50902 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125, and 135 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22045; Amendment 

Nos. 91–289, 121–314, 125–48, and 135–100] 

RIN 2120–AI36 

FAA-Approved Child Restraint 

Systems 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) is amending its 

operating regulations to allow the use, 

on board aircraft, of Child Restraint 

Systems (CRSs) that are approved by the 

FAA through a Type Certificate, 

Supplemental Type Certificate, or 

Technical Standard Order. Current FAA 

regulations do not allow the use of CRSs 

other than those that meet specific 

standards for the automobile 

environment. The intended effect of this 

regulation is to reduce the regulatory 

burden to industry while maintaining or 

increasing safety. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

September 26, 2005. Comments must be 

filed on or before September 26, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Address your comments to 

the Docket Management System, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Room 

Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. You must 

identify the docket number FAA–2005– 

22045 at the beginning of your 

comments, and you should file two 

copies of your comments. 

You may also file comments through 

the Internet to http://dms.dot.gov. You 

may review the public docket 

containing comments to these 

regulations in person in the Dockets 

Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The Dockets Office is on the 

plaza level of the NASSIF Building at 

the Department of Transportation at the 

above address. Also, you may review 

public dockets on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy Lauck Claussen, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Flight Standards 

Service, Certificate Management Office, 

2800 N. 44 Street, Suite 450, Phoenix, 

AZ 85008, telephone (602) 379–4350, email nancy.l.claussen@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA is adopting this final rule 

without prior notice and prior public 

comment. The Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures of the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 1134; 

February 26, 1979), however, provide 

that, to the maximum extent possible, 

operating administrations for the DOT 

should provide an opportunity for 

public comment on regulations issued 

without prior notice. Therefore, we 

invite interested persons to participate 

in this rulemaking by filing such written 

data, views, or arguments, as they may 

desire. We also invite comments about 

environmental, energy, federalism, or 

international trade impacts that might 

result from this amendment. Please 

include the regulatory docket or 

amendment number and send two 

copies to the address above. We will file 

all comments received, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel on 

this rulemaking, in the public docket. 

The docket is available for public 

inspection before and after the comment 

closing date. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

The FAA will consider all comments 

received on or before the closing date 

for comments. We will consider late 

comments to the extent practicable. We 

may amend this final rule in light of the 

comments received. 

Commenters who want the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

submitted in response to this final rule 

must include a preaddressed, stamped 

postcard with those comments on which 

the following statement is made: 

‘‘Comments to Docket No. FAA–2005– 

22045.’’ The postcard will be datestamped by the FAA and mailed to the 

commenter. 

Availability of Final Rule 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by: 

(1) Searching the Department of 

Transportation’s electronic Docket 

Management System (DMS) Web page 

(http://dms.dot.gov/search); 

(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulationslpolicies; or 

(3) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending 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. Make sure to 

identify the docket number, notice 

number, or amendment number of this 

rulemaking. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

Therefore, any small entity that has a 

question regarding this document may 

contact their local FAA official, or the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out 

more about SBRFA on the Internet at 

our site, http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/ 

sbrefa.cfm. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart i, section 40101. 

Under that section, the FAA is charged 

with developing and maintaining a 

sound regulatory system that is 

responsive to the needs of the public 

and in which decisions are reached 

promptly to make it easier to adapt the 

air transportation system to the present 

and future needs of the commerce of the 

United States. 

Purpose of Final Rule 

Current FAA regulations require that, 

to be used on aircraft, a CRS meet 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint 

systems (49 CFR 571.213), meet the 

standards of the United Nations, or be 

approved by a foreign government. 

FMVSS No. 213 regulates the 

certification of CRSs for use in trucks 

and automobiles. It is illegal to sell 

CRSs for use in motor vehicles that are 

not properly certified to FMVSS No. 

213. Since FMVSS No. 213 CRSs are 

used in automobiles and trucks, these 

are the types of CRSs a parent or 

guardian is most likely to own. 

