28416 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125, and 135

[Docket No. 28229; Amendment No. 91–250,

121–255, 125–26, 135–62]

RIN 2120–AF52

Child Restraint Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action withdraws FAA

approval for the use of booster seats and

vest- and harness-type child restraint

systems in aircraft during takeoff,

landing, and movement on the surface.

In addition, this action emphasizes the

existing prohibition in all aircraft

against the use of lap held child

restraint systems (including belly belts).

This action is needed because the FAA

has determined that, during an aircraft

crash, the banned devices may put

children in a potentially worse situation

than the allowable alternatives.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donell Pollard, (AFS–203), Air

Transportation Division, Flight

Standards Service, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591;

Telephone (202) 267–3735.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Backround

The FAA is concerned about the

safety of children who use certain forms

of child restraint systems aboard

aircraft. In 1992. The FAA set forth in

§§ 91.107(a), 121.311(b), 125.211(b), and

135.128(a) the child restraint systems

acceptable for use in aircraft by

imposing labeling requirements and

certain use requirements. Since that

time the FAA has supplemented these

rules with advisory material and with a

public information leaflet entitled,

‘‘Child/Infant Safety Seats

Recommended for Use in Aircraft.’’

In September 1994, the FAA issued a

report entitled, ‘‘The Performance of

Child Restraint Devices in Transport

Airplane Passenger Seats’’ (the ‘‘CAMI’’

study). The study found that, as a class

of child restraint devices, shield-type

booster seats, in combination with other

factors, contributed to an abdominal

pressure measurement higher than in

other means of protection while not

preventing a head impact. The study

found that fundamental design

characteristics of shield-type booster

seats made their belt paths incompatible

with aircraft seat belts. In addition, the

study found that vest- and harness-type

devices allowed excessive forward body

excursion, resulting in the test dummy

sliding off the front of the seat with a

high likelihood of the child’s entire

body impacting the seat back of the seat

directly in front of it. Rebound

acceleration presented further risk of

injury. Also, the study found that belly

belts allowed the test dummy to make

severe contact with the back of the seat

in the row in front of the test dummy

and that a child may be crushed by the

forward bending motion of the adult to

whom the child is attached. The

research involved dynamic impact tests

with a variety of certified child

restraints installed in transport airplane

passenger seats at the 16g peak loads

required in 14 CFR § 25.562(b)(2). Some

of the tests of child restraint systems

were configured to represent a typical

multi-row seat installation and included

testing the effects of the occupant

impact against the backs of seats. The

tests investigated transport airplane

passenger seat compatibility with child

restraints. A copy of the study is

included in the rulemaking docket

established for this rulemaking.

On May 19, 1995, the FAA issued

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

No. 95–7 (60 FR 30690, June 9, 1995).

The NPRM proposed to withdraw FAA

approval for the use of booster seats and

vest- and harness-type child restraint

systems in aircraft during takeoff,

landing, and movement on the surface.

In addition, the NPRM emphasized the

existing prohibition against the use in

all aircraft of lap-held child restraint

systems (including belly belts). The rule

language adopted by this final rule has

not been changed from the rule language

that was proposed.

Also, in June 1995, the FAA issued a

Report to Congress concerning Child

Restraint Systems. A copy of this report

is included in the rulemaking docket

established for this rulemaking.

Under present regulations a child who

has not reached his or her second

birthday (infant) is not required to have

a separate seat aboard an aircraft. This

means that the person accompanying an

infant may choose to hold the infant

during flight. If the accompanying adult

wishes to put the infant in a child

restraint system on a passenger seat, the

airline may require the adult to

purchase a separate ticket for the infant.

Whether or not the airline requires the

purchase of a ticket for the infant, a

separate passenger seat is required if a

child restraint is to be used (14 CFR

§§ 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 adopted dynamic

testing requirements for child restraint

systems for use in automobiles. In the

mid 1980’s, the FAA and NHTSA

undertook an effort to develop a

common approach to the approval of

child restraints for aircraft use. Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)

No. 213 (49 CFR § 571.213) was

amended to provide criteria for

manufacturers’ self-certification of child

restraints that were appropriate for both

aircraft and automobiles.

FMVSS No. 213, as revised, is the

current U.S. standard, and has allowed

hundreds of models of seats to be

approved, including booster-type child

restraint systems (‘‘booster seats’’) and

vest- and harness-type devices. The

current FAA child restraint rules do not

specifically refer to FMVSS No. 213.

However, FMVSS No. 213 is the basis

for the labels required under the FAA

rules.

The current FAA rules on child

restraint systems permit the use of child

restraint systems only if they bear a

proper label(s), meet certain use

requirements, and meet adult

accompaniment requirements.

Approved labels fall into three

categories as follows:

1. Seats manufactured to U.S.

standards between January 1, 1981, and

February 25, 1985, must bear a label that

states ‘‘This child restraint system

conforms to all applicable Federal motor

vehicles safety standards.’’ However,

vest- and harness-type child restraint

systems manufactured before February

26, 1985, are not approved for use on

aircraft even if they bear this label.

