Family Seating in Air Transportation

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Background

The FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (2016 FAA Extension Act) requires the Department to review U.S. air carrier family seating policies and, if appropriate, direct air carriers to establish policies that enable young children, age 13 and under, to sit adjacent to an accompanying family member, age 14 or over, to the maximum extent practicable and at no additional cost. In response to this directive, in 2017, the Department's Office of Aviation Consumer Protection (OACP) reviewed family seating complaints received between June 1, 2016 and June 1, 2017, to better understand the issues facing consumers. OACP also conducted a review of the nine largest U.S. airlines' family seating policies and had discussions with each of these airlines to learn about their family seating policies, practices, and procedures. Based on its review of airline family seating policies and consumer complaints, the Department determined that it was unnecessary to direct airlines to establish policies that enable a child to sit next to an adult family member at that time.

OACP conducted a follow-up review in 2019 and learned that airlines had implemented enhanced approaches for providing family seating ( e.g., more than one airline had developed an automated system to assign young children to seats next to an adult family member), but airlines did not guarantee family seating. Also, the total number of family seating complaints against U.S. airlines received by the Department trended slightly higher from July 2017 through June 2019. In the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations (Committees) requested that the Department provide a report to the Committees “on its review of family seating policies and a justification for its decision to defer to current airline seating policies,” noting that the Department has stated that it completed its review and deferred to current airline family seating policies. The Department submitted the requested report to the Committees on March 12, 2020. In that report, the Department concluded that “[i]n lieu of directing airlines to establish specific seating policies, [it would] continue[ ] to update the family seating web page . . . [and] monitor and review the family seating complaints it receives on a regular basis to better understand what is and is not working.”

In July 2021, DOT Secretary Buttigieg and other officials from the Department met with consumer advocates who, as one of their top priorities, urged the Department to issue a rule requiring airlines to seat children next to at least one adult family member at no additional cost. The consumer advocates emphasized that, while the number of complaints about children being seated apart from an accompanying adult on a flight may not be large, the harm to the children who are separated is significant. After the meeting, the Department publicly stated that it would review this matter again to determine what other actions should be taken.

In July 2022, the Department issued a notice encouraging airlines to review and improve, as needed, their policies and procedures to ensure young children are seated adjacent to at least one accompanying adult to the maximum extent practicable and at no additional cost. In the notice, the Department asked airlines to review and improve their policies and procedures and stated that, four months from the date of the notice, it would initiate a review of airlines' family seating policies to ensure that children aged 13 or younger would be seated adjacent to an accompanying adult without paying an additional fee. In November 2022, the Department reviewed the ten largest U.S. airlines' family seating policies and discovered that airlines generally promised to make efforts to seat families together, but many required families to pay an additional fee to be assured that a young child traveling in the party would be seated adjacent to an accompanying adult.

In February 2023, the President called upon Congress to ban airline family seating fees and announced that the Department would publish a family seating fee dashboard and initiate a rulemaking to ban the practice. The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) also announced the Department's plan to launch a dashboard that provides information to air travelers on the largest airlines' guarantees to seat young children adjacent to at least one accompanying adult without the traveler having to pay an additional fee.

In anticipation of the dashboard's release, some airlines amended their family seating policies and added language to their customer service plans guaranteeing that they would provide adjacent seats for young children 13 or under traveling with an accompanying adult at no additional cost, subject to limited conditions. When the Department's family seating dashboard was published on OACP's website on March 6, 2023, only three out of the ten largest U.S. carriers had committed to guaranteeing adjacent seating for families at no additional cost. Since then, one additional airline has made that commitment.

Because most airlines would not guarantee that they would seat a parent and a child together at no extra cost, the Department initiated this rulemaking to ensure a young child is able to sit adjacent to an accompanying adult. On March 10, 2023, the Secretary also submitted a legislative proposal to Congress to amend chapter 417 of title 49, U.S. Code, to ensure that young children are seated adjacent to at least one accompanying adult at no additional cost, subject to certain conditions.

A. Need for a Rulemaking

The Department views family seating as a basic service, essential for the provision of adequate air transportation, that should be provided to passengers at no additional cost. As described in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) developed in support of this rulemaking, the Department estimates the percentage of consumers, including families with young children, who may pay seating fees. According to complaints received by DOT, some parents mistakenly assume that they will be seated next to their young children when they purchase tickets for air transportation. These passengers assume that fee-free family seating is already required because a parent would need to supervise and tend to their child during a flight, not to mention the potential harm that may occur from a child being separated from a parent during a flight.

