Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 17215 

1See Executive Order 13985 (January 20, 2021), 

Section 1. 

https:www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2022–0291. 

(3) For British Aerospace service 

information identified in this AD, contact 

BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd., Customer 

Information Department, Prestwick 

International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, 

United Kingdom; phone: +44 3300 488727; 

fax: +44 1292 675704; email: 

RApublications@baesystems.com; website: 

https://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/ 

RegionalAircraft/. For He ́roux Devtek service 

information identified in this AD, contact 

He ́roux Devtek Product Support, 8, Pembroke 

Court, Manor Park, Runcorn, Cheshire, WA7 

1TG, United Kingdom; phone: (855) 679– 

5450; email: technical_support@

herouxdevtek.com; website: https://

www.herouxdevtek.com/en/contact-us. You 

may view this service information at the 

Airworthiness Products Section, Operational 

Safety Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Kansas City, 

MO 64106. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

(817) 222–5110. 

Issued on March 22, 2022. 

Lance T. Gant, 

Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06428 Filed 3–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 382 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2021–0137] 

RIN 2105–AE89 

Accessible Lavatories on Single-Aisle 

Aircraft: Part 2 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Transportation (Department or DOT) 

proposes in this notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to require airlines 

to ensure that at least one lavatory on 

new single-aisle aircraft with 125 or 

more passenger seats is large enough to 

permit a passenger with a disability 

(with the help of an assistant, if 

necessary) to approach, enter, and 

maneuver within the aircraft lavatory, as 

necessary, to use all lavatory facilities 

and leave by means of the aircraft’s onboard wheelchair. 

DATES: Comments should be filed by 

May 27, 2022. Late-filed comments will 

be considered to the extent practicable. 

ADDRESSES: You may file comments 

identified by docket number DOT–OST– 

2021–0137 by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9:00 

a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name and docket number DOT– 

OST–2021–0137 or the Regulation 

Identifier Number (RIN) for the 

rulemaking at the beginning of your 

comment. All comments received will 

be posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI): CBI is commercial or financial 

information that is both customarily and 

actually treated as private by its owner. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt 

from public disclosure. If your 

comments responsive to this NPRM 

contain commercial or financial 

information that is customarily treated 

as private, that you actually treat as 

private, and that is relevant or 

responsive to this NPRM, it is important 

that you clearly designate the submitted 

comments as CBI. Please mark each 

page of your submission containing CBI 

as ‘‘PROPIN’’ to indicate that it contains 

proprietary information. DOT will treat 

such marked submissions as 

confidential under the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA), and they will 

not be placed in the public docket of 

this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI 

should be sent to Robert Gorman, Senior 

Trial Attorney, Office of Aviation 

Consumer Protection, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. 

SE, Washington, DC 20590, 

robert.gorman@dot.gov (email). Any 

commentary that DOT receives which is 

not specifically designated as CBI will 

be placed in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received in any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you may visit https://

www.transportation.gov/privacy. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, or to the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Gorman, Senior Trial Attorney, 

Office of Aviation Consumer Protection, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 

20590, 202–366–9342, 202–366–7152 

(fax), robert.gorman@dot.gov (email). 

You may also contact Blane Workie, 

Assistant General Counsel, Office of 

Aviation Consumer Protection, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 

20590, 202–366–9342, 202–366–7152 

(fax), blane.workie@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Like all individuals, those with 

disabilities rely on transportation for all 

aspects of their lives. Transportation 

connects individuals to jobs and 

services, and it opens the door to 

opportunity. The Department is 

committed to removing transportation 

barriers that exist for people with 

disabilities. This includes challenges 

posed by inaccessible lavatories on 

single-aisle aircraft. 

The following proposed rule is the 

result of a negotiated rulemaking in 

2016 that was produced through the 

consensus of multiple disability 

organizations, a wide variety of aviation 

industry members, and other 

stakeholders. As we explain below, the 

Department made a commitment to the 

stakeholders that if they reached 

consensus on the terms of a rulemaking, 

the Department would act in good faith 

to issue a proposed rule that reflects 

those terms as closely as possible. This 

NPRM is the product of the 

Department’s commitment to 

stakeholders during that process. 

At the same time that DOT honors its 

past commitments, the Department also 

recognizes that it is the affirmative 

responsibility of the Federal 

Government to advance equity, civil 

rights, and equal opportunity for all 

individuals, including individuals with 

disabilities.1 The Department has 

concerns that the considerable length of 

time that this NPRM proposes to allow 

for much-needed accessibility 

improvements may not advance equity, 

civil rights or equal opportunity for 

persons with disabilities quickly 

enough. Over 25 million Americans 

have mobility issues that may require 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
17216 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

2See U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

‘‘Aviation Consumer Protection: Few U.S. Aircraft 

Have Lavatories Designed to Accommodate 

Passengers with Reduced Mobility’’ (GAO–20–258), 

available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/ 

703687.pdf, at 5. 

3 Id. at 6. 

4TS T–100 All Segment data, retrieved December 

20, 2018 from https://www.transtats.bts.gov/ 

Tables.asp?DB_ID=111&DB_Name=Air%20Carrie

r%20Statistics%20%28Form%2041%20Traffic%29

-%20All%20Carriers&DB_Short_

Name=Air%20Carriers. 

5 14 CFR 382.41. 

6 85 FR 27 (January 2, 2020); RIN 2105–AE88. 

Information on the Part 1 NPRM can be found at 

www.regulations.gov; Docket DOT–OST–2019– 

0180. 7 53 FR 23574 (June 22, 1988). 

8An OBW is a wheelchair that is used to 

transport a person with a disability between the 

aircraft seat and the lavatory. OBWs are stowed 

onboard the aircraft. An OBW should not be 

confused with an aisle chair, which is used for 

enplaning and deplaning. Aisle chairs transport 

passengers between the jet bridge and the 

passenger’s seat on the aircraft. Aisle chairs are 

generally kept in the airport, rather than on the 

aircraft itself. 

9 14 CFR 382.63(a). 

10 55 FR 8008, 8021 (March 6, 1990). 

11 Id. 

12 Id. 

13 Id. 

14 14 CFR 382.63(b). 

15The requirement for airlines to provide an 

OBW is limited to aircraft with a design seat 

capacity of more than 60 passenger seats, with 

certain exceptions for specific types of smaller 

aircraft. 14 CFR 382.65(a). There are two limitations 

to the rule that airlines must provide OBWs on 

request when the lavatory itself is not accessible. 

First, the basis of the passenger’s request must be 

that the passenger can use an inaccessible lavatory, 

but cannot reach it without the use of an OBW. 

Second, airlines may require passengers to provide 

up to 48 hours’ advance notice to provide this 

service. 14 CFR 382.27(c)(7). 

accommodations when flying.2 As the 

U.S. population ages (with an estimated 

30 percent of the population being over 

age 65 by 2030), it is expected that the 

need for accommodating passengers 

with mobility impairments will only 

increase.3 As the Department moves 

forward with this rulemaking, including 

the drafting of any final rule, the 

Department will firmly bear in mind its 

commitment to equity, including 

seeking information relating to whether 

these accessibility improvements can be 

implemented more quickly than 

currently proposed. The Department 

now presents these terms for public 

comment and further recommendations 

that will enhance the rule and access of 

passengers with disabilities to the 

National Airspace System. 

A. Statutory Authority 

The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), 

49 U.S.C. 41705, prohibits 

discrimination in airline service on the 

basis of disability by U.S. and foreign air 

carriers. However, it does not specify 

how U.S. and foreign air carriers must 

act to avoid such discrimination or how 

the Department should regulate with 

respect to these issues. The 

Department’s authority to regulate 

nondiscrimination in airline service is 

found in the ACAA in conjunction with 

its rulemaking authority under 49 U.S.C. 

40113, which states that the Department 

may take action that it considers 

necessary to carry out this part, 

including prescribing regulations. The 

Department, through reasonable 

interpretation of its statutory authority, 

has issued regulations that require 

carriers to provide nondiscriminatory 

service to individuals with disabilities. 

B. Need for a Rulemaking 

Single-aisle aircraft are increasingly 

being used by airlines for long-haul 

flights because the fuel efficiency and 

range of the aircraft have improved. The 

percentage of flights between 1,500 and 

3,000 miles flown by single-aisle aircraft 

increased from 77 percent in 1997 to 89 

percent in 2018.4 These flights can last 

four or more hours. At present, there is 

no requirement that airlines provide 

accessible lavatories on single-aisle 

aircraft. Airlines are required to provide 

information on whether the aircraft 

expected to make a particular flight has 

an accessible lavatory to an individual 

with a disability who states that he or 

she uses a wheelchair for boarding.5 The 

inability to access and use the lavatory 

on long flights can present significant 

challenges to passengers with 

disabilities and poses a deterrent for 

some passengers with disabilities to 

traveling by air, limiting their 

independence and freedom to travel. 

On January 2, 2020, the Department 

published an NPRM titled ‘‘Accessible 

Lavatories on Single-Aisle Aircraft: Part 

1’’ (Part 1 NPRM).6 The Part 1 NPRM 

proposed various accessibility 

improvements for lavatories on singleaisle aircraft, but did not propose to 

expand the size of the lavatories 

themselves. This action—Accessible 

Lavatories on Single-Aisle Aircraft: Part 

2—would substantially increase access 

for passengers with disabilities because 

it proposes to increase the size of 

lavatories on large single-aisle aircraft. 

C. History of Regulations Governing 

Accessible Lavatories on Aircraft 

In 1988, the Department conducted a 

negotiated rulemaking to develop ACAA 

regulations. The negotiated rulemaking 

included representatives of the airline 

industry, the disability community, and 

other stakeholders.7 In March 1990, the 

Department issued final ACAA 

regulations, found at 14 CFR part 382. 

The 1990 ACAA rule required twinaisle aircraft to have at least one 

accessible lavatory, if lavatories were 

installed on the aircraft. In the context 

of twin-aisle aircraft, an accessible 

lavatory is one that: (1) Permits a 

qualified individual with a disability to 

enter, maneuver as necessary to use all 

lavatory facilities, and leave, by means 

of the aircraft’s on-board wheelchair 

(OBW); 8 (2) affords privacy to persons 

using the OBW equivalent to that 

afforded ambulatory users; and (3) 

provides door locks, accessible call 

buttons, grab bars, faucets and other 

controls, and dispensers usable by 

qualified individuals with a disability, 

including wheelchair users and persons 

with manual impairments.9 The 1990 

ACAA rule, as written, does not 

expressly require the lavatory to be large 

enough to permit a passenger to enter 

the lavatory with an assistant who can 

help the individual transfer from the 

OBW to and from the toilet seat (a 

‘‘dependent transfer’’ or ‘‘assisted 

transfer’’). 

In the preamble to the 1990 ACAA 

rule, the Department stated that by 

requiring accessible lavatories on twin 

aisle aircraft, the result would be ‘‘new 

aircraft with the greatest passenger 

capacities, and which make the longest 

flights, having a lavatory that 

handicapped persons can readily 

use.’’ 10 However the Department noted 

airlines’ concerns that providing 

accessible lavatories on single-aisle 

aircraft may require airlines to remove 

seats in order to install a lavatory of 

sufficient size to meet the accessibility 

standards of the existing rule. The 

Department found that those ‘‘cost and 

feasibility concerns’’ were ‘‘worth 

serious consideration,’’ 11 and 

ultimately decided at the time that it 

was unable to ‘‘obtain sufficient 

information to make a sound decision’’ 

on whether requiring accessible 

lavatories on single-aisle aircraft would 

impose an undue burden on airlines.12

Accordingly, at the time, the 

Department declined to require 

accessible lavatories on single-aisle 

aircraft due to lack of information 

regarding technical or economic 

feasibility.13 Instead, accessible 

lavatories on single-aisle aircraft were 

made optional.14

The 1990 ACAA rule also set 

standards for the availability and design 

of OBWs. The rule generally requires 

airlines to provide OBWs in two 

circumstances: (1) If the aircraft has an 

accessible lavatory; or (2) on the request 

of a passenger with a disability, even if 

the aircraft does not have an accessible 

lavatory.15 The rule also sets basic 

standards for OBW design, including 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 17217 

16 14 CFR 382.65(c). 

17 14 CFR 382.65(c). 

18 55 FR 8008, 8021. 

19See attachment at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=DOT-OST-2015-0246-0194. 

20Public Law 106–181, sec. 707(c), 114 Stat. 61, 

158 (2000). 

21 69 FR 64364 (November 4, 2004). 

22 Id. at 27614. 

23 14 CFR 382.63(d). The rule also extended the 

OBW requirements to foreign air carriers. 14 CFR 

382.65(d). 

24 73 FR 27614, 27625; available at https://

www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/ 

Part%20382-2008_1.pdf. 

25 80 FR 75953 (December 7, 2015). The six issues 

were: (1) Accessibility of in-flight entertainment; (2) 

supplemental medical oxygen; (3) service animals; 

(4) accessible lavatories on single-aisle aircraft; (5) 

seating accommodations; and (6) carrier reporting of 

disability service requests. Id. 

26 81 FR 20265 (April 7, 2016); see also https:// 

www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2015- 

0246-0092. 

27 81 FR 26178 (May 2, 2016). 

28A full list of ACCESS Advisory Committee 

members and other information on the Committee 

may be found at https://www.transportation.gov/ 

access-advisory-committee; see also https://

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=DOT-OST-2015- 

0246 (ACCESS Advisory Committee docket). 

29Under the ground rules of the Committee, 

consensus was defined as ‘‘no more than two 

negative votes in each issue area,’’ with abstentions 

not counting as negative votes. https://

www.transportation.gov/office-general-counsel/ 

negotiated-regulations/access-committee-groundrules. 

30https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/ 

files/docs/Minutes%20-%201st%20Plenary

%20Meeting.pdf. 

31https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/ 

files/docs/3a.P4.Lav_.Advocate%20Survey

%20Results.v2.pdf. 

32 Id. at 4. 

33 Id. at 3. 

34 Id. 

elements such as footrests, movable 

armrests, adequate restraint systems, 

handles, and wheel locks.16 The rule 

provides that the OBW must be 

designed to be compatible with the aisle 

width, maneuvering space, and seat 

height of the aircraft on which it is used, 

and must be easily pushed, pulled, and 

turned within the aircraft by airline 

personnel.17

In the 1990 ACAA rule, the 

Department announced its intention to 

issue an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM) to seek comment 

on the issue of whether to require 

accessible lavatories on single-aisle 

aircraft.18 In 1992, the Department 

convened an advisory committee to 

study this issue. The committee issued 

a report that discussed various lavatory 

designs, along with potential associated 

costs.19

As originally enacted, the ACAA 

covered only U.S. air carriers. However, 

on April 5, 2000, Congress enacted the 

Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment 

and Reform Act for the 21st Century 

(AIR–21), which, among other things, 

amended the ACAA to include foreign 

air carriers.20 In response to the AIR–21 

requirements, the Department, on May 

18, 2000, issued a notice announcing 

the Department’s plan to initiate a 

rulemaking modifying part 382 to cover 

foreign carriers. On November 4, 2004, 

the Department issued an NPRM 

announcing its intention to apply the 

ACAA rule to foreign carriers.21 During 

the course of this rulemaking, the 

Department received many comments 

expressing the view that the existing 

requirements concerning accessible 

lavatories were inadequate. Commenters 

at that time stated that accessible 

lavatories should be required in all 

aircraft, including single-aisle aircraft. 

On May 13, 2008, the Department 

published a final rule amending part 

382 to cover foreign air carriers.22 The 

2008 final rule requires foreign air 

carriers operating twin-aisle aircraft to 

provide accessible lavatories with 

respect to new aircraft that were ordered 

after May 13, 2009, or which were 

delivered after May 13, 2010.23 (For U.S. 

carriers, the requirement applies to 

twin-aisle aircraft that were initially 

ordered after April 5, 1990, or which 

were delivered after April 5, 1992.) In 

the preamble to the 2008 final rule, the 

Department acknowledged that singleaisle aircraft sometimes make lengthy 

flights, and that providing accessible 

lavatories on single-aisle aircraft would 

be a significant improvement in airline 

service for passengers with disabilities. 

However, the Department again 

ultimately declined to impose a 

requirement for accessible lavatories on 

single-aisle aircraft, given concerns that 

the ‘‘revenue loss and other cost 

impacts’’ could be too great.24

D. DOT ACCESS Advisory Committee 

1. Formation and History of Committee 

On December 7, 2015, the Department 

issued a Federal Register document 

indicating that it was exploring the 

feasibility of conducting a negotiated 

rulemaking with respect to six 

accessibility issues, including 

accessibility of lavatories on single-aisle 

aircraft.25 As part of this process, the 

Department hired a neutral convenor to 

assist the Department in determining 

whether any or all of the six issues 

would be appropriate for a negotiated 

rulemaking. The convenor found that 

the following three issues would be 

appropriate for a negotiated rulemaking: 

(1) Whether to require accessible inflight entertainment and strengthen 

accessibility requirements for other inflight communications; (2) whether to 

require an accessible lavatory on new 

single-aisle aircraft over a certain size; 

and (3) whether to amend the definition 

of ‘‘service animals’’ that may 

accompany passengers with a disability 

on a flight.26

The Department established and 

appointed members to the Advisory 

Committee on Accessible Air 

Transportation (ACCESS Advisory 

Committee or Committee) to negotiate 

and develop proposed regulations 

addressing accessible in-flight 

entertainment, accessible lavatories, and 

service animals.27 The Committee 

comprised members representing 

various stakeholders including the 

Department, airlines, flight attendants, 

disability advocacy groups, academic or 

nonprofit institutions having technical 

expertise in accessibility research and 

development, and aircraft 

manufacturers.28 The Committee formed 

subcommittees of stakeholders to study 

and make recommendations on the 

three topics, depending on the 

stakeholders’ areas of interest and 

expertise. During the first meeting, the 

Department informed the Committee 

that if it came to a consensus on the 

terms of a proposed rule, the 

Department would exercise good faith 

efforts to implement that consensus to 

the extent possible.29 The Committee 

gathered data, conducted meetings and 

site visits, and engaged in negotiations 

from May 2016 through November 2016. 

2. Information Gathering 

The Committee gathered information 

concerning the benefits of improving the 

accessibility of lavatories on single-aisle 

aircraft. The Committee learned that 

single-aisle aircraft were being 

increasingly used for longer-haul flights, 

on which accessible lavatories were not 

available.30

Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) 

presented survey data showing that for 

a majority of respondents, the inability 

to use a lavatory would be reason to 

choose not to fly.31 PVA reported that 

some passengers with disabilities 

choose to fly shorter routes, go to the 

lavatory before entering the aircraft, or 

dehydrate themselves before flying to 

alleviate the need to use the lavatory on 

the aircraft.32 More than 500 of 725 

respondents to PVA’s survey indicated 

that the biggest hindrance was the size 

and space/design of the lavatory itself.33

A majority of survey respondents also 

indicated that an OBW would be 

necessary to reach the lavatory.34

Survey respondents noted a number of 

issues with current OBWs, including 

lack of access to an OBW, not knowing 

that OBWs are available, inability to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
17218 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

35 Id. at 3. 36https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/ 

files/docs/Airbus%20Presentation%20on

%20Lav.pdf. This is the version of SpaceFlex 

known as ‘‘V1.’’ Airbus also produces a ‘‘SpaceFlex 

V2,’’ which does not increase the size of the 

lavatory, but provides a transfer seat to assist 

passengers in transitioning from the OBW to the 

aircraft toilet seat. 

37https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/ 

files/docs/P3.Lav_.2.Block_

.Bombardier%20Presentation.v2.2016.07.11.pdf. 

38https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/ 

files/docs/resources/individuals/aviationconsumer-protection/285871/july-meetingminutes.pdf. 

39These became known as ‘‘Tier 2’’ 

improvements, but were not adopted by the 

Committee. 

40https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/ 

files/docs/3a.OEM_.Airline%20Accessible

%20Lav.Position.8.15.16..pdf. 

41https://www.transportation.gov/office-generalcounsel/negotiated-regulations/final-resolutionaccess-committee. 

42The proposed rule text refers to ‘‘all new singleaisle aircraft’’ above a specific seating capacity that 

are ‘‘delivered’’ on or after a certain date. This 

phrasing makes clear that the proposed rule is not 

limited to newly-certificated aircraft models. 

Instead, it also applies to newly-manufactured 

aircraft of existing models. 

43All references to seat capacity in the Term 

Sheet are references to Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA)-certificated maximum seat 

capacities. 

44The Committee accepted the airline industry’s 

proposal that a 125-seat threshold was a reasonable 

proxy for relatively long flight times (over 2–3 

hours), where the need to use the lavatory would 

be greatest. Airlines presented data that aircraft 

with 125-seats or more reflected 87% of single-aisle 

available seat miles, and that only a small 

proportion of flights lasting over 2–3 hours were 

conducted by aircraft under with a capacity under 

125 seats. See https://www.transportation.gov/sites/ 

dot.gov/files/docs/3a.P4.Lav_.OEM_.Airline

%20Accessible%20Lav.Position.8.15.16..pdf, slide 

20). 

transfer from the OBW to the toilet, and 

the narrowness of the aisle in relation to 

the OBW.35

3. Developments in Accessible Lavatory 

Design and OBW Design 

The ACCESS Advisory Committee 

proceedings provided an opportunity 

for manufacturers to demonstrate 

improvements to the accessibility of 

lavatories on single-aisle aircraft. For 

example, at the first meeting on May 

17–18, 2016, one aircraft manufacturer 

(Airbus) presented information about its 

SpaceFlex lavatories. During normal 

operations, they function as two 

lavatories, separated by a dividing wall. 

On request, however, the dividing wall 

can be removed by a flight attendant, 

creating a single large space for the 

passenger and an assistant to enter and 

use the facilities.36 SpaceFlex lavatories 

are installed in the rear section of the 

aircraft against the back wall, in the area 

that is often used for galley space 

(where drinks, meals, snacks, and 

service carts are stowed). DOT has 

learned that SpaceFlex lavatories are 

used primarily, but not exclusively, by 

low-cost airlines. 

Another aircraft manufacturer 

(Bombardier) presented information 

about the accessibility features of its 

single-aisle ‘‘C-Series’’ aircraft. This 

manufacturer explained that C-Series 

lavatories were designed to permit 

passengers with reduced mobility the 

ability to transfer independently from 

the OBW to the toilet seat with the 

lavatory door closed.37 The 

manufacturer explained that accessible 

lavatories were a design feature of the 

aircraft from its inception,38 and that 

‘‘clean sheet’’ designs can take many 

years to produce. The C-Series is now 

majority-owned by Airbus and is known 

as the Airbus A220; seating capacity 

ranges from 100 to 160 passengers. The 

accessibility lavatory feature of the 

Airbus 220 is optional for carriers. 

The Committee also learned about a 

prototype OBW, developed by the 

University of Hamburg, with a 

cantilevered design that would permit 

the OBW to enter the lavatory space by 

positioning the OBW seat over the toilet 

lid. 

4. Development of a Tiered Approach to 

Accessibility 

During the ACCESS Advisory 

Committee’s negotiations, stakeholders 

recognized that there were various ways 

to improve accessibility of lavatories, 

with varying costs and timelines for 

implementation. For example, the 

lavatory interior could be upgraded to 

include features such as accessible 

handles, faucets, and call buttons; 

airlines could also improve elements 

such as crew training and information 

about lavatory accessibility. Finally, the 

OBW design could be improved to 

enable a passenger with a disability to 

enter the lavatory. There was agreement 

that these improvements, which would 

not require increasing the floor 

dimensions (‘‘footprint’’) of the lavatory 

itself, could be implemented relatively 

quickly and thus became known as 

‘‘short term’’ (or ‘‘Tier 1’’) 

improvements. 

The stakeholders also discussed 

various accessibility options that would 

increase the footprint of the lavatory, 

but not to the full size of a twin-aisle 

aircraft lavatory.39 Finally, the 

stakeholders discussed the highest tier 

of accessibility: Expansion of lavatories 

to have the footprint (and accessibility 

features) of lavatories on twin-aisle 

aircraft. Here, airlines took the position 

that lavatories with larger footprints 

would take up space that could 

otherwise be filled by a row of seats. 

Airlines and manufacturers argued that 

airlines would lose considerable 

revenue from increasing the footprint of 

the lavatory because it would result in 

the loss of a row of seats. Airlines and 

manufacturers calculated that an 

industry-wide loss of three seats could 

result in lost revenue of $33.3 billion 

over 25 years (net present value).40 They 

argued that these costs could only be 

incurred if implementation of these 

improvements took place over the span 

of many years. These accessibility 

improvements became known as ‘‘long 

term’’ (or ‘‘Tier 3’’) improvements. 

5. Consensus and Production of Term 

Sheet 

On November 22, 2016, the ACCESS 

Advisory Committee reached consensus 

on recommendations for new regulatory 

proposals to improve the accessibility of 

lavatories on single-aisle aircraft.41 The 

accessible lavatory Term Sheet states 

that the proposed standards would 

apply to new single-aisle aircraft. The 

agreement includes recommendations 

for both short-term and long-term 

accessibility improvements. 

a. Recommendations on Short-Term 

Improvements 

The Committee agreed to a series of 

improvements that would be required 

on new single-aisle aircraft delivered 3 

years after the effective date of the DOT 

final rule that implements the 

agreement.42 First, the Committee 

agreed that airlines operating aircraft 

with 60 or more passenger seats 43

would be required to: (1) Train flight 

attendants to proficiency with respect to 

transfers to and from the OBW and with 

respect to accessibility features of the 

lavatory and the OBW; (2) publish 

lavatory accessibility information and 

provide it on request; and (3) remove 

the International Symbol of 

Accessibility from lavatories that are not 

capable of facilitating a seated 

independent transfer. 