2. Seats manufactured to U.S.

standards on or after February 26, 1985,

must bear the following two labels:

(i) ‘‘This child restraint system

conforms to all applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standards’’; and

(ii) ‘‘THIS RESTRAINT IS CERTIFIED

FOR USE IN MOTOR VEHICLES AND

AIRCRAFT’’, in red lettering.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28417

3. Seats that are not manufactured to

approved U.S. standards must bear

either a label showing approval of a

foreign government or a label showing

that the seats were manufactured under

the standards of the United Nations.

While the current rule language

disallows vest- and harness-type child

restraint systems manufactured before

February 26, 1985, some of these

systems manufactured after that date

meet U.S., foreign government, or

United Nations requirements.

The use requirements for child

restraint systems are as follows:

1. The restraint system must be

properly secured to an approved

forward-facing seat or berth;

2. The child must be properly secured

in the restraint system and must not

exceed the specified weight limit for the

restraint system; and

3. The restraint system must bear the

appropriate label(s).

Because lap held child restraint

systems (belly belts) are not secured to

a forward-facing seat or berth, but

instead are secured to the adult, they

cannot be used under existing rules.

Nonetheless, the FAA has decided that

it is important to emphasize this

prohibition and has added clarifying

language to the existing rules.

The adult accompaniment provisions

for child restraint systems require that

the child be accompanied by a parent,

guardian, or attendant designated by the

child’s parent or guardian to attend to

the safety of the child during the flight.

Discussion of Comments

The FAA received ten comments in

response to the proposed rule. The

comments were received from Little

Cargo, Inc., a child restraint

manufacturer; the Association of Flight

Attendants (AFA); the Air Transport

Association of America (ATA); United

Air Lines, Inc. (UAL); two members of

the Asia Pacific Cabin Safety Working

Group (APCS Working Group); Cosco,

Inc., a child restraint manufacturer; the

United Kingdom’s Civil Aviation

Authority (CAA); the Joint Aviation

Authorities (JAA); and an individual

parent.

UAL supported the proposal, but

stated that the effective date of any new

regulations should be consistent with

reasonable recurrent training schedules.

In addition, UAL stated that changes in

staff training would result in added

costs to air carriers, but they did not

quantify these costs.

FAA Response: The FAA has

determined that the regulations should

be effective in 90 days. UAL did not

suggest a specific time frame in its

comment, but the FAA has determined

that a 90-day effective date should

afford air carriers sufficient time to get

the necessary information to all affected

flight crewmembers and that it is

unnecessary to synchronize the

dissemination of this information with

recurrent training. No data were

presented by UAL or other commenters

on any cost issues. Compliance costs,

however, are discussed in the economic

analysis set out in this preamble.

AFA, while supporting the proposal,

stated that it continues to actively

pursue the mandatory use of child

restraint devices. In addition, AFA

disagreed with the FAA assertion that if

parents must purchase a separate seat to

use an approved child restraint device,

they would drive rather than fly. They

stated that the FAA assumptions on this

issue are unrealistic and flawed and do

not take into account the impact of lowcost airlines and their enormous appeal

to the family/tourist end of the travel

market. The AFA stated that a family

who is predisposed to buy a ticket

would go ahead and purchase a separate

ticket to use with an approved and

recommended child restraint device.

FAA Response: The FAA has

evaluated the costs and benefits

associated with child restraint devices

three times since 1990. The first report

was prepared in 1990, the second report

in 1993, and the third report in June

1995. AFA’s comment was based on

information contained in the second

report. The third report, submitted to

Congress on June 7, 1995, analyzed

alternative scenarios. The scenario

analyses concluded that if any

significant charge is made for infant

occupancy of a seat, the expected result

is diversion to automobiles and a net

increase in infant and adult fatalities

and injuries. The study referenced by

AFA was based on information from the

second report. The AFA study simply

documented observed market behavior

associated with the entry of low cost

carriers into a market and found that

average fares fall and passenger volume

increases. These findings are consistent

with the FAA’s findings and

conclusions in all three studies on this

issue. In addition, the FAA agrees with

the AFA that a family who is

predisposed to buy a ticket would

purchase a separate ticket to use with an

approved and recommended child

restraint device. The above studies,

however, indicate that very few families

seem predisposed to purchasing tickets

for their infants.

ATA commented that it was

concerned about enforcement issues

caused by labels in a foreign language

and the problem of determining whether

a child is within the weight restrictions

for a restraint system. The ATA is also

concerned about the overall

effectiveness of child restraint systems.

In addition, ATA stated that steps must

be taken to address the problem of

inconsistent FAA guidance and

recommended that industry bodies

assist the FAA in identifying possible

problem areas before they arise.

FAA Response: This rulemaking

prohibits the use of booster seats and

vest- and harness-type devices by

children, even if they bear an approved

label. Therefore, enforcement issues

concerning labels in foreign languages

are not relevant to this final rule. Nor is

the question of whether the child is

within the weight limits specified on

the label.