Based on the nature and severity of the complaints the Department has received, and the reluctance shown by the majority of the largest U.S. airlines to amend their family seating policies to guarantee family seating at no additional cost, demonstrates a need for action in this area. Additionally, the Department received several hundred comments on its Enhancing Transparency of Airline Ancillary Service Fees NPRM that urged the Department to ban family seating fees, rather than requiring that those fees be disclosed to consumers early in the purchasing process.

Specifically, the Department is concerned about the hardship experienced by families when they are unable to ensure family seating in advance of travel and about families paying extra fees just to ensure that they are seated with their children. Furthermore, a carrier's failure to provide family seating harms not only passengers traveling with young children, but also other passengers on the aircraft who may be asked or directed to give up their seats to accommodate families on the day of travel or who may be required to sit next to an unsupervised child.

Consumers traveling with young children have reported feeling undue stress and anxiety when they are unable to receive assurances from carriers before the date of travel that they will be seated next to their young children. Although most airlines have indicated that their gate agents and flight crew will attempt to seat families together during the boarding process, these attempts are often taxing and, sometimes, unsuccessful. In one passenger complaint received by the Department, the passenger alleges that she purchased a “basic” ticket, and she was assigned a seat in a different row than her 4-year-old son. She states that her son was assigned to a seat in between two men that she had never met before, and the flight attendant onboard the aircraft refused to assist her with asking passengers to shuffle seats because it was a full flight. Similarly, the Department received another consumer complaint alleging that a 10-year-old child suffered an anxiety attack when, at the start of boarding, the child was still assigned to a seat in a separate row from his parents.

The Department is also concerned that the carriers that do not guarantee family seating advise passengers to purchase advance seat assignments, purchase seats in a higher fare class, or pay a fee to receive early boarding on the aircraft, simply to ensure that families are seated together. Many U.S. airlines offer basic economy, or another equivalent low-cost economy ticket. These low-cost economy ticket options typically do not allow passengers to select a seat assignment for free. Thus, if a passenger wants to ensure that they will receive a seat assignment next to their child in advance of the flight, carriers that do not guarantee free family seating typically advise passengers to either pay the advance seat assignment selection fee, or purchase seats that cost more than the low-cost economy tickets to be assured of seats adjacent to their young child. Thus, families traveling with young children are being forced to purchase a more expensive fare to ensure that they are seated with their young children.

Most carriers have indicated to the Department that they would try to make accommodations at the airport to ensure that families are seated together, regardless of the fare purchased by the passenger. Nonetheless, passengers who purchase low-fare economy tickets for their family have reported having difficulty when attempting to obtain family seating at the gate, and have, in some instances, been shamed by airlines for failing to purchase a higher fare ticket to ensure that their family will be assigned adjacent seats.

To illustrate, one passenger alleged that she purchased inexpensive seats on a large U.S. carrier and when she approached a gate agent on the day of travel, the agent initially refused to assign her a seat next to her two-year old and four-year old children and stated that she should have booked in a “higher class.” The passenger states that the agent eventually facilitated new seat assignments for her family, but she was upset by the lack of empathy shown by the agent and the unpleasantness of the encounter. In another complaint received by the Department, a passenger alleges that she was seated eight rows apart from her 3-year-old child and that the airline stated that it hoped she would be able to sit with her child on the day of travel or, in the alternative, that the passenger could pay for upgraded seats.

The Department also notes that even if a passenger reserves seats in advance, pays a fee to selects seats, or purchases seats in a higher class to ensure family seating, the passenger may be later assigned seats away from a young child in their travel party if the carrier changes the flight's aircraft. For example, the Department received a complaint from a passenger who alleges that he booked a flight for himself and his 8-year-old daughter. He states that when he booked his flight, he made sure that he reserved a seat directly next to his daughter, but when the airline changed the flight schedule, they also changed his seat assignment, and he was no longer seated next to his daughter.

Families have also identified child safety concerns as a major cause of stress and anxiety when a carrier does not provide passengers with assurances that they will be seated next to their young child on a flight. In one passenger complaint received by DOT, a passenger alleges that her three children, all under the age of 13, were assigned seats away from the accompanying adults in their travel party. She states that she was concerned about the seating arrangement because there would be no responsible adult available to help her children with masks or life vests in the case of an emergency, no one to help her children load baggage into the overhead bin, and no assurances that her children were protected sitting next to strangers. No family should have to worry about the safety of a young child, including during a potential emergency, because their child is seated rows away and next to complete strangers.

