18212 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Section 14201 of the 2008 Farm Bill 

provided that: (1) the Secretary shall 

make available cotton classification 

services to producers of cotton, and 

provide for the collection of 

classification fees from participating 

producers or agents that voluntarily 

agree to collect and remit the fees on 

behalf of the producers; (2) 

classification fees collected and the 

proceeds from the sales of samples 

submitted for classification shall, to the 

extent practicable, be used to pay the 

cost of the services provided, including 

administrative and supervisory costs; (3) 

the Secretary shall announce a uniform 

classification fee and any applicable 

surcharge for classification services not 

later than June 1 of the year in which 

the fee applies; and (4) in establishing 

the amount of fees under this section, 

the Secretary shall consult with 

representatives of the United States 

cotton industry. At pages 313–314, the 

Joint Explanatory Statement of the 

committee of conference for section 

14201 stated the expectation that the 

cotton classification fee would continue 

to be a basic, uniform fee per bale fee 

as determined necessary to maintain 

cost-effective cotton classification 

service. Further, in consulting with the 

cotton industry, the Secretary should 

demonstrate the level of fees necessary 

to maintain effective cotton 

classification services and provide the 

Department of Agriculture with an 

adequate operating reserve, while also 

working to limit adjustments in the 

year-to-year fee. 

Under the provisions the Cotton 

Statistics and Estimates Act as amended 

by the section 14201 of the 2008 Farm 

Bill, a user fee (dollar amount per bale 

classed) is proposed for the 2014 cotton 

crop that, when combined with other 

sources of revenue, will result in 

projected revenues sufficient to 

reasonably cover budgeted costs— 

adjusted for inflation—and allow for 

adequate operating reserves to be 

maintained. Costs considered in this 

method include salaries, costs of 

equipment and supplies, and other 

overhead costs, such as facility costs 

and costs for administration and 

supervision. In addition to covering 

expected costs, the user fee is set such 

that projected revenues will generate an 

operating reserve adequate to effectively 

manage uncertainties related to crop 

size and cash-flow timing. Furthermore, 

the operating reserve is expected to 

meet minimum reserve requirements set 

by the Agricultural Marketing Service, 

which require maintenance of a reserve 

fund amount equal to at least four 

months of projected operating costs. 

The user fee proposed to be charged 

cotton producers for cotton 

classification in 2014 is $2.20 per bale, 

which is the same fee charged for the 

2013 crop. This fee is based on the 

preseason projection that 13,400,000 

bales will be classed by the United 

States Department of Agriculture during 

the 2014 crop year. 

Accordingly, § 28.909, paragraph (b) 

would reflect the continuation of the 

cotton classification fee at $2.20 per 

bale. 

As provided for in the 1987 Act, a 5 

cent per bale discount would continue 

to be applied to voluntary centralized 

billing and collecting agents as specified 

in § 28.909(c). 

Growers or their designated agents 

receiving classification data would 

continue to incur no additional fees if 

classification data is requested only 

once. The fee for each additional 

retrieval of classification data in 

§ 28.910 would remain at 5 cents per 

bale. The fee in § 28.910(b) for an owner 

receiving classification data from the 

National Database would remain at 5 

cents per bale, and the minimum charge 

of $5.00 for services provided per 

monthly billing period would remain 

the same. The provisions of § 28.910(c) 

concerning the fee for new classification 

memoranda issued from the National 

Database for the business convenience 

of an owner without reclassification of 

the cotton will remain the same at 15 

cents per bale or a minimum of $5.00 

per sheet. 

The fee for review classification in 

§ 28.911 would be maintained at $2.20 

per bale. 

The fee for returning samples after 

classification in § 28.911 would remain 

at 50 cents per sample. 

A 15-day comment period is provided 

for public comments. This period is 

appropriate because user fees are not 

changing and it is anticipated that the 

proposed fees, if adopted, would be 

made effective for the 2014 cotton crop 

on July 1, 2014. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 28 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Cotton, Cotton samples, 

Grades, Market news, Reporting and 

record keeping requirements, Standards, 

Staples, Testing, Warehouses. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 28 is proposed to 

be amended to read as follows: 

PART 28—[Amended] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 28, Subpart D, continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 471–476. 

■ 2. In § 28.909, paragraph (b) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 28.909 Costs. 

* * * * * 

(b) The cost of High Volume 

Instrument (HVI) cotton classification 

service to producers is $2.20 per bale. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 28.911, the last sentence of 

paragraph (a) is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 28.911 Review classification. 

(a) * * * The fee for review 

classification is $2.20 per bale. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 18, 2014. 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–07015 Filed 3–31–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 121 

[Docket No.: FAA–2014–0205; Notice No. 

14–03] 

RIN 2120–AK17 

Disclosure of Seat Dimensions to 

Facilitate Use of Child Safety Seats on 

Airplanes During Passenger-Carrying 

Operations 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012 requires the Federal 

Aviation Administration to initiate 

rulemaking to require air carriers 

conducting domestic, flag, and 

supplemental operations to make 

available on their Web sites information 

to enable passengers to determine which 

child safety seats can be used on aircraft 

in these operations. To fulfill the 

requirements of the Act, the FAA 

proposes to require air carriers to make 

available on their Web sites the width 

of the widest passenger seat in each 

class of service for each make, model 

and series of airplane used in passengercarrying operations. If finalized as 

proposed, this rule would provide 

greater information to caregivers to help 

them determine whether a particular 

child restraint system will fit in an 

airplane seat. This proposal does not 

affect existing regulations regarding the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18213 

1Codified as a preceding note to 49 U.S.C. 42301, 

126 Stat. 89. 

2Section 412 of Public Law 112–95 uses the term 

‘‘child safety seat.’’ However, the FAA uses the term 

‘‘child restraint system’’ to describe an approved 

seat or device used to restrain children on aircraft. 

Thus, for consistency with existing FAA 

regulations, this proposal uses the term child 

restraint system (CRS), rather than child safety seat. 

3The FAA notes that Public Law 112–95 uses the 

term ‘‘air carrier.’’ FAA regulations use terms such 

as ‘‘certificate holders’’, ‘‘operators’’, and ‘‘air 

carriers’’ to describe a person who undertakes 

directly by lease, or other arrangement, to engage 

in air transportation. Thus, for consistency with 

existing FAA regulations, this proposal uses the 

term ‘‘air carrier’’ to refer to these persons. 

4Section 121.311 uses the term ‘‘parent, guardian, 

or designated attendant’’ to refer to the person 

traveling with, and providing care for, the child. For 

ease of reference the FAA has used ‘‘caregiver’’ 

throughout this document to refer to these persons. 

5See http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_children/ 

crs/(visited December 6, 2013). 

6Advisory Circular (AC) 120–87B, Use of Child 

Restraint Systems on Aircraft (September 17, 2010) 

is available at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_

policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/ 

document.information/documentID/388616. 

Information For Operators (InFO) 11007 

Regulatory Requirements Regarding 

Accommodation of Child Restraint Systems— 

Update (March 10, 2011) is available at http:// 

www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/ 

airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/. 

use of child restraint systems on board 

airplanes or a passenger under the age 

of 2 traveling onboard aircraft with or 

without the use of a child restraint 

system. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

June 30, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2014–0205 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at (202) 493–2251. 

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 

public to better inform its rulemaking 

process. DOT posts these comments, 

without edit, including any personal 

information the commenter provides, to 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

www.dot.gov/privacy. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to the Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Catherine Burnett, Air 

Transportation Division, AFS–200, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–8166; email 

catherine.burnett@faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Sara L. Mikolop, 

International Law, Legislation, and 

Regulations Division, AGC–200; Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–3073; email sara.mikolop@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code (49 U.S.C.). Section 

106 of Subtitle I describes the authority 

of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the 

authority of the Administrator to 

promulgate regulations and rules and 49 

U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the 

Administrator to promote safe flight of 

civil aircraft in air commerce by 

prescribing regulations and minimum 

standards for other practices, methods, 

and procedures necessary for safety in 

air commerce and national security. 

In addition, section 412 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

(Pub. L. 112–95) 1 specifically required 

the FAA to conduct rulemaking ‘‘[T]o 

require each air carrier operating under 

part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, to post on the Internet Web 

site of the air carrier the maximum 

dimensions of a child safety seat that 

can be used on each aircraft operated by 

the air carrier to enable passengers to 

determine which child safety seats can 

be used on those aircraft.’’ 2 This 

rulemaking is within the scope of the 

authority in Public Law 112–95. 

I. Overview of Proposed Rule 

Current regulations regarding the use 

of a child restraint system (CRS) on 

airplanes operating under part 121 are 

found in Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) § 121.311. Under 

the provisions in part 121, no certificate 

holder 3 may prohibit a child from using 

an approved CRS when the caregiver 4

purchases a ticket for the child. 

The FAA strongly encourages the use 

of an FAA-approved CRS on aircraft.5

However, in a small number of cases, an 

approved CRS may not fit in a particular 

airplane seat because of the size of the 

CRS. Accordingly, the FAA has issued 

guidance to facilitate the use of a CRS 

on aircraft in situations when a 

caregiver purchased a ticket for the 

child but the approved CRS that the 

caregiver wishes to use does not fit in 

a particular seat on the aircraft.6

Although the FAA has provided 

guidance to air carriers regarding how to 

accommodate a CRS that does not fit in 

a particular seat, this proposed 

rulemaking would give caregivers 

additional information on whether an 

FAA-approved CRS will fit on the 

airplane on which they expect to travel. 

This rule proposes to require air 

carriers operating under 14 CFR part 

121 that have Web sites to post on their 

Web sites information regarding aircraft 

seat dimensions. Specifically, affected 

air carriers must post the width of the 

widest passenger seat in each class of 

service for each airplane make, model 

and series operated in passengercarrying operations that the air carrier 

permits to be used to accommodate a 

CRS. By requiring air carriers to make 

this information available, the agency 

expects caregivers to have more 

information about whether a specific 

CRS can be used on the aircraft on 

which they expect to travel. 

The FAA emphasizes that this NPRM 

proposes an information disclosure 

requirement only. It does not propose to 

create any new operational 

requirements for air carriers or flight 

attendants. It does not change any 

existing provisions regarding the use of 

CRSs on board airplanes or existing 

regulations regarding passengers under 

the age of 2 traveling on board airplanes 

with or without the use of a CRS. 

In addition, the FAA notes that this 

proposal does not require an air carrier 

to identify the specific airplane that it 

will use on a given flight. Finally, the 

FAA notes that while this rule requires 

air carriers to post certain information to 

their Web sites, it does not require an air 

carrier that does not have a Web site to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18214 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

7http://www.faa.gov/passengers/media/

childsafety.pdf (visited December 6, 2013). 

8H. R. Rep. No. 112–381 (2012) at 80 and 216 

(Conf. Rep.). 

9Part 121 passenger-carrying operations are 

defined in § 110.2 to mean ‘‘any aircraft operation 

carrying any person, unless the only persons on the 

aircraft are those identified in §§ 121.583(a) or 

135.85 of this chapter, as applicable. An aircraft 

used in a passenger-carrying operation may also 

carry cargo or mail in addition to passengers.’’ 

establish a Web site for purposes of this 

rule. 

II. Background 

A. Current Regulations 

Current requirements regarding the 

use of CRSs in part 121 operations are 

found in 14 CFR 121.311. Currently, 

§ 121.311(c)(2) generally states that no 

air carrier may prohibit a child, if 

requested by the child’s caregiver, from 

occupying a CRS furnished by the 

child’s caregiver provided that the child 

holds a ticket for an approved seat or a 

seat is made available by the air carrier 

for the child’s use, the child is 

accompanied by a caregiver and the CRS 

is appropriately labeled and secured. 

However, § 121.311(c)(3) permits air 

carriers to determine the most 

appropriate passenger seat location for a 

CRS based on safe operating practices. 

For example, if an approved CRS, for 

which a ticket has been purchased, does 

not fit in a particular seat on the 

airplane, existing § 121.311 permits an 

air carrier to identify the most 

appropriate alternate forward-facing 

passenger seat location, considering safe 

operating practices. 

In assessing the most appropriate 

location for a CRS, an air carrier must 

consider a number of factors. For 

example, the CRS must be installed in 

a forward-facing aircraft seat in 

accordance with instructions on the 

CRS label. This includes placing the 

CRS in the appropriate forward- or aftfacing direction as indicated on the 

label for the size of the child. A window 

seat is the preferred location; however, 

other locations may be acceptable, 

provided the CRS does not block the 

egress of any passenger, including the 

child’s caregiver, to the aisle used to 

evacuate the airplane. 

B. Public Information and Guidance 

Material 

The FAA encourages the use of an 

approved CRS on aircraft and has 

committed to educate and inform air 

carriers, crewmembers and passengers 

regarding the use of a CRS on aircraft in 

order to increase CRS use on aircraft. 

Accordingly, the FAA provides 

information on its Web site for 

caregivers traveling with children and 

the use of a CRS on aircraft. The public 

information and guidance material is 

intended to be useful to caregivers in 

support of the agency’s commitment 

regarding CRS use. The FAA has 

previously tried to address the issue of 

‘‘CRS fit’’ in airplane seats. For example, 

on its Web site, the FAA states that a 

CRS with a maximum width of 16 

inches should fit in most airplane seats.7

The FAA has also provided guidance 

to air carriers regarding CRS use on 

aircraft and related regulations. 

Advisory Circular (AC) 120–87B, Use of 

Child Restraint Systems on Aircraft, is 

intended to serve as a resource during 

development, implementation, and 

revision of an air carrier’s standard 

operating procedures and training 

programs regarding the use of CRSs. The 

AC provides information on placement 

of a CRS on aircraft that may be 

considered by air carriers as they 

develop policies based on safe operating 

practices establishing certain seat 

locations for a CRS on a specific aircraft. 

For example, AC 120–87B provides 

information for air carriers to consider 

regarding placement of a CRS in an aisle 

seat or in a seat forward or aft of an 

emergency exit row. 

