50226 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Actions Compliance Procedures 

(3) Apply anti-rub (padding) strips to the edge 

of the support tray for the attachment cables 

of switches below the switch panels of the 

left-hand instrument panel.

Before further flight after the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD. This 

modification is required even if damage is 

not found during the inspections.

Follow GROB Service Bulletin No. MSB1121–

065 dated July 1, 2005. 

May I Request an Alternative Method of 

Compliance? 

(f) You may request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD by following the procedures in 14 

CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, 

send your request to your principal 

inspector. The principal inspector may add 

comments and will send your request to the 

Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane 

Directorate, FAA. For information on any 

already approved alternative methods of 

compliance, contact Karl Schletzbaum, 

Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane 

Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas 

City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

4146; facsimile: (816) 329–4090. 

Is There Other Information That Relates to 

This Subject? 

(g) German AD Number D–2005–242, 

effective date: July 1, 2005, also addresses the 

subject of this AD. 

May I Get Copies of the Documents 

Referenced in This AD? 

(h) To get copies of the documents 

referenced in this AD, contact GROB Luftund Raumfahrt, Lettenbachstrasse 9, D–

86874 Tussenhausen-Mattsies, Federal 

Republic of Germany; telephone: 011 49 8268 

998139; facsimile: 011 49 8268 998200. To 

view the AD docket, go to the Docket 

Management Facility; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Nassif Building, Room PL–401, Washington, 

DC, or on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

This is docket number FAA–2005–21998; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–40–AD.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 

19, 2005. 

Terry L. Chasteen, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 05–16986 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125 & 135 

[Docket No. FAA–2001–9483] 

RIN 2120–AG43 

Child Restraint Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking, withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing a 

previously published Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking that sought public 

comment on issues about the use of 

child restraint systems (CRSs) in 

aircraft. Specifically, we sought crash 

performance and ease-of-use 

information about existing and new 

automotive CRSs, when used in aircraft. 

We also sought information about the 

development of any new or improved 

CRSs designed exclusively for aircraft 

use. We are withdrawing the document 

to pursue other options that will 

mitigate the risk of child injuries and 

fatalities in aircraft.

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: 

Background 

On February 12, 1997, the White 

House Commission on Aviation Safety 

and Security (the Commission) issued a 

final report that included a 

recommendation on CRS use during 

flight. The following is an excerpt from 

the final report: 

‘‘The FAA should revise its 

regulations to require that all occupants 

be restrained during takeoff, landing, 

and turbulent conditions, and that all 

infants and small children below the 

weight of 40 pounds and under the 

height of 40 inches be restrained in an 

appropriate child restraint system, such 

as child safety seats, appropriate to their 

height and weight.’’

On February 18, 1998, the FAA 

published an Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to 

respond to the Commission’s 

recommendation (63 FR 8324). The FAA 

sought public comment on issues about 

the use of CRSs in aircraft during all 

phases of flight. The ANPRM did not 

propose specific regulatory changes. 

Rather, it asked for 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 determined it is not 

appropriate to mandate the use of CRSs 

in aircraft now. We remain concerned 

that if we require children under 2 years 

old to be in an approved restraint 

system (which requires a passenger 

seat), affected operators might find it 

necessary to charge a fare for 

transporting these children. (Currently 

most, if not all, operators do not charge 

a fare for children under 2 years old 

who are held in an adult’s lap.) In turn, 

for economic reasons some adults might 

decide to drive in automobiles to their 

destinations rather than fly. The FAA is 

concerned because automobile injury 

and fatality rates are higher than aircraft 

injury and fatality rates. As a result, 

there would be a net increase in 

transportation injuries and fatalities as 

families opt, for economic reasons, to 

drive rather than fly to their 

destinations. 

1995 Report to Congress 

In 1994 Congress required the 

Secretary of Transportation, by Section 

522 of Public Law 103–305, to study the 

impact of mandating the use of CRSs for 

children under 2 years old on scheduled 

air carriers. The Secretary submitted a 

report of this study to Congress in 1995. 