Additionally, carriers that do not guarantee family seating to passengers traveling with children cause harm to passengers traveling without children. When a carrier assigns a young child a seat away from their accompanying adult, other passengers must make the decision to sit next to an unsupervised child or to forfeit the seat they may have paid to obtain, to remedy a situation the carrier created. When a parent and child are seated apart, carriers rely heavily on the goodwill of other passengers on the aircraft to relinquish their seats to allow a child and a parent to be seated next to each other on the aircraft. However, due to carriers' seating policies, many passengers may have paid an additional fee for the seat they selected or have paid an additional fee to board the aircraft early. If the passenger elects not to relocate, the passenger would then sit next to, and potentially have to look after, an unsupervised child. Similarly, the Department views it as unreasonable for passengers who paid for early boarding to relinquish their seats to families traveling with young children to remedy the situation the carrier created. The seat switching process also creates a transaction cost on all parties involved, including delays in boarding and departure time, that could have been avoided if the family had already been assigned seats together prior to boarding, or in the case of open seating carriers, boarded in a manner that ensured family seating.

As described above, the Department has received various complaints describing stress-inducing incidents where families with very young children were assigned seats apart from a parent, and complaints describing fees that had to be paid to ensure that a parent was seated adjacent to their child. These additional costs can be a significant expense and can be a barrier for families who cannot afford to pay additional fees to ensure that a child in the travel party is seated adjacent to at least one accompanying adult.

In this rulemaking, the Department proposes to amend 14 CFR part 259, Enhanced Protections for Airline Passengers, and create a new 14 CFR part 261 Family Seating, to require U.S. and foreign air carriers to seat children aged 13 and under next to at least one accompanying adult at no additional cost, as defined in this rulemaking, subject to limited exceptions. Under this proposal, a carrier would be prohibited from imposing additional charges to provide adjacent seating. Failure to provide family seating at no additional cost beyond the fare, including by charging for seat selection or upgraded priority boarding, would subject the carrier to civil penalties on a per passenger (child) basis or a per fee basis. If an airline fails to provide adjacent seating as required by the proposed rule, it would be required to provide the passengers remedial choices.

B. Statutory Authority

1. Authority To Regulate Under the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024

Section 516 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (2024 FAA Reauthorization Act, Reauthorization Act, or Act) provides that the Secretary of Transportation “shall issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish a policy” that directs assigned seating air carriers to seat young children, under 14 years of age, adjacent to an accompanying adult to the greatest extent practicable, if the adjacent seats are available any time after the ticket has been issued, but before the first passenger boards the flight. Additionally, the Reauthorization Act also prohibits air carriers from charging a fee or imposing an additional cost beyond the ticket price to provide this service. Further, the Act states that section 516 should not be construed in such a way as to “allow the Secretary to impose a change in the overall seating or boarding policy of an air carrier that has an open or flexible seating policy in place that generally allows adjacent family seating as described in” that section. Pursuant to Section 516 of the Reauthorization Act, DOT proposes in this NPRM to require assigned seating carriers to provide family seating to young children and an accompanying adult on aircraft at no additional cost. The Department also proposes to require carriers with an open or flexible seating policy to board passengers in a manner that allows a young child and an accompanying adult to secure adjacent seatings on the flight at no additional charge. This proposal, made pursuant to existing statutory authority at 49 U.S.C. 41702 and 41712 as explained in the following paragraphs, is consistent with paragraph (c) of section 516, which prohibits DOT from imposing a change in the overall seating or boarding policies of open or flexible seating carriers. The Department's proposals provide open and flexible seating carriers with the flexibility to work within the framework of their existing seating policies to determine how to board passengers in a way that would allow a young child to secure a seat adjacent to an accompanying adult at no additional charge. For example, a carrier, operating under its existing open or flexible seating policies could ensure family seating by blocking off seats in a specific section of the aircraft dedicated to passengers traveling with families, or by requiring families to be at the gate at a certain time before boarding to obtain family seating.

