[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8324-8328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3954]
[[Page 8323]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Parts 91 et al.
Child Restraint Systems; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 1998 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 8324]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91, 121, 125, and 135
[Docket No. 29145; Notice No. 98-2]
RIN 2120-AG43
Child Restraint Systems
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA seeks public comment on issues relating to the use of
child restraint systems (CRS's) in aircraft during all phases of flight
(i.e., taxi, takeoff, landing, or any other time the seat belt sign is
illuminated). Specifically, the agency seeks crash performance and
ease-of-use information about existing and new automotive CRS's, when
used in aircraft, as well as the development of any other new or
improved CRS's designed exclusively for aircraft use.
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) responds to a
recommendation made by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety
and Security and is intended to gather information about the technical
practicality and cost feasibility of requiring small children and
infants to be restrained in CRS in aircraft. This information is needed
so that the FAA can determine the best way to address the safety of
children while on board aircraft. After reviewing the comments, the FAA
may issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with specific regulatory
proposals that respond to the Commission's recommendations regarding
the use of CRS's.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 18, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be delivered or mailed, in
triplicate, to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief
Counsel, Attn.: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 29145, room 915G,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments submitted
must be marked: ``Docket No. 29145.'' Comments may also be sent
electronically to the following Internet address: 9-NPRM-
[email protected] Comments may be examined in Room 915G on weekdays,
except Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donell Pollard, Air Transportation Division, AFS-203, Flight Standards
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-3735.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to comment on the ANPRM by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire.
Comments must identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be
submitted in triplicate to the Rules Docket address specified above.
All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel on this rulemaking, will
be filed in the docket. The docket is available for public inspection
before and after the comment closing date.
All comments received on or before the closing date will be
considered by the Administrator in determining whether to go forward
with a proposed rulemaking. Late-filed comments will be considered to
the extent practicable. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge
receipt of the comments submitted in response to this ANPRM must
include a pre-addressed, stamped postcard with those comments on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. [29145].''
The postcard will be date stamped and mailed to the commenter.
Availability of ANPRM
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section
of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-
3339), the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service
(telephone: 202-512-1661), or the FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee bulletin board service (telephone: 800-FAA-ARAC).
Internet users may reach the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov
or the Federal Register's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/
su__docs for access to recently published rulemaking documents.
Any person may obtain a copy of this ANPRM by submitting a request
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202)
267-9680. Communications must identify the notice number or docket
number of this ANPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future
ANPRM's and Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM's) should request from
the above office a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, that describes the application
procedure.
Background
On February 12, 1997, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety
and Security (the Commission) issued a final report to President
Clinton which included a recommendation on CRS use during flight. The
following is an excerpt from the final report as it relates to CRS's:
``The FAA should revise its regulations to require that all
occupants be restrained during takeoff, landing, and turbulent
conditions, and that all infants and small children below the weight of
40 pounds and under the height of 40 inches be restrained in an
appropriate child restraint system, such as child safety seats,
appropriate to their height and weight.''
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing this ANPRM to
gather information to enable the agency to act upon the Commission's
recommendations. This ANPRM does not propose specific regulatory
changes. Rather, it requests comments, data and analyses to determine
the best approach to maintaining and enhancing safety of children who
are passengers in aircraft. After reviewing the comments received, the
FAA may issue an NPRM proposing specific regulations. Interested
persons will have the opportunity to comment on those proposed changes
before a final rule is adopted.
Terminology
For the purpose of this ANPRM, the various child restraint devices
are described as follows:
Booster seats: Designed for children who weigh between 30 and 60
pounds. These seats have a raised platform base on which the child
sits. Some booster seats have a front shield, over which the lap belts
are routed, which covers the child's abdominal area. Shield-type
booster seats typically do not have a back or side shell. Depending on
the model, some booster seats can be used without the front shield if a
shoulder strap is available.
Forward-facing child restraint devices: Designed for children who
weigh between 20 and 40 pounds. These seats have a side and back shell
and shoulder straps. The seats are installed by routing the vehicle lap
belt through a path provided in the back.
Aft-facing child restraint devices: Designed for children who weigh
less than 20 pounds. These seats have adjustable shoulder straps but do
not have a shield over the chest or abdomen of the child. The seats
typically are
[[Page 8325]]
installed by tightening the vehicle lap belt through slots on the top
side.
Vest- and harness-type child restraint devices: Designed for
children who weigh between 20 and 40 pounds. These seats consist of
forward-facing restraints fabricated with webbing. There is no rigid
shell or platform. This type of seat attaches to the vehicle's lap
belts by passing through a loop sewn on the back side of the harness.
Lap-held child restraint devices: Designed to restrain children
less than two years old on the lap of an adult. These devices are
commonly referred to as belly belts.
Child restraint system: The term ``child restraint system'' is used
when referring to the child restraint device as installed in a
passenger seat and secured with lap belts.
Current Regulations for Child Restraint Systems on Board Aircraft
Section 91.107 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
stipulates that CRS's must meet certain operational requirements, while
Sec. Sec. 121.311, 125.211, and 135.128 set forth how these systems may
be used on board aircraft. Under current regulations, children two
years old and under may be held in an adult's lap throughout the
flight. Alternately, parents may opt to use an approved CRS--
specifically, one certified to meet the requirements of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 213, to restrain children of this age
group when they travel in commercial aircraft. If parents want to
ensure that their child has a seat in which to use a CRS, they
typically pay a separate fare for that child. Children who are lap held
are typically not charged fares by airlines.
