[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 209 (Thursday, October 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66524-66525]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27573]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-529-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Availability of
the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Connecticut Expansion
Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Connecticut Expansion Project, proposed by Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee) in the above-referenced docket. Tennessee
requests authorization to construct and operate certain natural gas
pipeline and aboveground facilities along its existing pipeline system
in various counties in New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut to
provide an additional 72.1 million cubic feet per day of firm
transportation service to three new shippers: Connecticut Natural Gas
Corporation, Southern Connecticut Gas Company, and Yankee Gas Services
Company.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Connecticut Expansion Project in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed
project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a
major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.
    The New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA.
Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with
respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and
participate in the NEPA analysis.
    The proposed Connecticut Expansion Project includes the following
facilities:
     About 1.4 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline loop in Albany County, New York;
     about 3.8 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline loop in Berkshire County, Massachusetts;
     about 8.3 miles of new 24-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline loop in Hampden County, Massachusetts and Hartford County,
Connecticut;
     modifications at the existing Agawam Compressor Station
(Compressor Station 261) in Hampden County, Massachusetts;
     appurtenant facilities, including a mainline valve,
cathodic protection, and pig launchers and receivers; and
     relocation of two existing pig receiver facilities.
    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes;
potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and
groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to
this proceeding. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on
the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited
number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public
inspection at:
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888
First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your
comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important
that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before November
23, 2015.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number (CP14-529-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature

on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents
and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of
formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling
users must first create an account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You
must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a
comment on a particular project, please select ``Comment on a Filing'';
or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address:
    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\1\ Only intervenors have the
right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission
grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns
intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a
clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can
adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not
give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to
have your comments considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the previous discussion on the methods for filing
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP14-
529). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: October 23, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-27573 Filed 10-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 1, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18212-18223]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07172]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No.: FAA-2014-0205; Notice No. 14-03]
RIN 2120-AK17

Disclosure of Seat Dimensions to Facilitate Use of Child Safety
Seats on Airplanes During Passenger-Carrying Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requires the
Federal Aviation Administration to initiate rulemaking to require air
carriers conducting domestic, flag, and supplemental operations to make
available on their Web sites information to enable passengers to
determine which child safety seats can be used on aircraft in these
operations. To fulfill the requirements of the Act, the FAA proposes to
require air carriers to make available on their Web sites the width of
the widest passenger seat in each class of service for each make, model
and series of airplane used in passenger-carrying operations. If
finalized as proposed, this rule would provide greater information to
caregivers to help them determine whether a particular child restraint
system will fit in an airplane seat. This proposal does not affect
existing regulations regarding the

use of child restraint systems on board airplanes or a passenger under
the age of 2 traveling onboard aircraft with or without the use of a
child restraint system.

DATES: Send comments on or before June 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-0205
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Catherine Burnett, Air Transportation Division,
AFS-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Sara L.
Mikolop, International Law, Legislation, and Regulations Division, AGC-
200; Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.). Section 106 of Subtitle
I describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49
U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the authority of the Administrator to
promulgate regulations and rules and 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which
requires the Administrator to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum standards for other
practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce
and national security.
    In addition, section 412 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012 (Pub. L. 112-95) \1\ specifically required the FAA to conduct
rulemaking ``[T]o require each air carrier operating under part 121 of
title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to post on the Internet Web site
of the air carrier the maximum dimensions of a child safety seat that
can be used on each aircraft operated by the air carrier to enable
passengers to determine which child safety seats can be used on those
aircraft.'' \2\ This rulemaking is within the scope of the authority in
Public Law 112-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 proposal uses the term child restraint system
(CRS), rather than child safety seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Overview of Proposed Rule

    Current regulations regarding the use of a child restraint system
(CRS) on airplanes operating under part 121 are found in Title 14 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Sec.  121.311. Under the
provisions in part 121, no certificate holder \3\ may prohibit a child
from using an approved CRS when the caregiver \4\ purchases a ticket
for the child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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. Thus, for consistency with existing FAA
regulations, this proposal 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 document 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 of the size of the CRS.
Accordingly, the FAA has issued guidance to facilitate the use of a CRS
on aircraft in situations when a caregiver purchased a ticket for the
child but the approved CRS that the caregiver wishes to use does not
fit in a particular seat on the aircraft.\6\ Although the FAA has
provided guidance to air carriers regarding how to accommodate a CRS
that does not fit in a particular seat, this proposed rulemaking would
give caregivers additional information on whether an FAA-approved CRS
will fit on the airplane on which they expect to travel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_children/crs/(visited
December 6, 2013).
    \6\ Advisory Circular (AC) 120-87B, Use of Child Restraint
Systems on Aircraft (September 17, 2010) is available at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/388616.
    Information For Operators (InFO) 11007 Regulatory Requirements
Regarding Accommodation of Child Restraint Systems--Update (March
10, 2011) is available at http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule proposes to require air carriers operating under 14 CFR
part 121 that have Web sites to post on their Web sites information
regarding aircraft seat dimensions. Specifically, affected air carriers
must post the width of the widest passenger seat in each class of
service for each airplane make, model and series operated in passenger-
carrying operations that the air carrier permits to be used to
accommodate a CRS. By requiring air carriers to make this information
available, the agency expects caregivers to have more information about
whether a specific CRS can be used on the aircraft on which they expect
to travel.
    The FAA emphasizes that this NPRM proposes an information
disclosure requirement only. It does not propose to create any new
operational requirements for air carriers or flight attendants. It does
not change any existing provisions regarding the use of CRSs on board
airplanes or existing regulations regarding passengers under the age of
2 traveling on board airplanes with or without the use of a CRS.
    In addition, the FAA notes that this proposal does not require an
air carrier to identify the specific airplane that it will use on a
given flight. Finally, the FAA notes that while this rule requires air
carriers to post certain information to their Web sites, it does not
require an air carrier that does not have a Web site to

establish a Web site for purposes of this rule.