The report estimated that, if a child 

restraint rule were imposed, 

approximately five infant lives would be 

saved aboard aircraft, and two major 

injuries and four minor injuries would 

be avoided over a 10-year period. The 

report also cautioned that this 

improvement would be offset by 

additional highway fatalities for airline 

passengers who chose to drive rather 

than purchase a seat for infants. Even if 

infant fares were only 25 percent of full 

fare, the report estimated that there 

would be diversion to cars and thus a 

net increase in fatalities over a 10-year 

period. 

Industry Action 

In July 1997, the air carrier industry 

took a positive step toward increasing 

infant air travel safety. At that time most 

major U.S. airlines introduced a general 

policy providing a 50 percent fare 

discount for domestic travel for at least 

one infant under 2 years old occupying 

a seat. Many commenters to the ANPRM 

noted that they have taken advantage of 

these infant fares. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 50227

1999 DOT Study 

The concern expressed in the Report 

to Congress was that mandating CRSs 

(which require a passenger seat) could 

increase airline travel costs to families 

with infants enough to cause a 

significant number to travel by 

automobile instead of by air. This, in 

turn, would expose the entire family to 

the higher risks of automobile travel and 

associated highway fatalities and 

injuries. 

The general economic principles 

contained in the FAA’s 1995 Report to 

Congress are commonly accepted as 

valid. However, numerous critics have 

challenged the probable fare levels the 

airline industry would charge and the 

degree of diversion from air travel used 

in the report. 

In May 1999, DOT completed an 

analysis supplementing the 1995 FAA 

study. This follow-on effort changed 

two key assumptions of FAA’s report to 

Congress. The 1995 report assumed that 

passengers diverted to automobiles 

would continue to travel the same 

distance as the trip they would have 

taken by air. The DOT analysis took the 

position that a more realistic evaluation 

would be that distant trips would be 

cancelled or shorter trips would be 

substituted. The FAA study also 

analyzed the effect of any fare charged 

only on the average size family. The 

DOT study assumed that any fare 

charged would have a disproportionate 

impact on small family units and 

consequently those diverted to auto 

travel are likely to be smaller parties. 

For both of these reasons, the DOT 

analysis suggested that the exposure of 

diverted air passengers to highway risks 

would be less than that estimated in the 

FAA analysis. However, the DOT 

analysis still estimated a net increase in 

deaths and injuries if highway risks 

were considered.

Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent 

Medicine Study 

In a study published in the Archives 

of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 

(October 2003), researchers reviewed 

existing data from numerous sources, 

including data that the FAA presented 

in its Report to Congress on Child 

Restraint Systems in 1995, regarding the 

effects of requiring CRS for infants and 

small children on commercial aircraft. 

The researchers reached two 

conclusions from this study: (1) Unless 

there was little or no diversion from 

airplanes to cars, there would be a net 

increase of deaths for children under 2. 

(2) Even with no diversion, the cost of 

the proposed policy per death prevented 

is too high and would not be an 

appropriate use of resources. If the 

additional cost per round trip were $200 

per child under age 2, the cost per death 

prevented, ignoring car crash deaths, 

would be about $1.3 billion. 

Discussion of Comments 

The FAA received approximately 150 

comments in response to its ANPRM on 

CRSs. The overwhelming majority of the 

commenters supported mandatory use 

of CRSs. Many of the comments were 

from private citizens who did not 

respond to the technical questions 

asked. The FAA specifically requested 

data and comments on the current 

practice of allowing an adult to hold a 

child under 2 years of age on his or her 

lap. ATA noted that data on the number 

of lap-held children are not 

systematically tracked by airlines but 

cited a 1993 Gallup organization survey 

conducted for them that shows 3.8 

million trips were taken by children less 

than 2 years old. KLM offered brief 

comments about the levels of child 

travel throughout the year. Commenters 

did not submit data or analysis to 

convince the FAA that mandating the 

use of CRSs in aircraft would not have 

the unintended consequence of causing 

a net increase in transportation injuries 

and fatalities. The comments are 

available for viewing in the rulemaking 

docket set up for this project (docket no. 

FAA–2001–9483). To view the docket, 

go to http://dms.dot.gov and put in the 

docket number. 

Continuing Efforts To Avoid Child 

Injury 

Better CRSs 

Concurrently with this withdrawal 

document, the FAA is amending its 

regulations to allow FAA-approved 

CRSs to be used in aircraft. Current FAA 

regulations allow the use of CRSs that 

are designed for the automobile 

environment. CRSs designed 

specifically for the aircraft environment 

cannot be used unless a specific 

exemption is issued to authorize such 

use. We are removing the need for air 

carriers to petition for an exemption to 

use CRSs that are approved by the FAA 

through a Type Certificate, 

Supplemental Type Certificate, or 

Technical Standard Order. 