2. Authority To Regulate Under 49 U.S.C. 41702

With respect to the proposed requirements in this NPRM applicable to air carriers, the Department issues this NPRM pursuant to additional authority under 49 U.S.C. 41702, which states that “an air carrier shall provide safe and adequate interstate air transportation.” The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), the predecessor to the U.S. Department of Transportation, had the authority to ensure that air carriers provide “safe and adequate service, equipment and facilities” under section 404(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, which was later codified in 49 U.S.C. 41702. The CAB relied on section 404(a) to adopt a regulation that restricted smoking on flights by dividing aircraft cabins into smoking and nonsmoking sections. The CAB reasoned that its authority to require air carriers to provide “adequate service” under § 41702 includes ensuring that the service does not cause passenger discomfort and annoyance. The CAB's regulation and interpretation of “adequate service” was later challenged by a passenger, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that “adequate service” referred both to the number of flights provided by an air carrier and the quality of service provided to passengers.

More recently, the Department relied on its authority to provide safe and adequate interstate transportation in § 41702 in its 2016 final rule prohibiting the use of e-cigarettes on-board aircraft. In that final rule, the Department reasoned that it had the authority to rely on the “adequate” prong in § 41702 to ban the use of e-cigarettes. The Department argued that discomfort from e-cigarettes was like the discomfort described by the CAB when it chose to restrict smoking on aircraft in 1973.

The Department's proposal in this NPRM promotes “adequate” air transportation because requiring airlines to ensure that young children are seated adjacent to an accompanying adult at no additional cost would decrease the significant hardship, stress, and anxiety experienced by families when a young child is not seated next to an accompanying adult on an aircraft. Passenger complaints received by DOT allege that both parents and their children have experienced anxiety and significant stress when faced with the risk of being separated during their flights. Failing to provide family seating also causes discomfort and harm to passengers who are not traveling with young children since these passengers may be asked to voluntarily give up their seats on the day of travel to accommodate a young child and accompanying adult. Forcing passengers, especially those passengers who paid for a specific seat assignment, to choose either to sit next to an unsupervised child or to relinquish their seat and move to a potentially undesirable location on the aircraft causes discomfort and annoyance.

In addition, the rule promotes “adequate” service because ensuring that young children are seated adjacent to an accompanying adult is an essential component of basic air transportation service that passengers reasonably believe should be included in their air transportation fare. Adequate service includes the quality of the service provided to passengers. Current carrier practices of encouraging families to pay fees for a basic service that should be included with the air transportation purchased degrades the quality of the service provided to passengers by the carrier and can ultimately be harmful to any passengers on the aircraft. As such, the Department's authority to ensure adequate service under § 41702 supports the proposed requirements in this NPRM.

Also, in light of passenger complaints received by DOT, the Department's proposal in this NPRM promotes “adequate” air transportation under § 41702 by establishing further protections for young children traveling in air transportation. According to passenger complaints, young children who are separated from an accompanying adult may be more vulnerable to harm when traveling on an aircraft. Unlike children traveling as unaccompanied minors, who benefit from a service provided by airlines that typically involves the airline charging a fee to monitor and supervise the transport of a young child, young children who travel unsupervised because the airline failed to provide family seating may undergo unnecessary emotional trauma, may be harmed by another passenger during air transportation, or may not receive the requisite assistance to protect themselves during an emergency on the aircraft. Passenger concerns about protecting children traveling alone on aircraft therefore justify the Department's use of its authority to ensure adequate transportation under § 41702.

3. Authority To Regulate Under 49 U.S.C. 41712

The Department is also issuing this NPRM pursuant to its authority in 49 U.S.C. 41712 to prohibit unfair or deceptive practices by air carriers, foreign air carriers, or ticket agents in air transportation or the sale of air transportation.

On December 7, 2020, the Department issued a final rule that, among other things, requires the Department to provide its reasoning for concluding that a certain practice is unfair or deceptive to consumers when issuing aviation consumer protection rulemakings that are not specifically required by statute and are based on the Department's general authority to prohibit unfair or deceptive practices under section 41712. That final rule adopted definitions for the terms “unfair” and “deceptive.” A practice is “unfair” to consumers if it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury, which is not reasonably avoidable, and the harm is not outweighed by benefits to consumers or competition. A practice is “deceptive” to consumers if it is likely to mislead a consumer, acting reasonably under the circumstances, with respect to a material matter. A matter is material if it is likely to have affected the consumer's conduct or decision with respect to a product or service. Proof of intent is not necessary to establish unfairness or deception. The Department elaborated further on the elements of “unfair” and “deceptive” in a 2022 guidance document.

a. Unfair Practice

Pursuant to its authority to prohibit unfair practices under section 41712, the Department proposes to ensure that carriers allow young children to be seated adjacent to an accompanying adult on a flight at no additional cost. In support of its proposal, the Department reasons that a carrier's practice of not allowing a young child or young children to be seated adjacent to an accompanying adult unless they pay a fee to ensure adjacent seating is unfair because it causes substantial harm to consumers, the harm is not reasonably avoidable, and the harm is not outweighed by the benefits to consumers and competition. Although the number of family seating complaints that the Department has received is low, a substantial harm may be demonstrated by a large amount of harm to a small number of people or unwarranted health and safety risk.