The FAA acknowledges ATA’s

concern that there could be compliance

problems concerning child restraint

devices that bear labels indicating that

they are certified for use aboard aircraft

when in fact they are not approved for

use aboard aircraft. A companion rule

issued by NHTSA, published in today’s

Federal Register, amends a provision in

FMVSS No. 213 that permits booster

seats and vest- and harness-type devices

to be certified for use in aircraft. In view

of the FAA’s decision to withdraw

approval of booster seats and vest- and

harness-type devices for use on aircraft,

NHTSA believes continuing to permit

the certification of those restraints for

aircraft use will likely be confusing to

the public. Accordingly, NHTSA’s rule

no longer permits those restraints to be

certified for aircraft use, and instead

requires manufacturers to label these

restraints as not certified for use in

aircraft. Also, in conjunction with this

rulemaking, the FAA will embark on a

public education program designed to

provide parents with the information

necessary to make an informed decision

about the use of child restraint devices

on aircraft. The FAA understands that

parents may be confused when trying to

determine what type of child restraint

device is best for their child. If clear

guidance is readily available to parents

concerning child restraint devices for

aircraft, the FAA expects that they will

choose an approved device in order to

provide the safest traveling environment

for their children. The FAA needs the

assistance of air carriers, however, to

enforce the regulations.

With regard to the ATA’s

recommendation that industry bodies

assist the FAA in identifying possible

problem areas before they arise, the

FAA always welcomes input from

industry and will continue to seek such

input on this issue. In response to

ATA’s concern about inconsistent

internal FAA guidance, the FAA notes
28418 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

that information contained in Flight

Standards Information Bulletins,

Advisory Circulars, etc., will be

reviewed to ensure that they correctly

reflect the new requirements in this

rulemaking, so there should not be any

conflicts.

Little Cargo stated that vest- and

harness-type devices should not be

prohibited until the FAA gathers

additional information and performance

data on them. It is concerned that the

FAA’s decision to ban vest- and

harness-type devices was based on

inadequate testing and that such

restraints could be modified to perform

satisfactorily. Little Cargo stated that the

prohibition of vest- and harness-type

devices was based primarily on one

uninstrumented test in contrast to the

breadth of tests conducted on the other

types of child restraint devices.

FAA Response: In response to Little

Cargo’s concern that only one type of

test was performed on the vest- and

harness-type device, the FAA notes that

during dynamic testing, unacceptable

head and body excursions and vertical

displacement of the anthropomorphic

test dummy was observed to the extent

that the type of instrumented tests that

other child restraint devices underwent

was deemed not necessary for the

harness. If the unsafe characteristics that

all these devices share change in the

future, the prohibition can be reexamined.

Little Cargo also stated that the FAA

has significant performance concerns

with all available forward facing child

restraints, but is only prohibiting certain

categories of these devices, including

vest- and harness-type devices.

FAA Response: When considering

which, if any, child restraint devices

should be prohibited, the FAA looked at

the alternatives available for children

within the weight limits specified by

child restraint manufacturers. The FAA

has determined that most children who

are within the weight specifications of

booster seats (30 to 60 pounds) would

be better protected in a passenger seat

lap belt than in a booster seat because

there would be less abdominal loading

in a lap belt. For a child in the 30 to 60

pound range, a lap belt should remain

across the pelvis and not directly load

the abdomen. Because forward facing

devices have rigid backs, unlike booster

seats, the FAA has determined that

children in the 30 to 40 pound range

would be better protected in a forward

facing device than in a booster seat

because there is a decreased risk of

abdominal loading in a forward facing

device than in a booster seat. In

addition, the FAA determined that

children who are within the

manufacturer’s weight specifications of

vest- and harness-type devices (25 to 50

pounds) would be better protected in a

passenger seat lap belt or a forward

facing child restraint device than in a

vest- and harness-type device. Forward

facing child restraint devices are

designed for children from 20 to 40

pounds. While some forward facing

child restraint devices do not provide a

desired level of protection in a worst

case survivable aircraft crash, there are

no better alternative availables at this

time. Also, because forward facing

devices and passenger seat lap belts

prevent the extreme body excursions

observed in the harness test, most

children within this weight

specification for vest- and harness-type

devices (25 to 50 pounds) would be

better protected in either forward facing

devices or lap belts.

In addition, Little Cargo stated that, in

Notice No. 95–7, the FAA concluded

that children weighing between 25 and

50 pounds, and even children under 2

years old, would be safer in a passenger

seat lap belt than in a vest restraint.

Little Cargo is concerned that using lap

belts as the sole restraining device

places enhanced stress on a child’s

abdomen that could lead to injury.

FAA Response: While the FAA stated

that, if a child under 2 falls in the

weight use limits recommended by vest

and harness manufacturers, the child

would be safer in a passenger seat

restrained by a lap belt than in a vestor harness-type device if no other

approved device were available, the

FAA went on to state that a child falling

within the weight limits of a vest- or

harness-type device (25 to 40 pounds),

would be better protected in a forward

facing child restraint device than in a

lap belt. In addition, the study noted

that the lap belt remained across the

pelvis of the 24-month old dummy

throughout the impact and did not

appear to directly load the abdomen.

Thus, CAMI testing indicates that Little

Cargo’s concerns about abdominal

loading are unfounded.

Little Cargo also questioned whether

the impact of excessive submarining is

not potentially safer than the excessive

head excursion/head strike observed

with 6 out of 8 forward facing restraints.

Similarly, Cosco questioned why there

is more concern for abdominal loading

than the high HIC levels evidenced in

the forward facing child restraint

devices.

FAA Response: While forward facing

child restraint devices may not

presently provide a desired level of

protection in a worst case survivable

aircraft crash, there are no better

alternatives available at this time.