II. Background

A. Current Regulations

    Current requirements regarding the use of CRSs in part 121
operations are found in 14 CFR 121.311. Currently, Sec.  121.311(c)(2)
generally states that no air carrier may prohibit a child, if requested
by the child's caregiver, from occupying a CRS furnished by the child's
caregiver provided that the child holds a ticket for an approved seat
or a seat is made available by the air carrier for the child's use, the
child is accompanied by a caregiver and the CRS is appropriately
labeled and secured. However, Sec.  121.311(c)(3) permits air carriers
to determine the most appropriate passenger seat location for a CRS
based on safe operating practices. For example, if an approved CRS, for
which a ticket has been purchased, does not fit in a particular seat on
the airplane, existing Sec.  121.311 permits an air carrier to identify
the most appropriate alternate forward-facing passenger seat location,
considering safe operating practices.
    In assessing the most appropriate location for a CRS, an air
carrier must consider a number of factors. For example, the CRS must be
installed in a forward-facing aircraft seat in accordance with
instructions on the CRS label. This includes placing the CRS in the
appropriate forward- or 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 aircraft and has
committed to educate and inform air carriers, crewmembers and
passengers regarding the use of a CRS on aircraft in order to increase
CRS use on aircraft. Accordingly, the FAA provides information on its
Web site for caregivers traveling with children and the use of a CRS on
aircraft. The public information and guidance material is intended to
be useful to caregivers in support of the agency's commitment regarding
CRS use. The FAA has previously tried to address the issue of ``CRS
fit'' in airplane seats. For example, on its Web site, the FAA states
that a CRS with a maximum width of 16 inches should fit in most
airplane seats.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ http://www.faa.gov/passengers/media/childsafety.pdf (visited
December 6, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has also provided guidance to air carriers regarding CRS
use on aircraft and related regulations. Advisory Circular (AC) 120-
87B, Use of Child Restraint Systems on Aircraft, is intended to serve
as a resource during development, implementation, and revision of an
air carrier's standard operating procedures and training programs
regarding the use of CRSs. The AC provides information on placement of
a CRS on aircraft that may be considered by air carriers as they
develop policies based on safe operating practices establishing certain
seat locations for a CRS on a specific aircraft. For example, AC 120-
87B provides information for air carriers to consider regarding
placement of a CRS in an aisle seat or in a seat forward or aft of an
emergency exit row.
    Further, the agency reiterates in AC 120-87B that no air carrier
may prohibit a child from using an approved CRS when a caregiver
purchases a ticket for that child. The FAA encourages air carriers to
allow the use of an empty seat to accommodate a CRS; however, air
carriers are not required to allow unticketed children to occupy an
empty passenger seat, even if the child uses a CRS. Prohibiting a
ticketed child from using a CRS, when there are seats on the aircraft
in which the CRS could be safely used, would be inconsistent with Sec.
121.311.
    The FAA also published Information for Operators (InFO) 11007,
Regulatory Requirements Regarding Accommodation of Child Restraint
Systems--Update, to clarify regulations regarding accommodation of CRSs
and to provide information for a CRS with a detachable base. As with AC
120-87B, InFO 11007 provides examples of CRS design variations and
lists possible solutions for accommodation. For example, a CRS with a
base that is too wide to fit properly in a seat with rigid armrests
could be moved to a seat with moveable armrests that can be raised to
accommodate the CRS, and an aft-facing CRS that cannot be installed
properly, because of minimal pitch (distance between rows of seats),
can be moved to a bulkhead seat or a seat in a row with additional
pitch.

III. FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

    Section 412 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub.
L. 112-95) directs the FAA to initiate rulemaking ``[T]o require each
air carrier operating under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, to post on the Internet Web site of the air carrier the
maximum dimensions of a child safety seat that can be used on each
aircraft operated by the air carrier to enable passengers to determine
which child safety seats can be used on those aircraft.'' Congress
intended this rulemaking to ``facilitate the use of child safety seats
on aircraft'' and ``enable passengers to determine which child safety
seats can be used on those aircraft.'' \8\ This proposal is responsive
to the requirement for the FAA to initiate a rulemaking in Public Law
112-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ H. R. Rep. No. 112-381 (2012) at 80 and 216 (Conf. Rep.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion of the Proposal