Further, the agency reiterates in AC 

120–87B that no air carrier may prohibit 

a child from using an approved CRS 

when a caregiver purchases a ticket for 

that child. The FAA encourages air 

carriers to allow the use of an empty 

seat to accommodate a CRS; however, 

air carriers are not required to allow 

unticketed children to occupy an empty 

passenger seat, even if the child uses a 

CRS. Prohibiting a ticketed child from 

using a CRS, when there are seats on the 

aircraft in which the CRS could be 

safely used, would be inconsistent with 

§ 121.311. 

The FAA also published Information 

for Operators (InFO) 11007, Regulatory 

Requirements Regarding 

Accommodation of Child Restraint 

Systems—Update, to clarify regulations 

regarding accommodation of CRSs and 

to provide information for a CRS with 

a detachable base. As with AC 120–87B, 

InFO 11007 provides examples of CRS 

design variations and lists possible 

solutions for accommodation. For 

example, a CRS with a base that is too 

wide to fit properly in a seat with rigid 

armrests could be moved to a seat with 

moveable armrests that can be raised to 

accommodate the CRS, and an aft-facing 

CRS that cannot be installed properly, 

because of minimal pitch (distance 

between rows of seats), can be moved to 

a bulkhead seat or a seat in a row with 

additional pitch. 

III. FAA Modernization and Reform 

Act of 2012 

Section 412 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

(Pub. L. 112–95) directs the FAA to 

initiate rulemaking ‘‘[T]o require each 

air carrier operating under part 121 of 

title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to 

post on the Internet Web site of the air 

carrier the maximum dimensions of a 

child safety seat that can be used on 

each aircraft operated by the air carrier 

to enable passengers to determine which 

child safety seats can be used on those 

aircraft.’’ Congress intended this 

rulemaking to ‘‘facilitate the use of child 

safety seats on aircraft’’ and ‘‘enable 

passengers to determine which child 

safety seats can be used on those 

aircraft.’’ 8 This proposal is responsive 

to the requirement for the FAA to 

initiate a rulemaking in Public Law 

112–95. 

IV. Discussion of the Proposal 

The purpose of this proposal is to 

make more information available to 

allow caregivers to make a 

determination regarding CRS fit prior to 

a flight. The agency proposes to require 

air carriers to publish on their Web sites 

the width of the widest passenger seat 

in each class of service for aircraft used 

in passenger-carrying operations. This 

proposed information disclosure 

requirement would supplement current 

regulations that allow the use of an 

approved CRS and FAA guidance to 

caregivers regarding CRS fit in airplane 

seats. This proposed requirement would 

only apply to part 121 air carriers 

conducting passenger-carrying 

operations because all-cargo operations 

have generally been excluded from part 

121 requirements pertaining to 

passengers.9

This proposal also responds to the 

requirement to initiate rulemaking in 

section 412 of Public Law 112–95. The 

FAA considered a number of alternative 

methods by which to implement the 

rulemaking requirements of section 412 

of Public Law 112–95 and discusses 

each below. In considering each 

alternative, the FAA sought to address 

the intent of Congress, respond to the 

informational needs of a caregiver 

traveling with a child using a CRS, and 

ensure that the proposal does not 

unintentionally discourage the use of a 

CRS. 

Airplane passenger seat dimensions: 

Although Public Law 112–95 refers to 

the maximum dimensions of child 

safety seats that can be used on each 

aircraft the operator uses, the FAA has 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18215 

proposed an alternate approach in order 

to implement the statute’s goal to enable 

a passenger to determine which CRS can 

be used on an aircraft. The FAA does 

not believe that it is practical for each 

air carrier to provide the maximum 

dimensions of one or many CRSs the 

carrier does not possess or to which the 

carrier does not have ready access. In 

contrast, air carriers have ready access 

to the airplanes they operate and 

information regarding those aircraft. 

Therefore, the agency proposes to 

require air carriers to provide seat 

dimension data to fulfill the intent of 

the statutory requirement for 

rulemaking. Seat dimension data 

provides information equivalent to CRS 

dimension data that can be used to 

assist caregivers in making a 

determination as to whether a CRS will 

fit in a passenger seat on the aircraft on 

which they expect to travel. 

Further, the agency notes that 

information regarding seat dimensions 

or CRS fit for each individual airplane 

that an air carrier operates is not 

necessary or practical. Although some 

air carriers operate hundreds of 

airplanes, airplanes of the same make, 

model and series typically share the 

same seat dimensions. Given this 

commonality of aircraft within an air 

carrier’s fleet and the absence of a 

requirement for air carriers to identify 

the specific airplane for a specific flight, 

individual airplane information would 

not serve to facilitate CRS use. However, 

seat dimension information for each 

airplane make, model and series that a 

certificate holder uses in passengercarrying operations correlates to the 

information air carriers currently 

provide to passengers for a specific 

flight. 

Airplane passenger seat pitch: The 

FAA believes that the predominant 

passenger seat dimension that limits 

CRS use is the width of the passenger 

seat. In some circumstances, seat pitch 

(distance between rows of seats) can 

affect the use of a CRS that must be used 

in an aft-facing position; however, using 

pitch to determine CRS fit is complex 

and minimally effective without 

additional detail. Air carriers can easily 

provide the distance between rows of 

passenger seats or ‘‘pitch’’. However, an 

aft-facing CRS does not have an 

equivalent measurement to ‘‘pitch’’ as it 

does to ‘‘width’’. In order to be installed 

properly, an aft-facing CRS must be 

installed in an aircraft seat on an angle. 

Aft-facing CRSs have installed level 

indicators (typically a moving ball or 

needle that must stay between two 

lines) that indicate when the CRS is 

properly oriented in the airplane seat. 

Therefore, although seat pitch can affect 

whether there is enough room to 

properly use a rear-facing CRS, it is only 

part of the triangular equation with 

several variables and would make it 

difficult to provide meaningful 

information to a caregiver. 

Additionally, if a rear-facing CRS does 

not fit in a row because of seat pitch, an 

air carrier can move the CRS to a seat 

in a bulkhead row (where pitch is not 

typically an issue), in that same class of 

service, to accommodate the aft-facing 

CRS. Accordingly, the agency is not 

proposing to require air carriers to 

provide information regarding seat 

pitch. 

Airplane passenger seat width for 

each class of service: Given that 

currently when a CRS does not fit 

within the seat for which a caregiver has 

purchased a ticket, the operator must 

accommodate the CRS use within the 

same class of service, the agency 

proposes to require seat dimension 

disclosure for each class of service 

(§ 121.311 and AC 120–87). This 

proposal also specifies that seat width 

information (the distance between the 

seat arm rests) must be provided for 

each class of service due to the potential 

variation in airplane seat widths among 

different classes of service and within a 

single class of service. Further, as 

discussed above, seat width is the 

predominant passenger seat dimension 

that limits CRS fit. 

The agency notes, however, that while 

information regarding an airplane type 

may be provided to passengers prior to 

a flight, this proposal does not require 

an air carrier to identify the specific 

airplane that it will use on a given 

flight. 

Width of the narrowest seat within 

each class of service: The FAA 

considered requiring air carriers to 

provide the width of the narrowest 

passenger seat in each class of service 

for each airplane make, model, and 

series. The FAA reasoned that if a CRS 

fits in the narrowest passenger seat in 

each class of service, then it will fit in 

any seat in that class of service. 

However, the agency is concerned 

that a requirement to disclose the seat 

width dimension for only the narrowest 

seat could create an unintended safety 

consequence. The agency is concerned 

that if a caregiver discovers that the CRS 

they wish to use is wider than the 

published width of the narrowest 

passenger seat, that caregiver might 

choose not to bring the CRS even if, 

unbeknownst to the caregiver, the 

airplane has passenger seats installed 

that are wide enough to accommodate 

the CRS within the same class of 

service. Use of a CRS is the safest way 

for a child to travel on an airplane, and 

the FAA does not wish to implement a 

regulation that might have the 

unintended consequence of causing 

caregivers to forgo the use of CRSs for 

child passengers. 

For instance, a caregiver purchases a 

seat for a child and plans to use a CRS 

for that child. The Web site of the air 

carrier on which the caregiver and child 

are traveling states that the minimum 

width of the seat on the make, model, 

and series of the airplane on which the 

caregiver and child are traveling is 14 

inches. The CRS the caregiver plans to 

use on the airplane is 15 inches wide. 

However, the operator has seats in the 

same class of service that are 16 inches 

wide. In actuality, the CRS would fit in 

the wider seat in the same class of 

service, but the concern of the FAA is 

that the caregiver might choose to not 

bring the CRS for use on the airplane 

because the caregiver believes that the 

CRS would not fit. Alternatively, the 

caregiver might even choose not to 

purchase a separate seat for the child 

and might elect to hold the child, 

provided the child has not reached his 

or her second birthday, as permitted by 

existing regulations. The publication of 

seat dimensions should not discourage 

the use of CRSs. 

Width of the widest seat within each 

class of service: Based on the foregoing 

analysis, the FAA proposes to add a 

paragraph (k) to § 121.311 to require 

each part 121 air carrier to make 

available on its Web site the width of 

the widest passenger seat in each class 

of service for each airplane make, 

model, and series used in passengercarrying operations. The FAA believes 

that disclosure of the width of the 

widest seat in each class of service will 

provide the information necessary for 

caregivers to better determine if the CRS 

they provide for their child will fit in 

the airplane on which they expect to 

travel and thus may encourage more 

widespread use of CRSs in air 

transportation. 

If a caregiver knows the width 

dimension of the widest seat for a 

particular class of service on an 

airplane, and if the CRS the caregiver 

intends to use on the flight fits that 

dimension, then the caregiver would 

know that at least one seat in the class 

of service on the airplane would 

accommodate the CRS. This would 

enable caregivers to have more 

information on which to make a 

decision as to whether to bring the CRS 

for that child’s use. 

Further, the agency expects that 

information regarding seat width will 

address the predominant limiting seat 

dimension. The provision of seat width 

for the widest seat in each class of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18216 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

service serves to avoid the unintended 

consequence of dissuading a caregiver 

to use a CRS and to limit the instances 

in which a caregiver expects to use a 

CRS but cannot, due to fit or the 

operator’s safety determination. 

As noted previously, it is the 

responsibility of the air carrier, and a 

regulatory requirement, to accommodate 

the CRS in another seat in the same 

class of service (§ 121.311(c)(2) and AC 

120–87B). While knowing the width of 

the widest seat is valuable in a 

caregiver’s decision-making process, as 

it indicates whether the CRS would fit 

in a single seat, the FAA notes that a 

CRS that has a base wider than the 

widest seat may still be accommodated 

on an airplane by raising armrests or 

taking other measures where possible. 

Web site disclosure: The FAA notes 

that a number of air carriers currently 

conducting passenger-carrying 

operations already provide seat 

dimension information on their Web 

sites. For example, some air carriers 

currently provide both the pitch and 

width for the passenger seats in each 

class of service. The agency expects, 

however, that the information 

disclosure proposed in this NPRM 

would increase the instances in which 

caregivers are able to pre-determine 

whether a CRS will fit on an airplane 

make, model, and series on which they 

expect to travel. 

As discussed in the guidance material 

associated with this rulemaking, the 

FAA believes that air carriers would use 

existing information pages on their Web 

sites that already provide information 

regarding CRSs to list the width of the 

widest seats for each class of service on 

each airplane make, model, and series 

in their fleet. Based on the FAA’s review 

of aircraft used by affected air carriers, 

the FAA determined that many air 

carriers have seats whose dimensions 

are the same for several airplane makes, 

models, and series. Further, many air 

carriers appear to have only one seat 

size for each class of service for many 

airplane makes, models, and series. 

Finally, the FAA notes that if this rule 

is finalized as proposed, the only time 

air carriers would need to update their 

Web sites after initial implementation 

would be when a new airplane make, 

model, or series is introduced to an air 

carrier’s fleet, or when an air carrier 

replaces the widest seats installed on an 

existing airplane make, model, or series 

with wider or narrower seats. 

Effective Date: The FAA recognizes 

that different operators will need 

different lengths of time to comply with 

this regulation due to variations in 

information technology systems, 

variations in the data that is currently 

published, and the range of numbers of 

airplane make, model and series in each 

operator’s fleet. Therefore, the FAA is 

proposing an effective date of 150 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register. 

Compliance would be required on the 

effective date. The FAA seeks comment 

regarding the proposed effective date. 

Miscellaneous: The agency proposes a 

conforming change to 14 CFR 121.583 to 

make clear that the requirement applies 

in passenger-carrying operations only. 

Request for comments on proposal 

and alternatives: The FAA invites 

commenters to address whether they 

agree with the approach taken in this 

NPRM. In particular, the agency seeks 

comment on the following: 

(1) Whether the disclosure 

requirements proposed in this rule 

provide the most helpful information for 

caregivers to ascertain CRS fit on 

aircraft; 

(2) How disclosure of the width of 

only the narrowest seat in each class of 

service could facilitate CRS without 

discouraging caregivers from using a 

CRS that is larger than the narrowest 

seat; 

(3) Whether disclosure of both the 

narrowest seat and the widest seat in 

each class of service would be more 

effective in achieving the statutory 

intent of facilitating CRS use; and 

(4) Whether disclosure of the width of 

the widest seat on the aircraft or the 

narrowest seat on the aircraft, without 

regard to class of service, would 

facilitate CRS use due to the potential 

accommodations (e.g., moving armrests) 

that can be made to assist with CRS fit. 

Note: The FAA is not suggesting that it 

would ever require an operator to move 

a passenger from one class of service to 

another to accommodate a CRS. 

The agency asks that commenters 

explain how any alternative approach 

would satisfy the statutory requirement 

for rulemaking, provide greater 

information to caregivers to help them 

determine whether a particular CRS will 

fit in an airplane seat, and avoid 

unintentionally discouraging the use of 

a CRS. The FAA may incorporate any 

such recommendations regarding 

alternative approaches into a final rule. 

Part 11 Amendment: The FAA has 

submitted a request for Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval for the information collection 

activities proposed in this rulemaking. 

Assuming OMB approves the 

information collection and assigns an 

OMB control number, the FAA will 

update the table in § 11.201(b) to 

display this control number. 