Therefore, these are the types of CRSs 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 50903 

most likely to be carried onto an 

airplane by a parent or guardian. The 

FAA has found, however, that many of 

the CRSs that meet FMVSS No. 213 

requirements do not perform optimally 

in the aircraft environment. However, as 

stated in the preamble to Amendment 

No. 121–255, Child Restraint Systems, 

‘‘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 alternatives available at this 

time.’’ (61 FR 28418; June 4, 1996) 

To improve the safety of children, the 

FAA is amending its regulations to 

allow the use of alternative CRSs that 

improve the restraint system for 

children otherwise belted only with a 

lap belt, subject to special approval by 

the FAA. This approval will occur using 

the type certificate (TC), supplemental 

type certificate (STC) or Technical 

Standard Order (TSO) process. For more 

information on how the FAA will assure 

that FAA-approved CRSs demonstrate 

efficacy, see the preamble discussion 

under ‘‘FAA Approval Process.’’ 

Currently, operators wanting to use 

CRSs that are approved by the FAA 

through a TC, STC, or TSO, need to 

petition for an exemption to use such 

restraints. This final rule allows the use 

of CRSs that have received FAA 

approval through a TC, STC, or TSO 

without having to go through an 

additional process to get an exemption 

from our operating rules. If the FAA did 

not go forward with this final rule, an 

operator would have to petition the 

FAA for an exemption to use a CRS the 

FAA has already found to be safe 

through the TC, STC, or TSO process 

because the FAA-approved CRS would 

not have the required labeling. The FAA 

believes this final rule will reduce an 

administrative burden and encourage 

the development of innovative CRSs, 

while ensuring safety through the TC, 

STC, and TSO processes. 

Existing CRS Standards 

During the latter half of 1982, DOT 

had two standards for CRSs. CRSs for 

use in motor vehicles had to be certified 

as complying with the requirements of 

FMVSS No. 213. CRSs for use in aircraft 

had to be certified as complying with 

the requirements of FAA’s TSO C100. In 

early 1983, the National Transportation 

Safety Board considered the safety 

problems posed for young children 

traveling in motor vehicles and aircraft 

and urged that a variety of actions be 

taken to promote the increased use of 

CRSs. One recommendation called for 

DOT to simplify its two different 

standards setting forth requirements for 

CRSs by combining the standards into a 

single standard. After considering the 

benefits that would result from the 

increased use of CRSs, the FAA and the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) jointly 

concluded the process of certifying 

CRSs for use in both motor vehicles and 

aircraft could and should be simplified. 

The agencies proposed that NHTSA 

would be the sole agency responsible for 

administering the new FMVSS No. 213, 

which would be applicable to both CRSs 

designed for use in motor vehicles and 

CRSs designed for use in aircraft. 

On October 15, 1992, the FAA 

broadened the categories of CRSs that 

were allowed to be used on aircraft to 

include CRSs that meet the standards of 

the United Nations or are approved by 

a foreign government (57 FR 42662; 

September 15, 1992). NHTSA does not 

set these standards. In the preamble, the 

FAA stated ‘‘Using these restraints in an 

aircraft will provide a level of safety 

greater than that which would be 

provided if the young children were 

held in the arms of adults or if safety 

belts alone were used.’’ (57 FR 42664) 

In 1994, the FAA issued a study, 

included in the docket, entitled, ‘‘The 

Performance of Child Restraint Devices 

in Transport Airplane Seats’’ (the CAMI 

study). Among the findings, the CAMI 

study found that, as a class of child 

restraint devices, shield-type booster 

seats, in combination with other factors, 

contributed to an adbominal pressure 

measurement higher than in other 

means of protection while not 

preventing a head impact. In addition, 

the CAMI 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. For more 

information on the CAMI Study, see the 

preamble discussion under ‘‘CAMI 

Study.’’ 

In a final rule dated June 4, 1996, the 

FAA withdrew FAA approval for the 

use of booster seats and vest- and 

harness-type CRSs based on the results 

of the CAMI study (61 FR 28416). 