    The purpose of this proposal is to make more information available
to allow caregivers to make a determination regarding CRS fit prior to
a flight. The agency proposes to require air carriers to publish on
their Web sites the width of the widest passenger seat in each class of
service for aircraft used in passenger-carrying operations. This
proposed information disclosure requirement would supplement current
regulations that allow the use of an approved CRS and FAA guidance to
caregivers regarding CRS fit in airplane seats. This proposed
requirement would only apply to part 121 air carriers conducting
passenger-carrying operations because all-cargo operations have
generally been excluded from part 121 requirements pertaining to
passengers.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal also responds to the requirement to initiate
rulemaking in section 412 of Public Law 112-95. The FAA considered a
number of alternative methods by which to implement the rulemaking
requirements of section 412 of Public Law 112-95 and discusses each
below. In considering each alternative, the FAA sought to address the
intent of Congress, respond to the informational needs of a caregiver
traveling with a child using a CRS, and ensure that the proposal does
not unintentionally discourage the use of a CRS.
    Airplane passenger seat dimensions: Although Public Law 112-95
refers to the maximum dimensions of child safety seats that can be used
on each aircraft the operator uses, the FAA has

proposed an alternate approach in order to implement the statute's goal
to enable a passenger to determine which CRS can be used on an
aircraft. The FAA does not believe that it is practical for each air
carrier to provide the maximum dimensions of one or many CRSs the
carrier does not possess or to which the carrier does not have ready
access. In contrast, air carriers have ready access to the airplanes
they operate and information regarding those aircraft. Therefore, the
agency proposes to require air carriers to provide seat dimension data
to fulfill the intent of the statutory requirement for rulemaking. Seat
dimension data provides information equivalent to CRS dimension data
that can be used to assist caregivers in making a determination as to
whether a CRS will fit in a passenger seat on the aircraft on which
they expect to travel.
    Further, the agency notes that information regarding seat
dimensions or CRS fit for each individual airplane that an air carrier
operates is not necessary or practical. Although some air carriers
operate hundreds of airplanes, airplanes of the same make, model and
series typically share the same seat dimensions. Given this commonality
of aircraft within an air carrier's fleet and the absence of a
requirement for air carriers to identify the specific airplane for a
specific flight, individual airplane information would not serve to
facilitate CRS use. However, seat dimension information for each
airplane make, model and series that a certificate holder uses in
passenger-carrying operations correlates to the information air
carriers currently provide to passengers for a specific flight.
    Airplane passenger seat pitch: The FAA believes that the
predominant passenger seat dimension that limits CRS use is the width
of the passenger seat. In some circumstances, seat pitch (distance
between rows of seats) can affect the use of a CRS that must be used in
an aft-facing position; however, using pitch to determine CRS fit is
complex and minimally effective without additional detail. Air carriers
can easily provide the distance between rows of passenger seats or
``pitch''. However, an aft-facing CRS does not have an equivalent
measurement to ``pitch'' as it does to ``width''. In order to be
installed properly, an aft-facing CRS must be installed in an aircraft
seat on an angle. Aft-facing CRSs have installed level indicators
(typically a moving ball or needle that must stay between two lines)
that indicate when the CRS is properly oriented in the airplane seat.
Therefore, although seat pitch can affect whether there is enough room
to properly use a rear-facing CRS, it is only part of the triangular
equation with several variables and would make it difficult to provide
meaningful information to a caregiver.
    Additionally, if a rear-facing CRS does not fit in a row because of
seat pitch, an air carrier can move the CRS to a seat in a bulkhead row
(where pitch is not typically an issue), in that same class of service,
to accommodate the aft-facing CRS. Accordingly, the agency is not
proposing to require air carriers to provide information regarding seat
pitch.
    Airplane passenger seat width for each class of service: Given that
currently when a CRS does not fit within the seat for which a caregiver
has purchased a ticket, the operator must accommodate the CRS use
within the same class of service, the agency proposes to require seat
dimension disclosure for each class of service (Sec.  121.311 and AC
120-87). This proposal also specifies that seat width information (the
distance between the seat arm rests) must be provided for each class of
service due to the potential variation in airplane seat widths among
different classes of service and within a single class of service.
Further, as discussed above, seat width is the predominant passenger
seat dimension that limits CRS fit.
    The agency notes, however, that while information regarding an
airplane type may be provided to passengers prior to a flight, this
proposal does not require an air carrier to identify the specific
airplane that it will use on a given flight.
    Width of the narrowest seat within each class of service: The FAA
considered requiring air carriers to provide the width of the narrowest
passenger seat in each class of service for each airplane make, model,
and series. The FAA reasoned that if a CRS fits in the narrowest
passenger seat in each class of service, then it will fit in any seat
in that class of service.
    However, the agency is concerned that a requirement to disclose the
seat width dimension for only the narrowest seat could create an
unintended safety consequence. The agency is concerned that if a
caregiver discovers that the CRS they wish to use is wider than the
published width of the narrowest passenger seat, that caregiver might
choose not to bring the CRS even if, unbeknownst to the caregiver, the
airplane has passenger seats installed that are wide enough to
accommodate the CRS within the same class of service. Use of a CRS is
the safest way for a child to travel on an airplane, and the FAA does
not wish to implement a regulation that might have the unintended
consequence of causing caregivers to forgo the use of CRSs for child
passengers.
    For instance, a caregiver purchases a seat for a child and plans to
use a CRS for that child. The Web site of the air carrier on which the
caregiver and child are traveling states that the minimum width of the
seat on the make, model, and series of the airplane on which the
caregiver and child are traveling is 14 inches. The CRS the caregiver
plans to use on the airplane is 15 inches wide. However, the operator
has seats in the same class of service that are 16 inches wide. In
actuality, the CRS would fit in the wider seat in the same class of
service, but the concern of the FAA is that the caregiver might choose
to not bring the CRS for use on the airplane because the caregiver
believes that the CRS would not fit. Alternatively, the caregiver might
even choose not to purchase a separate seat for the child and might
elect to hold the child, provided the child has not reached his or her
second birthday, as permitted by existing regulations. The publication
of seat dimensions should not discourage the use of CRSs.
    Width of the widest seat within each class of service: Based on the
foregoing analysis, the FAA proposes to add a paragraph (k) to Sec.
121.311 to require each part 121 air carrier to make available on its
Web site the width of the widest passenger seat in each class of
service for each airplane make, model, and series used in passenger-
carrying operations. The FAA believes that disclosure of the width of
the widest seat in each class of service will provide the information
necessary for caregivers to better determine if the CRS they provide
for their child will fit in the airplane on which they expect to travel
and thus may encourage more widespread use of CRSs in air
transportation.
    If a caregiver knows the width dimension of the widest seat for a
particular class of service on an airplane, and if the CRS the
caregiver intends to use on the flight fits that dimension, then the
caregiver would know that at least one seat in the class of service on
the airplane would accommodate the CRS. This would enable caregivers to
have more information on which to make a decision as to whether to
bring the CRS for that child's use.
    Further, the agency expects that information regarding seat width
will address the predominant limiting seat dimension. The provision of
seat width for the widest seat in each class of

