[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 111 (Friday, June 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30690-30696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12800]




[[Page 30689]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 91 et al.



49 CFR Part 571



Child Restraint Systems; Proposed Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 111 / Friday, June 9, 1995 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 30690]]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125, and 135

[Docket No. 28229; Notice No. 95-7]
RIN 2120-AF52


Child Restraint Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to withdraw FAA approval for the use of 
booster seats and vest- and harness-type child restraint systems in 
aircraft during takeoff, landing, and movement on the surface. In 
addition, this notice emphasizes the existing prohibition in all 
aircraft against the use of lap held child restraint systems (including 
belly belts). The FAA believes that, during an aircraft crash, the 
banned devices may put children in a potentially worse situation than 
the allowable alternatives. This notice does not affect use of other 
types of approved child restraint devices. The FAA will continue to 
analyze methods to improve the alternatives to the proposed banned 
devices.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice should be mailed, in triplicate, to: 
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 28229, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments delivered must be marked 
Docket No. 28229. Comments may be examined in room 915G weekdays 
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m., except on Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donell Pollard, (AFS-203), Air Transportation Division, Flight 
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; Telephone (202) 267-3735.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The FAA is concerned about the safety of children who use certain 
forms of child restraint systems aboard aircraft. In 1992, the FAA set 
forth in Secs. 91.107(a), 121.311(b), 125.211(b), and 135.128(a) the 
child restraint systems acceptable for use in aircraft by listing 
labeling requirements and certain use requirements. Since that time the 
FAA has supplemented the rule with advisory material and with a public 
information leaflet titled ``Child/Infant Safety Seats Recommended for 
Use in Aircraft.''
    Under present regulations a child who has not reached his or her 
second birthday (infant) is not required to have a separate seat aboard 
an aircraft. This means that the person accompanying an infant may 
choose to hold the infant during flight.
    If the accompanying adult wishes to put the infant in a child 
restraint system on a passenger seat, the airline may require the adult 
to purchase a separate ticket for the infant. Whether or not the 
airline requires the purchase of a ticket for the infant, a separate 
passenger seat is necessary if a child restraint is to be used (14 CFR 
Secs. 121.311(c), 125.211(c), and 135.128(b)).
    The provisions of Secs. 91.107, 121.311, 125.211, and 135.128 
identify those child restraints that are approved for use aboard 
aircraft. These child restraint provisions also apply whenever a child 
restraint is used for a child 2 years old or older who is required to 
have a separate seat on the aircraft. A child 2 years old or older must 
either be properly secured in an approved child restraint or properly 
secured with a safety belt in a passenger seat.
    The FAA's 1992 determination as to which child restraint systems 
would be approved for use aboard aircraft was based on many years of 
work by both the FAA and the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA). In the 1970's, NHTSA proposed dynamic testing 
of child restraint systems for use in automobiles. In the mid 1980's, 
the FAA and NHTSA undertook an effort to develop a common approach to 
the approval of child restraints. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards (FMVSS) No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213) was amended to provide 
criteria for the certification of child restraints that were 
appropriate for both aircraft and automobiles.
    FMVSS No. 213, as revised, is the current U.S. standard, and has 
allowed hundreds of models of seats to be approved, including booster-
type child restraint systems (``booster seats''). The current FAA child 
restraint rules do not specifically refer to FMVSS No. 213. However, 
FMVSS No. 213 is the basis for the labels required under the FAA rules.
    The current FAA rules on child restraint systems permit the use of 
child restraint systems only if they bear a proper label(s), meet 
certain use requirements, and meet adult accompaniment requirements.
    Approved labels fall into three categories as follows:
    1. Seats manufactured to U.S. standards between January 1, 1981, 
and February 25, 1985, must bear a label that states ``This child 
restraint system conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards.'' However, vest- and harness-type child restraint 
systems manufactured before February 26, 1985, are not approved for use 
on aircraft even if they bear this label.
    2. Seats manufactured to U.S. standards on or after February 26, 
1985, must bear the following two labels:
    (i) ``This child restraint system conforms to all applicable 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards;'' and
    (ii) ``THIS RESTRAINT IS CERTIFIED FOR USE IN MOTOR VEHICLES AND 
AIRCRAFT,'' in red lettering.
    3. Seats that are not manufactured to approved U.S. standards must 
bear either a label showing approval of a foreign government or a label 
showing that the seats were manufactured under the standards of the 
United Nations.
    The use requirements for child restraint systems are as follows:
    1. The restraint system must be properly secured to an approved 
forward-facing seat or berth;
    2. The child must be properly secured in the restraint system and 
must not exceed the specified weight limit for the restraint system; 
and
    3. The restraint system must bear that appropriate label(s).
    The adult accompaniment provisions for child restraint systems 
require that the child be accompanied by a parent, guardian, or 
attendant designated by the child's parent or guardian to attend to the 
safety of the child during the flight.
    While the current rule language disallows vest- and harness-type 
child restraint systems manufactured before February 26, 1985, some of 
these systems manufactured after that date meet U.S., foreign 
government, or United Nations requirements.

