[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 1, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18212-18223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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

[[Page 18213]]

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

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

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-0205 
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room 
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket 
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at (202) 493-2251.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments 
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts 
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the 
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system 
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at 
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions 
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this action, contact Catherine Burnett, Air Transportation Division, 
AFS-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8166; email 
[email protected].
    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Sara L. 
Mikolop, International Law, Legislation, and Regulations Division, AGC-
200; Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3073; email 
[email protected].

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

[[Page 18214]]

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

[[Page 18215]]

proposed an alternate approach in order to implement the statute's goal 
to enable a passenger to determine which CRS can be used on an 
aircraft. The FAA does not believe that it is practical for each air 
carrier to provide the maximum dimensions of one or many CRSs the 
carrier does not possess or to which the carrier does not have ready 
access. In contrast, air carriers have ready access to the airplanes 
they operate and information regarding those aircraft. Therefore, the 
agency proposes to require air carriers to provide seat dimension data 
to fulfill the intent of the statutory requirement for rulemaking. Seat 
dimension data provides information equivalent to CRS dimension data 
that can be used to assist caregivers in making a determination as to 
whether a CRS will fit in a passenger seat on the aircraft on which 
they expect to travel.
    Further, the agency notes that information regarding seat 
dimensions or CRS fit for each individual airplane that an air carrier 
operates is not necessary or practical. Although some air carriers 
operate hundreds of airplanes, airplanes of the same make, model and 
series typically share the same seat dimensions. Given this commonality 
of aircraft within an air carrier's fleet and the absence of a 
requirement for air carriers to identify the specific airplane for a 
specific flight, individual airplane information would not serve to 
facilitate CRS use. However, seat dimension information for each 
airplane make, model and series that a certificate holder uses in 
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

[[Page 18216]]

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

[[Page 18217]]

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

[[Page 18218]]

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.

[[Page 18219]]

    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.

[[Page 18220]]

[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

[[Page 18221]]

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

[[Page 18222]]

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

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

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

G. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation

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

H. Environmental Analysis

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

VII. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

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

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

VIII. Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

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

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Federal Digital 
System at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. 
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this 
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, 
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from 
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 
(1) above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18223]]

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