service serves to avoid the unintended consequence of dissuading a
caregiver to use a CRS and to limit the instances in which a caregiver
expects to use a CRS but cannot, due to fit or the operator's safety
determination.
    As noted previously, it is the responsibility of the air carrier,
and a regulatory requirement, to accommodate the CRS in another seat in
the same class of service (Sec.  121.311(c)(2) and AC 120-87B). While
knowing the width of the widest seat is valuable in a caregiver's
decision-making process, as it indicates whether the CRS would fit in a
single seat, the FAA notes that a CRS that has a base wider than the
widest seat may still be accommodated on an airplane by raising
armrests or taking other measures where possible.
    Web site disclosure: The FAA notes that a number of air carriers
currently conducting passenger-carrying operations already provide seat
dimension information on their Web sites. For example, some air
carriers currently provide both the pitch and width for the passenger
seats in each class of service. The agency expects, however, that the
information disclosure proposed in this NPRM would increase the
instances in which caregivers are able to pre-determine whether a CRS
will fit on an airplane make, model, and series on which they expect to
travel.
    As discussed in the guidance material associated with this
rulemaking, the FAA believes that air carriers would use existing
information pages on their Web sites that already provide information
regarding CRSs to list the width of the widest seats for each class of
service on each airplane make, model, and series in their fleet. Based
on the FAA's review of aircraft used by affected air carriers, the FAA
determined that many air carriers have seats whose dimensions are the
same for several airplane makes, models, and series. Further, many air
carriers appear to have only one seat size for each class of service
for many airplane makes, models, and series. Finally, the FAA notes
that if this rule is finalized as proposed, the only time air carriers
would need to update their Web sites after initial implementation would
be when a new airplane make, model, or series is introduced to an air
carrier's fleet, or when an air carrier replaces the widest seats
installed on an existing airplane make, model, or series with wider or
narrower seats.
    Effective Date: The FAA recognizes that different operators will
need different lengths of time to comply with this regulation due to
variations in information technology systems, variations in the data
that is currently published, and the range of numbers of airplane make,
model and series in each operator's fleet. Therefore, the FAA is
proposing an effective date of 150 days after the date of publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register. Compliance would be required
on the effective date. The FAA seeks comment regarding the proposed
effective date.
    Miscellaneous: The agency proposes a conforming change to 14 CFR
121.583 to make clear that the requirement applies in passenger-
carrying operations only.
    Request for comments on proposal and alternatives: The FAA invites
commenters to address whether they agree with the approach taken in
this NPRM. In particular, the agency seeks comment on the following:
    (1) Whether the disclosure requirements proposed in this rule
provide the most helpful information for caregivers to ascertain CRS
fit on aircraft;
    (2) How disclosure of the width of only the narrowest seat in each
class of service could facilitate CRS without discouraging caregivers
from using a CRS that is larger than the narrowest seat;
    (3) Whether disclosure of both the narrowest seat and the widest
seat in each class of service would be more effective in achieving the
statutory intent of facilitating CRS use; and
    (4) Whether disclosure of the width of the widest seat on the
aircraft or the narrowest seat on the aircraft, without regard to class
of service, would facilitate CRS use due to the potential
accommodations (e.g., moving armrests) that can be made to assist with
CRS fit. Note: The FAA is not suggesting that it would ever require an
operator to move a passenger from one class of service to another to
accommodate a CRS.
    The agency asks that commenters explain how any alternative
approach would satisfy the statutory requirement for rulemaking,
provide greater information to caregivers to help them determine
whether a particular CRS will fit in an airplane seat, and avoid
unintentionally discouraging the use of a CRS. The FAA may incorporate
any such recommendations regarding alternative approaches into a final
rule.
    Part 11 Amendment: The FAA has submitted a request for Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection
activities proposed in this rulemaking. Assuming OMB approves the
information collection and assigns an OMB control number, the FAA will
update the table in Sec.  11.201(b) to display this control number.