The FAA is aware of at least one 

innovative CRS that is expected to work 

well 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 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. 

Education About Turbulence 

As part of an initiative to prevent 

injuries caused by turbulence, the FAA 

is coordinating the dissemination of 

public information (to passengers and 

air carriers) that includes effective 

practices regarding the use of CRSs in 

turbulence. The FAA is planning on 

providing website information, creating 

a ‘‘turbulence library of electronic 

resources’’, and publishing an Advisory 

Circular. 

Also, the FAA has launched a new 

phase of an existing nationwide public 

education campaign to raise public 

awareness about the importance of 

using CRSs and seat belts. The 

campaign emphasizes that: Proper use 

of CRSs and seat belts may prevent 

injuries, especially in the event of 

unexpected turbulence; the FAA 

strongly recommends that parents use 

an approved CRS based on the child’s 

weight; and the FAA strongly advises all 

passengers to be properly restrained at 

all times. 

As part of the education campaign, 

the FAA developed a new FAA website 

dedicated to informing passengers about 

seat belt use and child safety (http://

www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_children/

crs/). The Web site incorporates a series 

of print and radio Public Service 

Announcements (PSA), a video PSA, 

tips on child safety, and a brochure 

targeted to parents of young children. 

Several of these materials exist in both 

English and Spanish. 

In addition, we are working together 

with interested organizations, including 

airline industry representatives, injury 

prevention groups and corporate 

entities. The focus of these partnerships 

is to establish web links between the 

FAA and partners to ensure they have 

the latest information on safety 

developments and to distribute copies 

of the new brochure. 

Petitions for Rulemaking 

The FAA has received several 

petitions for rulemaking regarding the 

use of CRSs in aircraft. Because of the 

timing of the petitions and the issues 

raised, the FAA had not formally closed 

the petitions. The petitions were from 

the Aviation Consumer Action Project 

(Docket No. 23833), Los Angeles Area 

Child Passenger Safety Association 

(Docket No. 25984), Stuart R. Miller 

50228 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(Docket No. 25985), and Air Transport 

Association of America (Docket No. 

26276). The FAA considers that this 

withdrawal document, along with 

earlier rulemakings on the subject of 

child restraints, responds to the 

petitions for rulemaking and we now 

consider the petitions closed. 

Conclusion 

The FAA withdraws the Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

published at 63 FR 43228 on August 12, 

1998, to pursue other options that will 

mitigate the risk of child injuries and 

fatalities in aircraft. Withdrawal of the 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking does not preclude the FAA 

from issuing another notice on the 

subject matter in the future or commit 

the agency to any future course of 

action. Although we are not continuing 

rulemaking now, we strongly 

recommend that all children who fly, 

regardless of their age, use the 

appropriate restraint based on their size 

and weight.

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 18, 

2005. 

John M. Allen, 

Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.

[FR Doc. 05–16783 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 31 

[REG–104143–05] 

RIN 1545–BE32 

Application of the Federal Insurance 

Contributions Act to Payments Made 

for Certain Services

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document contains 

proposed amendments to regulations 

relating to payments made for service 

not in the course of the employer’s trade 

or business, for domestic service in a 

private home of the employer, for 

agricultural labor, and for service 

performed as a home worker within the 

meaning of section 3121(d)(3)(C) of the 

Internal Revenue Code (Code). These 

proposed amendments would provide 

guidance concerning the application of 

the Federal Insurance Contributions Act 

(FICA) to these payments. These 

proposed amendments would affect 

employers that make these payments 

and employees that receive these 

payments. These proposed amendments 

would provide guidance to assist these 

taxpayers in complying with the law.