Although Little Cargo and Cosco

questioned if submarining is better than

the head injury threat seen with forward

facing devices, it is important to note

that neither the booster seats nor the

vest-or harness-type device tested by

CAMI performed in a manner that

would prevent head impact. It is not

correct to say there would be little or no

risk of a head injury with booster seats

or vest- or harness-type devices. CAMI

testing clearly shows that booster seats

do not protect the head because of an

unacceptable degree of head excursion

in an aircraft environment. Forward

facing devices, with rigid backs, reduce

the risk of exposure to abdominal injury

when compared to booster seats.

Forward facing devices offer protection

from the risk of abdominal injury and,

unlike vest- and harness-type devices,

prevent excessive body excursion.

Cosco questioned the proposed ban

since it was based on a small sampling

of booster seats and vest- and harnesstype devices. Cosco believes that the

problems encountered with the vestand harness-type device tested are

solvable and that all such restraints

should not be banned based on the

experience of just one.

FAA Response: The FAA has

determined that at this time all vest- and

harness-type devices have certain

inherent critical design factors that

preclude them from performing

adequately in an aircraft seat. The

testing, while only performed on a small

sample of such devices, confirmed the

basic problems with the design of the

devices.

In regard to the FAA’s request for

comments on whether abdominal

loading by itself is a predictor of injury,

Cosco stated that rulemaking cannot be

predicated on abstract numbers when

the baseline for serious injury is

undetermined. Cosco also stated that

shield-type booster seats keep lap belts

off a child’s stomach whereas lap belts

might become repositioned over the

stomach because children often move

around so much while in the lap belt.

FAA Response: The FAA

acknowledges that the baseline for

serious injury from abdominal loading

is undetermined. However, the CAMI

study found that shield-type booster

seats, in combination with other factors,

contributed to an abdominal pressure

measurement higher than in other

means of protection. In certifying

aircraft seats and belts, any evidence of

abdominal loading is considered

grounds for disapproving a design. For

many years, the FAA has not approved

any design of passenger restraint that

showed evidence of imposing restraint

loads on the abdomen. It is accepted
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28419

practice among restraint designers that

the abdomen is not a load-carrying body

segment. The unique nature of airline

seats, where seat back breakover will

cause a child in a booster seat to be

crushed between the booster seat’s

shield and the crash forces of the adult

in the row behind, are of sufficient

concern to the FAA to prohibit the use

of booster seats in aircraft during

takeoff, landing, and movement on the

surface.

The FAA notes that Cosco, like the

FAA, seems concerned about the

dangers of abdominal loading. In its

comment, Cosco states that ‘‘in motor

vehicles, children often move around so

much that the lap belt becomes

repositioned over the stomach, where it

can cause serious injury in even a minor

crash * * *. Therefore, a shield booster,

which keeps the lap belt off the child’s

stomach would be a significant

improvement in most cases * * *’’ In

addition, Cosco states that shield-type

booster seats, which keep a lap belt off

a child’s stomach, would be a

significant improvement in rough

landings, even if its crash protection

were less than a lap belt alone (since

survivable crashes are so rare).

FAA Response: Performance data on

the effectiveness of child restraint

devices in ‘‘rough landings’’ are not

available. However, because aircraft seat

belt anchor points are located

considerably forward of their location in

a car, it is unlikely that an aircraft seat

belt will move up into a child’s

abdomen.

Cosco also stated that parents would

be more willing to carry a small booster

seat rather than a larger forward-facing

child restraint device. Cosco believes

that they are then more likely to have

the appropriate restraint for the child

when they reach their destination and it

will be the one that they are familiar

with. Cosco states that by banning

booster seats, parents will be less likely

to have an appropriate restraint for their

children when they reach their

destination.

FAA Response: The FAA would like

to clarify that the rule as proposed and

adopted prohibits the use of booster

seats only during take off, landing, and

movement on the surface. It does not

prohibit their use inflight. Therefore,

parents can consider their booster seats

as carry on baggage, use the restraints

during the cruise portion of flight, and

still have them readily available when

they reach their destination. These

devices can be stowed in overhead bins,

in coat closets, or in some cases under

seats. Except for storing the devices

during takeoff, landing, and movement

on the surface, this process is no

different that the process a parent would

go through before the prohibition. While

the FAA encourages parents to use

devices that may be used throughout the

flight, the devices banned by this rule

may be used during cruise.

Cosco also believes that parents may

opt to fly with children on their laps

rather than carry on a forward-facing or

convertible child restraint device. They

also stated that an educated parent

would not buy a ticket in order to use

an approved child restraint device

instead of a vest- and harness-type

device. They stated that a harness is

much more convenient to carry around

than a convertible forward-facing seat

and therefore the parent may fly with a

child or his/her lap rather than carry a

convertible forward-facing seat. Little

Cargo also expressed concerns that,

when considering the alternatives of

lap-holding a child, using the passenger

seat lap belt alone, or bringing an

approved convertible child restraint

system, parents will likely not choose to

carry on a bulky restraint.

FAA Response: While the FAA agrees

with Cosco and Little Cargo that a vestand harness-type device is probably

easier to carry than a convertible

forward facing child restraint device, for

most parents the cost of an airline

passenger seat for the infant is probably

more important to the parent than the

ease of carrying a child restraint device.