However, in the final rule preamble the 

FAA stated ‘‘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.’’ (61 FR 28419) 

On July 16, 2002 the FAA issued TSO 

C100b, Child Restraint System. For 

more information on this current TSO, 

see the preamble discussion under 

‘‘FAA Approval Processes.’’ 

CAMI Study 

The research for the CAMI study 

involved dynamic impact tests with a 

variety of CRSs installed in transport 

category aircraft passenger seats. 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 

CRS use in aircraft, including whether 

they fit within an aircraft passenger seat 

and their ease of installation. 

The CAMI study made the following 

findings: 

1. Rear-facing CRSs, for children 

under 20 pounds, performed well, 

protected the child, and could be 

adequately restrained with existing 

aircraft seat belts. 

2. All eight forward-facing CRSs that 

were tested, for children from 20–40 

pounds, when restrained with aircraft 

seat belts and subjected to the 16g 

longitudinal aircraft deceleration, failed 

to prevent the head from impacting the 

forward seatback. Routing the aircraft 

seat belt through a forward-facing CRS 

and buckling, adjusting proper tension, 

and unbuckling it was difficult, leading 

to the conclusion that some CRSs might 

not be easily and adequately secured to 

aircraft seats. 

3. Normal lap belts, for children who 

weighed 33 pounds, provided adjustable 

tight fit, a belt path over the pelvic bone, 

and no indication of submarining or roll 

out during dynamic tests. However, 

because lap belts are not designed to 

inhibit upper torso flail, head impacts 

against the seat structure that were 

severe enough to cause head injury 

occurred during testing. These impacts 

were substantially higher than those 

exhibited in the forward CRS tests. 

4. The child anthropomorphic test 

dummy (ATD) moved forward and over 

the front edge of the seat cushion and 

proceeded to submarine to the floor 

during dynamic testing of harness 

restraints. Elasticity in the webbing of 

the harness and seat belts then pulled 

the ATD rearward. These restraints 

consisted of a torso harness for the child 

ATD, placed in its own seat, with the 

airplane seat belt routed through a loop 

of webbing attached to the back of the 

harness. 

You can view dynamic video of the 

FAA Office of Aerospace Medicine 

Report ‘‘The Performance of Child 

Restraint Devices in Transport Airplane 

Passenger Seats’’ at: http:// 

www.cami.jccbi.gov/AAM–600/ 

Biodynamics/600Biody.html. 

50904 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Detailed Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA is broadening the types of 

CRSs allowed on aircraft to include 

CRSs approved by the FAA through TC, 

STC, or TSO, similar to when we 

broadened the types of CRSs allowed on 

aircraft in 1992. This rule does not affect 

the use of CRSs that are already 

approved for use on aircraft. (See http: 

//www.faa.gov/passengers/childtips.cfm 

for FAA recommendations on choosing 

the correct CRS for air travel.) If, 

however, a parent does not have 

available an FMVSS No. 213 approved 

CRS, a CRS that meets United Nations 

standards, or a CRS that is approved by 

a foreign government, the FAA has 

determined a CRS approved through the 

TC, STC or TSO process will better 

protect children who would otherwise 

be restrained only by a lap belt. 

Properly restraining children is 

difficult. There is a large variance in 

muscle development, height, weight, 

and upper body strength. While CRSs 

meeting the FMVSS No. 213 standard 

do not always fit well in an aircraft, 

CRSs meeting this standard markedly 

improve the safety of a child in the 

under 44 pound range who would 

otherwise be restrained by a lap belt, or 

be unrestrained on a parent’s lap. 

However, because these CRSs are bulky 

and sometimes difficult to install 

properly, many parents or guardians 

elect to use the standard aircraft lap belt 

for their child. The FAA has determined 

this final rule will help to make a wider 

variety of safe CRSs available to be used 

by children in the aircraft environment, 

thereby increasing the safety of children 

who would otherwise only be restrained 

with a lap belt. 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

1996 final rule, we are reviewing the 

prohibition against certain types of 

CRSs because we are aware of one 

innovative CRS that is safe in the 

aircraft environment. This CRS, made 

by AMSAFE, improves lap belt 

performance for children between 22 

and 44 pounds who would otherwise be 

restrained only with the lap belt. The 

FAA’s Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office worked with AMSAFE to issue 

STC No. ST01781LA on April 15, 2005, 

for a simple supplemental adjustable 

restraint. The STC approves installation 

of this device for a specific aircraft make 

and models and a specific seat model. 

A copy of the STC may be found at 

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/ 

Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/ 

rgSTC.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet. 

Unlike the harness devices tested in 

the CAMI study, the AMSAFE restraint 

uses an additional belt/shoulder harness 

that goes around the seat back and 

attaches to the passenger lap belt, 

providing improved upper torso 

restraint. The device can be easily 

stowed and installed and does not need 

to be installed by a mechanic. Because 

of the design of the CRS and the 

additional training they will receive, the 

FAA has determined it is acceptable for 

flight attendants to install the CRS in 

the passenger seat. As part of the STC 

process, AMSAFE was required to 

submit to the FAA obvious, clear, and 

concise instructions readily available to 

the flight and cabin crew about the 

proper installation and use of the CRS. 

To reduce the regulatory burden to 

industry while maintaining or 

increasing safety, the FAA is proposing 

to add regulatory language in 14 CFR 

parts 91, 121, 125, and 135 that would 

allow the use of CRSs the FAA has 

approved through a TC, STC, or TSO, 

even if such CRSs are booster-type or 

vest- and harness-type CRSs. The FAA 

anticipates that other manufacturers 

with CRSs not meeting FMVSS No. 213 

will seek FAA approval through the TC, 

STC, or TSO process. As with the 

AMSAFE device, we would need to 

determine if the CRS is a safe alternative 

to methods of restraint that are already 

approved for use on aircraft. In each 

case, the CRS will need to be approved 

by the FAA for use in specific aircraft. 

FAA Approval Processes 

Under this final rule, CRSs will be 

approved via several different processes: 

TC; STC; TSO; FMVSS No. 213; foreign 

governments; or the standards of the 

United Nations. Most standards 

approved by foreign governments or the 

United Nations are similar to FMVSS 

No. 213. Foreign governments are 

responsible for determining whether to 

accept under their operating regulations 

CRSs approved by the FAA through TC, 

STC, or TSO. However, most countries 

automatically accept FAA certification 

without further review. The TC, STC, 

and TSO processes address differences 

in CRS design and performance. The 

FAA believes that allowing several 

methods of CRS approval will 

encourage CRS innovation because each 

manufacturer will have the ability to 

select the approval process that is most 

appropriate for its CRS, based on CRS 

design and proposed equivalent level of 

safety. 

A. TC Process 

A TC is an original FAA design 

approval in which an applicant applies 

for, and the FAA issues, a type 

certificate for a product or a major 

design change to a product. A product 

is an aircraft, an aircraft engine, or an 

aircraft propeller. The TC process is 

appropriate if a CRS is incorporated into 

the original aircraft design. 14 CFR part 

21 contains the requirements for the 

issuance of a type certificate or an 

amendment to an existing type 

certificate (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ 

ecfr/). 

B. STC Process 

The final rule allows a specific CRS 

that has met the STC testing and 

evaluation criteria established by the 

FAA to be used on a specific type of 

aircraft operated by a specific operator. 

Under the STC process, a CRS 

manufacturer would approach the FAA 

to obtain approval, via STC, for their 

CRS to be used on specific aircraft. In 

this way, the FAA can address novel 

and unusual design features associated 

with any new type of CRS when the 

applicable regulations do not contain 

adequate and appropriate safety 

standards for the design features of a 

CRS that is presented for FAA approval. 

The STC process is appropriate for a 

CRS that does not meet FMVSS No. 213 

requirements. 

When the FAA considers granting an 

STC, it publishes the proposed special 

conditions in the Federal Register for 

notice and comment (http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html). 

