[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 189 (Wednesday, September 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58575-58586]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24720]

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

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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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).

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

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

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,

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

(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

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

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).

    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

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

    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

by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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