Since the commenters did not provide

any specific information or statistics on

this issue, the FAA continues to believe

that parents who are predisposed to buy

a ticket for a separate airplane seat for

use with a booster seat or vest- and

harness-type device and who have

received education on the effectiveness

of the allowable alternatives in advance

of purchasing tickets would purchase a

ticket for a separate seat in order to use

an approved and recommended child

restraint device.

In addition, Cosco commented that, of

the four booster seats tested, head

excursions for two did not exceed the

limits set forth in FMVSS No. 213.

FAA Response: Although Cosco stated

that of the four booster seats tested, two

did not exceed the limits of FMVSS No.

213, in actuality one of the two booster

seats that supposedly did not exceed the

limits of FMVSS No. 213 disintegrated

during the test and could not be

analyzed for head excursion. The fact

that of the four booster seats tested,

head excursion for one did not exceed

the limits set forth in FMVSS No. 213

is not relevant to the decision to ban

shield-type booster seats. As discussed

earlier, seat back breakover, a unique

feature of aircraft seats, presents a threat

of abdominal injury. Backless booster

seats, by virtue of fundamental design

characteristics, do not provide

protection from this threat. That one of

the four booster seats tested did not

exceed the head strike envelope

specified in FMVSS–213 has no bearing

on the threat of abdominal injury.

Cosco also stated that the primary

benefit of child restraints on aircraft is

to restrain children in the event of

turbulence. They stated that while

certain types of child restraint devices

do not perform well in crash situations,

this should not preclude their overall

use since crashes are rare while

turbulence is not.

CAA was also concerned about

prohibiting devices that can prevent

injury in common occurrences such as

flight turbulence.

FAA Response: The FAA is not

prohibiting the use of booster seats and

vest-and harness-type devices in cruise

portions of flight. The FAA

acknowledges that booster seats and

vest- and harness-type devices might

prevent injuries during turbulence and

therefore is not prohibiting their use

during cruise portions of flight.

Cosco stated that a design-restrictive

ban precludes development of future

products that may prove safe and would

be more convenient for parents to use.

FAA Response: The FAA has

determined that, at this time, booster

seats and vest-and harness-type devices

put children in a potentially worse

situation than the allowable

alternatives. If in the future a

manufacturer designs such a device that

the FAA determines is a safe alternative,

it will review the prohibition. The FAA

must, however, prohibit booster seats

and vest- and harness-type devices at

this time because of safety concerns.

The FAA cannot delay this rule with the

thought that a manufacturer might

design a safe booster seat or vest- and

harness-type device in the future or that

such a ban precludes a manufacturer

from development future products that

may prove safe and convenient.

CAA stated that in a significant

proportion of the cases where

passengers carry small children on

aircraft, the alternative to travel by

private car will not be viable, so these

passengers will continue to travel by air,

notwithstanding the additional cost.

CAA also states that it is reasonable to

conclude that there will be an increase

in the number of people who will carry

their children without any form of

restraint if this continues to be

permitted.

FAA Response: The FAA’s 1995 study

on the costs and benefits associated

with child restraint devices addressed

CAA’s comment that the alternative to
28420 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

travel by private car will not be viable,

so passengers will continue to travel by

air notwithstanding the additional cost.

While the FAA agrees that a significant

number of families taking long trips will

continue to do so even if a charge is

imposed for passenger seats occupied by

infants, the scenario analyses concluded

that if any significant charge is made for

infant occupancy of a passenger seat,

there will be some passenger diversion

to automobiles and a net increase in

infant and adult fatalities and injuries.

The scenario analyses also concluded

that families taking longer trips are less

likely to divert to alternative modes of

transportation than people taking

shorter trips. The FAA agrees that there

are cases where parents would fly rather

than not take a trip because they do not

have a practical second alternative to

flying. In most cases, however, parents

have an alternative to flying. In the 1995

report, the FAA again found that

mandating child restraint devices could

cause more deaths and injuries than it

would prevent. Therefore, the FAA will

not mandate the use of child restraint

devices for children under 2 years old.

A copy of the report is included in the

docket established for this rulemaking.

In addition, the FAA will pursue an

education program to better inform

parents about child restraint devices. If

clear guidance is readily available to

parents, the FAA expects that they will

choose an approved device, rather than

lap holding their children, in order to

provide the safest traveling environment

for their children.

CAA and JAA state that they permit

the belly belt on the grounds that it

provides a measure of protection to

children and/or other passengers versus

lap holding a child.

FAA Response: The FAA would like

to emphasize that belly belts are not

permitted under current regulations.

Even if belly belts do provide some

measure or protection, the CAMI study

found that belly belts allowed the test

dummy to make severe contact with the

back of the seat in the row in front of

the test dummy and that a child may be

crushed by the forward bending motion

of the adult to whom the child is

attached. Consideration of revising this

current prohibition is beyond the scope

of the notice.

The JAA also stated that in a crash or

severe air turbulence, parents are often

unable to keep a lap-held child in their

arms.

FAA Response: As discussed earlier,

the FAA has determined that mandating

child restraint devices could cause more

deaths and injuries than it would

prevent. However, the FAA does not

encourage lap-holding children. The

FAA expects, with its education

campaign providing clear guidance on

child restraint devices, parents will

choose an approved device, rather than

lap holding their children, in order to

provide the safest traveling environment

for their children. The two members of

the APCS Working Group submitted

identical letters that discussed the need

to mandate restraints for children. In

addition, they stated that the FAA’s

argument that the extra cost to families

caused by mandating child restraint

devices would force them to less safe

road travel is invalid since the same cost

situation arises when the child is 3 or

4 or 10 years old.