V. Guidance Documents 

To further implement this NPRM, the 

FAA is proposing to revise several 

guidance documents to include the 

availability of information for air 

carriers regarding compliance with the 

proposed rule. Specifically, the FAA is 

proposing to revise AC 120–87B, Use of 

Child Restraint Systems on Aircraft, and 

InFO 11007, Regulatory Requirements 

Regarding Accommodation of Child 

Restraint Systems—Update. The draft 

revised AC and draft revised InFO have 

been placed in the electronic docket of 

this rulemaking. Persons wishing to 

provide comments regarding the draft 

revised AC and InFO may do so by 

following the comment process 

discussed in the DATES and ADDRESSES

sections of this rulemaking. 

VI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Agreements Act requires agencies to 

consider international standards and, 

where appropriate, that they be the basis 

of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this proposed rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it to be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18217 

10Child Passenger Safety Forum, National 

Transportation Safety Board, December 9, 2010, 

Summary Report at page 3. 

11See 70 FR 50266, Aug. 26, 2005. A copy of the 

Report to Congress has been placed in the docket. 

12 ‘‘Update of Safety Benefits & Tradeoffs Related 

to Requiring the Use of Child Restraint Systems on 

Aircraft for Children Less Than Two Years of Age’’ 

December, 2011. http://www.dot.gov/faac/report/

update-safety-benefits-tradeoffs-related. 

13FAA data from Q3, FY 2012. 

14Although only 58 carriers are impacted by this 

rule, a total of 59 Web sites are affected. While 

Southwest Airlines and AirTran Airways share a 

single operating certificate, they continue to 

maintain separate Web sites for ticket sales. 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this proposed rule. The reasoning for 

this determination follows. 

The FAA estimates that children 

under the age of two represent one 

percent of all commercial passengers.10

When travelling by air, caregivers for 

these children may purchase either one 

ticket (which requires the child to sit in 

the caregiver’s lap) or two tickets (which 

allows a child to be securely restrained 

in a CRS). The agency does not have the 

exact count of passengers younger than 

two or whether those passengers arrived 

at their destination sitting in the lap of 

a caregiver or secured in an aircraft seat 

using either a CRS or a lap belt. 

For child safety purposes, the FAA 

encourages (but does not require) 

caregivers to purchase a separate ticket 

for each child under the age of two so 

that the child can be securely restrained 

in a CRS. This guidance is based on the 

FAA’s analysis that if caregivers are 

forced to purchase airline seats for 

children under age 2, the additional cost 

of an airline ticket will motivate some 

families to drive to their destination 

instead of fly. As background, in Section 

522 of Public Law 103–305, Congress 

required the Secretary of Transportation 

to study the impact of mandating the 

use of CRSs for children under 2 years 

old on scheduled air carriers. The 

Secretary submitted a report of this 

study to Congress in 1995. The report 

estimated that, if a child restraint rule 

were imposed, approximately five infant 

lives would be saved aboard aircraft, 

and two major injuries and four minor 

injuries would be avoided over a 10- 

year period. The report also cautioned 

that this improvement would be offset 

by additional highway fatalities for 

airline passengers who chose to drive 

rather than purchase a seat for infants. 

Even if infant fares were only 25 percent 

of full fare, the report estimated that 

there would be diversion to cars and 

thus a net increase in fatalities over a 

10-year period. The concern expressed 

in the Report to Congress was that 

mandating CRSs (which require a 

passenger seat) could increase airline 

travel costs to families with infants 

enough to cause a significant number to 

travel by automobile instead of by air. 

This, in turn, would expose the entire 

family to the higher risks of automobile 

travel and associated highway fatalities 

and injuries.11 The FAA updated this 

report in December, 2011, and 

confirmed its conclusion.12

Currently, air carriers are not required 

to disclose seat dimension information 

on their Web sites. It is believed that 

some caregivers choose not to travel 

with a CRS due to concern that the seat 

will not fit the particular equipment 

being flown. Congress directed the FAA 

to conduct rulemaking ‘‘[T]o require 

each air carrier operating under part 

121, to post on the Internet Web site of 

the air carrier the maximum dimensions 

of a child safety seat that can be used 

to enable passengers to determine which 

child safety seats can be used on those 

aircraft.’’ See Public Law 95–112. Once 

implemented, this rule would require 

each part 121 air carrier that conducts 

passenger-carrying operations to post 

seat dimension information to their Web 

site (air carriers that do not have Web 

sites are excluded from this rule). This 

rule will benefit caregivers by making 

seat dimension information accessible, 

which in turn will allow them to 

determine if a particular CRS will fit in 

a seat of an aircraft. A caregiver may be 

inclined to purchase a separate ticket for 

a child knowing that the child can be 

secured in a CRS during flight. 

The FAA considered several 

alternatives for determining the type of 

seat dimension information to be posted 

on air carrier Web sites. One alternative 

required the width of each seat in each 

class of service for each individual 

airplane operated by an air carrier be 

posted on its Web site. While this 

alternative would provide the most 

precise information to caregivers, the 

FAA believes that maintaining this 

much detail to be unnecessarily onerous 

for the air carriers because multiple 

seats of the same width can be found in 

each class of service. Further, in order 

for this information to be useful, there 

can be no change in a flight’s equipment 

from the time a ticket is purchased to 

the time of the flight’s departure. 

Another alternative required air 

carriers to publish only one 

dimension—that of the narrowest seat 

across an air carrier’s entire fleet. This 

alternative, however, would only allow 

a caregiver to determine if there may be 

a possibility of a particular CRS fitting 

a particular airline seat on a particular 

flight. The FAA believes that providing 

the dimension of the narrowest seat 

only across an entire fleet would not 

facilitate CRS use because a caregiver 

with a CRS larger than the narrowest 

seat may be discouraged from using a 

CRS, even though there may be wider 

seats available that could accommodate 

the CRS. Therefore this approach would 

not meet the intent of Congress when it 

mandated disclosure of seat dimensions. 

After considering the alternatives, the 

FAA decided that the information to be 

posted on air carrier Web sites should 

provide caregivers with data to facilitate 

CRS use but should not be overly 

burdensome for the air carriers. Based 

on these criteria, this rulemaking 

proposes to require an air carrier to post 

on its Web site the width of the widest 

seat for each make, model, and series of 

aircraft in each class of service in the air 

carrier’s fleet. This level of detail is 

reasonable given that most air carriers 

already disclose other airplane-related 

dimensions on their Web sites, 

including dimensions for overhead bins, 

space underneath seats, maximum size 

of carry-on luggage, and maximum size 

for pet carriers. Because of the level of 

detail air carriers are already providing, 

the FAA believes that the requirements 

of this rule will be a minimal impact to 

those part 121 air carriers conducting 

passenger-carrying operations. 

To provide a range of costs to comply 

with this rule, estimates for a low case 

and a high case were prepared. In the 

low case, over a ten-year period the cost 

to the industry from this rulemaking 

will be about $208 thousand in 2012 

dollars ($152 thousand at seven percent 

present value). In the high case the cost 

is estimated to be approximately $357 

thousand in 2012 dollars ($260 

thousand at seven percent present 

value). In both the low and high case, 

this rule is considered to be minimal 

cost for part 121 operators. 

The FAA reports there to be 81 part 

121 air carriers; 13 however only 58 14 of 

these air carriers are impacted by this 

rule. Excluded from this rule’s analysis 

are 16 supplemental cargo carriers; 5 air 

carriers that have not reported any 

passengers to the DOT Bureau of 

Transport Statistics (BTS) since at least 

October 2012 (4 of which primarily fly 

cargo but are certificated to fly 

passengers); 1 air carrier that has ceased 

operations and filed for bankruptcy; and 

1 air carrier that does not have an 

internet Web site (air carriers that do not 

have Web sites are exempt from this 

rule). The FAA notes that while 

Southwest Airlines and AirTran 

Airways hold a single operating 

certificate, for purposes of this analysis 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18218 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

15Based on United States Department of Labor, 

Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Codes. 

16Final Regulatory Analysis, Consumer 

Rulemaking: Enhancing Airline Passenger 

Protections II at p. 43. This document can be found 

in Docket No. DOT–OST–2010–0140 or at http://

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOTOST-2010-0140-2046. 

17 76 FR 23110, April 25, 2011. 

18To estimate costs for this rule, labor hours are 

composed of staff hours and management hours. 

Staff hours are assumed to be performed by BLS Job 

Series 15–1140—Database and Systems 

Administrators and Network Architects. 

Management hours are performed by BLS Job Series 

15–3021—Computer and Information Systems 

Managers. 19See footnote 14. 

they will be treated as separate entities 

since separate Web sites are maintained. 

To determine the cost of this rule, 

hours are estimated for each 

occupational job series 15 required to 

complete the task. The estimated hours 

are then multiplied by the United States 

Department of Labor Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) fully-burdened hourly 

wage rate for the corresponding 

occupational job series. Thus, the rule’s 

total cost equals hours worked 

multiplied by hourly wages, summed 

across all part 121 air carriers affected 

by this rule. Additional detail on how 

this cost estimate is constructed follows. 

As the basis for this rulemaking, the 

FAA used assumptions regarding job 

skills and labor hours from the 

regulatory analysis 16 for the DOT’s 

recent ‘‘Enhancing Airline Passenger 

Protections’’ 17 rule. One provision of 

the DOT’s rule required an air carrier to 

post on its Web site a tarmac delay plan 

and a customer commitment plan. The 

FAA believes that the skills and labor 

hours necessary to post seat dimension 

information to an air carrier’s Web site 

are similar to those estimated for 

posting a tarmac delay plan and 

customer commitment plan. During the 

first year of the DOT rule’s 

implementation, it was estimated that it 

would take a computer programmer and 

a supervisor/manager a total of 8 hours 

to post the customer commitment plan 

and tarmac delay plan to an air carrier’s 

Web site. The FAA is using the DOT 

estimate as the foundation for the time 

required to perform the work required to 

comply with the seat dimension 

disclosure rule, if finalized as proposed. 

To show a range of costs that may be 

incurred by air carriers due to this 

rulemaking, the FAA prepared a lowcase and high-case estimate.18 The 

variable that changes between the two 

cases is the assumption for base staff 

hours. In the low case it is assumed that 

a minimum of 8.0 base staff hours are 

required for an air carrier to comply 

with the rule whereas the high case 

assumes a minimum of 16.0 base staff 

hours. The assumption for wages is held 

constant and does not vary between the 

low case and high case. It is important 

to note that even in the high case, the 

rule is still expected to be minimal cost. 

Estimation of Hours—Year 1 

It is assumed that the time required 

for an air carrier to revise its Web site 

to include seat dimension information is 

most labor intensive during the first 

year of the rule’s implementation. The 

estimated hours to comply with this 

rule for year 1 are allocated between 

work performed by staff versus work 

performed by management. 

Staff Hours: Staff hours are comprised 

of two components: base hours and 

variable hours. Base hours are 

dependent upon whether an air carrier 

has (or does not have) a Web site link 

to fleet information at the time the rule 

goes into effect. Variable hours fluctuate 

according to the count of make, model, 

and series of aircraft in an air carrier’s 

fleet. 

Base Hours: Base hours are dependent 

upon whether an air carrier does or does 

not have a link to fleet information at 

the time the rule is implemented. In the 

low case, it is assumed that 8.0 base 

hours are required to bring a Web site 

into compliance for those air carriers 

that already have a link to fleet 

information at the time the rule goes 

into effect. For air carriers that do not 

have a link to fleet information at the 

time the rule is implemented it is 

assumed that base hours will total 16.0. 

For the high case, the base hours 

required for an air carrier to comply 

with the rule is assumed to be twice that 

of the low case. Thus, in the high case, 

base hours for air carriers that already 

have a link to fleet information are 

assumed to be 16.0; for those air carriers 

without a link to fleet information at the 

time of the rule’s implementation base 

hours are assumed to total 32.0. 

Variable Hours: Variable hours 

fluctuate according to the count of 

different make, model, and series of 

aircraft each air carrier has in its fleet. 

(For example, for an A319–100, the 

make is Airbus; the model is 319; the 

series is 100.) It is assumed an 

additional 0.5 hours of staff time beyond 

the base hour component is required for 

gathering and analyzing seat dimension 

information for each make, model, and 

series of aircraft in an air carrier’s fleet. 

The rationale for the variable hour 

component is that it builds in additional 

time (and thus costs) for air carriers that 

have multiple aircraft types compared to 

air carriers that may operate only one 

make, model, and series of aircraft. 

Unlike base hours, which have separate 

assumptions for the low and high case, 

variable hours are fixed for each air 

carrier and will remain the same for 

both the low and high case. 

Next, for illustrative purposes, an 

example is provided to show the 

calculation of the low-case estimate for 

a single air carrier’s staff hours during 

the initial year the rule is in effect. This 

example is based on the following two 

assumptions: 1) the air carrier already 

has a link to fleet information on its 

Web site; 2) the air carrier operates a 

fleet of 15 different make, model, and 

series of aircraft. Based on these 

assumptions, the estimated staff hours 

total 15.5. The 15.5 hours is composed 

of 8 base hours (because the air carrier 

already has a link to fleet information) 

plus 7.5 variable hours (0.5 hours * 15 

different make/model/series of aircraft). 

If the first assumption in the example is 

changed to assume that the air carrier 

does not already have a Web site link to 

its fleet information, the estimated 

hours would total 23.5 (16 base hours 

plus 7.5 variable hours). 

Of the 59 Web sites 19 included in this 

analysis, 53 have a dedicated link to 

information regarding fleet 

specifications and 6 (3 belonging to 

scheduled air carriers and 3 belonging 

to nonscheduled air carriers) do not. 

The count of make, model, and series of 

aircraft operated by any one air carrier 

ranges from one to seventeen. 

Management Hours: Management 

oversight is required by each air carrier 

to verify that the update to the Web site 

has been completed. In terms of hours, 

it is assumed that each of the 59 Web 

sites will require two hours of 

management review time to verify 

accuracy of data. This assumption is the 

same for both the low and high case. 

Estimation of Hours—Years 2 Through 

10 

For years 2 through 10 of this rule it 

is assumed that through the ordinary 

course of business less time is required, 

relative to year 1, to maintain the 

accuracy of seat dimension information 

posted to an air carrier’s Web site. 