These proposed special conditions 

contain the additional safety standards 

the FAA considers necessary to 

establish a level of safety equivalent to 

that established by existing regulations. 

The proposed special conditions 

address the required performance of the 

CRS and the capability of the CRS to be 

installed and used without creating any 

safety concerns. As an example of 

Special Conditions, you can look at the 

AMSAFE Special Conditions that were 

part of the STC the FAA granted to 

AMSAFE for their CRS on April 15, 

2005 (70 FR 18271; April 11, 2005). 

Pertinent regulations and guidance 

regarding the STC process are contained 

in: 

(1) 14 CFR part 21 subpart E, http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/. 

(2) AC 21–40 Application Guide for 

Obtaining a Supplemental Type 

Certificate, http://www.airweb.faa.gov/ 

Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/ 

rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf. 

C. TSO Process 

A TSO is a minimum performance 

standard issued by the FAA for 

specified materials, parts, processes, 

and appliances used on aircraft. These 

performance standards must be used for 

an applicant to receive TSO 

authorization. The current listing of 

TSO information (http:// 

www.airweb.faa.gov/ 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 50905 

Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/ 

rgTSO.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet) 

contains a list of authorized 

manufacturers and articles produced by 

TSO Holders under a TSO 

Authorization or Letter of TSO Design 

Approval. The Web site also contains 

TSO C100b, Child Restraint System. 

TSO C100b tells people seeking a TSO 

Authorization or Letter of Design 

Approval what minimum performance 

standards their CRS must first meet to 

obtain FAA approval under the TSO 

process. 

TSO C100b contains standards for 

performance testing and evaluation, 

operating instructions, equipment 

limitations, installation procedures and 

limitations, as well as instructions for 

continuing maintenance of the CRS. 

Unlike the STC, a TSO authorization or 

letter of design approval does not give 

installation approval. Installation 

approval must still be obtained via an 

STC, the FAA field approval process, 

TC, or airframe manufacturer’s service 

bulletin. 

TSO C100b is a performance standard 

that is similar to FMVSS No. 213. 

However, TSO C100b makes the testing 

more realistic to an aviation 

environment, so the chances of a CRS 

built to the TSO standards performing 

‘‘as tested’’ on an aircraft in an accident 

are greater than a CRS tested under 

FMVSS No. 213 standards. At this 

point, there are not any CRSs that have 

been built to TSO C100b standards. The 

TSO process would be appropriate if a 

CRS is similar in design to a CRS that 

meets FMVSS No. 213 requirements, 

and also is designed to meet the specific 

aviation performance standards 

contained in TSO C100b. 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

On February 18, 1998, the FAA 

published an Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that 

sought public comment on issues 

relating to the use of CRSs in aircraft 

during all phases of flight (63 FR 8324). 

The ANPRM did not propose specific 

regulatory changes. Rather, it requested 

comments, data, and analysis to help 

the FAA decide the best regulatory 

approach to ensure the safety of 

children who are passengers in aircraft. 

The FAA has issued a separate 

document concerning the ANPRM. That 

document is being published in the 

Federal Register concurrently with this 

final rule. 

FAA CRS Initiatives 

This final rule is part of a multifaceted FAA initiative designed to 

encourage the use of CRSs and to 

encourage the development of 

innovative CRSs that work well in the 

aviation environment. As well as 

working to reduce the regulatory burden 

to operators and CRS manufacturers by 

this rulemaking, the FAA has actively 

worked with CRS manufacturers who 

are seeking FAA approval by STC or 

TSO for innovative CRS designs. The 

FAA has also started a public education 

campaign and developed more advisory 

material on the use of CRSs. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. We 

have determined that there are no 

current new information collection 

requirements associated with this 

proposed rule. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these regulations. 

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption 

Sections 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3) of 

the Administrative Procedures Act 

(APA) (5 U.S.C. Sections 553(b)(3)(B) 

and 553(d)(3)) authorize agencies to 

dispense with certain notice procedures 

for rules when they find ‘‘good cause’’ 

to do so. Under section 553(b)(3)(B), the 

requirements of notice and opportunity 

for comment do not apply when the 

agency for good cause finds that those 

procedures are ‘‘impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest.’’ 