Next, single-aisle aircraft with 125 or 

more passenger seats would also be 

required to have at least one lavatory 

with a number of accessibility features, 

including accessible door locks, flush 

handles, call buttons, faucets, and assist 

handles. 

Finally, single-aisle aircraft with 125 

or more passenger seats 44 would also be 

required to include an OBW that: (1) 

Permits passage in the aircraft aisle; (2) 

fits within an available certificated 

OBW stowage space; and (3) 

accomplishes its functions without 

requiring modification to the interior 

arrangement of the aircraft or the 

lavatory. The Term Sheet calls on the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 17219 

45See Term Sheet, ‘‘Tier 3’’ Agreement, section 

(c) (‘‘You are not required to retrofit cabin interiors 

of existing aircraft to comply with the requirements 

of this section. However, if you replace a lavatory 

on a single aisle aircraft, you must replace it with 

an accessible lavatory as defined in section 382.xx 

(tier I section)’’). https://www.transportation.gov/ 

sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Annex%20A.Lav_

.Agreed%20Text.pdf. 

As with the current rule, accessible lavatories 

would not be required if the airline chooses not to 

install any lavatories on the aircraft. In practice, 

however, airlines generally choose to install at least 

one lavatory onboard aircraft. 

46 GAO, ‘‘Aviation Consumer Protection: Few 

U.S. Aircraft Have Lavatories Designed to 

Accommodate Passengers with Reduced Mobility’’ 

(GAO–20–258), available at https://www.gao.gov/ 

assets/710/703687.pdf. 

47 Id. at 3. 

48 Id. at 3 n.5. 

49 Id. at 6. 50 Id. at 9–13. 51 Id. at 14. 52 Id. 53 Id. 54 Id. at 15. According to the GAO report, three 

airlines have aircraft in their fleet with the 

SpaceFlex V1 installed. One airline has Airbus 

A220 aircraft in its fleet; these aircraft have 

lavatories that can accommodate an OBW, but not 

both an OBW and an assistant. Id., at 13, 15. 

55 Id. at 14. 

56 Id. at 16. 

57 Id. at 15. 

Department to develop OBW standards, 

in consultation with stakeholders, and 

to publish those standards in a proposed 

rule. The Term Sheet indicates that 

standards for an over-the-toilet design 

OBW should be established, if feasible. 

b. Recommendations on Long-Term 

Improvements 

The Committee also agreed to expand 

the footprint of lavatories on single-aisle 

aircraft, but with a longer time frame for 

implementation. Specifically, new 

single-aisle aircraft with 125 or more 

passenger seats would be required to 

include at least one lavatory of 

sufficient size to permit a qualified 

individual with a disability to perform 

a seated independent (unassisted) and 

dependent (assisted) transfer from the 

OBW to and from the toilet within a 

closed space. The lavatory would afford 

an equivalent level of privacy to the 

persons using the OBW as that afforded 

to ambulatory users. The lavatory would 

also include the interior accessibility 

improvements found in Tier 1. 

Under the agreement, these 

improvements would be required on 

qualifying aircraft: (1) That were 

initially ordered 18 years after the 

effective date of the final rule 

implementing the agreement, or (2) that 

were delivered 20 years after the 

effective date of such a final rule; or (3) 

for which an application for a new typecertificate is filed after 1 year from the 

effective date of the final rule. The 

agreement does not call for retrofitting 

of existing aircraft to meet the new 

expanded size requirements, but it does 

require that airlines comply with the 

Tier 1 standards if they replace 

lavatories on older aircraft.45

While the Department agreed in 2016 

to propose these time frames for 

implementation, the Department 

remains very concerned about the 

length of time that individuals with 

disabilities have had to wait to receive 

these much-needed accessibility 

improvements. As we indicate in Part IV 

below, the Department requests 

comment on these requirements, 

including supporting data for any 

comments that suggest more rapid 

implementation intervals, criteria other 

than type-certification for required 

action, or for options that would require 

retrofitting of existing aircraft. 

E. Conducting Lavatory Rulemakings in 

Two Phases 

In June 2019, the Department 

announced that the most appropriate 

course of action was to conduct two 

separate accessible lavatory 

rulemakings: One for short-term 

improvements, and one for long-term 

improvements. The NPRM addressing 

short-term improvements was published 

as the Part 1 NPRM. In that rulemaking, 

the Department proposed improvements 

to lavatory interiors, additional training 

and information procedures relating to 

lavatory accessibility, and 

improvements to the aircraft’s OBW. 

The comment period to the Part 1 

NPRM closed on March 2, 2020. During 

the comment period, a large majority of 

individuals expressed the view that the 

Department should issue a rule 

expanding the size of lavatories on 

single aisle aircraft, even though the 

NPRM itself did not seek comment on 

this issue. 

After reviewing the comments from 

the Part 1 NPRM, the Department has 

determined that it is prudent to gather 

additional information about OBW 

design before issuing a final rule. 

Accordingly, the Department intends to 

hold a public hearing regarding OBW 

design. The Department will then 

review the information gathered in that 

public hearing, along with the 

comments that it received to the Part 1 

NPRM and this NPRM, which is the Part 

2 NPRM focused on long-term 

improvements. Any final rule on 

accessible lavatories would address the 

proposals in both these NPRMs. 

F. Government Accountability Office 

Review 

On January 7, 2020, the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) published a review of 

commercial aircraft lavatories.46 The 

report found that the fleets of the top 

eight U.S. domestic carriers, as 

measured by the number of 2018 

passenger trips, largely consist of singleaisle aircraft.47 Of those eight carriers 

that were studied, five use single-aisle 

aircraft exclusively.48 According to 

GAO, in 2018, 99 percent of U.S. aircraft 

departures for domestic flights occurred 

on single-aisle aircraft.49

GAO also surveyed various types of 

lavatories that are currently available to 

be installed on single-aisle aircraft, 

including the Airbus SpaceFlex V1, the 

SpaceFlex V2, the accessible design for 

the Airbus A220 (formerly the 

Bombardier C-Series), and the Boeing 

Pax Plus.50 GAO found that, ‘‘[w]hile 

aircraft manufacturers offer lavatories 

designed to accommodate passengers 

with mobility impairments, carriers do 

not often choose to acquire them.’’ 51 In 

total, approximately 4.5 percent of the 

combined fleet of those eight carriers 

have lavatories designed to provide 

some measure of greater access for 

passengers with disabilities.52

Specifically, according to GAO, of the 

eight carriers studied, four had singleaisle aircraft within their fleet with 

lavatories designed to accommodate 

passengers with mobility 

impairments.53 Moreover, all of the 

aircraft in U.S. fleets with any lavatory 

accommodations for passengers with 

mobility impairments were 

manufactured by Airbus.54 According to 

GAO, ‘‘[d]espite Boeing’s offering of the 

Pax Plus lavatories since 2017, Boeing 

officials told us that no U.S. carriers 

have ordered these lavatories for their 

current or future single-aisle Boeing 

aircraft.’’ 55

Consistent with the general findings 

of the ACCESS Advisory Committee, the 

carriers with the largest percentage of 

accessible lavatories in their fleets tend 

to be low-cost carriers with fewer 

requirements for galley space.56 GAO 

confirmed that airlines take into account 

cost tradeoffs (in terms of lost revenue 

from removed seats) when determining 

whether to install accessible lavatories. 

According to GAO, some airline officials 

contend that fewer seats in circulation 

may lead to higher costs for carriers, and 

subsequently higher costs for 

consumers.57

Consistent with prior findings, GAO 

reports that according to stakeholder 

groups, passengers with disabilities may 

encounter significant difficulties when 

attempting to fly on single-aisle aircraft; 

that many report anxiety over flying, or 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
17220 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

58 Id. at 16–17. 

59The Term Sheet describes the passenger with 

a disability and the assistant as being ‘‘equivalent 

in size to a 95th percentile male,’’ but is unclear as 

to whether the term refers to height, weight, or both. 

The Department considers 95th percentile to apply 

to both height and weight. There does not appear 

to be a specific and universally-accepted method for 

calculating the height and weight of a 95th 

percentile male; moreover, that measurement may 

change over time. One recent publication from SAE 

International suggests that a 95th percentile male 

would be 6 feet 1 inches (1.86m) and 227 pounds 

(103kg). See https://saemobilus.sae.org/content/ 

2021-01-0918. We seek comment on the appropriate 

method of calculating the height and weight of a 

95th percentile male. 

‘‘Qualified individual with a disability’’ is 

defined in 14 CFR 382.3 in relevant part as an 

individual who ‘‘buys or otherwise validly obtains, 

or makes a good faith effort to obtain, a ticket for 

air transportation on a carrier and presents himself 

or herself at the airport for the purpose of traveling 

on the flight to which the ticket pertains; and meets 

reasonable, nondiscriminatory contract of carriage 

requirements applicable to all passengers.’’ 

60 In the Part 1 NPRM, the Department proposes 

various improvements to the design of the OBW 

itself. One of those proposed improvements is that 

the OBW include an ‘‘over-the-toilet’’ design. This 

feature would permit the passenger to enter the 

lavatory while seated on the OBW, with the seat of 

the OBW situated over the top of the closed toilet 

lid. This OBW design would permit passengers 

with disabilities to perform non-toileting functions 

in privacy, within smaller lavatories. One key 

benefit of the larger lavatory design is that it 

permits the OBW to be situated adjacent to the 

toilet seat, so that the passenger can transfer to and 

from the toilet to perform toileting functions. 

61The Part 1 NPRM calls for airlines to provide 

a visual barrier, on request, to afford to passengers 

with disabilities to use the lavatory with the door 

open while providing a level of privacy equivalent 

to that provided to ambulatory users. This feature 

would not be required in this proposal as the 

Department is proposed to require a lavatory of 

sufficient size to permit equivalent levels of 

privacy. We seek comment, however, on whether 

and to what extent visual barriers would benefit 

passengers with disabilities if airlines were required 

to comply with this proposal. 

that they avoid flying and choose to take 

ground transportation instead.58 GAO 

reports that airlines and DOT receive 

few reports of inaccessible lavatories on 

single-aisle aircraft; however, that low 

number could be explained by 

passengers either knowing that such 

lavatories are not required, or avoiding 

air travel, or taking the precautionary 

measures described above. 

II. Discussion of Proposed Rule Text 

In this NPRM, the Department 

proposes long-term improvements for 

accessible lavatories on single-aisle 

aircraft. The proposed rule text is 

intended to track the ACCESS Advisory 

Committee’s consensus Term Sheet as 

closely as possible. 

In keeping with the ACCESS Advisory 

Committee’s agreement, these proposed 

improvements would apply to singleaisle aircraft with an FAA-certificated 

maximum seating capacity of 125 or 

more seats that are: (1) Ordered 18 years 

after the effective date of the final rule; 

(2) delivered 20 years after the effective 

date of the final rule; or (3) of a new 

type-certificated design filed with the 

FAA or a foreign carrier’s aviation safety 

authority more than one year after the 

effective date of the final rule. In 

general, the purpose of this requirement 

would be to afford airlines and aircraft 

manufacturers sufficient time to 

determine and implement a means of 

installing larger lavatories on current 

type-certificated aircraft, while also 

effectively requiring new typecertificated aircraft to incorporate larger 

lavatories as part of the aircraft’s design. 

The proposed rule would require the 

lavatory to be large enough to permit a 

qualified individual with a disability 59

to approach the lavatory, enter, 

maneuver within as necessary to use all 

lavatory facilities, and leave by means of 

the aircraft’s OBW.60 The lavatory 

would also be of sufficient size to 

permit an assistant to enter the lavatory 

along with the passenger to facilitate an 

assisted transfer between the OBW and 

the toilet. While the proposed rule does 

not explicitly state that the lavatory 

would need to be large enough to 

accommodate both individuals with the 

door closed, it does provide that the 

assisted transfer must take place within 

a closed space that affords to persons 

using the OBW privacy equivalent to 

that afforded ambulatory users. 

The proposed rule would also require 

the lavatory to have certain accessible 

interior features. These features would 

be identical to those the Department 

proposed in the Part 1 NPRM 

(applicable to new single-aisle aircraft 

delivered 3 years after the effective date 

of the final rule derived from that 

NPRM).61 Those features are set forth in 

the rule text. 

The Department seeks comment on its 

proposal to increase the footprint of the 

lavatory on single-aisle aircraft to permit 

a passenger with a disability (with the 

help of an assistant, if necessary) to 

approach, enter, and maneuver within 

the aircraft lavatory, as necessary, to use 

all lavatory facilities and leave by means 

of the aircraft’s on-board wheelchair. 

The Department specifically seeks 

comment on the costs, benefits, 

feasibility and compliance timeframes 

of this proposal. 

The Department has identified an 

alternative that would be similar to the 

NPRM’s proposal, with the only 

difference being that the lavatory would 

not be required to be large enough to 

also accommodate an attendant. Under 

this alternative, the lavatory would be 

required to be large enough to permit a 

passenger equivalent in size to a 95th 

percentile male to enter the lavatory 

using the OBW, transfer between the 

OBW and the toilet, use all facilities 

within a closed space that affords 

privacy equivalent to that afforded to 

ambulatory users, and exit using the 

OBW. Could such an alternative be 

implemented on an earlier time frame 

than the timeframe proposed for 

lavatories that would be large enough to 

accommodate a passenger with a 

disability and his or her attendant? The 

Department seeks comment on the costs, 

benefits, and feasibility of this 

alternative. Comments submitted in 

response to the Part 1 NPRM regarding 

changes to the interior of the lavatory, 

training requirements, and 

improvements to the OBW need not be 

resubmitted. 

The Department notes that the 

ACCESS Advisory Committee’s 

agreement would not result in high 

levels of accessibility in single-aisle 

aircraft lavatories for a long period of 

time, and that it would not guarantee 

such accessibility in aircraft outfitted for 

fewer than 125 seats which, based upon 

current trends and practices, are capable 

of performing an increasing number of 

missions in the U.S. domestic market, 

including mid-continental and transcontinental flights of significant 

duration. Failure to achieve consistent 

and high levels of accessibility could 

result in ongoing or increasing barriers 

to travel requiring future action, not to 

mention create hardships for persons 

with disabilities that all members of the 

ACCESS Advisory Committee wished to 

avoid. Accordingly, the Department 

solicits specific comments on whether 

there are different or more effective 

performance-based standards that could 

achieve the ACCESS Advisory 

Committee’s and the Department’s goals 

of improving accessibility on singleaisle aircraft more quickly. 

III. Summary of Regulatory Impact 

Analysis 

The Department has prepared a 

preliminary regulatory evaluation in 

support of the NPRM, available in the 

docket. The Department’s analysis 

builds on the approach to estimating 

impacts that the airlines and 

manufacturers prepared for the 

negotiated rulemaking proceedings. 

During the proceedings, industry 

maintained that accessible lavatories on 

single-aisle aircraft would have larger 

footprints and take up space that could 

otherwise be filled by a row of seats. 

They presented an analysis of potential 

economic impacts assuming an 

industry-wide loss of one row of three 

seats per aircraft, a 2018 compliance 

date, and a requirement to retrofit 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 17221 

62U.S. Department of Transportation (2016). 

‘‘Aircraft Lavatory Accessibility Joint Airline and 

Manufacturer Presentation.’’ https://

www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/ 

3a.OEM_.Airline%20Accessible%20Lav.Position.

8.15.16..pdf. 

63Adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price 

Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI–U) annual 

averages for 2015 (237.0) and 2019 (255.7). 

64Scott McCartney (August 29, 2018). ‘‘You’re 

Not Getting Bigger, the Airplane Bathroom Is 

Getting Smaller.’’ Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 

October 14, 2021 from https://www.wsj.com/ 

articles/youre-not-getting-bigger-the-airplanebathroom-is-getting-smaller-1535553108. 

65 ‘‘Aircraft Lavatory Accessibility Joint Airline 

and Manufacturer Presentation,’’ available at 

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/ 

docs/3a.OEM_.Airline%20Accessible

%20Lav.Position.8.15.16..pdf. 

existing aircraft.62 The analysis 

estimated that airlines would 

experience a revenue loss of $33.3 

billion ($35.9 billion in 2019 dollars) for 

the 25-year period from 2018 through 

2042.63

The final terms of the negotiated 

rulemaking differ from the assumptions 

used in the industry analysis and affect 

the estimates. While the analysis 

assumed a 2018 compliance date and a 

requirement to retrofit existing aircraft, 

the proposed rule applies only to new 

deliveries of aircraft delivered beginning 

20 years after the effective date of the 

final rule. The longer time horizon 

significantly reduces the industry 

estimate of impacts through the effects 

of discounting, as does removing the 

requirement for retrofitting of existing 

aircraft. While industry projected that 

traveling public would experience at 

least some of these impacts in the form 

of higher fares, reduced service to 

marginally profitable locations, and 

reduced seat availability, it did not 

provide an estimate of consumer 

impacts. 

A key uncertainty in the Department’s 

analysis is the degree of seat loss the 

industry will experience due to an 

accessible lavatory requirement. On the 

one hand, several existing designs 

would not require carriers to remove 

seats, as discussed in the ‘‘Government 

Accountability Office Review’’ section, 

suggesting that a universal loss of three 

seats is likely an overestimate. Airlines 

could comply with the requirements of 

the proposed rule using existing aircraft 

and lavatory designs that would not 

require any seat removal. On the other 

hand, airlines have demonstrated a 

trend of reducing the size of lavatories 

on aircraft to fit as many seats as 

possible.64 Given this trend, requiring 

accessible lavatories in place of 

shrinking lavatories may lead to losses 

of seats for future aircraft relative to the 

world without this proposed rule (the 

baseline scenario). According to 

industry, the loss of ‘‘even a small 

number of seats . . . has tremendous 

opportunity costs’’ and ‘‘a loss of even 

one seat affects the selling of all other 

seats.’’ 65 Total available seats, including 

unoccupied seats, are part of industry 

planning and business strategy, and the 

loss of seats could disrupt those 

processes. 

In the absence of an alternative 

estimate of seat loss, we retain for the 

purposes of this NPRM the airlines’ 

estimate of an industry-wide loss of 

three seats per single-aisle aircraft for 

this analysis. However, in our judgment, 

given existing designs and practical 

limits to downsizing of existing 

lavatories, the loss of three seats likely 

overestimates the effects of the rule on 

cabin configuration and total available 

seats. We seek information, data, and 

comment on what estimates of the costs 

of seat loss would be most appropriate. 

Manufacturing and installing 

accessible lavatories may impose 

additional costs. During the negotiated 

rulemaking meetings, aircraft 

manufacturers and airlines did not 

emphasize any cost differential between 

current lavatories and accessible 

lavatories, except for retrofitting and 

taking aircraft out of service to make 

modifications. Because the agreement 

only applies to new aircraft, we assume 

that any additional cost of 

manufacturing and installing an 

accessible lavatory at the design phase 

of aircraft production is de minimis 

relative to the cost of an aircraft. 

The primary benefit of the proposed 

rule is that passengers with disabilities 

would have privacy and dignity while 

using the lavatory. These passengers 

would no longer have to consider risky 

alternatives such as dehydrating before 

flight or withholding bodily functions. 

Accessible lavatories could also expand 

the market for travel by people with 

disabilities if they have latent demand 

for air travel and the rule enables travel 

that was previously deterred. In 

addition, other passengers may also 

derive ancillary benefits from having 

larger lavatories, including the ability to 

perform tasks that might not be possible 

otherwise, such as changing a child’s 

diaper or assisting a child using the 

toilet. Finally, members of the public 

may feel that improving accessibility for 

travelers with disabilities has a social 

value. 

Given available data, we cannot 

currently quantify these benefits. There 

is significant uncertainty regarding the 

size of the affected population in the 

baseline and the extent to which this 

proposed rule will remove barriers to air 

travel for current and potential 

passengers. Without the ability to 

measure the size of the affected 

population, the extent to which the lack 

of accessible lavatories creates barriers 

to air travel, and the degree that the 

requirements of this proposed rule 

improve travel experience and 

encourage additional travel, it is not 

currently possible to quantitatively 

evaluate or monetize impacts. However, 

we seek information that may help do 

so. 

Other economic impacts of the 

proposed rule depend on the degree to 

which adding accessible lavatories 

reduces the number of passengers on 

flights. The Department preliminarily 

estimated the effects of removing three 

departure seats per aircraft based on 

industry feedback, although this 

estimate may overstate the economic 

effects of the rule. The Department also 

used published estimates of the price 

elasticity of air travel demand to 

estimate potential increases to airfare 

that would allow airlines to offset a 

portion of the revenue lost from the 

removal of seats by passing on impacts 

to passengers. As noted above, we seek 

additional data and information on 

these issues. 

The Department’s regulatory impact 

analysis, summarized in Table 1 and 

available in the docket, illustrates the 

potential economic effects of the 

proposed rule. Total societal (economic) 

costs are the sum of lost producer and 

consumer surplus due to the reduction 

in the number of passengers 

transported. The annualized costs, 

discounted to 2022, are $212 million at 

a 3% discount rate or $85 million at a 

7% discount rate. The proposed rule 

would also result in a transfer from 

passengers to airlines due to airlines 

increasing airfare to recapture lost 

revenue. The annualized transfers are 

$933 million at a 3% discount rate or 

$373 million at a 7% discount rate. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
17222 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS DUE TO PROPOSED RULE

[2019 dollars] 

25-Year total 

(3% discount) 

Annualized 

(3% discount) 

25-Year total 

(7% discount) 

Annualized 

(7% discount) 

Benefits ................................................................................................ Not quantified ... Not quantified ... Not quantified ... Not quantified. 

Costs: 

Lost producer surplus ................................................................... $3,563,259,980 $204,630,435 ... $954,736,436 ... $81,926,427. 

Lost consumer surplus ................................................................. $136,530,910 ... $7,840,679 ....... $33,459,393 ..... $2,871,168. 

Total societal costs ....................................................................... $3,699,790,890 $212,471,114 ... $988,195,830 ... $84,797,595. 

Transfers: 

From passengers to airlines ......................................................... $16,241,111,323 $932,692,447 ... $4,352,911,148 $373,525,557. 

Note: Estimates calculated using midpoint elasticities of domestic air travel demand identified in literature. 

Because we could not quantify and 

monetize benefits, it is not possible to 

make a judgment regarding the 

relationship between benefits and costs 

based upon a net benefits calculation. 

We conducted a supplementary analysis 

to provide some insight into how 

passengers and airlines might 

experience these costs. 

Table 2 summarizes the results of the 

supplementary analysis. Passengers 

flying in 2066—the year when all singleaisle aircraft would be assumed to have 

accessible lavatories and fewer available 

seats—would experience the largest 

increases in ticket prices. Domestic 

passengers would pay an additional 

$2.22 per ticket on average; 

international passengers would pay an 

additional $9.13. Passengers flying in 

earlier years, when some aircraft would 

not have accessible lavatories and 

reduced seating, would experience 

smaller airfare increases. The increase 

in ticket prices would more than offset 

any revenue loss that the airlines would 

directly experience due to a reduction 

in passenger seats, but the net revenue 

increase would be modest. 

TABLE 2—OTHER ECONOMIC IMPACTS

DUE TO PROPOSED RULE

Item Amount in 

2066 

Increase in ticket price (domestic) ............................... $2.66 

Increase in ticket price (international) ............................ 10.88 

Net revenue loss (gross revenue loss less transfer 

from passengers) .............. ¥24,010,938 

Note: Estimates calculated using midpoint 

elasticities of domestic air travel demand identified in literature. 

IV. Request for Data and Comments 

The Department solicits written data, 

analysis, views, and recommendations 

from interested persons concerning the 

information and issues addressed in this 

NPRM. Comments submitted in 

response to the Part 1 NPRM need not 

be resubmitted, as they are already 

being considered. The Department 

specifically seeks comment on the 

following questions related to this 

rulemaking: 

A. General 

The Department currently requires 

airlines to ensure that at least one 

lavatory on twin-aisle aircraft is 

accessible. To what extent do accessible 

lavatories on twin-aisle aircraft meet the 

needs of passengers with disabilities, 

particularly passengers with mobility 

impairments? Are accessible lavatories 

on twin-aisle aircraft large enough to 

accommodate an assistant to assist the 

passenger with transfers between the 

OBW and the toilet? 

To what extent are lavatories meeting 

the size parameters of this proposal 

already available for installation on 

single-aisle aircraft? To the extent that 

such lavatories are available on the 

market but are not being installed, what 

are the market forces driving this 

decision? 

How important is it for airlines to 

distinguish themselves in the 

marketplace based on factors such as 

robust galley service? What additional 

costs or revenue loss would be incurred 

if galley space were sacrificed in order 

to accommodate an accessible lavatory? 

How do airlines assess this tradeoff 

against the increase in the number of 

seats (typically an entire row) that could 

be added under such a design, in 

addition to providing accessibility? 

What are the future trends for 

voluntary adoption of larger lavatories 

in single-aisle aircraft, particularly given 

demographic trends tending toward an 

aging population? What market 

incentives, if any, exist to encourage 

airlines to install accessible lavatories 

on single-aisle aircraft? Would airlines 

benefit from advertising (or otherwise 

indicating) that their aircraft have 

accessible lavatories? Are carriers able 

to distinguish themselves in the 

marketplace based on the availability of 

accessible lavatories? If a carrier does 

have aircraft in its fleet with accessible 

lavatories, how would passengers with 

disabilities know or ensure that their 

specific flight is being operated using an 

aircraft equipped with an accessible 

lavatory? 

Are other innovative accessible 

lavatory options, not discussed in this 

NPRM, being developed? If so, what 

tradeoffs, costs, and benefits are 

associated with such lavatories? For 

example, could a side-by-side aislefacing lavatory design (such as is found 

on the Boeing 737–900ER) be adapted 

(such as by including movable walls) to 

provide the desired level of accessibility 

while also preserving both existing 

galley space and total seating capacity? 

