenger seats in Boeing 777 and Boeing 787 aircraft operated by American and 

approved by the FAA may result in up to a maximum angle of 28 degrees to the aircraft 

centerline for the seat occupant. Therefore, these seats are not forward facing as defined by 

regulation. American also notes that an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) finding was made 

to the requirements of 14 CFR §§ 25.652' and 25.785 relative to the Zodiac Seats U.S. (ZSUS) 

Z938 model oblique-facing Business Class Passenger Seats on the American fleet to address 

the classification of this seat model design as forward and aft facing. 

American states that 14 CFR § 121.311 (b )(2)(iii)(A) requires certificate holders to ensure that 

CRS are properly secured to an approved forward-facing seat or berth. Because the obliquefacing premium class passenger seats in Boeing 777-200 and Boeing 787 aircraft operated by 

American are not forward facing, FAA-approved CRS cannot be used in those seats. 

American notes that, as a result of this, safety is diminished for children traveling with parents 

in the premium cabin in that they would have to be held in the parent's lap. American further 

notes that this restriction also creates operational challenges in the event of aircraft equipment 

changes if the parent traveling with a child in a CRS has booked a flight on an aircraft type 

that allows use of CRS in premium cabins (and the equipment change is to an aircraft where the 

use of CRS is not allowed in premium cabins). 

American proposes that based on the equivalent level of safety demonstrated during 

cet1ification of the ZSUS Z938 model seats, American should be able to allow use of CRS in 

the obliquely oriented premium cabin seats. American also noted that they do not propose 

allowing CRS in obliquely oriented seats toward the aft of the aircraft. 

American notes that they understand the regulation is written to create a high level of safety 

for each individual passenger by ensuring that they are securely restrained in an aircraft during 

all phases of flight. Additionally, American also notes their understanding that the regulation 

ensures that the operational use ofF AA-approved CRS, only in a forward facing seat, is 

consistent with the certification basis and performance testing for CRS. 

American a lso states .that their proposal will provide an equivalent level of safety to that of 

the affected regulation based on the equivalent level of safety justifications documented in 

FAA Transport Airplane Directorate (TAD) ELOS Memorandum B 1313-C-1, dated March 5, 

20 14 and approved for the Type Design certification of the seat design and installation. 

American also notes that B 1313-C-1 established an ELOS for the forward oblique angled 

seats with respect to occupant injury testing. 

1 American's petition for exemption re fered to§ 25.652, however, § 25.652 does not exist in part 25. Based on 

an existing ELOS finding to the requirements of§ 25.562, the agency assumes that the petitioner intended to 

reference § 25.562. 
3 

American further notes that this means of compliance estciblished that the design of the ZSUS 

Z938 model forward side-facing seats are such that the reactions of the occupant to dynamic 

loads are the same as those for an occupant in a standard facing seat installed at an angle 18 

degrees or less from the airplane centerline. Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) 

ST I 0498SC approved compliance to the ELOS for the design and installation of these seats on 

American's Boeing 777-200. Installation of this model seat on American's Boeing 787-8 was 

accomplished via a similar ELOS issued to the Boeing Company and Type Design approval 

under Type Certificate (TC) T00021 SE. 

American notes that enhancing safety is in the public interest. American additionally notes 

that allowing use of CRS in obliquely oriented seats enhances the level of safety by allowing 

children under the age of two to be secured in a CRS rather than on a parent's lap. 

In response to American·s petition, the FAA requested, by letter dated March 19, 2015, that 

American provide additional data to be considered during the FAA's technical analysis. In this 

Jetter, the FAA informed American that dynamic testing data (generated under the conditions 

prescribed in 14 CFR § 25.562) regarding the e fficacy of F AA-approved CRS in obliquelyoriented seats was necessary to demonstrate that, if the petition for exemption was granted, 

American's proposal would result in an equivalent level of safety to 14 CFR § 12 l.3ll (b) 

regarding the requirement that a CRS be properly secured to an approved forward-facing seat 

or berth. 

On April 21, 2015, the FAA sent a second letter to American requesting the necessary 

dynamic testing data. The FAA requested that data be submitted prior to June 2, 2015. The 

FAA did not receive a response to either request as of June 8, 2015. 

The FAA also fo und that the petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, to allow 

an opportunity for the public to comment on the petition, a summary of this petition was 

published in the Federal Register on May 18, 2015 (80 FR 28340). The close of the comment 

period was June 8. 20 15. 