Need for Amendment

    As discussed above, the present FAA rules on child restraint 
systems are based primarily on U.S. standards. However, the FAA now has 
determined that some child restraint systems that work well in 
automobiles may not be safe for use in aircraft. The FAA has reached 
this conclusion based in part on recent studies by FAA's Civil 
Aeromedical Institute (CAMI). A copy of CAMI's final report, as well as 
a follow-up report that clarifies certain issues in the CAMI report, is 
included in the docket. The CAMI studies were conducted to evaluate 
whether the FAA regulations regarding crashworthiness requirements for 
adult passenger seats and the standards applicable to child restraint 
devices were consistent, to respond to questions from the Air 
[[Page 30691]] Transport Association concerning which child restraint 
systems were approved for aircraft, and to respond to comments received 
from child restraint manufacturers, private testing organizations, the 
National Transportation Safety Board, foreign regulatory organizations, 
and consumer activists at the January 1993, session of the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE) ad hoc committee on child restraints. Some 
of the most serious issues identified by CAMI concern child restraints 
commonly referred to as shield-type booster seats, vest- and harness-
type child restraint systems, and belly belts.
    FMVSS No. 213 defines a ``booster seat'' as ``either a backless 
child restraint system or a belt-positioning seat''. FMVSS No. 213 
defines a ``backless child restraint system'' as ``a child restraint, 
other than a belt-positioning seat, that consists of a seating platform 
that does not extend up to provide a cushion for the child's back or 
head and has a structural element designed to restrain forward motion 
of the child's torso in a forward impact'' (hereinafter referred to as 
``shield-type''). FMVSS No. 213 defines a ``belt-positioning seat'' as 
``a child restraint system that positions a child on a vehicle seat to 
improve the fit of a vehicle Type 2 belt system on the child and that 
lacks any component, such as a belt system or a structural element, 
designed to restrain forward movement of the child's torso in a forward 
impact'' (49 CFR 571.213(S4)). NHTSA and the FAA are working together 
to develop additional standards to allow an improved assessment of the 
performance of child restraint systems in the aircraft environment.
    Booster seats are generally designed for children who are 3 to 8 
years old and weigh 30 to 60 pounds. As such, the children who weigh 40 
pounds and over can be adequately protected in an aircraft seat 
restrained by the safety belt, and the children who weigh between 30 
pounds (the threshold weight for a booster seat) and 40 pounds can be 
restrained in a forward facing child restraint system. The ``shield-
type'' booster seat is secured to the vehicle with the passenger safety 
belt and the shield provides crash protection for the upper body of the 
child. The ``belt-positioning'' booster seat is secured to the vehicle, 
along with the child, with the passenger seat and shoulder belt system 
of the vehicle; the shoulder portion of the best provides crash 
protection for the upper body of the child.
    Vest- and harness-type restraint devices are usually designed for 
children in the 25 to 50 pound range. The harness-type device usually 
consists of a torso harness with padded, adjustable straps over the 
shoulders and around the pelvis and, in some designs, it contains a 
crotch strap. The harness contains a means (e.g. a webbing attached to 
a metal back plate) for the passenger safety belt to attach the harness 
to the aircraft seat.
    The belly belt included in the CAMI study has a short loop of 
webbing with standard buckle hardware installed on the ends. This belt 
is designed to be buckled around the child's abdomen and is secured to 
an adult's abdomen with the adult's safety belt by routing the safety 
belt through a small loop of webbing sewn on the belly belt. The belly 
belt, as well as other types of lap held child restraint devices, are 
not permitted to be used under the existing rules.
    Under the existing rules, a child restraint system that bears one 
or more of the specified labels cannot be used unless the restraint 
system is properly secured to an approved forward-facing seat or berth 
(see Secs. 91.107(a)(3)(iii)(C)(1), 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(A), 
125.211(b)(2)(iii)(A), and 135.128(a)(2)(iii)(A)). Because lap held 
child restraint systems are not secured to a forward-facing seat or 
berth, but instead are secured to the adult, they cannot be used under 
existing rules. Nonetheless, the FAA has decided that it is important 
to emphasize this prohibition and, therefore, proposes to add 
clarifying language to the existing rules.
    The CAMI study identified the following concerns with booster 
seats, vest- and harness-type child restraints, and belly belts:
    Booster seats--In the test, the shield-type booster seat, in 
combination with other factors, contributed to an abdominal pressure 
measurement higher than in other means of protection.
    Vest- and harness-type systems--When tested in an airplane seat, 
these systems allowed excessive forward body excursion, resulting in 
the anthropomorphic test dummy sliding off the front of the seat with a 
high likelihood of the child impacting the back of the row of seats in 
front of it. Rebound acceleration presents further risk for injury.
    Belly belts--In the test, these systems allowed the anthropomorphic 
test dummy to make severe contact with the back of the seat in the row 
in front of the test dummy. The child also may be crushed by the 
forward bending motion of the adult to whom the child is attached.
    CAMI research involved dynamic impact tests with a variety of 
certified child restraints installed in transport airplane passenger 
seats at the 16g peak loads required in 14 CFR Sec. 25.562(b)(2). Some 
of the tests of child restraint systems were configured to represent a 
typical multi-row seat installation and included testing the effects of 
the occupant impact against the backs of seats. The tests investigated 
transport airplane passenger seat compatibility with child restraints 
and measured three performance factors: adaptability, structural 
response, and occupant protection.