The Department believes there is substantial harm whenever a young child is separated from an accompanying adult on a flight due to unwarranted health and safety risks to the child. Consumers report experiencing significant stress and anxiety when they are assigned seats apart from their young children, who, in some circumstances, are too young to feed themselves, fasten their own seatbelt, go to the bathroom, and, in some cases, communicate. Furthermore, as discussed above, young children who travel unsupervised because the airline failed to provide family seating may undergo unnecessary emotional trauma, may be harmed by another passenger during air transportation, or may not receive the requisite assistance to protect themselves during an emergency on the aircraft.

The Department also considers the monetary harm to parents, who are required to purchase adjacent seats to ensure the safety of their children, to be substantial and to satisfy the first prong of the unfairness test. Other travelers may choose to purchase adjacent seats for convenience or companionship, but they would not face the same concerns that parents with young children would if they are not seated together because young children are not able to defend and protect themselves from harm in the same way as an adult. A parent traveling with young children may feel compelled to pay for adjacent seating, even though the cost is high, to ease their minds about the health and safety of their children. For similar reasons, parents traveling with young children are currently not able to take advantage of basic economy fares that do not include the ability to select seats or to be seated together, thereby creating higher travel costs for those with young children.

Furthermore, the practice of not guaranteeing that young children will be seated adjacent to at least one accompanying adult at no additional cost harms other passengers on the aircraft. Most carriers have moved to a seating model where people may pay to select their seat in advance or pay for early boarding. Airlines charge different fees for different seats based on perceived benefits. Despite passengers paying these fees, airlines may ask these passengers to “voluntarily” forfeit their seats for families traveling with young children and move to a less desirable seat, with the alternative of being seated next to an unsupervised child and causing stress and anxiety for that child's parent.

For families traveling with young children, the monetary harm suffered by consumers who are coerced into paying more to sit adjacent to their children is not reasonably avoidable because the only way for families to ensure that they are seated together on carriers that do not guarantee family seating is to pay a seat-selection fee, book a seat in a higher fare class, or pay an early boarding fee. For many parents, sitting apart from their child is not an option, and those parents feel compelled to pay the fee or may even be unable to travel altogether because of the additional cost. Furthermore, as discussed above, even those paying fees for adjacent seats may be separated from their children in the event of an aircraft change and would also be unable to avoid the harm of being seated apart from their young children. In addition, the harm to passengers not traveling with young children is not reasonably avoidable because these passengers do not know, prior to travel, if they will be asked to relinquish their seat to accommodate a family traveling with a young child or if they will be seated next to an unsupervised child.

The Department believes that the tangible and significant harm to consumers is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. As noted above, consumers face substantial harm when a carrier refuses to seat families traveling with young children together at no additional cost, or when the carrier relies on other passengers to choose between sitting next to an unsupervised child or giving up their preferred seat. Further, the countervailing benefits to consumers and competition of permitting family seating fees do not outweigh this substantial harm to consumers. The Department does not believe the harm outweighs any benefit to consumers, such as any potential slight increase in fare cost for consumers traveling without children or families that do not currently pay advance seat fees.

In fact, the Department believes that its proposal will promote competition. Today, airlines are required to state the full price of a ticket, inclusive of all mandatory fees, in their published fares. However, airlines are not required to include fees for adjacent seats in the advertised fare, as they are considered optional services. Many families with young children consider fees for adjacent seats as not truly optional and effectively part of the price. Fees for adjacent seats can quickly add up and transform what seemed like a cheap airline ticket into a pricey one. The addition of a seating fee to the advertised fare effectively raises the final cost of air transportation for families traveling with young children. Banning fees for seating young children adjacent to an accompanying adult will enhance competition, as families will be able to use the published fare to accurately comparison shop between airline offers. Effective competition is enabled when consumers have the information necessary to make informed choices.

The Department also proposes to prohibit unfair practices by requiring a carrier to disclose that it provides family seating at no additional cost and to disclose any carrier-imposed requirements that attach to its family seating policy and are permitted under the proposed rule that may impact the consumer's ability to secure adjacent seats, including carrier requirements for check-in or boarding. These disclosures would be required on a carrier's online platforms and when a consumer calls the carrier's reservation center to inquire about a fare or seating or to book a ticket.

