```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 189 (Wednesday, September 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58575-58586]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24720]

[[Page 58575]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 11 and 121

[Docket No.: FAA-2014-0205; Amdt. Nos. 11-57 and 121-373]
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), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule requires air carriers conducting domestic, 
flag, and supplemental operations to make available on their Web sites 
information to enable passengers to determine which child restraint 
system can be used on airplanes in these operations. Specifically, this 
final rule requires air carriers to make available on their Web sites 
the width of the narrowest and widest passenger seats in each class of 
service for each make, model and series of airplane used in passenger-
carrying operations.

DATES: This rule is effective October 30, 2015. Compliance with this 
rule is required February 29, 2016.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking 
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How 
To Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this action, contact Catherine Burnett, Flight Standards Service, 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, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
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

    Section 412 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. 
L. 112-95) \1\ (the Act) 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 promulgated under the scope of the authority in 
section 412 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Codified as a preceding note to 49 U.S.C. 42301, 126 Stat. 
89.
    \2\ Section 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 final rule uses the term child restraint system 
(CRS), rather than child safety seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the authority found in the Act, the FAA has 
authority under Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) to issue 
rules on aviation safety. 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 consistent with 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.

I. Overview of the Final Rule

    Existing regulations regarding the use of a child restraint system 
(CRS) on airplanes operating under part 121 are found in 14 CFR 
121.311. In accordance with Sec.  121.311, no certificate holder \3\ 
conducting operations under part 121 may prohibit a child from using an 
approved CRS when the child's caregiver \4\ purchases a ticket for the 
child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 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. This final rule uses the term ``air carrier'' to 
refer to these persons.
    \4\ Section 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 final rule to refer to these 
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the CRS exceeds the 
dimensions of the airplane seat. Accordingly, the FAA has issued 
guidance to facilitate the use of a CRS on airplanes 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 
airplane.6 7 Although the FAA has provided guidance to air 
carriers regarding how to accommodate a CRS, this rulemaking would give 
caregivers additional information on whether an FAA-approved CRS will 
fit on the airplane on which they expect to travel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_children/crs/ (visited 
March 26, 2015).
    \6\ Advisory Circular (AC) 120-87B, Use of Child Restraint 
Systems on Aircraft (September 17, 2010). The agency has revised and 
updated this AC. The revised and updated AC, published with this 
final rule, is identified as AC 120-87C. All ACs can be found at 
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/.
    \7\ 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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule requires air carriers operating under 14 CFR part 121 
that have Web sites to post on their Web sites information regarding 
airplane seat dimensions. The FAA notes, however, that this rule does 
not require an air carrier that does not have a Web site to establish a 
Web site to satisfy the information disclosure requirements of this 
final rule.
    Specifically, affected air carriers must post the width of the 
narrowest and widest passenger seats in each class of service for each 
airplane make, model and series operated in passenger-carrying 
operations. 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 airplane on which they expect 
to travel.
    The FAA emphasizes that this rule includes an information 
disclosure requirement only. It does not create any new operational 
requirements for air carriers or flight attendants; it does not change 
any existing provisions regarding the use of a CRS 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; and, it 
does not require an air carrier to identify the specific airplane that 
it will use on a given flight.
    This final rulemaking is minimal cost and is estimated to be 
$372,600 over a ten-year period ($271,800 present value).

[[Page 58576]]

II. Background

A. Existing Requirements

    Existing requirements regarding CRS use in part 121 operations are 
found in 14 CFR 121.311. Section 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 following conditions are satisfied: 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. (Certificate holders 
are encouraged to allow the use of an empty seat to accommodate a CRS; 
however, they are not required to allow non-ticketed children to occupy 
empty passenger seats, even if the child uses a CRS.)
    Under Sec.  121.311(c)(3), however, air carriers may determine the 
most appropriate passenger seat location for a CRS based on 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 airplane seat in accordance 
with the provisions of Sec.  121.311. This includes placing the CRS in 
the appropriate forward or aft-facing 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 airplanes and has 
committed to educate and inform passengers, air carriers and 
crewmembers regarding CRS use on airplanes in order to increase their 
use on airplanes. Accordingly, the FAA provides information on its Web 
site for caregivers traveling with children on the use of a CRS on 
airplanes. The public information and guidance material are intended to 
be useful to caregivers in support of the agency's commitment regarding 
CRS use. For example, the FAA has previously addressed the issue of 
``CRS fit'' in airplane seats on the FAA Web site by informing 
caregivers that a CRS with a maximum width of 16 inches should fit in 
most airplane seats.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ http://www.faa.gov/passengers/media/childsafety.pdf (visited 
July 8, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, on November 3, 2005, the FAA published Advisory 
Circular (AC) 120-87, Use of Child Restraint Systems on Aircraft, to 
serve as a resource during development, implementation, and revision of 
an air carrier's standard operating procedures and training programs 
regarding CRS use. The FAA has since published two amended versions of 
the AC. AC 120-87A was published on December 1, 2006 and AC 120-87B was 
published on September 17, 2010. The AC provides information on 
placement of a CRS on airplanes that may be considered by air carriers 
as they develop policies regarding seat locations for CRS use on a 
specific airplane. The AC also explains how placement of a CRS in an 
aisle seat or in a seat forward or aft of an emergency exit row may 
affect egress during an evacuation. Further, the AC emphasizes the 
carrier's discretion in identifying the most appropriate forward-facing 
passenger seat location for a CRS but explains that prohibiting the use 
of a CRS by a ticketed child, when there are seats where the CRS could 
be used safely, is not consistent with Sec.  121.311. The FAA will 
publish updated AC 120-87C with this final rule to address the seat 
dimension disclosure requirements of this final rule.