The FAA received one comment on the petition for exemption. The Association of Flight 

Attendants (AF A) was generally supportive regarding the use of CRS on aircraft and noted 

that for many years AF A has advocated the elimination of the FAA regulation allowing 

children under the age of two to be the only passengers onboard an aircraft to be le ft 

unrestrained during movement on the surface, takeoff, landing and during flight when the 

fasten seat belt sign is illuminated. In their comments, AFA also considered American's 

position that their petition for exemption to allow the use of CRS in oblique seats should be 

granted because the fAA has already made an equivalent level of safety finding related to the 

certification of the oblique seats on American's airplanes. 

However, AF A noted that they are not aware that American has provided sufficient, testderived and verified data of an equivalent level of safety between adults and CRS occupants 

in oblique seats. AF A additionally conm1ented that, in the interest of public safety, American 
4 

must provide the results of dynamic testing data, both for an adult and a child seated in an 

approved CRS, in that specific type of oblique seat. AF A noted that these data are necessary 

to prove how the CRS will react in an oblique seat and how the body of the occupant of the 

CRS will react in a dynamic event. AF A commented that the FAA should only grant 

American's petition fo r exemption after American verifies with empirical data that CRS 

occupants are provided with an equivalent level of safety to that of adults seated in oblique 

seats. 

The FAA's analysis is ~•s follows: 

Section 121.311 (b) requires, in pertinent part, that in order to use a CRS on aircraft, the 

certificate holder must comply with the requirement that the restraint system must be properly 

secured to an approved forward-facing seat or berth. 

The FAA has considered all the information presented by the petitioner in its request for relief 

from 14 CFR § 121.31 1 (b) to the extent necessary to permit American to allow 

infants/children traveling on American to be able to use an FAA-approved CRS in an oblique 

seat (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 erR§§ 25.652 and 25.785 relative to the ZSUS Z938 model obliquefacing Business Class Passenger Seats on the American fleet to address the classification of 

this seat model design as forward and aft facing. In fact, the ELOS finding was made to the 

requirements of 14 CFR §§ 25.562 and 25.785 relative to the ZSUS Z938 model obliquefacing Business Class Passenger Seats on the American fleet. The incorrect regulatory 

reference contained in American's petition does not affect the substantive facts of the petition 

or the FAA's technical analysis. 

I 

In response to American's statements concerning an equivalent level of safety to that of the 

affected regulation, the FAA finds the key issue to be the dynamic performance testing used as 

the basis for r AA approval regarding the use of certain CRS in aircraft. During the dynamic 

performance testing, the CRS is installed in a forward facing FMVSS-2 13 standard seat 

assembly test fixture. Installation of the CRS in an oblique seat assembly test fixture is not 

part of the test protocol. 

American notes that TAD ELOS Memorandum B 1313-C-1, dated March 5, 2014, established 

an ELOS for the forward oblique angled seats with respect to occupant injury testing. 

However, the FAA is not aware ot~ and AALA did not provide, dynamic testing data 

(generated under the conditions prescribed in 14 CFR § 25.562) regarding the efficacy of 

FAA-approved CRS in oblique seats (that may result in up to a maximum angle of28 degrees 

to the aircraft centerline for the seat occupant). 

These data are necessary to demonstrate that the relief sought in American's petition for 

exemption would result in a level of safety that is at least equivalent to that provided by the 
5 

14 CFR § 121.3 11 (b) requirement for the CRS to be properly secured to an approved forwardfacing scat or berth. An FAA determination of an equivalent level of safety to that of the 

affected regulation is necessary to ensure that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

In addition, the FAA has considered comments received on the summary of American's 

petition that was published in the Federal Register on May 18, 2015 (80 FR 28340). The FAA 

agrees with AF A's position that without dynamic testing data regarding the use of an 

approved CRS in an oblique seat, the FAA is unable to make a determination that these CRS 

occupants are provided with an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the affected 

regulation. 

The FAA's Decision: 

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the public 

interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 401 13 and 44701 , 

delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of American Airlines for an exemption 

from 14 CFR § 121.311 (b) to the extent necessary for infants/children traveling on American 

Airlines to be able to use an FAA-approved Child Restraint System (CRS) in an oblique seat 

(not forward facing) on Boeing 777 and Boeing 787 aircraft during all phases of flight is 

denied. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on JUN 1 7 2015 

John Barbagallo 

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service