DATES: Written or electronic comments 

and requests for a public hearing must 

be received by November 25, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: 

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–104143–05), room 

5203, Internal Revenue Service, POB 

7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, 

DC 20044. Submissions may be hand 

delivered Monday through Friday 

between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. 

to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–104143–05), 

Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue 

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC, or sent 

electronically, via the IRS Internet site 

at http://www.irs.gov/regs or via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov/ (IRS REG–

104143–05).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Concerning the proposed regulations, 

please contact Paul Carlino of the Office 

of Division Counsel/Associate Chief 

Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government 

Entities), (202) 622–0047; concerning 

submissions of comments or to request 

a public hearing, please contact LaNita 

Van Dyke, (202) 622–7180 (not toll-free 

numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This document contains proposed 

amendments to the Employment Tax 

Regulations (26 CFR part 31) under 

sections 3102, 3121(a), 3121(a)(7), 

3121(a)(8), 3121(a)(10), and 3121(i) of 

the Code. The Federal Insurance 

Contributions Act (FICA) generally 

imposes tax on each employer and 

employee. Under section 3111, FICA tax 

is imposed on the employer in an 

amount equal to a percentage of the 

wages paid by that employer. Under 

section 3101, FICA tax is also imposed 

on the employee in an amount equal to 

a percentage of the wages received by 

the employee with respect to 

employment. Section 3102 requires the 

employer to collect the tax imposed 

under section 3101 by deducting and 

withholding the amount of the tax from 

the wages as and when paid. Section 

3121(a) defines wages for FICA tax 

purposes as all remuneration for 

employment unless otherwise excepted. 

Sections 3121(a)(7) (relating to domestic 

service in a private home of the 

employer and to service not in the 

course of the employer’s trade or 

business), 3121(a)(8) (relating to 

agricultural labor) and 3121(a)(10) 

(relating to service performed as a home 

worker within the meaning of section 

3121(d)(3)(C)) provide exceptions to the 

definition of wages for FICA tax 

purposes. Section 3121(i)(1) provides 

that in the case of domestic service 

described in section 3121(a)(7)(B), any 

payment of cash remuneration for such 

service which is more or less than a 

whole-dollar amount, to the extent 

prescribed by regulations, may be 

computed to the nearest dollar. 

Section 3102(a) provides that an 

employer may deduct an amount 

equivalent to the FICA tax imposed by 

section 3101 from any payment of cash 

remuneration to which sections 

3121(a)(7)(B), 3121(a)(7)(C), 

3121(a)(8)(B) and 3121(a)(10) apply, 

even though at the time of payment the 

total amount of such remuneration paid 

to the employee by the employer in the 

calendar year is less than the dollar 

threshold amount used to determine 

whether the remuneration is wages for 

FICA tax purposes. An employer that 

chooses to withhold FICA taxes 

imposed by section 3101 prior to 

reaching the dollar threshold amount 

used to determine whether the 

remuneration is wages for FICA tax 

purposes must repay the employee the 

withheld amount if the dollar threshold 

is not met in the calendar year. If the 

withheld amount has been deposited, 

the employer must repay or reimburse 

the employee the withheld amount in 

accordance with the rules under 

§ 31.6413(a)–1 of the regulations. 

Changes to sections 3102(a) and 

3121(a)(7)(B) were made by section 

2(a)(1) of the Social Security Domestic 

Employment Reform Act of 1994, 

(SSDERA), Public Law 103–387 (108 

Stat. 4071). The SSDERA also added 

section 3121(x). Changes to section 

3102(a) were made by section 424(b) of 

the Social Security Protection Act of 

2004 (SSPA), Public Law 108–203 (118 

Stat. 493, 536). Changes to section 

3121(a)(8)(B) were made by section 

8017(b) of the Technical and 

Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 (the 

1988 Act), Public Law 100–647 (102 

Stat. 3342, 3793) and section 9002(b) of 

the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 

of 1987 (the 1987 Act), Public Law 100–

203 (101 Stat. 1330, 1330–287). Changes 

to sections 3102(a), 3121(a)(7)(C) and 

3121(a)(10) were made by sections 

355(a) and 356(a) of the Social Security 

Amendments of 1977 (the 1977 Act), 

Public Law 95–216 (91 Stat. 1509, 

1555). These statutory changes are not 

reflected in the existing regulations of 

§§ 31.3102–1, 31.3121(a)–2, 

31.3121(a)(7)–1, 31.3121(a)(8)–1, 

31.3121(a)(10)–1, and 31.3121(i)–1. 

These proposed regulations would 

amend these existing regulations to 

reflect the statutory changes.