Shield-Type Booster Seats

    The FAA has determined that some child restraint systems that work 
well in automobiles may not be as safe for use in aircraft during 
takeoff, landing, and movement on the surface as other available means 
of protection. Unlike in an automobile, where seat backs are fixed and 
rigid and present a barrier to rear-generated forces, airline seats are 
generally not rigid and thus may breakover under their own inertia or 
when struck by a passenger. This represents a potential source of 
pressure and force to the occupant of a backless child restraint 
device.
    The CAMI research found that in laboratory impact tests using 
representative airplane seats found in a transport airplane, shield-
type booster seats may offer less protection from aft row occupant 
impact forces on the seat back than other available means of 
protection. Aft row occupant impact forces transmitted through the 
passenger seat back in which the child restraint is installed are an 
important consideration, particularly in seats with breakover seat 
backs. The movement of the aft row adult passenger may expose the child 
to an impact from behind and to being crushed between the airplane seat 
back and the booster seat shield. In addition, when this situation was 
studied by CAMI, increased abdominal loading of the child test dummy 
was discovered when the researchers reviewed the test data on an 
anthropomorphic dummy representing a 3-year old child weighing 33.3 
pounds. The researchers then used a smaller ``CAMIX'' anthropomorphic 
dummy weighing 27.2 pounds, representing a 2-year old child, that was 
instrumented to measure abdominal loads. These measurements showed an 
increase in abdominal loads over those when the test dummy was 
protected by the aircraft seat's lap belt. The abdominal loading 
measured by this dummy in [[Page 30692]] shield-type booster seats was 
not caused by the dummy's impact against the shield alone, but by the 
force of the seat back and the aft row passenger as they pressed the 
dummy into the shield. Therefore, although CAMI used a test dummy 
weighing less than the range of children recommended by the 
manufacturer for its booster seat, the FAA believes that the dynamics 
would be the same for a child within the weight limits specified by the 
manufacturer.
    The FAA believes that shield-type booster seats, which may 
contribute to higher abdominal loading, might put children in a 
potentially worse situation than the alternatives permitted in the FAA 
regulations. In the study, the FAA researchers at CAMI compared the 
abdominal load impacts on the CAMIX anthropomorphic test dummy when it 
was placed in a shield-type booster seat and when it was placed in a 
lap belt in a typical airplane passenger seat. When an adult-size test 
dummy aft of the CAMIX dummy and with a breakover seat back, the 
abdominal load was 37.6 pounds per square inch (psi) when the dummy was 
restrained by the lap belt compared to 59.5 psi for the dummy when it 
was in a shield-type booster seat.
    The CAMI researchers also found that the abdominal loads on the 
CAMIX test dummy with a locked seat back were higher in the shield-type 
booster seat (in the 19.8 to 20.8 psi range) than in a typical airplane 
lap belt with a locked seat back (9.5 psi).
    The FAA recognizes that the booster seats are designed for children 
in the 30 to 60 pound weight range. Although the CAMIX dummy is 27.2 
pounds, it was the only test dummy available that was equipped to 
measure abdominal loads. However, the FAA believes that abdominal loads 
for children who are in the 30 to 60 pound weight range and who are in 
shield-type booster seats would similarly exceed the abdominal loads 
that those children would experience in lap belts in representative 
aircraft seats in a worst case survivable aircraft crash.
    The FAA is proposing to ban shield-type booster seats in aircraft 
during takeoff, landing, and movement on the surface because of the 
concern about the increase in abdominal pressure. The FAA believes that 
there is a relationship between abdominal loading and injury. The 
agency notes, however, that no accepted injury criteria have been 
developed that would permit the FAA to predict precisely the severity 
or type of abdominal injury. In view of the absence of criteria for 
assessing the relationship between differences in measured levels of 
abdominal loading and the resulting risk of injury, the FAA invites 
comments, including statistical data, on the value of abdominal 
loading, by itself, as a predictor of injury.
    The FAA recognizes that differences in abdominal loading are but 
one measure of the overall safety performance of child restraint 
devices. Among the others are the degree of extension of the spine and 
the head injury protection criteria (HIC) developed by NHTSA to measure 
head injury risk in motor vehicle crashes. Accordingly, the agency 
invites comments on the overall safety performance of shield-type 
booster seats compared to that of other available means of protection.
    A separate seat or berth must be available in order to use a 
shield-type booster seat. If the FAA adopts this proposal to ban the 
use of shield-type booster seats, children over age 2 will have to use 
the passenger seat lap belt or some other type of approved child 
restraint system. The accompanying adult or the airline may provide the 
alternative approved child restraint system, but neither is required to 
do so. The FAA believes that children 2 years old or older will be 
safer in their own passenger seat restrained by a lap belt or in 
allowable child restraint systems than they would have been in the 
shield-type booster seats.
    Under existing regulations, children under age 2 are not required 
to use a child restraint system or lap belt. Those children are 
permitted to be held on an adult's lap. By proposing to ban the use of 
shield-type booster seats, the FAA does not mean to encourage the 
practice of adults holding children under age 2 on their laps. Again, 
the FAA believes that a child who weighs enough to use a booster seat 
would be safer in a passenger seat lap belt or other approved type of 
child restraint system.
    The FAA invites comments on the issue of whether the proposed ban 
would induce more parents to place more children on their laps during 
flight. The FAA also invites comments on the relative safety of placing 
children in shield-type booster seats versus putting children on laps. 
Although the FAA does not encourage the practice of holding a child 
under age 2 in an adult's lap, in 1992 the FAA decided not to mandate 
that children under age 2 use some type of restraint system (57 FR 
42662). The FAA concluded that if children under age 2 were required to 
be in approved restraint systems and if the affected operators used 
such a requirement to charge for the transportation of children under 
age 2, more fatalities and injuries would occur. The FAA determined 
that if adults were charged for the transportation of infants, some 
adults would decide to drive in automobiles to their destinations 
rather than fly. Noting that the accident rate on the roads is higher 
than the accident rate in commercial air transportation, the FAA 
concluded that more deaths and injuries would occur for children in 
automobile accidents than would be avoided in aviation crashes if the 
FAA mandated the use of child restraint systems for children under age 
2 on aircraft. The FAA invites comments on its previous decision not to 
mandate child restraint systems. Recently, Congress instructed the FAA 
to restudy the net safety impact that would result if the agency were 
to mandate restraint devices for infants. That study will be submitted 
to Congress shortly and will be added to this rulemaking docket.