FAA Response: The APCS Working

Group’s argument is that the extra cost

to families of mandating child restraint

devices is no more of a deterrent to air

travel than the price of a ticket for a

child of any age. However, the FAA

notes that this argument does not take

into account that ordinarily there is no

charge for a lap-held child, whereas

certificate holders very often do charge

if a seat is requested for this infant.

Thus, many people would switch to less

safe automobile travel as a result of

mandating child restraint usage because

unlike most rulemakings where the

compliance costs are passed along to all

travelers, mandatory use of child

restraint would impose compliance

costs only on families with infants.

Other commenters raised comments

that are beyond the scope of this

rulemaking, such as providing design/

certification standards for child restraint

systems that are compatible with

existing aircraft seat belt systems,

revising FMVSS–213, changing anchor

locations of seat belts, adopting

performance standards for child

restraint system, establishing a child

restraint friendly section of aircraft with

modified seats, and clarifying what

types of restraints are acceptable.

Editorial Note

The rules, as adopted, make it clear

that, while the certificate holder has the

authority to provide a child restraint

system, such a system must be one

authorized by the rule. This is to avoid

any misinterpretation of this provision

as an exception to the prohibitions

adopted in this final rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–511),

there are no requirements for

information collection associated with

this final rule.

Economic Analysis

Changes to Federal regulations are

required to undergo several economic

analyses. First, Executive Order 12866

directs each Federal agency to propose

or adopt a regulation only upon a

reasoned determination that the benefits

of the intended regulation justify its

costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility

Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze

the economic effect of regulatory

changes on small entities. Third, the

Office of Management and Budget

directs agencies to assess the effect of

regulatory changes on international

trade. With respect to this regulation,

the FAA has determined that it: (1) is ‘‘a

significant regulatory action’’ as defined

in the Executive Order; (2) is significant

as defined in the Department of

Transportation’s Regulatory Policies and

Procedures; (3) will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities; and (4) will

not constitute a barrier to international

trade. The FAA does not believe that

this regulation will impose any

significant costs on the public.

Therefore, a full regulatory analysis,

which includes the identification and

evaluation of cost-reducing alternatives

to this regulation, has not been

prepared. Instead, the agency has

prepared a more concise analysis of this

regulation that is presented in the

following paragraphs.

Costs and Benefits

There will be some compliance costs

associated with this regulation. This

rule will reduce the types of child

restraint systems that can be used

during ground movement, takeoff, and

landings by prohibiting the use of all

booster seats and vest- and harness-type

child restraint systems during these

phases of a flight. The restrictions on

the use of these devices will need to be

incorporated into flight attendant

training and included in flight manuals,

and this will impose additional costs on

air carriers. For a period of time after the

rule becomes effective, there will also be

some public education necessary and

potential flight delays when flight

attendant tell parents who brought

prohibited child restraint devices on

board the aircraft that the devices are

banned for use during takeoff, landing,

and movement on the ground. The FAA

has determined that booster seats and

vest- and harness-type devices put

children in a potentially worse situation

than the alternatives during an aircraft

crash. According to the CAMI study,

these child restraint systems do not

securely hold a child in place in an

aircraft crash, and may themselves even
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28421

cause harm to a child in the event of a

crash. These types of accidents, while

they rarely happen, usually occur

during the takeoff or landing phases of

a flight. Thus, prohibiting the use of

these child restraint systems during

takeoff and landing will enhance the

child’s safety, and the safety benefits

will outweigh the slight compliance

costs discussed above. Since it is

impractical to expect flight attendants to

monitor whether children are out of

banned devices just prior to takeoff, the

FAA is prohibiting the use of these

devices during movement on the surface

also.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA) was enacted by Congress to

ensure that small entities are not

unnecessarily or disproportionately

burdened by Federal regulations. The

RFA requires a Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis if a rule will have ‘‘a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.’’

FAA Order 2100.14A outlines FAA’s

procedures and criteria for

implementing the RFA. Small entities

are defined as independently owned

and operated small businesses and

small not-for-profit organizations.

This rule will impose some

unquantified costs on air carriers. These

costs include changing manuals and

training flight attendants about the

restrictions on the use of certain child

restraint devices. Initially, there may be

some public education necessary and

possible flight delays when flight

attendants tell parents or guardians that

they may not use certain child restraint

devices during ground movement,

takeoff, or landing. However, the FAA

believes that this rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

This rule will not constitute a barrier

to international trade, including the

export of American goods and services

to foreign countries and the import of

foreign goods and services to the United

States.

Federalism Implications

The regulations herein will not have

substantial direct effects on the states,

on the relationship between the national

government and that of any state, or on

the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. The respondents

affected by the amendments are private

citizens, not state governments.

Therefore, in accordance with Executive

Order 12612, it is determined that this

regulation will not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Conclusion

Because of the substantial interest of

the public in this subject matter, and

based on the findings in the Regulatory

Flexibility Determination and the

International Trade Impact Analysis, the

FAA has determined that this regulation

is a significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866. For the same

reason, this rule is considered

significant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034;

February 26, 1979). In addition, it is

certified that this rule will not have a

significant economic impact, positive or

negative, on a substantial number of

small entities under the criteria of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Because the

economic impact of this rule is

considered minimal, a formal regulatory

evaluation has not been prepared.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 91

Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 121

Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety,

Charter flights, Safety, Transportation.

