Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 58575 

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 final rule 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. This final rule 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 final rule to refer to these persons. 

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

crs/ (visited March 26, 2015). 

6Advisory 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/. 

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. 

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 § 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. 

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 FAAapproved CRS will fit on the airplane on 

which they expect to travel. 

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 passengercarrying 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). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

58576 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

8http://www.faa.gov/passengers/media/

childsafety.pdf (visited July 8, 2015). 

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 § 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 

§ 121.311. 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 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

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 § 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 passengercarrying 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 58577 

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.’’ 

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. 

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 § 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 

§ 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

58578 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 58579 

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. 

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 § 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 aircraftspecific 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. 

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 § 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 aftfacing 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

58580 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

11Child Passenger Safety Forum, National 

Transportation Safety Board, December 9, 2010, 

Summary Report at page 3. 

12See 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. 

(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 § 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. 

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

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 58581 

14FAA data from Q4, FY 2014. 

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. 

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). 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

58582 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

19For example, for an A319–100, the make is 

Airbus; the model is 319; the series is 100. 

20Total hourly compensation is the sum of wages 

plus benefits. 

21As reported in the April 2014 Occupational 

Employment Statistics Survey. 

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. 

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] 

Year of rule 

Low case High case 

Staff base 

hours 

Mgmt. base 

hours Variable hours Staff base 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). 

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 * 

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.

$44.97 $19.00 $63.97 

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

System Managers.

$63.37 $26.77 $90.14 

481200 Nonscheduled Air 

Transportation.

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

Architects.

$35.21 $14.88 $50.09 

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

System Managers.

$53.43 $22.57 $76.00 

* 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). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 58583 

22Based 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. 

23Based on air carrier filings to the U.S. 

Department of Transportation on Form 41, 

Continued 

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 (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] 

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 

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] 

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 

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-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, 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. 

For this regulatory flexibility analysis, 

calendar year (CY) 2013 operating 

revenues 23 were compared to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

58584 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Schedule P1.2 ‘‘Statement of Operations’’ or Form 

298C, Schedule F–1 ‘‘Report of Financial Data’’. 

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. 

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 

Costs 

(in 2013 dollars) 

Scheduled carriers Nonscheduled carriers 

Total costs 

Staff Mgmt Total Staff Mgmt Total 

Staff Mgmt Total 

Present 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 58585 

TABLE 6—TOTAL PAPERWORK COSTS FOR YEARS 1, 2 AND 3 BY CARRIER TYPE—Continued 

[Scheduled vs. Nonscheduled] 

Costs 

Costs 

(in 2013 dollars) 

Scheduled carriers Nonscheduled carriers 

Total costs 

Staff Mgmt Total Staff Mgmt Total 

Staff Mgmt Total 

Present 

value 

(7%) 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

58586 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. In § 11.201, in paragraph (b), revise 

the entry to Part 121 to read as follows: 

§ 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 

■ 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). 

■ 4. In § 121.311, add paragraph (k) to 

read as follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 5. In § 121.583, revise 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, 

121.391, 121.571, and 121.587; the 

passenger-carrying operation 

requirements in part 117 and 

§§ 121.157(c) and 121.291; the 

requirements pertaining to passengers in 

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

and 121.573; and the information 

disclosure requirements in § 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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–0309; Special 

Conditions No. 25–594–SC] 

Special Conditions: Boeing Model 747– 

8, Dynamic Test Requirements for 

Single-Occupant, Oblique (SideFacing) Seats With Airbag Devices 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final special conditions; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: These special conditions are 

issued for Boeing Model 747–8 

airplanes. This airplane will have novel 

or unusual design features associated 

with oblique-angled, single-occupant 

seats equipped with airbag systems. The 

applicable airworthiness regulations do 

not contain adequate or appropriate 

safety standards for these design 

features. These special conditions 

contain the additional safety standards 

the Administrator considers necessary 

to establish a level of safety equivalent 

to that established by the existing 

airworthiness standards. 

DATES: The effective date of these 

special conditions is September 30, 

2015. We must receive your comments 

by November 16, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2015–0309 

using any of the following methods: 

Federal eRegulations 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES