[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8324-8328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3954]



[[Page 8323]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Parts 91 et al.



Child Restraint Systems; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 8324]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91, 121, 125, and 135

[Docket No. 29145; Notice No. 98-2]
RIN 2120-AG43


Child Restraint Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA seeks public comment on issues relating to the use of 
child restraint systems (CRS's) in aircraft during all phases of flight 
(i.e., taxi, takeoff, landing, or any other time the seat belt sign is 
illuminated). Specifically, the agency seeks crash performance and 
ease-of-use information about existing and new automotive CRS's, when 
used in aircraft, as well as the development of any other new or 
improved CRS's designed exclusively for aircraft use.
    This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) responds to a 
recommendation made by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety 
and Security and is intended to gather information about the technical 
practicality and cost feasibility of requiring small children and 
infants to be restrained in CRS in aircraft. This information is needed 
so that the FAA can determine the best way to address the safety of 
children while on board aircraft. After reviewing the comments, the FAA 
may issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with specific regulatory 
proposals that respond to the Commission's recommendations regarding 
the use of CRS's.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 18, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be delivered or mailed, in 
triplicate, to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, Attn.: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 29145, room 915G, 
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments submitted 
must be marked: ``Docket No. 29145.'' Comments may also be sent 
electronically to the following Internet address: 9-NPRM-
[email protected]. Comments may be examined in Room 915G on weekdays, 
except Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on the ANPRM by 
submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. 
Comments must identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be 
submitted in triplicate to the Rules Docket address specified above.
    All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each 
substantive public contact with FAA personnel on this rulemaking, will 
be filed in the docket. The docket is available for public inspection 
before and after the comment closing date.
    All comments received on or before the closing date will be 
considered by the Administrator in determining whether to go forward 
with a proposed rulemaking. Late-filed comments will be considered to 
the extent practicable. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge 
receipt of the comments submitted in response to this ANPRM must 
include a pre-addressed, stamped postcard with those comments on which 
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. [29145].'' 
The postcard will be date stamped and mailed to the commenter.

Availability of ANPRM

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem 
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section 
of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-
3339), the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service 
(telephone: 202-512-1661), or the FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee bulletin board service (telephone: 800-FAA-ARAC).
    Internet users may reach the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov 
or the Federal Register's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/
su__docs for access to recently published rulemaking documents.
    Any person may obtain a copy of this ANPRM by submitting a request 
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 
267-9680. Communications must identify the notice number or docket 
number of this ANPRM.
    Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future 
ANPRM's and Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM's) should request from 
the above office a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, that describes the application 
procedure.

Background

    On February 12, 1997, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety 
and Security (the Commission) issued a final report to President 
Clinton which included a recommendation on CRS use during flight. The 
following is an excerpt from the final report as it relates to CRS's:
    ``The FAA should revise its regulations to require that all 
occupants be restrained during takeoff, landing, and turbulent 
conditions, and that all infants and small children below the weight of 
40 pounds and under the height of 40 inches be restrained in an 
appropriate child restraint system, such as child safety seats, 
appropriate to their height and weight.''
    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing this ANPRM to 
gather information to enable the agency to act upon the Commission's 
recommendations. This ANPRM does not propose specific regulatory 
changes. Rather, it requests comments, data and analyses to determine 
the best approach to maintaining and enhancing safety of children who 
are passengers in aircraft. After reviewing the comments received, the 
FAA may issue an NPRM proposing specific regulations. Interested 
persons will have the opportunity to comment on those proposed changes 
before a final rule is adopted.

Terminology

    For the purpose of this ANPRM, the various child restraint devices 
are described as follows:
    Booster seats: Designed for children who weigh between 30 and 60 
pounds. These seats have a raised platform base on which the child 
sits. Some booster seats have a front shield, over which the lap belts 
are routed, which covers the child's abdominal area. Shield-type 
booster seats typically do not have a back or side shell. Depending on 
the model, some booster seats can be used without the front shield if a 
shoulder strap is available.
    Forward-facing child restraint devices: Designed for children who 
weigh between 20 and 40 pounds. These seats have a side and back shell 
and shoulder straps. The seats are installed by routing the vehicle lap 
belt through a path provided in the back.
    Aft-facing child restraint devices: Designed for children who weigh 
less than 20 pounds. These seats have adjustable shoulder straps but do 
not have a shield over the chest or abdomen of the child. The seats 
typically are

[[Page 8325]]

installed by tightening the vehicle lap belt through slots on the top 
side.
    Vest- and harness-type child restraint devices: Designed for 
children who weigh between 20 and 40 pounds. These seats consist of 
forward-facing restraints fabricated with webbing. There is no rigid 
shell or platform. This type of seat attaches to the vehicle's lap 
belts by passing through a loop sewn on the back side of the harness.
    Lap-held child restraint devices: Designed to restrain children 
less than two years old on the lap of an adult. These devices are 
commonly referred to as belly belts.
    Child restraint system: The term ``child restraint system'' is used 
when referring to the child restraint device as installed in a 
passenger seat and secured with lap belts.

Current Regulations for Child Restraint Systems on Board Aircraft

    Section 91.107 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 
stipulates that CRS's must meet certain operational requirements, while 
Sec. Sec. 121.311, 125.211, and 135.128 set forth how these systems may 
be used on board aircraft. Under current regulations, children two 
years old and under may be held in an adult's lap throughout the 
flight. Alternately, parents may opt to use an approved CRS--
specifically, one certified to meet the requirements of Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 213, to restrain children of this age 
group when they travel in commercial aircraft. If parents want to 
ensure that their child has a seat in which to use a CRS, they 
typically pay a separate fare for that child. Children who are lap held 
are typically not charged fares by airlines.
    Whether or not an air carrier charges a fee for the small child, a 
separate passenger seat is required for CRS use and installation. 
Airlines are required to accommodate the use of approved CRS's by 
ticket-holding small children.
    The provisions for the labeling and use of CRS's in aircraft were 
set forth in the September 15, 1992, Miscellaneous Operations Final 
Rule Amendments [57 FR 42662]. These amendments were based on years of 
work by both the FAA and the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA). NHTSA'S FMVSS 213, as revised under 49 CFR 
571.213, contains the performance and labeling requirements for CRS's 
sold for use in the United States for both aircraft and automotive 
applications. Hundreds of models of CRS's have been manufactured and 
certified to this standard. Certain CRS's that meet the performance and 
labeling requirements of FMVSS 213 for automobile use, such as booster 
seats, and vest- and harness-type child restraint devices, are 
nonetheless prohibited for use in aircraft. Under current FAA 
regulations, children two years old or older are required to have a 
separate passenger seat on board aircraft.

General Discussion of Issues Regarding Child Restraint Systems

The 1994 ``CAMI'' Study

    In September 1994, the FAA issued a report entitled, ``The 
Performance of Child Restraint Devices in Transport Airplane Passenger 
Seats'' (commonly referred to as the CAMI study \1\). The research for 
the CAMI study involved dynamic impact tests with a variety of CRS's 
installed in transport airline passenger seats and subjected to the 
force of 16g peak longitudinal declaration loads required under 14 CFR 
25.562(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAMI is the FAA's Civil Aeromedical Institute. The CAMI 
study is assigned report number DOT/FAA/AAM-94-19 and is available 
through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 
22161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of the tests were configured to represent a typical multi-row 
seat installation and included testing the effects of an adult occupant 
impact against the back of a seat in which a CRS was installed. The 
tests also investigated other aspects of child restraint device use in 
aircraft, including dimensional compatibility of CRS's with transport 
category aircraft passenger seats and ease of installation.
    Some findings of the CAMI study are as follows:
    1. As a class of child restraint devices, shield-type booster 
seats, in combination with factors associated with airplane passenger 
seats, contributed to an abdominal pressure measurement higher than in 
other child restraint devices and did not prevent a head impact.
    2. Fundamental design characteristics of shield-type booster seats 
made their belt paths incompatible with aircraft seat belts.
    3. Vest- and harness-type devices allowed excessive forward body 
excursion, resulting in the test dummy sliding off the front of the 
seat. Therefore, a high likelihood exists that a child's entire body 
could impact a seat back directly in front of it.
    4. Lap-held child restraint devices (belly belts) allowed the test 
dummy to make severe contact with the seat back directly in front of 
it, resulting in a severe head impact. There were also high abdominal 
loads from a combination of the forward bending motion of the adult 
upper torso to whom the child is attached and the aft row occupant's 
impact on the breakover seat back.
    Based on the results of the CAMI study, the FAA and NHTSA issued a 
final rule on June 4, 1996, that withdrew approval for the use of 
booster seats and vest- and harness-type child restraint devices in 
aircraft during takeoff, landing, movement on the surface [61 FR 
28416]. In addition, the rule emphasized the existing prohibition 
against the use, in all aircraft, of lap-held child restraint devices 
(including belly belts). The FAA supplemented this rule with a major 
public education campaign that promotes the use of CRS's on board 
aircraft at all times. The campaign also reinforces the FAA's 
recommendation that small children weighing under 40 pounds are safest 
when in an approved CRS. The campaign includes a series of video, 
radio, and print public service announcements.

The 1995 Report to Congress

    In addition to the CAMI study, in May 1995, the FAA submitted a 
final Report to Congress on CRS performance and cost effectiveness. The 
primary issues analyzed in this report included CRS crash performance 
effectiveness in otherwise survivable air carrier crashes and the 
possible economic impacts of requiring CRS use. As to the CRS crash 
performance effectiveness, further findings from the CAMI study were 
reported. These findings include the following:
    1. Aft-facing CRS's performed well, protected the child, and could 
be adequately restrained with existing aircraft seat belts.
    2. Booster seats performed poorly, did not prevent head impact, and 
could not be properly attached to the aircraft seat.
    3. Six of eight forward-facing CRS's tested, when restrained with 
aircraft seat belts and subjected to the 16g longitudinal aircraft 
deceleration, failed to prevent head impact criteria (HIC) values of 
more than 1,000. (HIC of 1,000 is considered the threshold for serious 
head impact injury in adults.) Routing the aircraft seat belt through a 
forward-facing CRS and buckling and unbuckling it was difficult, 
leading to the conclusion that some CRS's might not be easily and 
adequately secured to aircraft seats.
    4. Changing the aircraft seat belt anchor points, i.e., moving them 
rearward, resulted in satisfactory performance of many forward-facing 
CRS's. However, changing the anchor points might be problematic with 
some aircraft seating configurations.

[[Page 8326]]

    When forward-facing CRS's are subjected to a longitudinal 
deceleration, FAA tests have shown that they move forward before the 
aircraft seat belt can properly react to restrain them. There are some 
airplane passenger seat models that have lap-belt anchor locations that 
satisfactorily inhibit the forward excursion of forward-facing CRS's. 
However, a survey of major airlines, compiled by the FAA as part of a 
cooperative project with the Society of Automotive Engineers, indicates 
that fewer than 20 percent of passenger seats currently in service have 
seat belt anchor geometry that would adequately restrain forward-facing 
CRS's.
    Additionally, under 16g dynamic impact test conditions, the typical 
economy airplane passenger seating configuration affords approximately 
26 inches of free space forward of the seat back before head contact 
will occur. This distance includes the forward elastic deflection of a 
nonbreakover forward row seat back. If the longitudinal excursion of a 
child seated in a forward-facing child restraint device exceeds this 
distance, it is likely the child's head would strike the forward row 
seat back. Comparable FMVSS 213 test requirements specify 32 inches of 
free space ahead.
    Under FMVSS 213, the aircraft test is essentially an inversion 
test. The performance requirement is that the child test dummy not slip 
out of the restraining harness in the child seat when the seat is 
inverted. This test is adequate for gauging automotive CRS performance 
in air turbulence situations, but may not be adequate for gauging 
whether the CRS will move relative to the aircraft seat in a forward 
deceleration crash mode. This finding leads to the question of whether 
further tests, similar to those FAA has performed, are necessary to 
assess the longitudinal excursion of child test dummies on forward-
facing CRS's.
    Although the 1995 Report contains an economic analysis, the focus 
of this ANPRM is on the technical aspects of CRS design and usage.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213