Vest- and Harness-Type Child Restraint Systems

    Because of the location of the safety belt anchors for an airplane 
seat, harness-type child restraints tested at CAMI did not provide 
adequate restraint to prevent a serious impact with a seat back in 
front of the child occupant and a rebound impact with the occupant's 
own seat.
    The FAA is aware that there may be an issue as to whether a parent 
who has been told that these devices are banned will choose not to buy 
a ticket for a separate seat for a child under 2, and, instead, hold 
the child in the lap. A parent who has purchased a ticket for the use 
of the vest- and harness-type device also has the option of using the 
passenger seat lap belt or using an approved child restraint device. 
The FAA believes that a parent who has purchased a ticket for a child, 
upon being told that the child could not use a vest- and harness-type 
device, would elect to use the passenger seat lap belt or an approved 
child restraint device. Others may believe that the parent may choose 
to hold the child on his or her lap. However, as noted above, the FAA 
believes that a child would be safer in a passenger seat lap belt or 
other approved type of child restraint system. The FAA also believes 
that a parent of a child under 2, who is already predisposed to buy a 
ticket for a separate airplane seat for use with a vest- and harness-
type device and who has received education on the effectiveness of the 
allowable alternatives in advance of purchasing tickets, would purchase 
a ticket for a separate seat in order to use an approved and 
recommended child restraint device. The FAA specifically invites 
comments on this issue. Based [[Page 30693]] on the CAMI research and 
further analysis, the FAA believes that, in an aircraft crash, vest- 
and harness-type child restraint systems put children in a potentially 
worse situation than the alternatives permitted in the FAA regulations.
    In an aircraft crash, these systems allow unacceptable levels of 
body excursion and/or submarining (the occupant's lower body slides 
underneath the restraint system). The FAA believes that if a child 
under 2 falls in the weight use limits (25-50 pounds) recommended by 
vest and harness manufacturers, the child would be safer in a passenger 
seat restrained by a lap belt than in a vest- and harness-type device 
if no other approved device were available.
    However, the FAA believes that a child weighing between 25 and 40 
pounds, a weight range consistent with harness use, would be better 
protected in a forward facing child restraint device than in a lap 
belt. The FAA notes that the CAMI study demonstrated that six of the 
eight forward facing child restraint systems it tested did not provide 
a desirable level of head injury protection (i.e., head injury 
criterion (HIC) less than 1,000) in the worst-case simulated survivable 
airplane crash. Nonetheless, based on an analysis of CAMI's testing of 
the harness, the lap belt, and forward facing child restraint devices, 
the FAA finds that forward facing child restraint devices will provide 
higher levels of protection than lap belts and harnesses for children 
between 25 and 40 pounds. In addition, CAMI testing revealed that lap 
belts provide a superior level of protection for children weighing more 
than 40 pounds to that provided by harnesses and booster seats. 
Consequently, the FAA recommends the use of forward facing child 
restraint devices for children weighing between 25 pounds (the 
threshold weight for a harness device) and 40 pounds; the FAA further 
recommends the use of lap belts for children weighting more than 40 
pounds. The agency is continuing to analyze the relative protection 
afforded by forward facing child restraint devices and is aggressively 
examining methods by which the efficacy of such devices can meet 
desired testing levels.

Belt-Positioning Booster Seats

    Belt-positioning booster seats require shoulder harnesses, and 
transport airplanes do not have passenger shoulder harnesses. In 
addition, in other aircraft that may have shoulder harnesses for 
passengers, the FAA believes that during an aircraft crash there is a 
likelihood that a belt-positioning booster seat will shift from the 
passenger seat, causing a degradation in the performance of that child 
restraint system, thus resulting in injury. NHTSA recently issued an 
amendment (59 FR 37164; July 21, 1994) to its standard requiring that 
belt-positioning booster seats be labeled with a statement that they 
are not certified for use on aircraft. Based on further analysis, the 
FAA is proposing to ban all use of belt-positioning booster seats on 
aircraft.
    It should be noted that, while booster seats and vest- and harness-
type child restraints may be appropriate for use in automobiles, 
further analysis has indicated that their design may render them 
unsuitable for use in aircraft during takeoff, landing, and movement on 
the surface. The aircraft environment differs from the automobile 
environment in ways that are significant to this rulemaking and that 
add justification for the proposal of this notice. First, many booster 
seats require the use of a shoulder harness for proper restraint; 
however, shoulder harnesses are usually not available in transport 
airplane passenger seats. Second, the action of the shoulder harness 
inertial reels in automobiles is different than those in aircraft. 
Third, automobiles employ a rigid seat back system that maximizes the 
effectiveness of these child restraint systems, but aircraft usually do 
not have rigid seatbacks. Further, as a practical matter, a uniform 
application of this proposal to all aircraft is desirable, regardless 
of whether the aircraft has breakover seats.

