[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28416-28423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13771]
[[Page 28415]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 91, et al.
49 CFR Part 571
Child Restraint Systems; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 28416]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125, and 135
[Docket No. 28229; Amendment No. 91-250, 121-255, 125-26, 135-62]
RIN 2120-AF52
Child Restraint Systems
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action withdraws 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
action emphasizes the existing prohibition in all aircraft against the
use of lap held child restraint systems (including belly belts). This
action is needed because the FAA has determined that, during an
aircraft crash, the banned devices may put children in a potentially
worse situation than the allowable alternatives.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donell Pollard, (AFS-203), Air
Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591;
Telephone (202) 267-3735.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Backround
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 imposing
labeling requirements and certain use requirements. Since that time the
FAA has supplemented these rules with advisory material and with a
public information leaflet entitled, ``Child/Infant Safety Seats
Recommended for Use in Aircraft.''
In September 1994, the FAA issued a report entitled, ``The
Performance of Child Restraint Devices in Transport Airplane Passenger
Seats'' (the ``CAMI'' study). The study found that, as a class of child
restraint devices, shield-type booster seats, in combination with other
factors, contributed to an abdominal pressure measurement higher than
in other means of protection while not preventing a head impact. The
study found that fundamental design characteristics of shield-type
booster seats made their belt paths incompatible with aircraft seat
belts. In addition, the study found that vest- and harness-type devices
allowed excessive forward body excursion, resulting in the test dummy
sliding off the front of the seat with a high likelihood of the child's
entire body impacting the seat back of the seat directly in front of
it. Rebound acceleration presented further risk of injury. Also, the
study found that belly belts allowed the test dummy to make severe
contact with the back of the seat in the row in front of the test dummy
and that a child may be crushed by the forward bending motion of the
adult to whom the child is attached. The 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. A copy of the study is included in
the rulemaking docket established for this rulemaking.
On May 19, 1995, the FAA issued Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) No. 95-7 (60 FR 30690, June 9, 1995). The NPRM proposed 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, the NPRM emphasized
the existing prohibition against the use in all aircraft of lap-held
child restraint systems (including belly belts). The rule language
adopted by this final rule has not been changed from the rule language
that was proposed.
Also, in June 1995, the FAA issued a Report to Congress concerning
Child Restraint Systems. A copy of this report is included in the
rulemaking docket established for this rulemaking.
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 required 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 adopted dynamic testing
requirements for 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 for aircraft use. Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 (49 CFR Sec. 571.213) was
amended to provide criteria for manufacturers' self-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'') and vest- and harness-
type devices. 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 vehicles
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.
[[Page 28417]]
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. 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.
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 the appropriate label(s).
Because lap held child restraint systems (belly belts) 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
has added clarifying language to the existing rules.
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.
Discussion of Comments
The FAA received ten comments in response to the proposed rule. The
comments were received from Little Cargo, Inc., a child restraint
manufacturer; the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA); the Air
Transport Association of America (ATA); United Air Lines, Inc. (UAL);
two members of the Asia Pacific Cabin Safety Working Group (APCS
Working Group); Cosco, Inc., a child restraint manufacturer; the United
Kingdom's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA); the Joint Aviation
Authorities (JAA); and an individual parent.
UAL supported the proposal, but stated that the effective date of
any new regulations should be consistent with reasonable recurrent
training schedules. In addition, UAL stated that changes in staff
training would result in added costs to air carriers, but they did not
quantify these costs.
FAA Response: The FAA has determined that the regulations should be
effective in 90 days. UAL did not suggest a specific time frame in its
comment, but the FAA has determined that a 90-day effective date should
afford air carriers sufficient time to get the necessary information to
all affected flight crewmembers and that it is unnecessary to
synchronize the dissemination of this information with recurrent
training. No data were presented by UAL or other commenters on any cost
issues. Compliance costs, however, are discussed in the economic
analysis set out in this preamble.
AFA, while supporting the proposal, stated that it continues to
actively pursue the mandatory use of child restraint devices. In
addition, AFA disagreed with the FAA assertion that if parents must
purchase a separate seat to use an approved child restraint device,
they would drive rather than fly. They stated that the FAA assumptions
on this issue are unrealistic and flawed and do not take into account
the impact of low-cost airlines and their enormous appeal to the
family/tourist end of the travel market. The AFA stated that a family
who is predisposed to buy a ticket would go ahead and purchase a
separate ticket to use with an approved and recommended child restraint
device.
FAA Response: The FAA has evaluated the costs and benefits
associated with child restraint devices three times since 1990. The
first report was prepared in 1990, the second report in 1993, and the
third report in June 1995. AFA's comment was based on information
contained in the second report. The third report, submitted to Congress
on June 7, 1995, analyzed alternative scenarios. The scenario analyses
concluded that if any significant charge is made for infant occupancy
of a seat, the expected result is diversion to automobiles and a net
increase in infant and adult fatalities and injuries. The study
referenced by AFA was based on information from the second report. The
AFA study simply documented observed market behavior associated with
the entry of low cost carriers into a market and found that average
fares fall and passenger volume increases. These findings are
consistent with the FAA's findings and conclusions in all three studies
on this issue. In addition, the FAA agrees with the AFA that a family
who is predisposed to buy a ticket would purchase a separate ticket to
use with an approved and recommended child restraint device. The above
studies, however, indicate that very few families seem predisposed to
purchasing tickets for their infants.
ATA commented that it was concerned about enforcement issues caused
by labels in a foreign language and the problem of determining whether
a child is within the weight restrictions for a restraint system. The
ATA is also concerned about the overall effectiveness of child
restraint systems. In addition, ATA stated that steps must be taken to
address the problem of inconsistent FAA guidance and recommended that
industry bodies assist the FAA in identifying possible problem areas
before they arise.
FAA Response: This rulemaking prohibits the use of booster seats
and vest- and harness-type devices by children, even if they bear an
approved label. Therefore, enforcement issues concerning labels in
foreign languages are not relevant to this final rule. Nor is the
question of whether the child is within the weight limits specified on
the label.
The FAA acknowledges ATA's concern that there could be compliance
problems concerning child restraint devices that bear labels indicating
that they are certified for use aboard aircraft when in fact they are
not approved for use aboard aircraft. A companion rule issued by NHTSA,
published in today's Federal Register, amends a provision in FMVSS No.
213 that permits booster seats and vest- and harness-type devices to be
certified for use in aircraft. In view of the FAA's decision to
withdraw approval of booster seats and vest- and harness-type devices
for use on aircraft, NHTSA believes continuing to permit the
certification of those restraints for aircraft use will likely be
confusing to the public. Accordingly, NHTSA's rule no longer permits
those restraints to be certified for aircraft use, and instead requires
manufacturers to label these restraints as not certified for use in
aircraft. Also, in conjunction with this rulemaking, the FAA will
embark on a public education program designed to provide parents with
the information necessary to make an informed decision about the use of
child restraint devices on aircraft. The FAA understands that parents
may be confused when trying to determine what type of child restraint
device is best for their child. If clear guidance is readily available
to parents concerning child restraint devices for aircraft, the FAA
expects that they will choose an approved device in order to provide
the safest traveling environment for their children. The FAA needs the
assistance of air carriers, however, to enforce the regulations.
With regard to the ATA's recommendation that industry bodies assist
the FAA in identifying possible problem areas before they arise, the
FAA always welcomes input from industry and will continue to seek such
input on this issue. In response to ATA's concern about inconsistent
internal FAA guidance, the FAA notes
[[Page 28418]]
that information contained in Flight Standards Information Bulletins,
Advisory Circulars, etc., will be reviewed to ensure that they
correctly reflect the new requirements in this rulemaking, so there
should not be any conflicts.
Little Cargo stated that vest- and harness-type devices should not
be prohibited until the FAA gathers additional information and
performance data on them. It is concerned that the FAA's decision to
ban vest- and harness-type devices was based on inadequate testing and
that such restraints could be modified to perform satisfactorily.
Little Cargo stated that the prohibition of vest- and harness-type
devices was based primarily on one uninstrumented test in contrast to
the breadth of tests conducted on the other types of child restraint
devices.
FAA Response: In response to Little Cargo's concern that only one
type of test was performed on the vest- and harness-type device, the
FAA notes that during dynamic testing, unacceptable head and body
excursions and vertical displacement of the anthropomorphic test dummy
was observed to the extent that the type of instrumented tests that
other child restraint devices underwent was deemed not necessary for
the harness. If the unsafe characteristics that all these devices share
change in the future, the prohibition can be re-examined.
Little Cargo also stated that the FAA has significant performance
concerns with all available forward facing child restraints, but is
only prohibiting certain categories of these devices, including vest-
and harness-type devices.