    The FAA also published Information for Operators (InFO) 11007, 
Regulatory Requirements Regarding Accommodation of Child Restraint 
Systems--Update, to clarify regulations regarding CRS accommodation and 
to provide information for a CRS with a detachable base. As with AC 
120-87, 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. The FAA will publish an updated InFO so that it remains 
consistent with the requirements of this final rule.

C. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

    Section 412 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. 
L. 112-95) (the Act) 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.'' To 
fulfill the requirements of the Act, the FAA proposed to require air 
carriers operating under part 121 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 passenger-carrying 
operations (79 FR 18212, April 1, 2014). The agency intended the 
proposed revisions to part 121 to provide greater information to 
caregivers to help them determine whether a particular CRS will fit in 
an airplane seat. This proposal would not have affected existing 
regulations regarding the use of a CRS on board airplanes or a 
passenger under the age of 2 traveling onboard airplanes with or 
without the use of a CRS. The NPRM provided a public comment period of 
90 days, which ended on June 30, 2014.

D. General Overview of Comments

    The FAA received ten comments. Commenters included three 
individuals, Airlines for America (A4A), the American Automobile 
Association (AAA), the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), Baby 
B'Air, Consumers Union, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 
and Spirit Airlines (Spirit). All of the commenters generally supported 
the proposed changes; however, some suggested changes, as addressed in 
the section of the document entitled, ``Discussion of Public Comments 
and Final Rule.''
    The FAA received comments on the following general issue areas 
related to the proposal:
     Disclosure of the width of the narrowest seat in addition 
to the proposal to disclose the width of the widest seat in each class 
of service;
     Disclosure of the width of the narrowest seat in lieu of 
the proposal to disclose the width of the widest seat in each class of 
service;
     Disclosure of seat pitch in addition to the proposal to 
disclose seat width;
     Airplane equipment changes that result in seat 
measurements different from the measurements relied upon for a seat 
previously purchased;
     Definition of ``seat width''; and
     Commonality of seat dimensions (within the same class of 
service) among an air carrier's airplanes within the same make, model 
and series.
    Several commenters addressed issues outside of the scope of this 
rulemaking. These issues included discussion of a requirement for all 
passengers including infants to be properly secured in their

[[Page 58577]]

own seats with an approved safety restraint.

III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

    This rulemaking satisfies the rulemaking requirement of section 412 
of the Act by making more information available to allow caregivers to 
make a determination regarding CRS fit prior to a flight. In the NPRM, 
the agency proposed to require air carriers conducting passenger 
operations under part 121 to disclose on their Web sites the width of 
the widest passenger seat in each class of service for each airplane 
make, model and series within the air carrier's fleet. The proposal was 
limited in its applicability 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\ See 14 CFR 121.583. The agency notes that the proposed 
information disclosure requirement would supplement existing 
regulations that allow the use of an approved CRS and FAA guidance to 
caregivers regarding CRS fit in airplane seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Part 121 passenger-carrying operations are defined in Sec.  
110.2 to mean ``any aircraft operation carrying any person, unless 
the only persons on the aircraft are those identified in Sec. Sec.  
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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule differs from the proposal in two respects. First, 
whereas the proposal required disclosure of only the widest seat in 
each class of service, the final rule requires disclosure of both the 
widest and the narrowest seats in each class of service. Second, the 
final rule clarifies the measurement of seat width. The agency 
addresses these modifications in more detail in the discussions 
entitled ``Disclosure of width of the widest and narrowest seats in 
each class of service'' and ``Definition of seat width'' respectively.

A. Airplane Passenger Seat Dimensions

    Although section 412 of the Act refers to the maximum dimensions of 
child safety seats that can be used on each aircraft the operator uses, 
the FAA proposed an alternate approach in the NPRM in order to 
implement the statute's goal to enable a passenger to determine which 
CRS can be used on an airplane. 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 proposed 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 
airplane on which they expect to travel.
    The agency did not receive any comments objecting to the proposal 
to provide seat dimension information and A4A specifically supported 
it. Accordingly, in the final rule, the FAA has maintained the NPRM 
approach to providing seat dimension information.

B. Disclosure of Seat Dimensions for Each Class of Service for Each 
Make, Model and Series of Airplane Used for Passenger-Carrying 
Operations

    In the NPRM, the agency proposed to amend Sec.  121.311 by adding a 
requirement for air carriers to disclose seat dimension information for 
each class of service for each airplane make, model and series that a 
certificate holder uses in passenger-carrying operations.
    Class of service--Spirit noted that while it has only one class of 
service, within that class it offers wider seats at a higher price. 
Spirit's concern is that publishing the dimensions of these higher-
priced seats could mislead passengers, causing them to believe that the 
higher priced seats are available without paying an additional fee.
    The FAA appreciates Spirit's comments but has determined that class 
of service is the most relevant break point for information disclosure 
as it remains the prevailing concept used to distinguish seat products, 
including the seat size variations and amenities that are associated 
with those products. It has also been the agency's longstanding policy 
that CRS accommodation need only be made within the same class of 
service as the ticket holder's class of service in order to comply with 
Sec.  121.311(c)(2). See AC 120-87. Thus, disclosure of seat dimension 
information for each class of service correlates to the existing air 
carrier obligations for CRS accommodation. The DOT defines ``class of 
service'' to mean seating in the same cabin class such as First, 
Business, or Economy class, or in the same seating zone if the carrier 
has more than one seating product in the same cabin such as Economy and 
Premium Economy class.