B. Time Frame for Adoption 

The ACCESS Advisory Committee 

agreed to require lavatories on new 

aircraft ordered 18 years or delivered 20 

years after the effective date of a final 

rule. Airlines and aircraft manufacturers 

that participated in the ACCESS 

Advisory Committee indicated that this 

time frame was the earliest acceptable 

time frame for adopting new standards, 

but did not provide a thorough 

explanation for why implementation 

must be delayed to that degree. As a 

frame of reference, FAA regulations 

allow manufacturers 5 years from the 

date of application to finish designing 

(obtaining approval of) a new transportcategory airplane. 

If the useful life of an aircraft is 

roughly 25 years, then approximately 4 

percent of aircraft would be replaced 

annually, on average. Under these 

assumptions and the current 

implementation dates of the rule, it 

would take approximately 25 years for 

one-quarter of all qualifying aircraft to 

be deployed with accessible features, 30 

years for half of all qualifying aircraft, 

and 45 years for essentially all 

qualifying aircraft to have the 

accessibility features described in this 

NPRM. 

Are these extended implementation 

timeframes appropriate or necessary? 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 17223 

Why or why not? Specifically, we note 

that the negotiated rulemaking took 

place five years ago, in 2016. At that 

time, the Department expressed its 

intent to expeditiously issue an NPRM 

reflecting the stakeholders’ Term Sheet. 

The Term Sheet itself contains 

compliance dates that are tied to the 

date that the Department issues a final 

rule. How should the Department take 

into account the lapse of time between 

the Term Sheet and this NPRM when 

drafting its final rule? Are there 

alternative timeframes that could yield 

benefits sooner without imposing an 

undue burden? 

Are new type-certificated single-aisle 

aircraft currently being developed that 

would include lavatories of the size 

equivalent to that proposed here (i.e., 

lavatories that are large enough to 

permit a passenger with a disability to 

approach, enter, and maneuver within 

the aircraft lavatory with the help of an 

assistant if needed)? If so, when and 

how would such aircraft be placed into 

service? What share of the total 

commercial aircraft fleet and available 

seat miles would be represented by such 

aircraft at different points in the future? 

Do any new type-certificated singleaisle aircraft include lavatories that 

would not be large enough to 

accommodate an assistant but large 

enough to permit a passenger equivalent 

in size to a 95th percentile male to enter 

the lavatory using the OBW, transfer 

between the OBW and the toilet, use all 

facilities within a closed space that 

affords privacy equivalent to that 

afforded to ambulatory users, and exit 

using the OBW? Do lavatories of this 

size already exist in the marketplace? 

What is a realistic timeframe for 

implementation of this alternative? If it 

is feasible to install lavatories that are 

large enough to accommodate a person 

with a disability unassisted on an earlier 

schedule than lavatories that are large 

enough to accommodate a person with 

a disability assisted and unassisted, 

would that be more beneficial to 

persons with disabilities? Why or why 

not? 

Should the Department adopt a 

different tiered or phased model for 

implementation? For example, should 

the Department require tiered 

implementation of accessibility 

standards for different sizes of carriers, 

different sizes of aircraft, aircraft used 

for longer routes or aircraft used for 

routes that are busier than others? 

Should implementation of accessibility 

standards be phased in or should 

requirements be scoped based on the 

scheduled flight time? What are the pros 

and cons of these various approaches? Is 

it appropriate to focus implementation 

of accessibility standards first on the 

entities that would be least burdened? 

Would a different approach allow 

technology or design principles to 

develop more efficiently than the 

Department’s proposed approach? If so, 

how would the Department calculate 

the costs and benefits of a different 

approach? 

C. Applicability 

The agreement of the ACCESS 

Advisory Committee would apply the 

requirement for an accessible lavatory 

only to aircraft with maximum seating 

capacity of 125 seats or more. We seek 

comment on this recommended 

standard. Should the threshold for 

requiring an accessible lavatory be 

higher or lower than 125 seats? How 

would the application of a different 

threshold affect the potential costs and 

benefits of the rule? 

The airlines’ and manufacturers’ 

analysis also presented information on 

the percentage of available seat miles 

(ASMs) on single-aisle aircraft on flights 

over 2 hours and over 3 hours in 

duration. However, the ACCESS 

Advisory Committee ultimately did not 

recommend setting a performance-based 

standard that would limit the 

applicability of the requirement for an 

accessible lavatory only to aircraft used 

on flights with a scheduled duration. It 

is the Department’s understanding from 

discussions during the ACCESS 

Advisory Committee proceedings that 

both airlines and advocates favored the 

seating-capacity approach over the 

scheduled-duration approach because 

the Committee believed that seatingcapacity approach provides greater 

predictability as to when accessible 

lavatories would be available, 

particularly in cases of unexpected 

aircraft swaps. 

Therefore, the Department seeks 

updated comment on this conclusion. 

How can the rule be framed to provide 

the greatest predictability as to when 

accessible lavatories would be available 

for disabled passengers? The 

Department also seek comment on 

alternative performance-based 

standards, such as requiring only a 

certain percentage of a carrier’s flights 

between city-pairs to have accessible 

lavatories. Such a percentage standard 

could be accompanied by a requirement 

for carriers to provide advance 

information on the accessibility of 

lavatories and to rebook and/or 

compensate disabled passengers if an 

aircraft change made accessible 

lavatories unavailable. How would the 

application of a performance-based 

standard affect the potential costs and 

benefits of the rule? What challenges 

would airlines face in managing their 

fleets to ensure such a standard is met? 

Have there been any changes in airline 

fleet management practices or 

capabilities since the time of the 

rulemaking committee’s report that 

might make meeting such a standard 

more feasible today or in the future? 

D. Economic Information 

The Department seeks information to 

help it better understand the benefits of 

the rule, including data that would 

assist it in quantifying and/or 

monetizing those benefits. Relevant 

information to estimate benefits for 

people with disabilities includes the 

number of travelers with disabilities, 

estimates of latent air travel demand for 

people who do not currently travel due 

to inaccessible lavatories, and the 

associated costs to individuals from 

practices such as dehydrating or holding 

bodily functions for extended periods. 

Other relevant information includes 

information to quantify benefits for 

other passengers, who may benefit from 

having the additional space in 

accessible lavatories, as well as the 

public, who may derive value from 

ensuring that people who need 

accessible lavatories on flights have 

them. Data on passenger use of 

lavatories for flights of varying duration 

would also be useful. 

In the regulatory analysis, the 

Department assumed that aircraft 

ordered with accessible lavatory 

features had identical costs to aircraft 

ordered without accessible lavatories. 

The Department seeks information on 

whether any cost differential exists 

between the two types of aircraft and 

how that differential compares with the 

total cost of new aircraft. 

Finally, the Department seeks 

additional information to evaluate the 

extent to which the proposed rule 

would require removal of passenger or 

revenue seats, and how the traveling 

public and industry would experience 

the economic impacts. The airlines and 

manufacturers noted that airlines may 

respond to seat losses by adjusting 

schedules, seat pitch, prices, and other 

aspects of their service but did not 

quantify these effects in their analysis. 

The Department estimated impacts to 

industry and consumers by using 

published estimates of the price 

elasticity of demand for air travel and 

assumed an industry-wide loss of three 

revenue seats per aircraft. In practical 

terms, what would be the size of a 

lavatory that accommodates a passenger 

with a disability and an attendant 

equivalent in size to a 95th-percentile 

male? How would these dimensions 

affect the features of lavatory interiors 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
17224 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

such as assist handles, faucets and other 

controls, if these features must meet the 

needs of and be usable by qualified 

individuals with a disability whether 

equivalent in size to a 95 percentile 

male or a 5 percentile female? What are 

the benefits of basing the size of a 

lavatory that accommodates a passenger 

with a disability and an attendant 

equivalent on the size of a 95thpercentile male? What are the cost 

effects of these dimensions, including 

on potential seat loss? What additional 

data should the Department consider 

when determining cost impacts, 

including potential seat loss? 

We seek comment on other 

approaches to or data that could be used 

for estimating effects on the industry 

and the market, as well as how these 

effects might be allocated between 

airlines and consumers. 