A carrier's failure to disclose that it provides family seating at no additional cost would result in substantial monetary harm to families because uninformed consumers would be likely to needlessly purchase seats assignments, or seats in a higher fair class to, secure family seating, which would result in higher costs to families traveling in air transportation. Additionally, failing to disclose the exceptions to the carrier's family seating policy would cause significant harm to consumers because uninformed families run the risk of unwittingly forfeiting their ability to secure adjacent seats e.g., a family may be refused family seating, resulting in a young child or young children sitting apart from a parent or other responsible adult, if the family was unaware of the need to check-in at the boarding gate at a specific time.

The harm is not reasonably avoidable because consumers would have no way of learning the parameters of a carrier's family seating policy if a carrier failed to make the disclosures proposed in this NPRM. The only way that a consumer would learn that a carrier provides family seating for free, or that certain exceptions to the carrier's family seating policy exist, would be if the consumer made a direct inquiry to the carrier. The Department believes that such an inquiry is unlikely to occur because an ordinary consumer would reasonably assume that a carrier has provided pertinent information about its seating policies, including for family seating to enable young children to sit next to a parent or other responsible adult, on its online platform.

Finally, the harm to consumers is not outweighed by the benefit because, as discussed above, the additional cost of purchasing assigned seats or seats in a higher fare class would raise the cost of air transportation for families traveling with young children. Additionally, uninformed consumers run the risk of failing to secure family seating.

b. Deceptive Practice

Pursuant to its authority to prohibit deceptive practices under section 41712, the Department is proposing to require carriers to disclose that they will seat a young child adjacent to an accompanying adult at no additional cost with limited exceptions and disclose the exceptions that may impact the consumer's ability to secure adjacent seats, if the proposal to ban family seating fees is adopted in final. The Department is proposing to require this disclosure on carrier's online platforms and when a customer calls the carrier's reservation center to inquire about a fare or seating or to book a ticket. Without this disclosure, it is likely that a consumer, acting reasonably under the circumstances, would be misled and unnecessarily pay for adjacent seats or inadvertently not take the required steps to secure adjacent seats. The carrier's disclosure that it will provide family seating at no additional cost, and disclosure of the applicable exceptions to its policy, is a material matter for consumers, as the disclosure prevents unnecessary payment of fees and ensures families know what they need to do to ensure they are seated together.

C. Hearing Procedures

For the reasons discussed in the Statutory Authority section of this NPRM, the Department proposes that failing to provide family seating at no additional cost is an unfair practice. The Department also proposes that, if family seating fees are banned, it would be a deceptive practice for carriers not to disclose to families that they will seat a young child adjacent to an accompanying adult at no additional cost with limited exceptions.

Pursuant to 14 CFR 399.75(b)(1), any interested party may file a petition to hold a hearing on the proposed rule prior to the close of the comment period. As stated in the DATES section, petitions must therefore be received by October 8, 2024.

14 CFR 399.75(b)(2) provides that the Department will grant a petition if the petitioner makes a clear and convincing showing that granting the petition is in the public interest. Factors considered in determining whether a petition is in the public interest include: (1) Whether the proposed rule depends on conclusions concerning one or more specific scientific, technical, economic, or other factual issues that are genuinely in dispute or that may not satisfy the requirements of the Information Quality Act; (2) whether the ordinary public comment process is unlikely to provide an adequate examination of the issues to permit a fully informed judgment; (3) whether the resolution of the disputed factual issues would likely have a material effect on the costs and benefits of the proposed rule; (4) whether the requested hearing would advance the consideration of the proposed rule and the General Counsel's ability to make the rulemaking determinations required by § 399.75; and (5) whether the hearing would unreasonably delay completion of the rulemaking. DOT must also provide an explanation of the basis for the decision on a petition. (14 CFR 399.75(b)(3)).

D. Summary of Proposed Regulatory Provisions

The Department is proposing to enhance its aviation consumer protection requirements by adopting a new part under Subchapter A of Title 14 of the Code of Federal regulations, 14 CFR part 261, which would require U.S. and foreign air carriers to allow young children to be seated adjacent to an accompanying adult on a flight at no additional cost. In addition, the Department seeks to enhance its aviation consumer protection requirements by amending 14 CFR part 259 to require carriers to notify passengers of their family seating policies in their customer service plans. The Department's proposed protections are described in the summary table below.