FAA Response: When considering which, if any, child restraint
devices should be prohibited, the FAA looked at the alternatives
available for children within the weight limits specified by child
restraint manufacturers. The FAA has determined that most children who
are within the weight specifications of booster seats (30 to 60 pounds)
would be better protected in a passenger seat lap belt than in a
booster seat because there would be less abdominal loading in a lap
belt. For a child in the 30 to 60 pound range, a lap belt should remain
across the pelvis and not directly load the abdomen. Because forward
facing devices have rigid backs, unlike booster seats, the FAA has
determined that children in the 30 to 40 pound range would be better
protected in a forward facing device than in a booster seat because
there is a decreased risk of abdominal loading in a forward facing
device than in a booster seat. In addition, the FAA determined that
children who are within the manufacturer's weight specifications of
vest- and harness-type devices (25 to 50 pounds) would be better
protected in a passenger seat lap belt or a forward facing child
restraint device than in a vest- and harness-type device. Forward
facing child restraint devices are designed for children from 20 to 40
pounds. While some forward facing child restraint devices do not
provide a desired level of protection in a worst case survivable
aircraft crash, there are no better alternative availables at this
time. Also, because forward facing devices and passenger seat lap belts
prevent the extreme body excursions observed in the harness test, most
children within this weight specification for vest- and harness-type
devices (25 to 50 pounds) would be better protected in either forward
facing devices or lap belts.
In addition, Little Cargo stated that, in Notice No. 95-7, the FAA
concluded that children weighing between 25 and 50 pounds, and even
children under 2 years old, would be safer in a passenger seat lap belt
than in a vest restraint. Little Cargo is concerned that using lap
belts as the sole restraining device places enhanced stress on a
child's abdomen that could lead to injury.
FAA Response: While the FAA stated that, if a child under 2 falls
in the weight use limits recommended by vest and harness manufacturers,
the child would be safer in a passenger seat restrained by a lap belt
than in a vest- or harness-type device if no other approved device were
available, the FAA went on to state that a child falling within the
weight limits of a vest- or harness-type device (25 to 40 pounds),
would be better protected in a forward facing child restraint device
than in a lap belt. In addition, the study noted that the lap belt
remained across the pelvis of the 24-month old dummy throughout the
impact and did not appear to directly load the abdomen. Thus, CAMI
testing indicates that Little Cargo's concerns about abdominal loading
are unfounded.
Little Cargo also questioned whether the impact of excessive
submarining is not potentially safer than the excessive head excursion/
head strike observed with 6 out of 8 forward facing restraints.
Similarly, Cosco questioned why there is more concern for abdominal
loading than the high HIC levels evidenced in the forward facing child
restraint devices.
FAA Response: While forward facing child restraint devices may not
presently provide a desired level of protection in a worst case
survivable aircraft crash, there are no better alternatives available
at this time. Although Little Cargo and Cosco questioned if submarining
is better than the head injury threat seen with forward facing devices,
it is important to note that neither the booster seats nor the vest-or
harness-type device tested by CAMI performed in a manner that would
prevent head impact. It is not correct to say there would be little or
no risk of a head injury with booster seats or vest- or harness-type
devices. CAMI testing clearly shows that booster seats do not protect
the head because of an unacceptable degree of head excursion in an
aircraft environment. Forward facing devices, with rigid backs, reduce
the risk of exposure to abdominal injury when compared to booster
seats. Forward facing devices offer protection from the risk of
abdominal injury and, unlike vest- and harness-type devices, prevent
excessive body excursion.
Cosco questioned the proposed ban since it was based on a small
sampling of booster seats and vest- and harness-type devices. Cosco
believes that the problems encountered with the vest- and harness-type
device tested are solvable and that all such restraints should not be
banned based on the experience of just one.
FAA Response: The FAA has determined that at this time all vest-
and harness-type devices have certain inherent critical design factors
that preclude them from performing adequately in an aircraft seat. The
testing, while only performed on a small sample of such devices,
confirmed the basic problems with the design of the devices.
In regard to the FAA's request for comments on whether abdominal
loading by itself is a predictor of injury, Cosco stated that
rulemaking cannot be predicated on abstract numbers when the baseline
for serious injury is undetermined. Cosco also stated that shield-type
booster seats keep lap belts off a child's stomach whereas lap belts
might become repositioned over the stomach because children often move
around so much while in the lap belt.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges that the baseline for serious
injury from abdominal loading is undetermined. However, the CAMI study
found that shield-type booster seats, in combination with other
factors, contributed to an abdominal pressure measurement higher than
in other means of protection. In certifying aircraft seats and belts,
any evidence of abdominal loading is considered grounds for
disapproving a design. For many years, the FAA has not approved any
design of passenger restraint that showed evidence of imposing
restraint loads on the abdomen. It is accepted
[[Page 28419]]
practice among restraint designers that the abdomen is not a load-
carrying body segment. The unique nature of airline seats, where seat
back breakover will cause a child in a booster seat to be crushed
between the booster seat's shield and the crash forces of the adult in
the row behind, are of sufficient concern to the FAA to prohibit the
use of booster seats in aircraft during takeoff, landing, and movement
on the surface.