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), Executive Order 

13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review), and 49 CFR Part 5, 

Subpart B (DOT Rulemaking 

Procedures) 

Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’) and 13563 

(‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’) require agencies to regulate in 

the ‘‘most cost-effective manner,’’ to 

make a ‘‘reasoned determination that 

the benefits of the intended regulation 

justify its costs,’’ and to develop 

regulations that ‘‘impose the least 

burden on society.’’ The proposed rule, 

which implements the terms of a 

negotiated rulemaking agreement, is 

economically significant under 

Executive Order 12866 because the 

estimated economic effects exceed the 

$100 million annual threshold for 

significance defined by the order. More 

information on the economic effects is 

available in the ‘‘Summary of 

Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ section, as 

well as the regulatory impact analysis 

available in the docket. Accordingly, the 

proposed rule has been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

also require agencies to provide a 

meaningful opportunity for public 

participation. Accordingly, the 

Department has asked commenters to 

answer a variety of questions to elicit 

practical information about relevant 

data and analytic approaches, as 

described in ‘‘Request for Data and 

Comments.’’ These comments will help 

the Department evaluate the economic 

effects of the proposed rule. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to 

review regulations to assess their impact 

on small entities unless the agency 

determines that a rule is not expected to 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. A 

direct air carrier or foreign air carrier is 

a small business if it provides air 

transportation only with small aircraft 

(i.e., aircraft with up to 60 seats/18,000- 

pound payload capacity). The regulatory 

initiative discussed in this NPRM would 

apply only to carriers that operate 

aircraft with FAA-certificated maximum 

capacity of more than 60 seats. 

Therefore, by definition, the initiative 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This NPRM has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). This NPRM does 

not include any provision that: (1) Has 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

the relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government; (2) imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

State and local governments; or (3) 

preempts State law. States are already 

preempted from regulating in this area 

by the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 

U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 

D. Executive Order 13175 

This NPRM has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13175 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’). 

Because none of the topics on which we 

are seeking comment would 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of the Indian Tribal 

governments or impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on them, the 

funding and consultation requirements 

of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), 

no person is required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) control number. This 

NPRM does not propose any new 

information collection burdens. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Department has determined that 

the requirements of Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

do not apply to this NPRM. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 382 

Air carriers, Civil rights, Consumer 

protection, Individuals with disabilities, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority 

delegated in 49 CFR 1.27(n). 

John E. Putnam, 

Deputy General Counsel. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Department proposes to amend 14 CFR 

part 382 as follows: 

PART 382—NONDISCRIMINATION ON 

THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN AIR 

TRAVEL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 382 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41705. 

Subpart E—Accessibility of Aircraft 

and Service Animals on Aircraft 

■ 2. Section 382.64 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 382.64 What are the requirements for 

large accessible lavatories on single-aisle 

aircraft? 

(a) As a carrier, you must ensure that 

all new single-aisle aircraft that you 

operate with an FAA-certificated 

maximum seating capacity of 125 seats 

or more in which lavatories are 

provided, shall include at least one 

lavatory of sufficient size to: 

(1) Permit a qualified individual with 

a disability equivalent in size to a 95th 

percentile male to approach, enter, 

maneuver within as necessary to use all 

lavatory facilities, and leave, by means 

of the aircraft’s on-board wheelchair, in 

a closed space that affords privacy 

equivalent to that afforded to 

ambulatory users; and 

(2) Permit an assistant equivalent in 

size to a 95th percentile male to assist 

a qualified individual with a disability, 

including assisting in transfers between 

the toilet and the aircraft’s on-board 

wheelchair, within a closed space that 

affords privacy equivalent to that 

afforded to ambulatory users. 

(b) The lavatory required in paragraph 

(a) of this section shall include the 

following features: 

(1) Grab bars must be provided and 

positioned as required to meet the needs 

of individuals with disabilities. 

(2) Lavatory faucets must have 

controls with tactile information 

concerning temperature. Alternatively, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 17225 

1Section 210 of the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act of 1974, Public Law 93–406 (88 Stat. 

829), as amended (ERISA), also provides rules 

Continued 

carriers may comply with this 

requirement by ensuring that lavatory 

water temperature is adjusted to 

eliminate the risk of scalding for all 

passengers. Automatic or hand-operated 

faucets shall dispense water for a 

minimum of five seconds for each 

application or while the hand is below 

the faucet. 

(3) Attendant call buttons and door 

locks must be accessible to an 

individual seated within the lavatory. 

(4) Lavatory controls and dispensers 

must be discernible through the sense of 

touch. Operable parts within the 

lavatory must be operable with one 

hand and must not require tight 

grasping, pinching, or twisting of the 

wrist. 

(5) The lavatory door sill must 

provide minimum obstruction to the 

passage of the on-board wheelchair 

across the sill while preventing the 

leakage of fluids from the lavatory floor 

and trip hazards during an emergency 

evacuation. 

(6) Toe clearance must not be reduced 

from current measurements. 

(c) You are not required to retrofit 

cabin interiors of existing single-aisle 

aircraft to comply with the requirements 

of paragraph (a) of this section. 

(d) As a carrier, you must comply 

with the requirements of this section 

with respect to new aircraft that you 

operate that were originally ordered 

after [DATE 18 YEARS AFTER THE 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL 

RULE] or delivered after [DATE 20 

YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF THE FINAL RULE] or are part of a 

new type-certificated design filed with 

the FAA or a foreign carrier’s safety 

authority after [DATE ONE YEAR 

AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE 

FINAL RULE]. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05869 Filed 3–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–121508–18] 

RIN 1545–BO97 

Multiple Employer Plans 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and notice of public hearing; 

withdrawal of notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document sets forth 

proposed regulations relating to certain 

multiple employer plans (MEPs) 

described in the Internal Revenue Code 

(the ‘‘Code’’). The proposed regulations 

provide an exception, if certain 

requirements are met, to the application 

of the ‘‘unified plan rule’’ for MEPs in 

the event of a failure by one or more 

employers participating in the plan to 

take actions required of them to satisfy 

the applicable requirements of the Code. 

These proposed regulations would affect 

certain MEPs, participants in those 

MEPs (and their beneficiaries), 

employers participating in those MEPs, 

and plan administrators of those MEPs. 

This document also withdraws 

proposed regulations published in the 

Federal Register on July 3, 2019, 

amending the application of the unified 

plan rule to MEPs and provides a notice 

of a public hearing. 

DATES: Written or electronic comments 

must be received by May 27, 2022. A 

public hearing on these proposed 

regulations has been scheduled for 

Wednesday, June 22, 2022, at 10 a.m. 

EST. Requests to speak and outlines of 

topics to be discussed at the public 

hearing must be received by May 27, 

2022. If no outlines are received by May 

27, 2022, the public hearing will be 

cancelled. Requests to attend the public 

hearing must be received by 5 p.m. EST 

on Friday, June 17, 2022. The 

telephonic hearing will be made 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for special assistance during 

the telephonic hearing must be received 

by Thursday, June 16, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Commenters are strongly 

encouraged to submit public comments 

electronically. Submit electronic 

submissions via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and 

REG–121508–18) by following the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted to the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, comments 

cannot be edited or withdrawn. The IRS 

expects to have limited personnel 

available to process public comments 

that are submitted on paper through 

mail. Until further notice, any 

comments submitted on paper will be 

considered to the extent practicable. 

The Department of the Treasury 

(Treasury Department) and the IRS will 

publish for public availability any 

comment submitted electronically, and 

to the extent practicable on paper, to its 

public docket. Send paper submissions 

to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–121508–18), 

Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, 

P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, 

Washington, DC 20044. 

For those requesting to speak during 

the hearing, send an outline of topic 

submissions electronically via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and 

REG–121508–18). 

Individuals who want to testify (by 

telephone) at the public hearing must 

send an email to publichearings@irs.gov 

to receive the telephone number and 

access code for the hearing. The subject 

line of the email must contain the 

regulation number REG–121508–18 and 

the word TESTIFY. For example, the 

subject line may say: Request to 

TESTIFY at Hearing for REG–121508– 

18. The email should include a copy of 

the speaker’s public comments and 

outline of topics. Individuals who want 

to attend the public hearing by 

telephone must also send an email to 

publichearings@irs.gov to receive the 

telephone number and access code for 

the hearing. The subject line of the 

email must contain the regulation 

number REG–121508–18 and the word 

ATTEND. For example, the subject line 

may say: Request to ATTEND Hearing 

for REG–121508–18. To request special 

assistance during the telephonic hearing 

contact the Publications and 

Regulations Branch of the Office of 

Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and 

Administration) by sending an email to 

publichearings@irs.gov (preferred) or by 

telephone at (202) 317–5177 (not a tollfree number). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning the regulations, Pamela 

Kinard at (202) 317–6000 or Tom 

Morgan at (202) 317–6700; concerning 

submission of comments or requests for 

a public hearing, Regina Johnson (202) 

317–5177 (not toll-free numbers) or by 

sending an email to publichearings@

irs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This document sets forth proposed 

amendments to the Income Tax 

Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under 

section 413(c) of the Code and proposed 

regulations under section 413(e) of the 

Code. This document also withdraws 

proposed regulations under section 

413(c) that were published in the 

Federal Register on July 3, 2019 (84 FR 

31777) (section 413(c) proposed 

regulations). 

I. General Rules Relating to MEPs 

Including the Unified Plan Rule 

Section 413(c) provides rules for a 

plan maintained by more than one 

employer.1 A plan described in section 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1