Other Issues

    The CAMI study identified other types of child restraint systems 
that did not provide the level of protection in a worst-case simulated 
survivable airplane crash that the FAA anticipated they would provide 
when the child restraint rule was originally promulgated. As previously 
noted, six of the eight forward facing child restraint systems in the 
CAMI study did not provide a level of head injury protection that is 
desirable in the worst case simulated survivable airplane crash. 
Because, unlike shield-type booster seats, forward facing child 
restraint devices have backs, the FAA has determined that forward 
facing child restraint devices are likely to provide a higher level of 
protection than shield-type booster seats at crash levels below the 
worst case survivable airplane crash.
    The FAA notes that Roger N. Hardy of the Cranfield Impact Centre 
tested forward facing child restraint devices on behalf of the British 
Civil Aviation Authority (BCAA). In his report, entitled The Restraint 
of Infants and Young Children in Aircraft (BCAA Paper 92929, December 
12, 1992), Dr. Hardy concluded that while forward facing child 
restraint devices did not provide the optimal level of protection, they 
provided a higher level of protection relative to either the use of a 
belly belt or the holding of children on the laps of adults without the 
use of a belly belt.
    The FAA believes that forward facing child restraint devices are 
superior to vest- and harness-type devices, booster seats, belly belts, 
and the holding of children on laps. Consequently, the FAA recommends 
the use of forward facing seats for children weighing between 20 and 40 
pounds. (For children who weigh up to 20 pounds, and for children 
weighing over 40 pounds, the FAA recommends the use of aft facing child 
restraint devices and passenger lap belts, respectively.) While the FAA 
acknowledges that some forward facing child restraint devices may not 
presently provide a desired level of protection in a worst case 
survivable aircraft crash, it is examining means by which these seats 
will perform at optimal levels in such crashes. In addition, the agency 
is working with NHTSA to develop appropriate modifications to FMVSS No. 
213 for future seat design approvals for airplane seats.
    The FAA has issued directives to its inspectors that emphasize the 
existing prohibition on the use of devices, e.g. belly belts, that are 
not designed to be secured to forward-facing seats or berths. In 
issuing these statements, the FAA was motivated by its concern that 
such restraint systems could potentially result in a worse situation 
for children than the allowable alternatives would provide in the event 
of an aircraft crash.
    The FAA is concerned as to whether the implementation of this rule 
may induce a significant number of parents to fail to provide child 
restraint devices for automotive travel to or from airports. Factors to 
be considered in addressing this issue are the share of the market that 
booster seats and vest- and harness-type devices comprise, the extent 
to which state laws require the use of child restraint systems in 
automobiles, and the availability of child restraint devices from car 
rental companies. The FAA seeks comments on the risks of children 
suffering increased injury due to their continued use of shield-type 
booster seats. The agency asks whether there are specific types of 
aircraft crashes or other aircraft events in which the measured 
difference in abdominal loading would have a greater potential for 
increasing the severity of injury to children. [[Page 30694]] Comments 
should include data on the frequency of such crashes or events, if 
available.
    The agency also invites comments on the extent of any risks of 
children being injured in motor vehicles if parents are discouraged 
from bringing shield-type booster seats along on their combined air and 
land trips, and whether parents would in fact be so discouraged. If 
parents are so discouraged, the booster seat might not be available for 
motor vehicle use during the land portion of their trips, and parents 
might not obtain a restraint from another source. In addition, the 
agency requests additional comments and information on the number of 
shield-type booster seats currently used by children on aircraft, and 
how the proposed ban would affect the decisions of parents in selecting 
and purchasing child restraints.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations are required to undergo several 
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal 
agency to 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 requires agencies 
to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities. 
Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess 
the effect of regulatory changes on international trade. With respect 
to this notice, the FAA has determined that it: (1) is ``a significant 
regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order; (2) is 
significant as defined in the Department of Transportation's Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures; (3) would not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities; and (4) would not constitute a 
barrier to international trade. The FAA does not believe that this 
proposal would impose any significant costs on the public. Therefore, a 
full regulatory analysis, which includes the identification and 
evaluation of cost-reducing alternatives to this notice, has not been 
prepared. Instead, the agency has prepared a more concise analysis of 
this notice that is presented in the following paragraphs.
Costs and Benefits