14 CFR Part 125

Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 135

Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation safety.

The Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

amends parts 91, 121, 125, and 135 of

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14

CFR parts 91, 121, 125, and 135) as

follows:

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND

FLIGHT RULES

1. The authority citation for part 91

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44709, 44711,

44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306,

46315, 46316, 46502, 46504, 46506–46507,

47122, 47508, 47528–47531.

2. Section 91.107 is amended by

removing the last sentence in paragraph

(a)(3)(iii)(B)(1) immediately preceding

the semicolon; by removing the final

‘‘and’’ in paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B)(3); by

revising paragraph (a)(3)(i); by revising

the introductory text of paragraph

(a)(3)(iii)(B); and by adding a new

paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B)(4) to read as

follows:

§ 91.107 Use of safety belts, shoulder

harnesses, and child restraint systems.

(a) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) Be held by an adult who is

occupying an approved seat or berth,

provided that the person being held has

not reached his or her second birthday

and does not occupy or use any

restraining device;

* * * * *

(iii) * * *

(B) Except as provided in paragraph

(a)(3)(iii)(B)(4) of this action, the

approved child restraint system bears

one or more labels as follows:

* * * * *

(4) Notwithstanding any other

provision of this section, booster-type

child restraint systems (as defined in

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213)), vest- and

harness-type child restraint systems,

and lap held child restraints are not

approved for use in aircraft; and

* * * * *

PART 121—OPERATING

REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG,

AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS

3. The authority citation for Part 121

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119,

44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–44711,

44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44901, 44903–

44904, 44912, 46105.

4. Section 121.311 is amended by

removing the last sentence in paragraph

(b)(2)(ii)(A) immediately preceding the

semicolon; by removing the final ‘‘and’’

in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C); by revising

paragraph (b)(1); by revising the

introductory text of paragraph (b)(2)(ii);

by adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D);

and by revising paragraph (c) to read as

follows:

§ 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
28422 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

(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) of this section, 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) of this section are met;

(iii) The requirements of paragraph

(b)(2)(iii) of this section are met; and

(iv) The child restraint system has one

or more of the labels described in

paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) through

(b)(2)(ii)(C) of this section.

(3) This section does not prohibit the

certificate holder from providing child

restraint systems authorized by this

section or, consistent with safe

operating practices, determining the

most appropriate passenger seat location

for the child restraint system.

* * * * *

PART 125—CERTIFICATION AND

OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A

SEATING CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE

PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM

PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 6,000

POUNDS OR MORE

5. The authority citation for Part 125

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–

44702, 44705, 44710–44711, 44713, 44716–

44717, 44722.

6. Section 125.211 is amended by

removing the last sentence in paragraph

(b)(2)(ii)(A) immediately preceding the

semicolon; by removing the final ‘‘and’’

in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C); by revising

paragraph (b)(1); by revising the

introductory text of paragraph (b)(2)(ii);

by adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D);

and by revising paragraph (c) to read as

follows:

§ 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) of this section, 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:

(1) The child holds a ticket for an

approved seat or berth or such seat or

berth is otherwise made available by the

certificate holder for the child’s use;

(ii) The requirements of paragraph

(b)(2)(i) of this section are met;

(iii) The requirements of paragraph

(b)(2)(iii) of this section are met; and

(iv) The child restraint system has one

or more of the labels described in

paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) through

(b)(2)(ii)(C) of this section.

(3) This section does not prohibit the

certificate holder from providing child

restraint systems authorized by this

section or, consistent with safe

operating practices, determining the

most appropriate passenger seat location

for the child restraint system.

* * * * *

PART 135—OPERATING

REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND

ON-DEMAND OPERATIONS

7. The authority citation for Part 135

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–

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

44717, 44722.

8. Section 135.128 is amended by

removing the last sentence in paragraph

(a)(2)(ii)(A) immediately preceding the

semicolon; by removing the final ‘‘and’’

in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(C); by revising

paragraph (a)(1); by revising the

introductory text of paragraph (a)(2)(ii);

by adding a new paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(D);

and by revising paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

§ 135.128 Use of safety belts and child

restraint systems.

(a) * * *

(1) Be held by an adult who is

occupying an approved seat or berth,

provided the child has not reached his

or her second birthday and the child

does not occupy or use any restraining

device; or

(2) * * *

(ii) Except as provided in paragraph

(a)(2)(ii)(D) of this section, the approved

child restraint system bears one or more

labels as follows:

* * * * *

(D) Notwithstanding any other

provision of this section, booster-type

child restraint systems (as defined in

Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 213

(49 CFR 571.213)), vest- and 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) of this section, 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, or movement on the surface.

(2) Except as required in paragraph

(b)(1) of this section, no certificate

holder may prohibit a child, if requested

by the child’s parent, guardian, or

designated attendant, from occupying a

child restraint system furnished by the

child’s parent, guardian, or designated

attendant provided:

(i) The child holds a ticket for an

approved seat or berth or such seat or

berth is otherwise made available by the

certificate holder for the child’s use;

(ii) The requirements of paragraph

(a)(2)(i) of this section are met;

(iii) The requirements of paragraph

(a)(2)(iii) of this section are met; and

(iv) The child restraint system has one

or more of the labels described in

paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) through

(a)(2)(ii)(C) of this section.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28423

1The other type of booster seat is the ‘‘belt

positioning seat,’’ which is intended for use by

children weighing from 30 to 60 pounds, and

designed for use with a lap/shoulder belt system.

2The ‘‘belt positioning’’ booster seat is not

eligible for such certification. FMVSS No. 213 does

not permit these restraints to be certified for aircraft

use because aircraft passenger seats typically lack

shoulder belts. See amendment of FMVSS 213 to

permit manufacture of belt-positioning child seats

(59 FR 37167; July 21, 1994).

(3) This section does not prohibit the

certificate holder from providing child

restraint systems authorized by this or,

consistent with safe operating practices,

determining the most appropriate

passenger seat location for the child

restraint system.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on May 24,

1996.

David R. Hinson,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–13771 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74–09; Notice 45]

RIN 2127–AF46

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Child Restraint Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule, and a companion

rule issued by the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), address the use

of child harnesses and backless child

restraints in aircraft. This document

amends 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 FAA’s concerns about

the safety of using harnesses and

backless child restraint systems on the

types of seats found in aircraft, FAA is

publishing a rule in today’s Federal

Register that prohibits the use of booster

seats, and vest- and harness-type child

restraint systems on aircraft during take

off, landing and movement on the

surface, even if these restraints are

certified for aircraft use.

In view of the FAA’s determination

that harnesses and booster seats are

unsuitable for use during significant

portions of a flight, the agency believes

continuing to permit the certification of

those restraints for aircraft use would be

inconsistent and likely confusing to the

public. Accordingly, this rule no longer

permits those restraints to be certified

for aircraft use, and instead requires

manufacturers to label these restraints

as not certified for use in aircraft.

DATES: This rule is effective on

September 3, 1996.

Petitions for reconsideration of the

rule must be received by July 19, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration

should refer to the docket and number

of this document and be submitted to:

Administrator, Room 5220, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street SW., Washington,

D.C., 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

nonlegal issues: Dr. George Mouchahoir,

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards

(telephone 202–366–4919, fax 202–366–

4329). For legal issues: Ms. Deirdre

Fujita, Office of the Chief Counsel

(telephone 202–366–2992, fax 202–366–

3820). Both can be reached at the

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, D.C., 20590. For

information on FAA’s rule, contact Ms.

Donell Pollard (AFS–203), Air

Transportation Division, Flight

Standards Service (telephone 202–267–

3735), Federal Aviation Administration,

800 Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, D.C., 20591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document amends 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 rule, published elsewhere in

today’s Federal Register, that withdraws

approval for the use of booster seats and

vest- and harness-type child restraint

systems on aircraft, and prohibits

airlines from permitting a child to be

restrained in such a restraint during take

off, landing, and movement on the

surface, even if the restraint is certified

for aircraft use. The notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) on which this

NHTSA rule is based was published at

60 FR 30696 (June 9, 1995).

Harnesses and booster seats are types

of child restraint systems regulated by

Standard 213. 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. Some

require the use of a tether strap to

supplement the lap belt. The restraint

that the FAA refers to as a ‘‘booster

seat’’ is a ‘‘backless child restraint

system’’ under Standard 213. (See

definitions of ‘‘booster seat’’ and

‘‘backless child restraint system’’ in S4

of FMVSS 213.) A ‘‘backless child

restraint system’’ is one of two types of

booster seat.1 A backless child restraint

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.

Backless child restraint systems are also

known as ‘‘backless booster seats’’ or

‘‘shield-type’’ booster seats.

Background

Standard 213 permits manufacturers

to certify their restraints 2 for aircraft use

if they are certified for use in motor

vehicles and meet an additional

requirement, an inversion test. The

provisions permitting such certification

were added to the standard in 1984 (49

FR 34357; August 30, 1984), partly in

response to suggestions of the National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that

DOT simplify its standards for the

performance of child restraints on

aircraft by combining all technical

requirements into a single standard

(NTSB Safety Recommendations A–83–

1, February 24, 1983). Prior to the

amendment, FAA had its own child

restraint standard, Technical Standard

Order C100 (TSO C100). TSO C100 and

FMVSS 213 had different performance

requirements, methods of certification

and testing procedures.

In the 1984 rulemaking, NHTSA and

FAA concluded that the DOT child

restraint requirements should be

consolidated in FMVSS 213 and that a

TSO C100 inversion test was the only

performance requirement from the FAA

standard that needed to be incorporated

into FMVSS 213. In the inversion test,

the combination of a child restraint, test

dummy and aircraft passenger seat is

rotated forward at a specified speed to

an inverted position and held there, and

later rotated sideways at the same speed

and held. During the test, the child

restraint must not fall out of the aircraft

safety belt and the test dummy must not

fall out of the child restraint.

Prior to the 1984 rulemaking, a

manufacturer wishing to designate a

child restraint model as suitable for use

in aircraft had to submit information to

FAA to obtain its approval of the model.

As a result of this pre-1984 approval

process, there was a disparity between

the number of child restraints available