    Prior to 1984, when the FAA Technical Standard Order (TSO) C-100 
requirements were combined into FMVSS 213, there was a disparity 
between the number of child restraint models available for motor 
vehicle use and the number available for aircraft use. The lack of 
child restraints for aircraft use aroused several safety concerns. One 
was that some families traveling by air were discouraged from taking 
unapproved child restraints with them, and thus did not have them 
available for use at their destination to protect their children while 
the family was driving. The other concern was that those families who 
nevertheless took their unapproved child restraint devices on trips had 
to stow the restraints in the aircraft cargo compartment, and thus were 
not able to use them to protect their children during the flight.
    In 1984, FAA and NHTSA amended the FMVSS and TSO requirements to 
permit manufacturers to ``self-certify'' their restraints for aircraft 
use, provided that they meet the FMVSS 213 requirements and an 
additional requirement, an inversion test. (49 FR 34357; August 30, 
1984). The effect of the 1984 rulemaking was to speed certification of 
child restraints for aircraft use, and thereby increase the 
availability of aircraft-certified child restraints.
    However, the CAMI test results indicate that it may be prudent to 
assess whether the current FMVSS 213 test requirements adequately 
address aircraft crash conditions. Under FMVSS 213, the aircraft test 
is essentially an inversion test for turbulence. The performance 
requirement is that the child test dummy not slip out of the 
restraining harness in the child seat. This is not a test to ensure 
that the child restraint system does not move relative to the aircraft 
seat.
    In addition, the seat belt anchor locations and seat cushions 
specified in the FMVSS 213 test fixture are not representative of 
airplane seats. Tests of CRS's in airplane passenger seats conducted by 
both the FAA and NHTSA have confirmed that the longitudinal excursion 
of forward-facing CRS's is much greater in airplane passenger seats 
than when tested in the FMVSS 213 fixture. Thus, an adequate assessment 
of forward-facing CRS's may necessitate the use of aircraft-specific 
tests in addition to those required by FMVSS 213.

FAA Efforts To Develop Child Restraint Systems for Use On Board 
Aircraft

    The FAA is investigating potential solutions to performance 
problems with CRS's. First, CAMI has developed and fully tested a 
prototype aircraft seat insert platform. The platform is inserted under 
the child restraint device and secured to the aircraft seat using the 
aircraft passenger seat belt. A different set of belts, which is part 
of the platform, is used to secure the child restraint device to the 
platform. The platform makes the child restraint device easier to 
install in the airplane seat and reduces the likelihood of improper 
installation. The platform's design goal is to provide a better 
interface between a child restraint device and an aircraft passenger 
seat.
    A second alternative is to develop an aircraft-only child restraint 
device that could be used in either a forward- or aft-facing 
configuration. Prototype models have been successfully designed, 
developed, and tested independently in the United States and Canada as 
part of a cooperative project with Transport Canada.
    A third alternative is to modify a certain number of passenger 
seats on each airplane and install seat belts with relocated anchorage 
points. This could serve to improve the performance of existing child 
restraint devices. However, relocating anchorage points may prove 
impractical because: (1) Structural locations at which to attach new 
anchorage points may not exist; and (2) passenger seat recertification 
may be necessary.

NHTSA NPRM: ``Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint 
Systems; Tether Anchorages for Child Restraint Systems; Child Restraint 
Anchorage System''

    NHTSA has proposed revisions to FMVSS 213 to upgrade CRS 
performance in automotive applications (62 FR 7857; February 29, 1997). 
The NHTSA proposal considered two new methods of securing child 
restraints in vehicles, in addition to the current method of securing 
the restraints by using seat belts. Both methods require the motor 
vehicle to have a dedicated anchorage system for child restraints. The 
first method consists of two latchplates positioned at the seat bight 
(the intersection of the seat cushion and the seat back), which would 
connect to two buckle mechanisms affixed to the child seat. The second 
method consists of rigid or semi-rigid D-rings installed at the vehicle 
seat bight, and matching hardware on the child seat to attach to those 
D-rings. Such hardware could include latches similar to those used for 
vehicle door and truck latches, which are attached to rigid prongs on 
the child seat. The FAA has expressed a concern that the rigid prongs 
on this type of child seat may not be compatible with aircraft seat 
cushions or suited for narrow aircraft seat usage.
    Both methods under consideration by NHTSA would include a top 
tether anchorage strap. The tether is designed to be attached to a ring 
installed on either the car's backlight deck under the rear window or 
on the rear-seat's underside to keep the back support of the child 
restraint device from rotating forward on impact. The tether strap

[[Page 8327]]

installation is not currently compatible with aircraft passenger seats.

Request for Information

    The FAA is issuing this ANPRM to gather operational and technical 
data from air carriers, the public, manufacturers, and other interested 
parties to determine the best way to ensure the safety of small 
children in CRS's during takeoff, landing, and in turbulent conditions 
while on board the aircraft. The FAA requests comments and suggestions 
on all issues related to the use of CRS's. The FAA will consider all 
comments and suggestions. The following are issues of particular 
concern:

(1) General

    The FAA requests comments regarding problems with fit, function, 
and performance that have been encountered with existing child 
restraint devices, especially installation problems in general aviation 
and commuter aircraft. For example, some child restraint device designs 
are simply too big to fit on some narrow aircraft seats, with or 
without an interfacing platform. FAA's finding that these dimensional 
mismatches can occur is based on a limited survey of larger commercial 
aircraft seats. Smaller, commuter aircraft seats are not included in 
this survey. Mismatches with the commuter and general aviation fleet of 
aircraft could be more prevalent.
    Accordiingly, FAA seeks detailed information about the dimensions 
of existing or possible future CRS designs regarding their ability to 
fit into the range of airline passenger seat sizes that are installed 
in commercial aircraft. The FAA also seeks information from airlines 
about how frequently passengers attempt to use CRS's that are too large 
for the aircraft seat. Airlines are asked to comment on how they handle 
such situations now, and how they would envision addressing such 
situations if CRS use was mandatory. Finally, the FAA queries whether 
it would be appropriate or practical, under FMVSS 213, to establish 
dimensional limits for CRS's that are dual-use certified for both 
automotive and aircraft use.

(2) Forward-Facing CRS's

    The FAA requests comments regarding the safety of forward-facing 
CRS's especially in air carrier aircraft, including any current 
research data regarding forward-facing child restraint devices.
    In particular, should airplane-specific tests be required, in 
addition to those conducted under FMVSS 213, to adequately assess the 
longitudinal excursion of child test dummies in forward-facing CRS's? 
Should child seats certified for aircraft use undergo testing in 
conditions representative of those found in a commercial transport 
airplane accident? For example, should there be a requirement for 
dynamic testing of a child restraint device to 16 g's when attached to 
an airplane seat using lap- and seat-belt anchorages representative of 
the belt assemblies and anchorages found in commercial transport 
airplanes?

(3) Aft-Facing CRS's

    The FAA request comments regarding problems that may be associated 
with aft-facing child restraint devices, including any current research 
data regarding aft-facing child restrain devices. Should the current 
dual-use certification policy continue for both aft-facing and forward-
facing CRS's, or should the policy be limited to only aft-facing seats?

(4) Approval of CRS's

    The FAA requests comments about the advisability of having child 
restraint devices certified under FMVSS 213 for aircraft use. Should a 
separate aviation standard be developed for aircraft use ? In 
particular, CRS manufacturers are invited to comment on whether, under 
a mandatory CRS-use regulation, they would choose to dual-certify their 
products, if (1) additional aircraft- specific tests were required, and 
(2) it was optional for CRS manufacturers to dual-certify their 
product.

(5) Research on Child Restraint Systems

    The FAA requests comments about new CRS's that are being developed, 
relative to their appropriateness for use in both automobiles and 
aircraft. In addition, the FAA requests comments on devices that are 
being developed or that are already available that are similar to the 
prototype seat insert platform previously described in this notice. 
Specifically, the FAA would like to know if there are any problems that 
will preclude manufacturers from developing such devices.
    Similarly, comments are sought on the potential availability, 
performance capabilities, and ease-of use of aircraft-only CRS designs. 
Further, the FAA also queries whether any design limitations and/or 
labeling requirements should be placed on aircraft-only CRS's

(6) Changing Anchor Point Locations for Aircraft Passenger Seat Belts

    CAMI data indicate that changes to the location of the anchor 
points for passenger seat belts would greatly enhance the performance 
of existing child restraint devices. The FAA requests information on 
the technical and operational feasibility of changing these anchor 
points on a few passenger seats on existing aircraft as well as on 
aircraft seats manufactured in the future. Information is also 
requested on the feasibility of equipping some aircraft seats with a 
top tether anchorage, such as on the underside of the seat.

(7) Evacuation of Aircraft With Children in Child Restraint Systems

    The FAA requests data on the effect of child restraint systems on 
passenger egress times.

(8) Mandatory Use of Child Restraint Systems for Children Under 40 
Inches and Under 40 Pounds

    The FAA requests comments regarding the safety consequences of 
requiring all children under 40 inches and under 40 pounds to be in an 
appropriate CRS. What effect would such a requirement likely have 
relative to injuries sustained in both aircraft crashes and air 
turbulence conditions? Also, the FAA requests data on the effect of 
height and weight on the efficacy of both current and future automotive 
CRS's, as well as aircraft-only CRS's. In particular, the FAA would 
like to know whether CRS's should be mandatory where the passenger is: 
(1) Both under 40 inches and under 40 pounds; or (2) either under 40 
inches or under 40 pounds. Current FAA regulations do not require the 
use of restraint systems designed specifically for children; for 
example, a two-year-old, regardless of size and weight may be 
restrained in either a CRS or a passenger seat belt, and a child under 
two years of age may be lap held. In addition, the FAA is seeking data 
regarding how many children travel by aircraft that are under: (1) Two 
years of age; or (2) 40 inches and 40 pounds. The FAA is seeking 
comment regarding an air carrier's ability to enforce the weight and 
height requirements for CRS usage.

(9) Providing Child Restraint Systems on Aircraft

    The FAA requests comments regarding the effects of requiring air 
carriers to supply appropriate CRS's. For example, how would air 
carriers ensure that appropriate CRS's were available for flights?

(10) Impacts on Small Businesses

    The FAA requests comments regarding the effects of mandatory CRS 
use, including supplying CRS's, on small air carriers.

[[Page 8328]]

(11) Using a Dedicated Method for Aircraft Applications

    The FAA requests comments about the appropriateness of 
incorporating a dedicated child restraint anchorage system, such as 
those being considered by NHTSA (62 FR 7857), into current aircraft 
fleets.

(12) Current Practices

    The FAA requests data and comments on the current practice of 
allowing an adult to hold a child two years of age or younger on his or 
her lap while seated in a forward or rear-facing seat. Estimates of the 
number of small children and infants that travel in this manner are 
especially sought.

(13) Additional Rear Facing Seats

    The FAA is requesting data and comments regarding the impact of 
requiring air carriers to supply rear-facing seats on aircraft. Some 
have suggested that requiring a limited number of rear-facing seats 
would enhance the safety of child passengers.

(14) Children Per Flight Requiring Child Restraint Seats

    The FAA requests comment on the number of children that require 
CRS's, both on an average and on a peak basis.

(15) Other Solutions

    The FAA requests comments about other possible solutions to ensure 
that small children are properly restrained while on board aircraft.

Regulatory Process Matters

Economic Impact

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires Federal agencies to 
consider the extent that proposed rules may have ``a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' Although 
the FAA is unable, at this time, to determine the likely costs of 
imposing regulations requiring small children to be restrained in CRS's 
in aircraft, following a review of the comments submitted to this 
ANPRM, the FAA will determine what the potential costs and benefits of 
the various rulemaking options are.
    Likewise, at this preliminary stage, it is not yet possible to 
determine whether there will be a significant economic impact to a 
substantial number of small entities or what the paperwork burden, if 
any, might be. These regulatory matters will be addressed at the time 
of publication of any NPRM on the subject.

Significance

    This preliminary rulemaking is considered a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has 
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This preliminary 
rulemaking is also considered significant under the regulatory policies 
and procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034; 
February 2, 1979) because of considerable public interest. In addition, 
any NPRM subsequently developed based on comments to this ANPRM may be 
considered significant.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 11, 1998.
Ava L. Mims,
Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 98-3954 Filed 2-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M