The FAA notes that Cosco, like the FAA, seems concerned about the
dangers of abdominal loading. In its comment, Cosco states that ``in
motor vehicles, children often move around so much that the lap belt
becomes repositioned over the stomach, where it can cause serious
injury in even a minor crash * * *. Therefore, a shield booster, which
keeps the lap belt off the child's stomach would be a significant
improvement in most cases * * *'' In addition, Cosco states that
shield-type booster seats, which keep a lap belt off a child's stomach,
would be a significant improvement in rough landings, even if its crash
protection were less than a lap belt alone (since survivable crashes
are so rare).
FAA Response: Performance data on the effectiveness of child
restraint devices in ``rough landings'' are not available. However,
because aircraft seat belt anchor points are located considerably
forward of their location in a car, it is unlikely that an aircraft
seat belt will move up into a child's abdomen.
Cosco also stated that parents would be more willing to carry a
small booster seat rather than a larger forward-facing child restraint
device. Cosco believes that they are then more likely to have the
appropriate restraint for the child when they reach their destination
and it will be the one that they are familiar with. Cosco states that
by banning booster seats, parents will be less likely to have an
appropriate restraint for their children when they reach their
destination.
FAA Response: The FAA would like to clarify that the rule as
proposed and adopted prohibits the use of booster seats only during
take off, landing, and movement on the surface. It does not prohibit
their use inflight. Therefore, parents can consider their booster seats
as carry on baggage, use the restraints during the cruise portion of
flight, and still have them readily available when they reach their
destination. These devices can be stowed in overhead bins, in coat
closets, or in some cases under seats. Except for storing the devices
during takeoff, landing, and movement on the surface, this process is
no different that the process a parent would go through before the
prohibition. While the FAA encourages parents to use devices that may
be used throughout the flight, the devices banned by this rule may be
used during cruise.
Cosco also believes that parents may opt to fly with children on
their laps rather than carry on a forward-facing or convertible child
restraint device. They also stated that an educated parent would not
buy a ticket in order to use an approved child restraint device instead
of a vest- and harness-type device. They stated that a harness is much
more convenient to carry around than a convertible forward-facing seat
and therefore the parent may fly with a child or his/her lap rather
than carry a convertible forward-facing seat. Little Cargo also
expressed concerns that, when considering the alternatives of lap-
holding a child, using the passenger seat lap belt alone, or bringing
an approved convertible child restraint system, parents will likely not
choose to carry on a bulky restraint.
FAA Response: While the FAA agrees with Cosco and Little Cargo that
a vest- and harness-type device is probably easier to carry than a
convertible forward facing child restraint device, for most parents the
cost of an airline passenger seat for the infant is probably more
important to the parent than the ease of carrying a child restraint
device. Since the commenters did not provide any specific information
or statistics on this issue, the FAA continues to believe that parents
who are predisposed to buy a ticket for a separate airplane seat for
use with a booster seat or vest- and harness-type device and who have
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.
In addition, Cosco commented that, of the four booster seats
tested, head excursions for two did not exceed the limits set forth in
FMVSS No. 213.
FAA Response: Although Cosco stated that of the four booster seats
tested, two did not exceed the limits of FMVSS No. 213, in actuality
one of the two booster seats that supposedly did not exceed the limits
of FMVSS No. 213 disintegrated during the test and could not be
analyzed for head excursion. The fact that of the four booster seats
tested, head excursion for one did not exceed the limits set forth in
FMVSS No. 213 is not relevant to the decision to ban shield-type
booster seats. As discussed earlier, seat back breakover, a unique
feature of aircraft seats, presents a threat of abdominal injury.
Backless booster seats, by virtue of fundamental design
characteristics, do not provide protection from this threat. That one
of the four booster seats tested did not exceed the head strike
envelope specified in FMVSS-213 has no bearing on the threat of
abdominal injury.
Cosco also stated that the primary benefit of child restraints on
aircraft is to restrain children in the event of turbulence. They
stated that while certain types of child restraint devices do not
perform well in crash situations, this should not preclude their
overall use since crashes are rare while turbulence is not.
CAA was also concerned about prohibiting devices that can prevent
injury in common occurrences such as flight turbulence.
FAA Response: The FAA is not prohibiting the use of booster seats
and vest-and harness-type devices in cruise portions of flight. The FAA
acknowledges that booster seats and vest- and harness-type devices
might prevent injuries during turbulence and therefore is not
prohibiting their use during cruise portions of flight.
Cosco stated that a design-restrictive ban precludes development of
future products that may prove safe and would be more convenient for
parents to use.
FAA Response: The FAA has determined that, at this time, booster
seats and vest-and harness-type devices put children in a potentially
worse situation than the allowable alternatives. If in the future a
manufacturer designs such a device that the FAA determines is a safe
alternative, it will review the prohibition. The FAA must, however,
prohibit booster seats and vest- and harness-type devices at this time
because of safety concerns. The FAA cannot delay this rule with the
thought that a manufacturer might design a safe booster seat or vest-
and harness-type device in the future or that such a ban precludes a
manufacturer from development future products that may prove safe and
convenient.
CAA stated that in a significant proportion of the cases where
passengers carry small children on aircraft, the alternative to travel
by private car will not be viable, so these passengers will continue to
travel by air, notwithstanding the additional cost. CAA also states
that it is reasonable to conclude that there will be an increase in the
number of people who will carry their children without any form of
restraint if this continues to be permitted.
FAA Response: The FAA's 1995 study on the costs and benefits
associated with child restraint devices addressed CAA's comment that
the alternative to
[[Page 28420]]
travel by private car will not be viable, so passengers will continue
to travel by air notwithstanding the additional cost. While the FAA
agrees that a significant number of families taking long trips will
continue to do so even if a charge is imposed for passenger seats
occupied by infants, the scenario analyses concluded that if any
significant charge is made for infant occupancy of a passenger seat,
there will be some passenger diversion to automobiles and a net
increase in infant and adult fatalities and injuries. The scenario
analyses also concluded that families taking longer trips are less
likely to divert to alternative modes of transportation than people
taking shorter trips. The FAA agrees that there are cases where parents
would fly rather than not take a trip because they do not have a
practical second alternative to flying. In most cases, however, parents
have an alternative to flying. In the 1995 report, the FAA again found
that mandating child restraint devices could cause more deaths and
injuries than it would prevent. Therefore, the FAA will not mandate the
use of child restraint devices for children under 2 years old. A copy
of the report is included in the docket established for this
rulemaking. In addition, the FAA will pursue an education program to
better inform parents about child restraint devices. If clear guidance
is readily available to parents, the FAA expects that they will choose
an approved device, rather than lap holding their children, in order to
provide the safest traveling environment for their children.
CAA and JAA state that they permit the belly belt on the grounds
that it provides a measure of protection to children and/or other
passengers versus lap holding a child.
FAA Response: The FAA would like to emphasize that belly belts are
not permitted under current regulations. Even if belly belts do provide
some measure or protection, the CAMI study found that belly belts
allowed the test dummy to make severe contact with the back of the seat
in the row in front of the test dummy and that a child may be crushed
by the forward bending motion of the adult to whom the child is
attached. Consideration of revising this current prohibition is beyond
the scope of the notice.
The JAA also stated that in a crash or severe air turbulence,
parents are often unable to keep a lap-held child in their arms.
FAA Response: As discussed earlier, the FAA has determined that
mandating child restraint devices could cause more deaths and injuries
than it would prevent. However, the FAA does not encourage lap-holding
children. The FAA expects, with its education campaign providing clear
guidance on child restraint devices, parents will choose an approved
device, rather than lap holding their children, in order to provide the
safest traveling environment for their children. The two members of the
APCS Working Group submitted identical letters that discussed the need
to mandate restraints for children. In addition, they stated that the
FAA's argument that the extra cost to families caused by mandating
child restraint devices would force them to less safe road travel is
invalid since the same cost situation arises when the child is 3 or 4
or 10 years old.
FAA Response: The APCS Working Group's argument is that the extra
cost to families of mandating child restraint devices is no more of a
deterrent to air travel than the price of a ticket for a child of any
age. However, the FAA notes that this argument does not take into
account that ordinarily there is no charge for a lap-held child,
whereas certificate holders very often do charge if a seat is requested
for this infant. Thus, many people would switch to less safe automobile
travel as a result of mandating child restraint usage because unlike
most rulemakings where the compliance costs are passed along to all
travelers, mandatory use of child restraint would impose compliance
costs only on families with infants.