V. Guidance Documents

    To further implement this NPRM, the FAA is proposing to revise
several guidance documents to include the availability of information
for air carriers regarding compliance with the proposed rule.
Specifically, the FAA is proposing to revise AC 120-87B, Use of Child
Restraint Systems on Aircraft, and InFO 11007, Regulatory Requirements
Regarding Accommodation of Child Restraint Systems--Update. The draft
revised AC and draft revised InFO have been placed in the electronic
docket of this rulemaking. Persons wishing to provide comments
regarding the draft revised AC and InFO may do so by following the
comment process discussed in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this
rulemaking.

VI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires agencies
to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they
be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble
summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed
rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been
made for this proposed rule. The reasoning for this determination
follows.
    The FAA estimates that children under the age of two represent one
percent of all commercial passengers.\10\ When travelling by air,
caregivers for these children may purchase either one ticket (which
requires the child to sit in the caregiver's lap) or two tickets (which
allows a child to be securely restrained in a CRS). The agency does not
have the exact count of passengers younger than two or whether those
passengers arrived at their destination sitting in the lap of a
caregiver or secured in an aircraft seat using either a CRS or a lap
belt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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.
This guidance is based on the FAA's analysis that if caregivers are
forced to purchase airline seats for children under age 2, the
additional cost of an airline ticket will motivate some families to
drive to their destination instead of fly. As background, in Section
522 of Public Law 103-305, Congress required the Secretary of
Transportation to study the impact of mandating the use of CRSs for
children under 2 years old on scheduled air carriers. The Secretary
submitted a report of this study to Congress in 1995. The report
estimated that, if a child restraint rule were imposed, approximately
five infant lives would be saved aboard aircraft, and two major
injuries and four minor injuries would be avoided over a 10-year
period. The report also cautioned that this improvement would be offset
by additional highway fatalities for airline passengers who chose to
drive rather than purchase a seat for infants. Even if infant fares
were only 25 percent of full fare, the report estimated that there
would be diversion to cars and thus a net increase in fatalities over a
10-year period. The concern expressed in the Report to Congress was
that mandating CRSs (which require a passenger seat) could increase
airline travel costs to families with infants enough to cause a
significant number to travel by automobile instead of by air. This, in
turn, would expose the entire family to the higher risks of automobile
travel and associated highway fatalities and injuries.\11\ The FAA
updated this report in December, 2011, and confirmed its
conclusion.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 70 FR 50266, Aug. 26, 2005. A copy of the Report to
Congress has been placed in the docket.
    \12\ ``Update of Safety Benefits & Tradeoffs Related to
Requiring the Use of Child Restraint Systems on Aircraft for
Children Less Than Two Years of Age'' December, 2011. http://www.dot.gov/faac/report/update-safety-benefits-tradeoffs-related.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, air carriers are not required to disclose seat dimension
information on their Web sites. It is believed that some caregivers
choose not to travel with a CRS due to concern that the seat will not
fit the particular equipment being flown. Congress directed the FAA to
conduct rulemaking ``[T]o require each air carrier operating under part
121, to post on the Internet Web site of the air carrier the maximum
dimensions of a child safety seat that can be used to enable passengers
to determine which child safety seats can be used on those aircraft.''
See Public Law 95-112. Once implemented, this rule would require each
part 121 air carrier that conducts passenger-carrying operations to
post seat dimension information to their Web site (air carriers that do
not have Web sites are excluded from this rule). This rule will benefit
caregivers by making seat dimension information accessible, which in
turn will allow them to determine if a particular CRS will fit in a
seat of an aircraft. A caregiver may be inclined to purchase a separate
ticket for a child knowing that the child can be secured in a CRS
during flight.
    The FAA considered several alternatives for determining the type of
seat dimension information to be posted on air carrier Web sites. One
alternative required the width of each seat in each class of service
for each individual airplane operated by an air carrier be posted on
its Web site. While this alternative would provide the most precise
information to caregivers, the FAA believes that maintaining this much
detail to be unnecessarily onerous for the air carriers because
multiple seats of the same width can be found in each class of service.
Further, in order for this information to be useful, there can be no
change in a flight's equipment from the time a ticket is purchased to
the time of the flight's departure.
    Another alternative required air carriers to publish only one
dimension--that of the narrowest seat across an air carrier's entire
fleet. This alternative, however, would only allow a caregiver to
determine if there may be a possibility of a particular CRS fitting a
particular airline seat on a particular flight. The FAA believes that
providing the dimension of the narrowest seat only across an entire
fleet would not facilitate CRS use because a caregiver with a CRS
larger than the narrowest seat may be discouraged from using a CRS,
even though there may be wider seats available that could accommodate
the CRS. Therefore this approach would not meet the intent of Congress
when it mandated disclosure of seat dimensions.
    After considering the alternatives, the FAA decided that the
information to be posted on air carrier Web sites should provide
caregivers with data to facilitate CRS use but should not be overly
burdensome for the air carriers. Based on these criteria, this
rulemaking proposes to require an air carrier to post on its Web site
the width of the widest seat for each make, model, and series of
aircraft in each class of service in the air carrier's fleet. This
level of detail is reasonable given that most air carriers already
disclose other airplane-related dimensions on their Web sites,
including dimensions for overhead bins, space underneath seats, maximum
size of carry-on luggage, and maximum size for pet carriers. Because of
the level of detail air carriers are already providing, the FAA
believes that the requirements of this rule will be a minimal impact to
those part 121 air carriers conducting passenger-carrying operations.
    To provide a range of costs to comply with this rule, estimates for
a low case and a high case were prepared. In the low case, over a ten-
year period the cost to the industry from this rulemaking will be about
$208 thousand in 2012 dollars ($152 thousand at seven percent present
value). In the high case the cost is estimated to be approximately $357
thousand in 2012 dollars ($260 thousand at seven percent present
value). In both the low and high case, this rule is considered to be
minimal cost for part 121 operators.
    The FAA reports there to be 81 part 121 air carriers; \13\ however
only 58 \14\ of these air carriers are impacted by this rule. Excluded
from this rule's analysis are 16 supplemental cargo carriers; 5 air
carriers that have not reported any passengers to the DOT Bureau of
Transport Statistics (BTS) since at least October 2012 (4 of which
primarily fly cargo but are certificated to fly passengers); 1 air
carrier that has ceased operations and filed for bankruptcy; and 1 air
carrier that does not have an internet Web site (air carriers that do
not have Web sites are exempt from this rule). The FAA notes that while
Southwest Airlines and AirTran Airways hold a single operating
certificate, for purposes of this analysis