During this timeframe, it is established 

that air carriers with Web sites have 

already posted seat dimension 

information; thus air carriers may only 

need to revise the data periodically. 

Staff Hours: There is only one 

component for staff hours in the low 

and high case during the follow-on 

years of the rulemaking. For the low 

case, it is estimated that each of the air 

carriers will require 4 staff hours 

annually for posting revised data. In the 

high case, the estimated hours for the 

low case are doubled, for a total of 8 

staff hours per year. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18219 

20Total hourly compensation is the sum of wages 

plus benefits. 

21As reported in the April 2012 Occupational 

Employment Statistics Survey. 

Management Hours: Management 

hours required for oversight during 

years 2 through 10 is estimated to be 

one hour per year. This estimate is the 

same for both the low and high case. 

TABLE 1—ASSUMPTIONS

[Hours required per air carrier to implement and update web site] 

Year Does the air carrier’s pre-mandate web 

layout have a link to fleet? 

Staff hours 

Low case High case Mgmt. hours 

Base Variable Base Variable 

1 ............... Yes ................................................................ 8 0.5 16 0.5 2 

No .................................................................. 16 32 

2–10 ......... Not Applicable ............................................... 4 N/A 8 N/A 1 

The FAA seeks comment on its 

assumption of hours required for an air 

carrier to post seat dimension 

information to its Web site. 

Staff and Management Wages—Years 1 

Through 10 

The total cost to air carriers for 

compliance with this rule is the sum of 

compensation 20 to staff and 

management for hours worked. To 

determine compensation for 

performance of this work, BLS data are 

used. Based on BLS job titles,21 it is 

assumed that staff work is performed by 

Database and System Administrators 

and Network Architects (BLS Job Series 

15–1140), and manager oversight is 

performed by Computer and 

Information Systems Managers (BLS Job 

Series 11–3021). 

Of the 59 Web sites included in this 

analysis, 41 of the Web sites belong to 

air carriers engaged in scheduled 

operations and 18 Web sites belong to 

air carriers engaged in nonscheduled 

operations. It is necessary to calculate 

hours for scheduled carriers 

independently of nonscheduled carriers 

since labor costs vary between the two. 

The following table shows fullyburdened rates for these two job series 

for scheduled versus nonscheduled air 

carriers. 

TABLE 2—ASSUMPTIONS

[Hourly wage and benefits compensation*] 

NAICS** Job 

series 

Job 

category Job title Hourly wage Benefits *** Total hourly compensation 

481100 Scheduled Air 

Transportation.

15–1140 Staff ......... Database and System Administrators 

and Network Architects.

$42.14 $17.80 $59.94 

11–3021 Mgmt. ...... Computer and Information System 

Managers.

61.81 26.11 87.92 

481200 Nonscheduled 

Air Transportation.

15–1140 Staff ......... Database and System Administrators 

and Network Architects.

33.94 14.34 48.28 

11–3021 Mgmt. ...... Computer and Information System 

Managers.

48.65 20.55 69.20 

* Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics April 2012 Occupational Employment Statistics Survey (released in May 2013) 

(http:/stat.bls.gov/oes/home.htm). 

** North American Industry Classification System—U.S. Census Bureau. 

*** Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics News Release dated June 12, 2013 ‘‘Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—March 2013’’ Page 3—Table A. Hourly wage rates are 70.3 percent of total hourly compensation. (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/

archives/ecec_06122013.pdf). 

For the low case, multiplying hours 

required annually for each carrier to 

comply with this rule by the fullyburdened hourly wage rate over a tenyear period totals a cost of 

approximately $208 thousand in 2012 

dollars ($152 thousand at 7 percent 

present value). For the high case, the 

rule costs approximately $357 thousand 

($260 thousand at 7 percent present 

value). During calendar year 2012, the 

operating revenues for 48 of the affected 

carriers were just over $159 billion 

(operating revenues for the remaining 10 

carriers were not available). Tables 3 

and 4 summarize the low and high case 

costs for years 1 through 10. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18220 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

22Based on Form 41 Schedule P10 Statistics and 

air carrier Web sites. 

23Based on Department of Transportation 

Statistics Form 41 and 298C Financial Data. 

The FAA considers these costs to be 

minimal. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

establishes ‘‘as a principle of regulatory 

issuance that agencies shall endeavor, 

consistent with the objectives of the rule 

and of applicable statutes, to fit 

regulatory and informational 

requirements to the scale of the 

businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) small entity size standard for air 

carriers is 1,500 employees or less. Of 

the 58 part 121 air carriers analyzed for 

this rule, 25 are classified as large 

entities and 20 as small entities.22

Employment statistics for the 13 

remaining air carriers are not available; 

however, for purposes of the regulatory 

flexibility analysis, it is assumed that 

these 13 air carriers are small entities 

(for a total of 33 small entities). Since a 

majority of the air carriers analyzed for 

this rule are classified as small entities, 

the rule is expected to impact a 

substantial number of small entities. 

For this regulatory flexibility analysis, 

calendar year (CY) 2012 operating 

revenues 23 were compared to the 

estimated costs during year 1 of the rule. 

Of the 33 air carriers considered to be 

small entities, operating revenue data 

were only available for 23 of them. For 

the 23 air carriers reporting financial 

data to BTS, the estimated cost of this 

rule was no greater than .03 percent of 

any carrier’s CY 2012 operating 

revenues. The FAA believes a 

compliance cost of .03 percent relative 

to annual revenue is not a significant 

economic impact. 

Therefore, as provided in section 

605(b), the head of the FAA certifies 

that this rulemaking will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

C. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector; such a mandate is 

deemed to be a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action.’’ The FAA currently uses an 

inflation-adjusted value of $151.0 

million in lieu of $100 million. This 

proposed rule would not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II do not apply. 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. 

According to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 and regulations 

implementing the Act (5 CFR part 1320), 

an agency may not collect or sponsor 

the collection of information, nor may it 

impose an information collection 

requirement unless it displays a 

currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) control number. 

This action contains the following 

proposed new information collection 

requirements. As required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP01AP14.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18221 

U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted 

these proposed information collection 

amendments to OMB for its review. 

Summary: The FAA proposes to 

require air carriers conducting domestic, 

flag, and supplemental operations to 

make available on their Web sites the 

width of the widest passenger seat in 

each class of service for each airplane 

make, model, and series, used in 

passenger-carrying operations. If 

finalized as proposed, this rule amends 

14 CFR 121.311. 

Use: This rule is intended to facilitate 

the use of child restraint systems 

onboard airplanes. If finalized as 

proposed, this rule would provide 

greater information to caregivers to help 

them determine whether a particular 

child restraint system will fit on a 

particular airplane. 

Respondents (including number of): 

Respondents include each affected part 

121 scheduled and nonscheduled 

passenger-carrying air carrier, which are 

58. 

Frequency: Each affected air carrier 

must comply with this rule after it is 

finalized. Once this rule is initially 

implemented, the only time air carriers 

would need to update their Web sites 

would be when a new airplane make, 

model, or series is introduced or when 

the widest seat in a class of service in 

a currently listed make, model, or series 

of airplane is replaced with a larger or 

smaller seat. 