Other commenters raised comments that are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking, such as providing design/certification standards for child
restraint systems that are compatible with existing aircraft seat belt
systems, revising FMVSS-213, changing anchor locations of seat belts,
adopting performance standards for child restraint system, establishing
a child restraint friendly section of aircraft with modified seats, and
clarifying what types of restraints are acceptable.
Editorial Note
The rules, as adopted, make it clear that, while the certificate
holder has the authority to provide a child restraint system, such a
system must be one authorized by the rule. This is to avoid any
misinterpretation of this provision as an exception to the prohibitions
adopted in this final rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this final rule.
Economic Analysis
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 regulation, 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) will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities; and (4) will not
constitute a barrier to international trade. The FAA does not believe
that this regulation will impose any significant costs on the public.
Therefore, a full regulatory analysis, which includes the
identification and evaluation of cost-reducing alternatives to this
regulation, has not been prepared. Instead, the agency has prepared a
more concise analysis of this regulation that is presented in the
following paragraphs.
Costs and Benefits
There will be some compliance costs associated with this
regulation. This 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 will 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 rule becomes effective, there will also be some public
education necessary and potential flight delays when flight attendant
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 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
[[Page 28421]]
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, and the safety benefits will outweigh the slight compliance
costs discussed above. Since it is impractical to expect flight
attendants to monitor whether children are out of banned devices just
prior to takeoff, 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 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 rule will impose some 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 rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
This rule will 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 herein will 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
amendments are private citizens, not state governments. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
regulation will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Conclusion
Because of the substantial interest of the public in this subject
matter, and based on the findings in the Regulatory Flexibility
Determination and the International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA has
determined that this regulation is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866. For the same reason, this rule is
considered significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979). In addition, it is certified that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Because the economic impact of this rule is
considered minimal, a formal regulatory evaluation has not been
prepared.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 91
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Safety,
Transportation.
14 CFR Part 125
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part 135
Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation safety.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends parts 91, 121, 125, and 135 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR parts 91, 121, 125, and 135) as follows:
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111,
44701, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306,
46315, 46316, 46502, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531.
2. Section 91.107 is amended by removing the last sentence in
paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B)(1) immediately preceding the semicolon; by
removing the final ``and'' in paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B)(3); by revising
paragraph (a)(3)(i); by revising 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
action, 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--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS
3. The authority citation for Part 121 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904,
44912, 46105.
4. Section 121.311 is amended by removing the last sentence in
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) immediately preceding the semicolon; by
removing the final ``and'' in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C); by revising
paragraph (b)(1); by revising 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
[[Page 28422]]
(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) of this section, 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) of this section are
met;
(iii) The requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section are
met; and
(iv) The child restraint system has one or more of the labels
described in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) through (b)(2)(ii)(C) of this
section.
(3) This section does not prohibit the certificate holder from
providing child restraint systems authorized by this section 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), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44710-
44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722.
6. Section 125.211 is amended by removing the last sentence in
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) immediately preceding the semicolon; by
removing the final ``and'' in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C); by revising
paragraph (b)(1); by revising 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) of this section, 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:
(1) 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) of this section are
met;
(iii) The requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section are
met; and
(iv) The child restraint system has one or more of the labels
described in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) through (b)(2)(ii)(C) of this
section.
(3) This section does not prohibit the certificate holder from
providing child restraint systems authorized by this section or,
consistent with safe operating practices, determining the most
appropriate passenger seat location for the child restraint system.
* * * * *
PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON-DEMAND OPERATIONS
7. The authority citation for Part 135 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709,
44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.
8. Section 135.128 is amended by removing the last sentence in
paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) immediately preceding the semicolon; by
removing the final ``and'' in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(C); by revising
paragraph (a)(1); by revising 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 paragraph (a)(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) of this section, 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, or 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 of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section are
met;
(iii) The requirements of paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section are
met; and
(iv) The child restraint system has one or more of the labels
described in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) through (a)(2)(ii)(C) of this
section.
[[Page 28423]]
(3) This section does not prohibit the certificate holder from
providing child restraint systems authorized by this or, consistent
with safe operating practices, determining the most appropriate
passenger seat location for the child restraint system.
Issued in Washington, D.C., on May 24, 1996.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-13771 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M