The FAA finds that notice and public 

comment to this final rule is 

unnecessary. This final rule adds 

language to allow the use of CRSs that 

have received FAA approval through a 

TC, STC, or TSO, without having to go 

through the exemption process. Prior 

public comment is unnecessary because 

this amendment simply allows 

alternative processes, such as the TC, 

STC, or TSO processes, by which a CRS 

can be approved for use in aircraft. We 

do not anticipate significant public 

comment on this amendment, since it 

does not impose a requirement. In 

addition, there is already precedent for 

allowing alternative methods of 

approving a CRS that do not have 

required labeling for use in aircraft. In 

the current rule, this includes a label 

showing approval from a foreign 

government or a label showing the CRS 

was manufactured under the standards 

of the United Nations. 

Adding this language will not have an 

adverse safety impact, because the 

language merely recognizes alternative 

approval processes for CRSs, and makes 

FAA-approved CRSs available to 

operators and their passengers without 

using the exemption process. As a 

result, the FAA has determined that 

there is no reason to further delay this 

relief and good cause exists for making 

this rule effective 30 days after 

publication. 

Economic Assessment, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Final rules to Federal regulations 

must undergo several economic 

analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 

directs that each Federal agency shall 

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 impact of 

regulatory changes on small entities. 

Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 

U.S.C. 2531–2533) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation). 

The Department of Transportation 

Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 

and procedures for simplification, 

analysis, and review of regulations. If it 

is determined that the expected cost 

impact is so minimal that a rule does 

not warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble and a full regulatory 

evaluation cost benefit evaluation need 

not be prepared. Such a determination 

has been made for this rule. The 

reasoning for that determination 

follows. 

50906 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

This final rule adds language to allow 

the use of CRSs that have received FAA 

approval, through a TC, STC, or TSO, 

without having to go through the 

exemption process. This final rule 

simply allows alternative processes, 

such as the TC, STC, or TSO processes, 

by which a CRS can be approved for use 

in aircraft. Adding this language does 

not have an adverse safety impact, 

because the language merely recognizes 

alternative approval processes for CRSs. 

This final rule reduces the regulatory 

burden to industry by taking away the 

necessity to go through the exemption 

process after the successful completion 

of the rigorous TC, STC, or TSO process 

for a particular CRS. It also lessens the 

need for FAA resources to process 

numerous exemption requests. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of 

regulatory issuance that agencies shall 

endeavor, consistent with the objective 

of the rule and of applicable statutes, to 

fit regulatory and informational 

requirements to the scale of the 

business, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve that principle, 

the RFA requires agencies to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of 

small entities, including small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations, 

and small governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a proposed or final 

rule will have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. If the agency determines that it 

will, the agency must prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis as 

described in the RFA. However, if an 

agency determines that a proposed or 

final rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

This final rule adds language to allow 

the use of CRSs that have received FAA 

approval through a TC, STC or TSO, 

without having to go through the 

exemption process. Its economic impact 

is minimal. Therefore, we certify that 

this action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

prohibits Federal agencies from 

establishing any standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Legitimate domestic objectives, such as 

safety, are not considered unnecessary 

obstacles. The statute also requires 

consideration of international standards 

and, where appropriate, that they be the 

basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 

assessed the potential effect of this 

rulemaking and has determined that it 

will have only a domestic impact and 

therefore no effect on any tradesensitive activity. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (the Act) is intended, among 

other things, to curb the practice of 

imposing unfunded Federal mandates 

on State, local, and tribal governments. 