Annual Burden Estimate: All of the 

costs accounted for in the economic 

analysis for this rulemaking relate to the 

information collection burden. A 

summary of the annual burden estimate 

for the low case and the high case 

expected to result from this proposal for 

years 1, 2, and 3 by carrier type 

(scheduled and nonscheduled) is 

provided in the tables below. 

Additional detail regarding the annual 

burden is provided in the regulatory 

evaluation discussion provided in this 

preamble (Section VI. Regulatory 

Notices and Analyses, A. Regulatory 

Evaluation) as well as the Supporting 

Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act 

Submissions associated with this 

rulemaking. 

The agency is soliciting comments 

to— 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

information requirement is necessary for 

the proper performance of the functions 

of the agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of collecting 

information on those who are to 

respond, including by using appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

Individuals and organizations may 

send comments on the information 

collection-related aspects of this 

rulemaking to the address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this preamble by June 30, 2014. 

Comments also should be submitted to 

the Office of Management and Budget, 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for FAA, 

New Executive Office Building, Room 

10202, 725 17th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20053. 

E. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP01AP14.001</GPH>
18222 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this proposed rule 

and has determined that it would have 

little or no effect on international trade. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these proposed 

regulations. 

G. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

(77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes 

international regulatory cooperation to 

meet shared challenges involving 

health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609, and has determined that 

this action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

H. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

VII. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has determined that this action 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, or the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, and, 

therefore, would not have Federalism 

implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it would not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and would not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

VIII. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from adopting 

the proposals in this document. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the proposal, explain 

the reason for any recommended 

change, and include supporting data. To 

ensure the docket does not contain 

duplicate comments, commenters 

should send only one copy of written 

comments, or if comments are filed 

electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on this proposal, the FAA will consider 

all comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The FAA 

will consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. The agency may 

change this proposal in light of the 

comments it receives. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information: Commenters should not 

file proprietary or confidential business 

information in the docket. Such 

information must be sent or delivered 

directly to the person identified in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this document, and marked as 

proprietary or confidential. If submitting 

information on a disk or CD ROM, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD ROM, and 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

proprietary or confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, the agency does not 

place it in the docket. It is held in a 

separate file to which the public does 

not have access, and the FAA places a 

note in the docket that it has received 

it. If the FAA receives a request to 

examine or copy this information, it 

treats it as any other request under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552). The FAA processes such a request 

under Department of Transportation 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Federal Digital System at 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121 

Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 

Charter flights, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend part 121 of title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 121—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, 

AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 121 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 

40113, 40119, 41706, 42301 preceding note 

added by Pub. L. 112–95, sec. 412, 126 Stat. 

89, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709– 

44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 46105; 

Pub. L. 111–216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 

44701 note). 

■ 2. Amend § 121.311 by adding a new 

paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18223 

§ 121.311 Seats, safety belts, and shoulder 

harnesses. 

* * * * * 

(k) Each air carrier that conducts 

operations under this part and that has 

a Web site must make available on its 

Web site the width of the widest 

passenger seat in each class of service 

for each airplane make, model and 

series operated by that air carrier in 

passenger-carrying operations. 

■ 3. Amend § 121.583 by revising 

paragraph (a) introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 121.583 Carriage of persons without 

compliance with the passenger-carrying 

requirements of this part. 

(a) When authorized by the certificate 

holder, the following persons, but no 

others, may be carried aboard an 

airplane without complying with the 

passenger-carrying airplane 

requirements in §§ 121.309(f), 121.310, 

121.311(k), 121.391, 121.571, and 

121.587; the passenger-carrying 

operation requirements in part 117 and 

§§ 121.157(c) and 121.291; and the 

requirements pertaining to passengers in 

§§ 121.285, 121.313(f), 121.317, 121.547, 

and 121.573: 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 

44701(a), and 49 U.S.C. 42301 preceding note 

added by Public Law 112–95, sec. 412, 126 

Stat. 89 on March 25, 2014. 

John S. Duncan, 

Director, Flight Standards Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–07172 Filed 3–31–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 284 

[Docket No. RM14–2–000] 

Coordination of the Scheduling 

Processes of Interstate Natural Gas 

Pipelines and Public Utilities 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, DOE. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 

proposing, as part of a series of orders, 

to revise its regulations at section 284.12 

to better coordinate the scheduling of 

natural gas and electricity markets in 

light of increased reliance on natural gas 

for electric generation, as well as to 

provide additional flexibility to all 

shippers on interstate natural gas 

pipelines. The proposed revisions in 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

deal principally with revision of the 

operating day and scheduling practices 

used by interstate pipelines to schedule 

natural gas transportation service. These 

proposed revisions affect the business 

practices of the natural gas industry, 

which the industry has developed 

through the North American Energy 

Standards Board, and which the 

Commission has incorporated by 

reference into its regulations. The 

Commission, therefore, is providing the 

natural gas and electric industries with 

six months to reach consensus on 

standards, consistent with the 

Commission’s guidance, including any 

revisions or modifications to the 

proposals provided herein. 

DATES: Comments are due November 28, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by 

docket number, may be filed in the 

following ways: 

• Electronic Filing through http://

www.ferc.gov. Documents created 

electronically using word processing 

software should be filed in native 

applications or print-to-PDF format and 

not in a scanned format. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable 

to file electronically may mail or handdeliver comments to: Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Comment Procedures Section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Maranville (Legal Information), 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Office of the General 

Counsel, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, 202–502– 

6351 

Anna Fernandez (Legal Information), 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Office of the General 

Counsel, 888 First Street 

NE.,Washington, DC 20426, 202– 

502–6682 

Caroline Daly Wozniak (Technical 

Information), Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Office of 

Energy Policy and Innovation, 888 

First Street NE., Washington, DC 

20426, 202–502–8931 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission 

Table of Contents 

Paragraph 

Nos. 

I. Background ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 

A. Current Natural Gas and Electric Scheduling Systems ........................................................................................................ 13 

1. Nationwide Scheduling for Natural Gas Interstate Pipeline Transportation ............................................................... 13 

2. Electric Scheduling .......................................................................................................................................................... 19 

3. Commission Conferences ................................................................................................................................................ 22 

II. Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 

A. Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................. 27 

B. Gas Day .................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 

1. Background and Issues .................................................................................................................................................... 36 

2. Commission Proposal ...................................................................................................................................................... 39 

C. Natural Gas Transportation Timely Nomination Cycle ........................................................................................................ 41 

1. Background and Issues .................................................................................................................................................... 41 

2. Commission Proposal ...................................................................................................................................................... 48 

D. Modified Intra-Day Nomination Timeline ............................................................................................................................ 55 

1. Background and Comments Received ............................................................................................................................ 55 

2. Commission Proposal ...................................................................................................................................................... 63 

E. Clarification Regarding the ‘‘No-Bump’’ Rule for Pipelines with Enhanced Nomination Services .................................. 71 

F. Multi-Party Transportation Contracts .................................................................................................................................... 76 

III. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards ...................................................................................................................... 82 

IV. Information Collection Statement ................................................................................................................................................ 83 

V. Environmental Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................ 87 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS