30690 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 111 / Friday, June 9, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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

§§ 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 §§ 121.311(c), 125.211(c),

and 135.128(b)).

The provisions of §§ 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 followup 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 111 / Friday, June 9, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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 beltpositioning 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 ‘‘shieldtype’’). FMVSS No. 213 defines a ‘‘beltpositioning 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 ‘‘beltpositioning’’ 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

§§ 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 shieldtype 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 § 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
30692 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 111 / Friday, June 9, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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 shieldtype 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 111 / Friday, June 9, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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 beltpositioning 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 beltpositioning 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 harnesstype 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.
30694 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 111 / Friday, June 9, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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

§ 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:

§ 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 harnesstype 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 boostertype 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:

§ 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 harnesstype 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 boostertype 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;
30696 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 111 / Friday, June 9, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(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:

§ 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 harnesstype 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 boostertype 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

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74–09; Notice 41]

RIN 2127–AF46

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Child Restraint Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This proposed rule, and a

companion proposed rule issued by the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

address the use of child harnesses and

backless child restraints in aircraft. This

document proposes to amend a

provision in Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 213, ‘‘Child

Restraint Systems,’’ that permits those

restraints to be certified for use in both

motor vehicles and aircraft.

Under the current FAA regulations,

aircraft-certified child restraints may be

used on aircraft. However, because

testing has raised concerns about the

safety of using harnesses and backless

child restraint systems on the types of

seats found in aircraft, FAA is

publishing, in today’s Federal Register,

an NPRM that would prohibit the use of

booster seats, and vest- and harness-type

child restraint systems on aircraft even

if they are certified for aircraft use.

NHTSA is, in turn, concerned that if

FAA were to ban harnesses and backless

booster seats from being used on

aircraft, continuing to permit the

certification of those restraints for

aircraft use could be confusing to the

public. Accordingly, this document

proposes to require manufacturers to

label these restraints as not being for

aircraft use.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received by the agency no later

than July 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket number and notice number

and be submitted in writing to: Docket

Section, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC

20590. Telephone: (202) 366–5267.

Docket hours are 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

George Mouchahoir, Office of Vehicle

Safety Standards (telephone 202–366–

4919), or Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of

the Chief Counsel (202–366–2992),

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590. For information

on FAA’s proposal, contact Ms. Donell

Pollard (AFS–203), Air Transportation

Division, Flight Standards Service

(telephone 202–267–3735), Federal

Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document proposes to amend the

provision in Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 213, ‘‘Child

Restraint Systems,’’ that permits child

restraint systems to be certified for use

in both motor vehicles and aircraft. This

rule complements an FAA proposal,

published elsewhere in today’s Federal

Register, that would prohibit the use of

booster seats, and vest- and harness-type

child restraint systems on aircraft even

if the restraints are certified for aircraft

use.

The types of child restraint systems

that are the subject of this NPRM are

harnesses and backless child restraints.

A harness typically consists of a vest or

a series of straps that form a vest-like

garment, that attaches at the back of the

harness to a vehicle seat’s lap belt.

Harnesses are generally intended for

children who weigh from 25 to 50

pounds, and some require the use of a

tether strap to supplement the lap belt.

A backless child restraint system is a

type of child booster seat that has a

structural element (typically a shield)

designed to restrain forward motion of

the child’s torso in a frontal crash.

Backless child restraint systems are

generally intended for children

weighing from 30 to 60 pounds.