they will be treated as separate entities since separate Web sites are
maintained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ FAA data from Q3, FY 2012.
    \14\ Although only 58 carriers are impacted by this rule, a
total of 59 Web sites are affected. While Southwest Airlines and
AirTran Airways share a single operating certificate, they continue
to maintain separate Web sites for ticket sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the cost of this rule, hours are estimated for each
occupational job series \15\ required to complete the task. The
estimated hours are then multiplied by the United States Department of
Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) fully-burdened hourly wage rate
for the corresponding occupational job series. Thus, the rule's total
cost equals hours worked multiplied by hourly wages, summed across all
part 121 air carriers affected by this rule. Additional detail on how
this cost estimate is constructed follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As the basis for this rulemaking, the FAA used assumptions
regarding job skills and labor hours from the regulatory analysis \16\
for the DOT's recent ``Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections'' \17\
rule. One provision of the DOT's rule required an air carrier to post
on its Web site a tarmac delay plan and a customer commitment plan. The
FAA believes that the skills and labor hours necessary to post seat
dimension information to an air carrier's Web site are similar to those
estimated for posting a tarmac delay plan and customer commitment plan.
During the first year of the DOT rule's implementation, it was
estimated that it would take a computer programmer and a supervisor/
manager a total of 8 hours to post the customer commitment plan and
tarmac delay plan to an air carrier's Web site. The FAA is using the
DOT estimate as the foundation for the time required to perform the
work required to comply with the seat dimension disclosure rule, if
finalized as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 that may be incurred by air carriers due
to this rulemaking, the FAA prepared a low-case and high-case
estimate.\18\ The variable that changes between the two cases is the
assumption for base staff hours. In the low case it is assumed that a
minimum of 8.0 base staff hours are required for an air carrier to
comply with the rule whereas the high case assumes a minimum of 16.0
base staff hours. The assumption for wages is held constant and does
not vary between the low case and high case. It is important to note
that even in the high case, the rule is still expected to be minimal
cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimation of Hours--Year 1
    It is assumed that the time required for an air carrier to revise
its Web site to include seat dimension information is most labor
intensive during the first year of the rule's implementation. The
estimated hours to comply with this rule for year 1 are allocated
between work performed by staff versus work performed by management.
    Staff Hours: Staff hours are comprised of two components: base
hours and variable hours. Base hours are dependent upon whether an air
carrier has (or does not have) a Web site link to fleet information at
the time the rule goes into effect. Variable hours fluctuate according
to the count of make, model, and series of aircraft in an air carrier's
fleet.
    Base Hours: Base hours are dependent upon whether an air carrier
does or does not have a link to fleet information at the time the rule
is implemented. In the low case, it is assumed that 8.0 base hours are
required to bring a Web site into compliance for those air carriers
that already have a link to fleet information at the time the rule goes
into effect. For air carriers that do not have a link to fleet
information at the time the rule is implemented it is assumed that base
hours will total 16.0.
    For the high case, the base hours required for an air carrier to
comply with the rule is assumed to be twice that of the low case. Thus,
in the high case, base hours for air carriers that already have a link
to fleet information are assumed to be 16.0; for those air carriers
without a link to fleet information at the time of the rule's
implementation base hours are assumed to total 32.0.
    Variable Hours: Variable hours fluctuate according to the count of
different make, model, and series of aircraft each air carrier has in
its fleet. (For example, for an A319-100, the make is Airbus; the model
is 319; the series is 100.) It is assumed an additional 0.5 hours of
staff time beyond the base hour component is required for gathering and
analyzing seat dimension information for each make, model, and series
of aircraft in an air carrier's fleet. The rationale for the variable
hour component is that it builds in additional time (and thus costs)
for air carriers that have multiple aircraft types compared to air
carriers that may operate only one make, model, and series of aircraft.
Unlike base hours, which have separate assumptions for the low and high
case, variable hours are fixed for each air carrier and will remain the
same for both the low and high case.
    Next, for illustrative purposes, an example is provided to show the
calculation of the low-case estimate for a single air carrier's staff
hours during the initial year the rule is in effect. This example is
based on the following two assumptions: 1) the air carrier already has
a link to fleet information on its Web site; 2) the air carrier
operates a fleet of 15 different make, model, and series of aircraft.
Based on these assumptions, the estimated staff hours total 15.5. The
15.5 hours is composed of 8 base hours (because the air carrier already
has a link to fleet information) plus 7.5 variable hours (0.5 hours *
15 different make/model/series of aircraft). If the first assumption in
the example is changed to assume that the air carrier does not already
have a Web site link to its fleet information, the estimated hours
would total 23.5 (16 base hours plus 7.5 variable hours).
    Of the 59 Web sites \19\ included in this analysis, 53 have a
dedicated link to information regarding fleet specifications and 6 (3
belonging to scheduled air carriers and 3 belonging to nonscheduled air
carriers) do not. The count of make, model, and series of aircraft
operated by any one air carrier ranges from one to seventeen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See footnote 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Management Hours: Management oversight is required by each air
carrier to verify that the update to the Web site has been completed.
In terms of hours, it is assumed that each of the 59 Web sites will
require two hours of management review time to verify accuracy of data.
This assumption is the same for both the low and high case.
Estimation of Hours--Years 2 Through 10
    For years 2 through 10 of this rule it is assumed that through the
ordinary course of business less time is required, relative to year 1,
to maintain the accuracy of seat dimension information posted to an air
carrier's Web site. During this timeframe, it is established that air
carriers with Web sites have already posted seat dimension information;
thus air carriers may only need to revise the data periodically.
    Staff Hours: There is only one component for staff hours in the low
and high case during the follow-on years of the rulemaking. For the low
case, it is estimated that each of the air carriers will require 4
staff hours annually for posting revised data. In the high case, the
estimated hours for the low case are doubled, for a total of 8 staff
hours per year.

    Management Hours: Management hours required for oversight during
years 2 through 10 is estimated to be one hour per year. This estimate
is the same for both the low and high case.

                                                                  Table 1--Assumptions
                                            [Hours required per air carrier to implement and update web site]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Staff hours
                                            Does the air carrier's pre-  ----------------------------------------------------------------
                   Year                      mandate web  layout have a              Low case                        High case              Mgmt. hours
                                                   link to fleet?        ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Base          Variable          Base          Variable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................  Yes..........................               8             0.5              16             0.5               2
                                           No...........................              16  ..............              32
2-10.....................................  Not Applicable...............               4             N/A               8             N/A               1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA seeks comment on its assumption of hours required for an
air carrier to post seat dimension information to its Web site.
Staff and Management Wages--Years 1 Through 10
    The total cost to air carriers for compliance with this rule is the
sum of compensation \20\ to staff and management for hours worked. To
determine compensation for performance of this work, BLS data are used.
Based on BLS job titles,\21\ it is assumed that staff work is performed
by Database and System Administrators and Network Architects (BLS Job
Series 15-1140), and manager oversight is performed by Computer and
Information Systems Managers (BLS Job Series 11-3021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Total hourly compensation is the sum of wages plus
benefits.
    \21\ As reported in the April 2012 Occupational Employment
Statistics Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 59 Web sites included in this analysis, 41 of the Web sites
belong to air carriers engaged in scheduled operations and 18 Web sites
belong to air carriers engaged in nonscheduled operations. It is
necessary to calculate hours for scheduled carriers independently of
nonscheduled carriers since labor costs vary between the two.
    The following table shows fully-burdened rates for these two job
series for scheduled versus nonscheduled air carriers.

                                                                  Table 2--Assumptions
                                                        [Hourly wage and benefits compensation*]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Job                                                                                Total hourly
                NAICS**                    series         Job category                 Job title            Hourly wage    Benefits ***    compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
481100 Scheduled Air Transportation....    15-1140  Staff...................  Database and System                 $42.14          $17.80          $59.94
                                                                               Administrators and
                                                                               Network Architects.
                                           11-3021  Mgmt....................  Computer and Information             61.81           26.11           87.92
                                                                               System Managers.
481200 Nonscheduled Air Transportation.    15-1140  Staff...................  Database and System                  33.94           14.34           48.28
                                                                               Administrators and
                                                                               Network Architects.
                                           11-3021  Mgmt....................  Computer and Information             48.65           20.55           69.20
                                                                               System Managers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics April 2012 Occupational Employment Statistics Survey (released in May 2013) (http:/
  stat.bls.gov/oes/home.htm).
** North American Industry Classification System--U.S. Census Bureau.
*** Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics News Release dated June 12, 2013 ``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--March
  2013'' Page 3--Table A. Hourly wage rates are 70.3 percent of total hourly compensation. (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06122013.pdf).

    For the low case, multiplying hours required annually for each
carrier to comply with this rule by the fully-burdened hourly wage rate
over a ten-year period totals a cost of approximately $208 thousand in
2012 dollars ($152 thousand at 7 percent present value). For the high
case, the rule costs approximately $357 thousand ($260 thousand at 7
percent present value). During calendar year 2012, the operating
revenues for 48 of the affected carriers were just over $159 billion
(operating revenues for the remaining 10 carriers were not available).
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the low and high case costs for years 1
through 10.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP14.000

    The FAA considers these costs to be minimal.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) establishes ``as a principle
of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with
the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit
regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the
businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit
and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale
for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious
consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-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, 25 are classified as large entities
and 20 as small entities.\22\ Employment statistics for the 13
remaining air carriers are not available; however, for purposes of the
regulatory flexibility analysis, it is assumed that these 13 air
carriers are small entities (for a total of 33 small entities). Since a
majority of the air carriers analyzed for this rule are classified as
small entities, the rule is expected to impact a substantial number of
small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Based on Form 41 Schedule P10 Statistics and air carrier
Web sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this regulatory flexibility analysis, calendar year (CY) 2012
operating revenues \23\ were compared to the estimated costs during
year 1 of the rule. Of the 33 air carriers considered to be small
entities, operating revenue data were only available for 23 of them.
For the 23 air carriers reporting financial data to BTS, the estimated
cost of this rule was no greater than .03 percent of any carrier's CY
2012 operating revenues. The FAA believes a compliance cost of .03
percent relative to annual revenue is not a significant economic
impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Based on Department of Transportation Statistics Form 41
and 298C Financial Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA
certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a
mandate is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA
currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151.0 million in lieu of
$100 million. This proposed rule would not contain such a mandate;
therefore, the requirements of Title II do not apply.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 and regulations implementing the Act (5 CFR part
1320), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of
information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement
unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number.
    This action contains the following proposed new information
collection requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44

U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these proposed information
collection amendments to OMB for its review.
    Summary: The FAA proposes to require air carriers conducting
domestic, flag, and supplemental operations to make available on their
Web sites the width of the widest passenger seat in each class of
service for each airplane make, model, and series, used in passenger-
carrying operations. If finalized as proposed, this rule amends 14 CFR
121.311.
    Use: This rule is intended to facilitate the use of child restraint
systems onboard airplanes. If finalized as proposed, this rule would
provide greater information to caregivers to help them determine
whether a particular child restraint system will fit on a particular
airplane.
    Respondents (including number of): Respondents include each
affected part 121 scheduled and nonscheduled passenger-carrying air
carrier, which are 58.
    Frequency: Each affected air carrier must comply with this rule
after it is finalized. Once this rule is initially implemented, the
only time air carriers would need to update their Web sites would be
when a new airplane make, model, or series is introduced or when the
widest seat in a class of service in a currently listed make, model, or
series of airplane is replaced with a larger or smaller seat.
    Annual Burden Estimate: All of the costs accounted for in the
economic analysis for this rulemaking relate to the information
collection burden. A summary of the annual burden estimate for the low
case and the high case expected to result from this proposal for years
1, 2, and 3 by carrier type (scheduled and nonscheduled) is provided in
the tables below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP14.001

    Additional detail regarding the annual burden is provided in the
regulatory evaluation discussion provided in this preamble (Section VI.
Regulatory Notices and Analyses, A. Regulatory Evaluation) as well as
the Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions
associated with this rulemaking.
    The agency is soliciting comments to--
     Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
     Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden;
     Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
     Minimize the burden of collecting information on those who
are to respond, including by using appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology.
    Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information
collection-related aspects of this rulemaking to the address listed in
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this preamble by June 30,
2014. Comments also should be submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk
Officer for FAA, New Executive Office Building, Room 10202, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20053.

E. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United

States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective,
such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that
excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the
potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined that it would
have little or no effect on international trade.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed regulations.

G. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health,
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined
that this action would have no effect on international regulatory
cooperation.

H. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

VII. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have
Federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

VIII. Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in
light of the comments it receives.
    Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should
not file proprietary or confidential business information in the
docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting
information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information,
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Federal Digital
System at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121

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

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

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

    1. The authority citation for part 121 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40119,
41706, 42301 preceding note added by Pub. L. 112-95, sec. 412, 126
Stat. 89, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-
44717, 44722, 46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C.
44701 note).

0
2. Amend Sec.  121.311 by adding a new paragraph (k) to read as
follows:

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

* * * * *
    (k) Each air carrier that conducts operations under this part and
that has a Web site must make available on its Web site the width of
the widest passenger seat in each class of service for each airplane
make, model and series operated by that air carrier in passenger-
carrying operations.
0
3. Amend Sec.  121.583 by revising 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, 121.311(k), 121.391, 121.571, and
121.587; the passenger-carrying operation requirements in part 117 and
Sec. Sec.  121.157(c) and 121.291; and the requirements pertaining to
passengers in Sec. Sec.  121.285, 121.313(f), 121.317, 121.547, and
121.573:
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority provided by 49
U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 49 U.S.C. 42301 preceding note added by
Public Law 112-95, sec. 412, 126 Stat. 89 on March 25, 2014.
John S. Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-07172 Filed 3-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 207 (Thursday, October 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65188-65189]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26269]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF11-4-002]

Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on September 12, 2012, Western Area Power
Administration submitted revisions to its Open Access Transmission
Tariff to correct formatting and technical errors, to be effective
September 13, 2012.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 9, 2012.

    Dated: October 19, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26269 Filed 10-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P