    There would be some compliance costs associated with this notice. 
This proposed rule will reduce the types of child restraint systems 
that can be used during ground movement, takeoff, and landings by 
prohibiting the use of all booster seats and vest- and harness-type 
child restraint systems during these phases of a flight. The 
restrictions on the use of these devices would need to be incorporated 
into flight attendant training and included in flight manuals, and this 
will impose additional costs on air carriers. For a period of time 
after the proposed rule becomes effective, there will also be some 
public education necessary and potential flight delays when flight 
attendants tell parents who brought prohibited child restraint devices 
on board the aircraft that the devices are banned for use during 
takeoff, landing, and movement on the ground. The FAA specifically 
requests comments on the cost of this notice, however.
    The FAA has determined that booster seats and vest- and harness-
type devices put children in a potentially worse situation than the 
alternatives during an aircraft crash. According to the CAMI study, 
these child restraint systems do not securely hold a child in place in 
an aircraft crash, and may themselves even cause harm to a child in the 
event of a crash. These types of accidents, while they rarely happen, 
usually occur during the takeoff or landing phases of a flight. Thus, 
prohibiting the use of these child restraint systems during takeoff and 
landing will enhance the child's safety. Since it is impractical to 
expect flight attendants to monitor, just prior to takeoff, whether 
children are out of banned devices, the FAA is prohibiting the use of 
these devices during movement on the surface also.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by 
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or 
disproportionately burdened by Federal regulations. The RFA requires a 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a proposed rule will have ``a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' FAA Order 2100.14A outlines FAA's procedures and criteria 
for implementing the RFA. Small entities are defined as independently 
owned and operated small businesses and small not-for-profit 
organizations. This proposed rule will impose unquantified costs on air 
carriers. These costs include changing manuals and training flight 
attendants about the restrictions on the use of certain child restraint 
devices. Initially, there may be some public education necessary and 
possible flight delays when flight attendants tell parents or guardians 
that they may not use certain child restraint devices during ground 
movement, takeoff, or landing. However, the FAA believes that this 
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    This notice would not constitute a barrier to international trade, 
including the export of American goods and services to foreign 
countries and the import of foreign goods and services to the United 
States.

Federalism Implications

    The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct 
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national 
government and that of any state, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. The 
respondents affected by the proposed amendments are private citizens, 
not state governments. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 
12612, it is determined that this regulation would not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment.

Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the 
findings in the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the 
International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA has determined that this 
proposed regulation is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866. This rule is considered significant under DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). In addition, 
it is certified that this proposed rule would not have a significant 
economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small 
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 91

    Air carriers, Air transportation, Aviation safety, Safety.

14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Air transportation, Aviation safety, Common carriers, 
Safety, Transportation.

14 CFR Part 125

    Air carriers, Air transportation, Aviation safety, Safety.

14 CFR Part 135

    Air carriers, Air taxi, Air transportation, Aviation safety, 
Safety.
The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend parts 91, 121, 125, and 135 of the 
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR parts 91, 121, 125, and 135) as 
follows: [[Page 30695]] 

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

    1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1301(7), 1303, 1344, 1348, 1352 through 
1355, 1401, 1421 through 1431, 1471, 1472, 1502, 1510, 1522, and 
2121 through 2125; Articles 12, 29, 31 and 32(a) of the Convention 
on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180); 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.; E.O. 11514, 35 FR 4247, 3 CFR, 1966-70 Comp., p. 902; 49 
U.S.C. 106(g).

    2. Section 91.107 is amended by removing the sentence in paragraph 
(a)(3)(iii)(B)(1) that begins with ``Vest- * * *'', by removing the 
final ``and'' in paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B)(3), by revising paragraph 
(a)(3)(i) and the introductory text of paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B), and by 
adding a new paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B)(4) to read as follows:


Sec. 91.107  Use of safety belts, shoulder harnesses, and child 
restraint systems.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth, 
provided that the person being held has not reached his or her second 
birthday and does not occupy or use any restraining device;
* * * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B)(4) of this 
section, the approved child restraint system bears one or more labels 
as follows:
* * * * *
    (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, booster-
type child restraint systems (as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213)), vest- and harness-type child 
restraint systems, and lap held child restraints are not approved for 
use in aircraft; and
* * * * *

PART 121--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND 
SUPPLEMENTAL AIR CARRIERS, AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF LARGE 
AIRCRAFT

    3. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1354(a), 1355, 1356, 1357, 1401, 
1421-1430, 1472, 1485, and 1502.

    4. Section 121.311 is amended by removing the sentence in paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii)(A) that begins with ``Vest- * * *'', by removing the final 
``and'' in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C), by revising paragraph (b)(1) and 
the introductory text of paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by adding a new 
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D), and by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth, 
provided the child has not reached his or her second birthday and the 
child does not occupy or use any restraining device; or
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D) of this section, 
the approved child restraint system bears one or more labels as 
follows:
 * * * * *
    (D) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, booster-
type child restraint systems (as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle 
Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213)), vest- and harness-type child 
restraint systems, and lap held child restraints are not approved for 
use in aircraft; and
    (c) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3), the following 
prohibitions apply to certificate holders:
    (1) No certificate holder may permit a child, in an aircraft, to 
occupy a booster-type child restraint system, a vest-type child 
restraint system, a harness-type child restraint system, or a lap held 
child restraint system during take off, landing, and movement on the 
surface.
    (2) Except as required in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, no 
certificate holder may prohibit a child, if requested by the child's 
parent, guardian, or designated attendant, from occupying a child 
restraint system furnished by the child's parent, guardian, or 
designated attendant provided:
    (i) The child holds a ticket for an approved seat or berth or such 
seat or berth is otherwise made available by the certificate holder for 
the child's use;
    (ii) The requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) are met;
    (iii) The requirements of (b)(2)(iii) are met; and
    (iv) The child restraint system has one or more of the labels 
described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) through paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C).
    (3) This section does not prohibit the certificate holder from 
providing child restraint systems or, consistent with safe operating 
practices, determining the most appropriate passenger seat location for 
the child restraint system.
* * * * *
PART 125--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING 
CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 
6,000 POUNDS OR MORE

    5. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1354, 1421 through 1430 and 1502.

    6. Section 125.211 is amended by removing the sentence in paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii)(A) that begins with ``Vest- * * *'', by removing the final 
``and'' in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C), by revising paragraph (b)(1) and 
the introductory text of paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by adding a new 
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D), and by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 125.211  Seat and safety belts.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth, 
provided the child has not reached his or her second birthday and the 
child does not occupy or use any restraining device; or
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D) of this section, 
the approved child restraint system bears one or more labels as 
follows:
* * * * *
    (D) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, booster-
type child restraint systems (as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle 
Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213)), vest- and harness- type child 
restraint systems, and lap held child restraints are not approved for 
use in aircraft; and
    (c) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3), the following 
prohibitions apply to certificate holders:
    (1) No certificate holder may permit a child, in an aircraft, to 
occupy a booster-type child restraint system, a vest-type child 
restraint system, a harness-type child restraint system, or a lap held 
child restraint system during take off, landing, and movement on the 
surface.
    (2) Except as required in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, no 
certificate holder may prohibit a child, if requested by the child's 
parent, guardian, or designated attendant, from occupying a child 
restraint system furnished by the child's parent, guardian, or 
designated attendant provided:
    (i) The child holds a ticket for an approved seat or berth or such 
seat or berth is otherwise made available by the certificate holder for 
the child's use;
    (ii) The requirements or paragraph (b)(2)(i) are 
met; [[Page 30696]] 
    (iii) The requirements of (b)(2)(iii) are met; and
    (iv) The child restraint system has one or more of the labels 
described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) through paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C).
    (3) This section does not prohibit the certificate holder from 
providing child restraint systems or, consistent with safe operating 
practices, determining the most appropriate passenger seat location for 
the child restraint system.
* * * * *

PART 135--AIR TAXI OPERATORS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS

    7. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. app. 1354(a), 1355(a), 1421 through 1431, 
and 1502; 49 U.S.C. 106(g).

    8. Section 135.128 is amended by removing the sentence in paragraph 
(a)(2)(ii)(A) that begins with ``Vest- * * *'', by removing the final 
``and'' in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(C), by revising paragraph (a)(1) and 
the introductory text of paragraph (a)(2)(ii), by adding a new 
paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(D), and by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 135.128  Use of safety belts and child restraint systems.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth, 
provided the child has not reached his or her second birthday and the 
child does not occupy or use any restraining device; or
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Except as provided in subparagraph (b)(2)(ii)(D) of this 
section, the approved child restraint system bears one or more labels 
as follows:
* * * * *
    (D) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, booster-
type child restraint systems (as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle 
Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213)), vest- and harness- type child 
restraint systems, and lap held child restraints are not approved for 
use in aircraft; and
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3), the following 
prohibitions apply to certificate holders:
    (1) No certificate holder may permit a child, in an aircraft, to 
occupy a booster-type child restraint system, a vest-type child 
restraint system, a harness-type child restraint system, or a lap held 
child restraint system during take off, landing, and movement on the 
surface.
    (2) Except as required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, no 
certificate holder may prohibit a child, if requested by the child's 
parent, guardian, or designated attendant, from occupying a child 
restraint system furnished by the child's parent, guardian, or 
designated attendant provided:
    (i) The child holds a ticket for an approved seat or berth or such 
seat or berth is otherwise made available by the certificate holder for 
the child's use;
    (ii) The requirements or paragraph (a)(2)(i) are met;
    (iii) The requirements of (a)(2)(iii) are met; and
    (iv) The child restraint system has one or more of the labels 
described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) through paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(C).
    (3) This section does not prohibit the certificate holder from 
providing child restraint systems or, consistent with safe operating 
practices, determining the most appropriate passenger seat location for 
the child restraint system.
* * * * *
    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 19, 1995.
William J. White,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 95-12800 Filed 6-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M