Title II of the Act requires each Federal 

agency to prepare a written statement 

assessing the effects of any Federal 

mandate in a proposed or final agency 

rule that may result in an expenditure 

of $100 million or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any one year 

by State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or by the private sector; 

such a mandate is deemed to be a 

‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ The 

FAA currently uses an inflationadjusted value of $120.7 million in lieu 

of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such 

a mandate. The requirements of Title II 

of the Act, therefore, do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action does not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and therefore 

would not have federalism implications. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this final rule 

qualifies for the categorical exclusion 

identified in paragraph 312f and 

involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We 

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 91 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 121 

Air carriers, Safety, Transportation. 

14 CFR Part 125 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 135 

Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

The Amendments 

■ In consideration of the foregoing the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends Chapter I of Title 14 Code of 

Federal Regulations 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), 1155, 40103, 

40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44709, 

44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 

46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506–46507, 

47122, 47508, 47528–47531, articles 12 and 

29 of the Convention on International Civil 

Aviation (61 Stat.1180). 

■ 2. Amend § 91. 107 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(3)(iii)(B)(3) and (4) to 

read as follows: 

§ 91.107 Use of safety belts, shoulder 

harnesses, and child restraint systems. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(3) Seats that do not qualify under 

paragraphs (a)(3)(iii)(B)(1) and 

(a)(3)(iii)(B)(2) of this section must bear 

a label or markings showing: 

(i) That the seat was approved by a 

foreign government; 

(ii) That the seat was manufactured 

under the standards of the United 

Nations; or 

(iii) That the seat or child restraint 

device furnished by the operator was 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 50907 

approved by the FAA through Type 

Certificate, Supplemental Type 

Certificate, or applicable Technical 

Standard Order. 

(4) Except as provided in 

§ 91.107(a)(3)(iii)(B)(3)(iii), 

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, 

41706, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709– 

44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44901, 

44903–44904, 44912, 45101–45105, 46105, 

46301. 

■ 4. Amend § 121.311 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(C) and (D) to read 

as follows: 

§ 121.311 Seats, safety belts, and shoulder 

harnesses. 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) Seats that do not qualify under 

paragraphs (B)(2)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(ii)(B) 

of this section must bear a label or 

markings showing: 

(1) That the seat was approved by a 

foreign government; 

(2) That the seat was manufactured 

under the standards of the United 

Nations; or 

(3) That the seat or child restraint 

device furnished by the certificate 

holder was approved by the FAA 

through Type Certificate, Supplemental 

Type Certificate, or applicable 

Technical Standard Order. 

(D) Except as provided in 

§ 121.311(b)(2)(ii)(C)(3), 

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 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; AND RULES 

GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD 

SUCH AIRCRAFT 

■ 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– 

4717, 44722. 

■ 6. Amend § 125.211 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(C) and (D) to read 

as follows: 

§ 125.211 Seat and safety belts. 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) Seats that do not qualify under 

paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(ii)(B) 

of this section must bear a label or 

markings showing: 

(1) That the seat was approved by a 

foreign government; 

(2) That the seat was manufactured 

under the standards of the United 

Nations; or 

(3) That the seat or child restraint 

device furnished by the certificate 

holder was approved by the FAA 

through Type Certificate, Supplemental 

Type Certificate, or applicable 

Technical Standard Order. 

(D) Except as provided in 

§ 125.211(b)(2)(ii)(C)(3), 

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 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), 44113, 44701– 

44702, 44705, 44709, 44711–44713, 44715– 

44717, 44722. 

■ 13. Amend § 135.128 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(C) and (D) to read 

as follows: 

§ 135.128 Use of safety belts and child 

restraint systems. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) Seats that do not qualify under 

paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) and (a)(2)(ii)(B) 

of this section must bear a label or 

markings showing: 

(1) That the seat was approved by a 

foreign government; 

(2) That the seat was manufactured 

under the standards of the United 

Nations; 

(3) That the seat or child restraint 

device furnished by the certificate 

holder was approved by the FAA 

through Type Certificate, Supplemental 

Type Certificate, or applicable 

Technical Standard Order. 

(D) Except as provided in 

§ 135.128(a)(2)(ii)(C)(3), 

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 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 28, 

2005. 

Marion C. Blakey, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–16782 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P