    The agency recognizes, however, that there may be seat product 
concepts that are analogous to the distinction in classes of service 
for purposes of CRS accommodation and that they may be relevant to the 
assessment of CRS accommodation. The agency will address these 
analogous seat product concepts and their relevance to CRS 
accommodation in revised CRS guidance material published with this 
final rule (AC 120-87C).
    The purpose of this final rule is to facilitate CRS use on 
airplanes through disclosure of seat dimensions. Consistent with this 
goal, the agency encourages air carriers to provide any additional 
information to their customers that would further facilitate CRS use on 
airplanes.
    Airplane substitutions and airplane equipment (passenger seats)--
Two commenters (NTSB and AAA) expressed concern about airplane 
substitutions and the absence of a requirement for air carriers to 
disclose the make, model and series for each flight. NTSB noted that 
the NPRM does not address situations in which an air carrier makes an 
airplane substitution and the substitution airplane has different types 
of seats with measurements that differ from the measurements relied 
upon for a seat previously purchased for the intended use of a CRS. AAA 
suggested that the FAA should require air carriers to provide a list of 
potential planes used for particular routes, as this could provide 
consumers with information more relevant and useful in planning travel. 
Consumers Union recommended that air carriers should identify the 
airplane that will be used for each segment of a flight, whether that 
segment is operated by the air carrier with which the consumer is 
dealing directly, or by some other air carrier with which the first air 
carrier has a code-sharing or other partnership arrangement.
    In related comments, A4A and Spirit disagreed with FAA's 
information about the commonality of seat dimensions among an air 
carrier's airplanes of the same make, model and series. A4A stated, 
``The widths of the widest and narrowest passenger seats may vary 
within a given aircraft series and operated by the same carrier 
depending on the particular model of seats installed on the aircraft.'' 
Similarly, Spirit commented that its 29 Airbus A319-100 airplanes are 
equipped with different seat models that differ in width.
    The information disclosure requirements in this final rule balance 
the directive to facilitate CRS use and the necessary operational 
flexibility that air carriers must have to substitute

[[Page 58578]]

airplanes as they determine appropriate. Currently, there is no 
requirement for air carriers to disclose in advance of a flight, the 
specific airplane that will be used for that flight, and such a 
requirement is outside of the scope of this rulemaking. Without such a 
requirement, additional seat information disclosure requirements 
applicable to each specific airplane in an air carrier's fleet would 
not further facilitate CRS use.
    While the agency agrees with comments indicating that not every 
airplane of the same make, model and series used by a particular air 
carrier may be equipped with the same seat model, and that some may 
differ in size, after further review of airplanes used by affected air 
carriers, the FAA determined that in many cases, there is commonality 
in seat dimensions for airplanes of the same make, model, and series 
operated by an air carrier. Therefore, this final rule leverages the 
commonality that does exist among aircraft seats to provide caregivers 
with the most helpful information regarding CRS fit.
    Additionally, in the example cited by Spirit where there may be 
varying models of seats on a particular make, model and series of 
aircraft, Spirit would still only have to post two measurements. In 
Spirit's example, the make is Airbus, the model is 319 and the series 
is 100. If, hypothetically, there were three or four different models 
of seats with varying widths on their entire A-319-100 fleet, in order 
to comply with the requirements of this final rule, Spirit would only 
have to post the dimensions of the narrowest seat and the widest seat 
in each class of service for their entire fleet of A-319-100s.
    Accordingly, the final rule retains the proposed requirement to 
disclose seat information for each class of service for each airplane 
make, model, and series operated by the air carrier in passenger 
carrying operations.

C. Disclosure of Width of the Widest and Narrowest Seats in Each Class 
of Service

    In the NPRM, the agency proposed to require air carriers to 
disclose the width of the widest passenger seat in each class of 
service because width is the predominant limiting seat dimension for 
CRS use on airplanes. Also, if a caregiver knew the width dimension of 
the widest seat for a particular class of service on an airplane, and 
if the CRS the caregiver intended to use on the flight fits within that 
dimension, then the caregiver would be able to expect that at least one 
seat in the class of service for which the caregiver and child were 
ticketed would accommodate the CRS.
    The agency also sought comment on alternative proposals pertaining 
to the disclosure of seat width. Specifically, the agency asked whether 
disclosure of only the narrowest seat in each class of service or 
disclosure of both narrowest seat and the widest seat in each class of 
service would be more effective in facilitating CRS use.
    Two commenters (an individual and Spirit) recommended that the FAA 
modify the proposal by requiring air carriers to disclose the 
dimensions of the narrowest seat in each class of service rather than 
the widest. An individual commenter noted that if a CRS will fit in the 
narrowest seat in a particular class of service, it will fit in all 
seats in that class. Spirit offered a similar argument and added that 
disclosure of the widest seat in each class of service would lead to 
passenger confusion about the availability of the widest seats.
    Four commenters (A4A, AFA, NTSB and Consumers Union) recommended 
modifying the proposal by requiring air carriers to disclose the widths 
of both the narrowest and widest seats in each class of service because 
such a requirement would further the goal of providing the most useful 
information to caregivers.
    A4A suggested that disclosure of dimensions of only the widest seat 
on an aircraft could lead caregivers to mistakenly assume that their 
CRS will fit in their reserved seat if it is smaller than the 
dimensions of the widest seat available, and that such 
misunderstandings could lead to airplane boarding delays. A4A also 
noted that disclosure of only the widest seat could discourage 
caregivers from using a CRS based on concern that they may not be 
assigned to that widest seat. Further, A4A commented that provision of 
the widths of both the narrowest and widest seats in each class of 
service provides caregivers a more complete picture of the dimensions 
of the entire seat class, enabling them to make more informed decisions 
pertaining to CRS use.
    AFA commented that requiring disclosure of both dimensions would 
more effectively achieve the statutory intent of facilitating CRS use. 
AFA did not support disclosure of only the widest seat in each class of 
service.
    NTSB commented that providing the width for both the narrowest and 
widest seats in each class of service for seats in which a CRS could be 
installed would give caregivers more useful information. NTSB explained 
that this additional information could enable the caregiver to work 
with the air carrier to determine the most suitable seat assignment. 
NTSB also commented that providing the dimensions of the narrowest 
seats could help CRS manufacturers to develop or identify a CRS that 
can fit in any air carrier seat, thereby assisting caregivers in 
procuring a CRS suitable for air travel.
    Consumers Union generally supports a requirement to disclose seat 
dimension information, but added that a better approach would be to 
require disclosure of all the dimensions of all available seats on an 
airplane to enable the consumer to select an appropriate seat from all 
available seats.
    While the FAA recognizes that other seat dimensions may limit CRS 
fit on some occasions, seat width remains the predominant limiting 
dimension for CRS use in an airplane seat and thus remains the focus of 
this rulemaking. However, upon further consideration of the proposal 
and review of comments, the FAA agrees with comments regarding the 
benefits of disclosure of the width of both the narrowest and widest 
seat in each class of service for each airplane make, model and series. 
Disclosure of the widths of both the narrowest and widest seats in each 
class of service would be more effective in achieving the statutory 
intent of facilitating CRS use. Thus, the final rule requires each air 
carrier to make available on its Web site the width of both the 
narrowest and widest passenger seats in each class of service, for each 
airplane make, model, and series used in passenger-carrying operations 
under part 121. Disclosure of the width of the narrowest and widest 
seats in each class of service will enable 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 will encourage more 
widespread use of a CRS in air transportation.
    Finally, NTSB commented that ``[I]nformation should only be 
provided for seats in which an approved CRS would be allowed to be 
installed.'' The NTSB noted that CRS use is typically not permitted in 
exit rows and aisle seats so as not to affect emergency egress. The FAA 
agrees with the intent of the NTSB comment and recognizes the 
importance of information about potential limitations on CRS use.
    Some air carriers currently publish information regarding 
regulatory restrictions or approved operating procedures that limit CRS 
use in specific airplane locations (e.g. exit rows, seats that are not 
forward facing,

[[Page 58579]]

aisle seats).\10\ In the updated guidance material published with this 
final rule (AC 120-87C), the agency encourages all air carriers to 
provide passengers with such information. The agency emphasizes that 
under Sec.  121.311(c) and as further explained in AC 120-87C (and 
previous editions of this AC), the FAA permits air carriers to 
determine the most appropriate passenger seat location for a CRS, 
consistent with safe operating practices. Although some limits on CRS 
location may be aircraft-specific and thus consistently applied across 
aircraft of the same make, model and series, in other cases, the air 
carrier determination regarding CRS location may be operation-specific. 
Air carriers must retain the operational flexibility to adjust their 
procedures regarding CRS placement and make real-time determinations 
regarding CRS placement as necessary to comply with safe operating 
practices. Thus given the necessity for air carriers to retain the 
flexibility to determine appropriate seat locations for CRS use, the 
suggested modification to the requirement for seat information on the 
air carrier's Web site would not further facilitate CRS use and result 
in an unnecessary burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 14 CFR 121.585(b) prohibits CRS use in exit rows and 14 CFR 
121.311(b) only allows use of CRS in forward-facing seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Definition of Seat Width

    A4A stated that the NPRM did not define seat width and suggests 
that the FAA include a definition of ``seat width'' in the final rule 
to avoid confusion. A4A recommended that seat width should be measured 
as the distance between the inside of the seat arm rests.
    Although the NPRM preamble identified seat width as the distance 
between arm rests, to ensure clarity, the amendment to Sec.  121.311 
will include a definition of seat width applicable to seat dimension 
disclosure requirements. Consistent with the A4A comment and the NPRM 
preamble, the definition will specify that seat width is the distance 
between the inside of the seat arm rests.

E. Seat Pitch

    In the NPRM, the FAA considered requiring disclosure of seat pitch 
(distance between rows of seats); however the agency determined that 
the predominant passenger seat dimension that limits CRS use is the 
width of the passenger seat.
    Three commenters--NTSB, Consumers Union and AAA--recommended that 
the FAA require disclosure of seat pitch in addition to seat width, as 
seat pitch may be the limiting dimension in situations involving a 
rear-facing CRS. The agency acknowledges that in some circumstances, 
seat pitch can affect the use of a CRS that must be used in an aft-
facing position, but using pitch to determine CRS fit is complex and 
minimally effective without additional detail.
    Air carriers may be able to provide the distance between rows of 
passenger seats or ``pitch'' and some air carriers currently do so. 
However, as stated in the NPRM, a rear-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. An aft-facing CRS has an installed level 
indicator (typically a moving ball or needle that must stay between two 
lines) that indicates when the CRS is properly oriented in the airplane 
seat. Therefore, although seat pitch can affect whether there is enough 
room to properly use an aft-facing CRS, it is only part of the 
triangular equation with several variables which makes it difficult for 
seat pitch data to provide meaningful information to a caregiver. (The 
agency notes that one way to accommodate an aft-facing CRS that does 
not fit in a row because of seat pitch, is for the air carrier to move 
the CRS to a seat in a bulkhead row where pitch is not typically an 
issue.)
    Based on the foregoing and consistent with the proposal, the final 
rule does not require air carriers to provide information regarding 
seat pitch.

F. Disclosure of Seat Dimensions on Air Carrier Web Sites

    Consistent with the requirement for rulemaking in section 412 of 
the Act, the agency proposed to require air carriers that have Web 
sites to disclose on those Web sites certain seat dimension data. The 
final rule includes this disclosure requirement.
    In the NPRM, the FAA noted 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 the NPRM and included in this final 
rule will increase the instances in which caregivers are able to assess 
whether a CRS will fit on an airplane make, model, and series on which 
they expect to travel.
    Air carriers may use existing information pages on their Web sites 
that already provide information regarding airplane cabin interior 
dimensions and CRSs to list the width of the widest and narrowest seats 
for each class of service on each airplane make, model, and series in 
their fleets.
    The only time an air carrier would need to update its Web site 
after initial implementation would be when a new airplane make, model, 
or series is introduced to the air carrier's fleet, or when the air 
carrier replaces the widest or narrowest seats installed on an existing 
airplane make, model, or series with wider or narrower seats.
    Consumers Union stated that it is insufficient to require seat 
dimension information to be disclosed only on air carrier Web sites and 
recommended making such information available ``[E]verywhere a consumer 
might purchase a ticket or change a flight.'' While the FAA appreciates 
the intent behind this comment, this rule is promulgated under the 
authority of section 412 of the Act, which requires the FAA to initiate 
rulemaking to require air carriers conducting part 121 operations to 
make certain information available on those air carriers' Web sites. 
Therefore, as proposed, the final rule will require seat information 
disclosure on the air carrier's Web site only.

G. Passenger Seat Requirements

    Three commenters--Consumers Union, NTSB, and AFA--suggested that 
the ultimate goal should be to mandate that all passengers including 
infants be properly secured in their own seats with approved safety 
restraints. Consumers Union added that as an interim step, air carriers 
should facilitate and encourage CRS use by offering seats at no cost or 
a drastically reduced cost for infants and toddlers under the age of 
two.
    The FAA appreciates the intent of these comments and strongly 
encourages the use of a CRS on airplanes through multiple outreach 
efforts. However, this comment recommends changes to current passenger 
seating requirements that are outside of the scope of the information 
disclosure NPRM that preceded this final rule.

H. Miscellaneous

    The FAA proposed a conforming change to 14 CFR 121.583 to make 
clear that the requirement applies in passenger-carrying operations 
only. The FAA did not receive any comments on this proposed conforming 
change and has included it in the final rule.

I. Part 11 Amendment

    The FAA submitted a request for Office of Management and Budget

[[Page 58580]]

(OMB) approval for the information collection activities in this final 
rule. OMB has approved the information collection and assigned OMB 
control number 2120-0760. Accordingly, the FAA is updating the table in 
Sec.  11.201(b) to display this control number.

J. 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 currently published data, 
and the range of numbers of airplane make, model and series in each 
operator's fleet. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed an effective date of 
150 days after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register and proposed to require compliance on the effective date.
    While the FAA did not receive any comments on the proposed 
effective and compliance dates, further review of this issue led the 
FAA to conclude that the effective date of the final rule should be 30 
days after publication. Accordingly, the final rule will be effective 
30 days after publication in the Federal Register, and compliance will 
be 150 days after publication of the final rule.

IV. 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 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 of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this rule. The reasoning for 
this determination follows.
    The FAA estimates that children under the age of two represent one 
percent of all commercial passengers.\11\ When travelling by air, a 
caregiver for a child under the age of two may choose either to fly 
with the child seated in the caregiver's lap (at no additional fee for 
the caregiver), or to purchase a separate ticket for the child, thus 
allowing the child to be secured in his or her own seat, with or 
without the use of a CRS. The agency does not have the exact count of 
passengers younger than two or whether those passengers arrived at 
their destinations sitting in the lap of a caregiver or secured in a 
separate airplane seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Child Passenger Safety Forum, National Transportation 
Safety Board, December 9, 2010, Summary Report at page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 
The FAA does not require the use of CRS for children under the age of 
two based on the FAA's analysis which shows that when 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 destinations instead of to fly. As background, section 
522 of Public Law 103-305, 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 
children under age 2. 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 1995 report on mandating the use of 
CRSs for children under 2 years old, was that mandating CRSs (which 
require a passenger seat) could increase airline travel costs to 
families with children under age 2 enough to cause a significant number 
to travel by automobile instead of by airplane. In turn, this would 
expose the entire family to the higher risks of automobile travel and 
associated highway fatalities and injuries.\12\ The FAA updated this 
report in December, 2011, and confirmed its conclusion.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 70 FR 50266, Aug. 26, 2005. A copy of the Report to 
Congress has been placed in the docket.
    \13\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 112-95. 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 may fit in a seat 
of an aircraft. A caregiver may be inclined to purchase a separate 
ticket for a child under age 2 if the caregiver can reasonably expect 
that the child under age 2 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

[[Page 58581]]

maintaining this much detail to be unnecessarily onerous for the air 
carriers because multiple seats of the same width can be found within 
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 
one. 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 and comments 
to the proposed rule, the final rule requires an air carrier to post on 
its Web site the width of the narrowest and widest seats 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 the requirements of this rule to be a 
minimal impact to those part 121 air carriers conducting passenger-
carrying operations.
    In the proposed rule air carriers were required to provide only the 
dimension of the widest seat for each make, model, and series of 
aircraft. The FAA received no comments on the cost-benefit methodology 
and estimates.
    To account for the inclusion of providing the narrowest seat 
dimension in addition to that of the widest, the costs of the final 
rule exceed those estimated for the proposed rule. The cost increase is 
a result of the additional workload required by staff to gather and 
post to an air carrier's Web site the dimension of the narrowest seat 
dimension for each make, model, and series of aircraft operated by an 
air carrier, in addition to that of the widest. The FAA assumes that 
this activity does not impact the time estimated in the NPRM for 
management to verify that a carrier's Web site has been updated 
satisfactorily. Thus, adding the narrowest seat dimension to a 
carrier's Web site for the final rule increases present value costs 
beyond those of the NPRM by $6,500 for the low case, and $7,600 for the 
high case (in 2013 dollars).
    The FAA reports there to be 81 part 121 air carriers; \14\ however, 
only 58 of the 81 air carriers are impacted by this rule. Excluded from 
this rule's analysis are 21 cargo carriers; 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 
do not need to comply with this rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ FAA data from Q4, FY 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Further detail on the 
estimation of costs is provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Based on United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics Occupational Codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the basis of costs for this rulemaking, the FAA used assumptions 
regarding job skills and labor hours from the regulatory analysis \16\ 
for the DOT's ``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's implementation of the ``Enhancing 
Airline Passenger Protections'' rule, 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 basis for 
the time required for air carriers to comply with the seat dimension 
disclosure rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Final 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=DOT-OST-2010-0140-2046.
    \17\ 76 FR 23110, April 25, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To show a range of costs for the 58 air carriers affected by this 
rulemaking, the FAA first estimated a low and high case of hours worked 
by staff (database and systems administrators) and management.\18\ The 
estimated hours consist of two components: Base hours and variable 
hours. The base hour component is applicable to both staff and 
management. For staff, base hours represent the time it takes to 
identify the tasks required to post seat dimension disclosure 
information to an air carrier's Web site. For management, base hours 
represent the time expended verifying that Web sites are in compliance 
with this rulemaking. Base hours are assumed to be equal across all air 
carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ To 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The variable hour component is only applicable to the staff labor 
group. It accounts for the incremental labor required to make Web sites 
compliant to this rule for air carriers operating a fleet of multiple 
aircraft makes, models, and series, versus those that may operate only 
one make, model, and series of aircraft. Thus, the variable hour 
component increases for each make, model and series of aircraft 
operated by an individual carrier. Total costs of this rule are 
calculated by multiplying the hours expended for each of the labor 
groups by their respective hourly compensation, which are then summed 
across all carriers.
    Following is a more detailed description of the estimated hours and 
costs by labor group. It is important to note that even for the high 
case, this final rule is still expected to be minimal cost.
Estimate of Hours for Year 1
    The FAA expects 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 include work performed by the staff and 
management labor groups.
    Staff Hours: As in the NPRM, the low and high case base hour 
component for staff labor totals 8 and 16 hours, respectively, for each 
of the 58 air carriers. However, the variable hour

[[Page 58582]]

component used to estimate costs for the NPRM is doubled for the final 
rule, going from 0.5 hours per make, model and series of aircraft in an 
air carrier's fleet to 1.0 hour. The doubling of this component is 
based on the FAA decision to require air carriers to disclose on their 
Web sites the width of the narrowest seat for each make, model, and 
series of aircraft, in addition to the requirement for air carriers to 
disclose the width of the widest seat. The variable hour component does 
not vary between the low and high case.
    As an example, an air carrier operating 3 make, model, and series 
of aircraft will expend 11 hours complying with this rule for the low 
case and 19 hours for the high case.\19\ In the low case, the 11 hours 
is made up of 8 base hours plus 3 variable hours (1 variable hour for 
each of the 3 make, model, and series of aircraft). In the high case, 
base hours are doubled to 16 hours, while the variable hours remain the 
same as in the low case at 3 hours, for a total of 19 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For example, for an A319-100, the make is Airbus; the model 
is 319; the series is 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Management Hours: Management oversight is required by each air 
carrier to verify that the update to the Web site has been completed 
satisfactorily. As in the NPRM, it is assumed that each of the 58 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.
Estimate of Hours for Years 2 Through 10
    For years 2 through 10, the FAA determined that 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: For the low case, we use the same NPRM estimate of 
four staff hours annually for posting revised data. For the high case, 
staff hours worked are double that of the low case, for a total of 8 
staff hours per year.
    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 Revise Website
                                                                      [Years 1-10]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Low case                                                    High case
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Year of rule             Staff base      Mgmt. base                      Staff base
                                      hours           hours      Variable hours       hours            Mgmt. base hours             Variable hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................             8.0             2.0           * 1.0            16.0  same as low case...........  same as low case.
2-10...........................             4.0             1.0             N/A             8.0  same as low case...........  N/A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This example is representative of a carrier with one make, model and series of aircraft. This number increases based on the count of different
  aircraft makes, models, and series.

Staff and Management Wages--Years 1 Through 10
    The total cost for air carriers to comply with this rule is the sum 
of compensation paid \20\ to staff and management for hours worked. The 
FAA determined, based on BLS job titles,\21\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Total hourly compensation is the sum of wages plus 
benefits.
    \21\ As reported in the April 2014 Occupational Employment 
Statistics Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since BLS reports average labor costs for scheduled air carriers 
independently of those for nonscheduled air carriers, estimated hours 
worked are tallied individually as well. Of the 58 Web sites in this 
analysis, 42 are for air carriers engaged in scheduled operations while 
the remaining 16 Web sites are for air carriers engaged in nonscheduled 
operations. The following table shows the fully-burdened rates used to 
estimate costs for the scheduled and nonscheduled air carrier groups.

                                              Table 2--Assumptions: Hourly Wage and Benefits Compensation *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           Total hourly
               NAICS **                  Job series         Job category                Job title           Hourly wage    Benefits ***    compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
481100 Scheduled Air Transportation...      15-1140  Staff....................  Database and System               $44.97          $19.00          $63.97
                                                                                 Administrators and
                                                                                 Network Architects.
                                            11-3021  Mgmt.....................  Computer and Information          $63.37          $26.77          $90.14
                                                                                 System Managers.
481200 Nonscheduled Air Transportation      15-1140  Staff....................  Database and System               $35.21          $14.88          $50.09
                                                                                 Administrators and
                                                                                 Network Architects.
                                            11-3021  Mgmt.....................  Computer and Information          $53.43          $22.57          $76.00
                                                                                 System Managers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics April 2014 Occupational Employment Statistics Survey (released in May 2013) (www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm).
** North American Industry Classification System--US Census Bureau.
*** Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics News Release dated June 12, 2014 ``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).

[[Page 58583]]

    For the low case, multiplying hours required annually for each 
carrier to comply with this rule by the fully-burdened hourly wage rate 
over a ten-year period (and summed across all 58 air carriers) totals 
approximately $219 thousand in 2013 dollars ($161 thousand at 7 percent 
present value). For the high case, the rule costs approximately $373 
thousand ($272 thousand at 7 percent present value), when summed across 
all carriers. This compares to operating revenues totaling just under 
$165 billion for 54 reporting air carriers (operating revenues for 4 of 
the air carriers affected by this rule were not available). Tables 3 
and 4 summarize the low and high case costs for years 1 through 10. The 
FAA considers these costs to be minimal.

                                                             Table 3--Low Case Cost Estimate
                                                             [In thousands of 2013 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                  Total
                         Year                             1        2        3        4        5        6        7        8        9        10      cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scheduled Air Carrier:
    Staff Compensation...............................    $30.7    $10.7    $10.7    $10.7    $10.7    $10.7    $10.7    $10.7    $10.7    $10.7   $127.4
    Management Compensation..........................      7.6      3.8      3.8      3.8      3.8      3.8      3.8      3.8      3.8      3.8     41.6
Nonscheduled Air Carrier:
    Staff Compensation...............................     $7.9     $3.2     $3.2     $3.2     $3.2     $3.2     $3.2     $3.2     $3.2     $3.2    $36.7
    Management Compensation..........................      2.4      1.2      1.2      1.2      1.2      1.2      1.2      1.2      1.2      1.2     13.4
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Costs..................................    $48.6    $19.0    $19.0    $19.0    $19.0    $19.0    $19.0    $19.0    $19.0    $19.0   $219.2
        Present Value--7%............................     45.4     16.6     15.5     14.5     13.5     12.6     11.8     11.0     10.3      9.6    160.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                            Table 4--High Case Cost Estimate
                                                             [In thousands of 2013 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                  Total
                         Year                             1        2        3        4        5        6        7        8        9        10      cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scheduled Air Carrier:
    Staff Compensation...............................    $52.2    $21.5    $21.5    $21.5    $21.5    $21.5    $21.5    $21.5    $21.5    $21.5   $245.6
    Management Compensation..........................      7.6      3.8      3.8      3.8      3.8      3.8      3.8      3.8      3.8      3.8     41.6
Nonscheduled Air Carrier:
    Staff Compensation...............................    $14.3     $6.4     $6.4     $6.4     $6.4     $6.4     $6.4     $6.4     $6.4     $6.4    $72.0
    Management Compensation..........................      2.4      1.2      1.2      1.2      1.2      1.2      1.2      1.2      1.2      1.2     13.4
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Costs..................................    $76.5    $32.9    $32.9    $32.9    $32.9    $32.9    $32.9    $32.9    $32.9    $32.9   $372.6
        Present Value--7%............................     71.5     28.7     26.9     25.1     23.5     21.9     20.5     19.2     17.9     16.7    271.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In comparison, NPRM costs in 2013 dollars totaled $211 thousand for 
the low case ($154 thousand at 7 percent present value), and $362 
thousand for the high case ($264 thousand at 7 percent present value).
    This final rule addresses Congressional direction that requires air 
carriers to make available on their Web sites information to enable 
passengers to determine which child restraint system can be used on 
airplanes in passenger carrying operations. Industry comments to the 
NPRM generally support the changes required by Congress. Since this 
rule is mandated by Congress, the FAA believes that the benefits exceed 
the costs.

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-for-profit 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, 23 are classified as large entities 
and 27 as small entities.\22\ Employment statistics for the 8 remaining 
air carriers are not available; however, for purposes of the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, it is assumed that these 8 air carriers are small 
entities (for a total of 35 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Based on air carrier filings to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation on Form 41, Schedule P10 ``Employment Statistics by 
Labor Category'' For the air carriers that did not provide 
employment statistics to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the 
Web site www.aviationreferencedesk.com was used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this regulatory flexibility analysis, calendar year (CY) 2013 
operating revenues \23\ were compared to the

[[Page 58584]]

estimated compliance cost for the high case during year 1 of the rule. 
Of the 35 air carriers considered to be small entities, operating 
revenue data were only available for 31 of them. For the 31 air 
carriers reporting financial data to the BTS, the highest compliance 
cost of this final rule for any one carrier was estimated to be $1,524 
in 2013 dollars and no greater than .06 percent of any carrier's CY 
2013 operating revenues. The FAA believes a compliance cost of .06 
percent relative to annual revenue is not a significant economic 
impact. There were no comments to the NPRM concerning the determination 
of no significant economic impact made in the initial regulatory 
flexibility determination. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Based on air carrier filings to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation on Form 41, Schedule P1.2 ``Statement of Operations'' 
or Form 298C, Schedule F-1 ``Report of Financial Data''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $155.0 million in lieu of 
$100 million. This final rule does 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 final rule will impose the following new information 
collection requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA submitted these information 
collection amendments to OMB for its review. OMB approved these new 
information collection requirements associated with this final rule and 
assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0760.
    Summary: The rule will require air carriers conducting domestic, 
flag, and supplemental operations to make available on their Web sites 
the width of the narrowest and widest passenger seats in each class of 
service for each airplane make, model, and series, used in passenger-
carrying operations. This rule amends 14 CFR 121.311.
    Use: This rule is intended to facilitate CRS use onboard airplanes. 
This rule will provide greater information to caregivers to help them 
determine whether a particular CRS 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. 
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 narrowest or 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 final rule for 
years 1, 2, and 3 by carrier type (scheduled and nonscheduled) is 
provided in the tables below.

                                          Table 5-- Total Paperwork Hours for Years 1, 2 and 3 by Carrier Type
                                                              [Scheduled vs. Nonscheduled]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          Hours
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Hours                                   Scheduled carriers           Nonscheduled carriers              Total hours
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Staff     Mgmt      Total     Staff     Mgmt      Total     Staff     Mgmt      Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Case:
    Year 1....................................................       480        84       564       157        32       189       637       116       753
    Year 2-3..................................................       168        42       210        64        16        80       232        58       290
High Case:
    Year 1....................................................       816        84       900       285        32       317     1,101       116     1,217
    Year 2-3..................................................       336        42       378       128        16       144       464        58       522
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                          Table 6-- Total Paperwork Costs for Years 1, 2 and 3 by Carrier Type
                                                              [Scheduled vs. Nonscheduled]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Costs  (in 2013 dollars)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Scheduled carriers           Nonscheduled carriers                   Total costs
                        Costs                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                 Present
                                                        Staff     Mgmt      Total     Staff     Mgmt      Total     Staff     Mgmt      Total     value
                                                                                                                                                  (7%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Case:
    Year 1..........................................   $30,706    $7,572   $38,278    $7,864    $2,432   $10,296   $38,570   $10,004   $48,574   $45,396

[[Page 58585]]

 
    Year 2..........................................    10,747     3,786    14,533     3,206     1,216     4,422    13,953     5,002    18,955    16,556
    Year 3..........................................    10,747     3,786    14,533     3,206     1,216     4,422    13,953     5,002    18,955    15,473
High Case:
    Year 1..........................................   $52,200    $7,752   $59,772   $14,276    $2,432   $16,708   $66,476   $10,004   $76,480   $71,476
    Year 2..........................................    21,494     3,786    25,280     6,412     1,216     7,628    27,905     5,002    32,907    28,743
    Year 3..........................................    21,494     3,786    25,280     6,412     1,216     7,628    27,905     5,002    32,907    26,862
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 did not receive any public comments on this rule's 
information collection requirements.

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 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 rule and has determined that it 
follows the direction of Congress, which may improve safety and thus is 
not considered as an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.

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 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 will have no effect on international regulatory 
cooperation.

H. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F 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 5-5.6 and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.

VII. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of 
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this 
action will 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 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 
will not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order 
and will not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

VIII. Additional Information

A. Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the 
docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic 
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's 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.).

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

[[Page 58586]]

by calling (202) 267-9677. Commenters must identify the docket or 
notice number of this rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this 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

14 CFR Part 11

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 11--GENERAL RULEMAKING PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40109, 
40113, 44110, 44502, 44701-44702, 44711, and 46102.

0
2. In Sec.  11.201, in paragraph (b), revise the entry to Part 121 to 
read as follows:

Sec.  11.201  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers 
assigned under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Part or section identified and
              described                    Current OMB control number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Part 121.............................  2120-0008, 2120-0028, 2120-0535,
                                        2120-0571, 2120-0600, 2120-0606,
                                        2120-0614, 2120-0616, 2120-0631,
                                        2120-0651, 2120-0653, 2120-0691,
                                        2120-0702, 2120-0739, 2120-0760
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL 
OPERATIONS

0
3. 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, 44729, 44732; 46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 
(49 U.S.C. 44701 note); Pub. L. 112-95 126 Stat 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732 
note).

0
4. In Sec.  121.311, add paragraph (k) to read as follows:

Sec.  121.311  Seats, safety belts, and shoulder harnesses.

* * * * *
    (k) Seat dimension disclosure. (1) 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 narrowest and widest passenger seats 
in each class of service for each airplane make, model and series 
operated by that air carrier in passenger-carrying operations.
    (2) For purposes of paragraph (k)(1) of this section, the width of 
a passenger seat means the distance between the inside of the armrests 
for that seat.

0
5. In Sec.  121.583, revise paragraph (a) introductory text to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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 
Sec. Sec.  121.309(f), 121.310, 121.391, 121.571, and 121.587; the 
passenger-carrying operation requirements in part 117 and Sec. Sec.  
121.157(c) and 121.291; the requirements pertaining to passengers in 
Sec. Sec.  121.285, 121.313(f), 121.317, 121.547, and 121.573; and the 
information disclosure requirements in Sec.  121.311(k):
* * * * *

    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 September 18, 2015.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-24720 Filed 9-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```