Whether or not an air carrier charges a fee for the small child, a
separate passenger seat is required for CRS use and installation.
Airlines are required to accommodate the use of approved CRS's by
ticket-holding small children.
The provisions for the labeling and use of CRS's in aircraft were
set forth in the September 15, 1992, Miscellaneous Operations Final
Rule Amendments [57 FR 42662]. These amendments were based on years of
work by both the FAA and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA). NHTSA'S FMVSS 213, as revised under 49 CFR
571.213, contains the performance and labeling requirements for CRS's
sold for use in the United States for both aircraft and automotive
applications. Hundreds of models of CRS's have been manufactured and
certified to this standard. Certain CRS's that meet the performance and
labeling requirements of FMVSS 213 for automobile use, such as booster
seats, and vest- and harness-type child restraint devices, are
nonetheless prohibited for use in aircraft. Under current FAA
regulations, children two years old or older are required to have a
separate passenger seat on board aircraft.
General Discussion of Issues Regarding Child Restraint Systems
The 1994 ``CAMI'' Study
In September 1994, the FAA issued a report entitled, ``The
Performance of Child Restraint Devices in Transport Airplane Passenger
Seats'' (commonly referred to as the CAMI study \1\). The research for
the CAMI study involved dynamic impact tests with a variety of CRS's
installed in transport airline passenger seats and subjected to the
force of 16g peak longitudinal declaration loads required under 14 CFR
25.562(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CAMI is the FAA's Civil Aeromedical Institute. The CAMI
study is assigned report number DOT/FAA/AAM-94-19 and is available
through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA
22161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the tests were configured to represent a typical multi-row
seat installation and included testing the effects of an adult occupant
impact against the back of a seat in which a CRS was installed. The
tests also investigated other aspects of child restraint device use in
aircraft, including dimensional compatibility of CRS's with transport
category aircraft passenger seats and ease of installation.
Some findings of the CAMI study are as follows:
1. As a class of child restraint devices, shield-type booster
seats, in combination with factors associated with airplane passenger
seats, contributed to an abdominal pressure measurement higher than in
other child restraint devices and did not prevent a head impact.
2. Fundamental design characteristics of shield-type booster seats
made their belt paths incompatible with aircraft seat belts.
3. Vest- and harness-type devices allowed excessive forward body
excursion, resulting in the test dummy sliding off the front of the
seat. Therefore, a high likelihood exists that a child's entire body
could impact a seat back directly in front of it.
4. Lap-held child restraint devices (belly belts) allowed the test
dummy to make severe contact with the seat back directly in front of
it, resulting in a severe head impact. There were also high abdominal
loads from a combination of the forward bending motion of the adult
upper torso to whom the child is attached and the aft row occupant's
impact on the breakover seat back.
Based on the results of the CAMI study, the FAA and NHTSA issued a
final rule on June 4, 1996, that withdrew approval for the use of
booster seats and vest- and harness-type child restraint devices in
aircraft during takeoff, landing, movement on the surface [61 FR
28416]. In addition, the rule emphasized the existing prohibition
against the use, in all aircraft, of lap-held child restraint devices
(including belly belts). The FAA supplemented this rule with a major
public education campaign that promotes the use of CRS's on board
aircraft at all times. The campaign also reinforces the FAA's
recommendation that small children weighing under 40 pounds are safest
when in an approved CRS. The campaign includes a series of video,
radio, and print public service announcements.
The 1995 Report to Congress
In addition to the CAMI study, in May 1995, the FAA submitted a
final Report to Congress on CRS performance and cost effectiveness. The
primary issues analyzed in this report included CRS crash performance
effectiveness in otherwise survivable air carrier crashes and the
possible economic impacts of requiring CRS use. As to the CRS crash
performance effectiveness, further findings from the CAMI study were
reported. These findings include the following:
1. Aft-facing CRS's performed well, protected the child, and could
be adequately restrained with existing aircraft seat belts.
2. Booster seats performed poorly, did not prevent head impact, and
could not be properly attached to the aircraft seat.
3. Six of eight forward-facing CRS's tested, when restrained with
aircraft seat belts and subjected to the 16g longitudinal aircraft
deceleration, failed to prevent head impact criteria (HIC) values of
more than 1,000. (HIC of 1,000 is considered the threshold for serious
head impact injury in adults.) Routing the aircraft seat belt through a
forward-facing CRS and buckling and unbuckling it was difficult,
leading to the conclusion that some CRS's might not be easily and
adequately secured to aircraft seats.
4. Changing the aircraft seat belt anchor points, i.e., moving them
rearward, resulted in satisfactory performance of many forward-facing
CRS's. However, changing the anchor points might be problematic with
some aircraft seating configurations.
[[Page 8326]]
When forward-facing CRS's are subjected to a longitudinal
deceleration, FAA tests have shown that they move forward before the
aircraft seat belt can properly react to restrain them. There are some
airplane passenger seat models that have lap-belt anchor locations that
satisfactorily inhibit the forward excursion of forward-facing CRS's.
However, a survey of major airlines, compiled by the FAA as part of a
cooperative project with the Society of Automotive Engineers, indicates
that fewer than 20 percent of passenger seats currently in service have
seat belt anchor geometry that would adequately restrain forward-facing
CRS's.
Additionally, under 16g dynamic impact test conditions, the typical
economy airplane passenger seating configuration affords approximately
26 inches of free space forward of the seat back before head contact
will occur. This distance includes the forward elastic deflection of a
nonbreakover forward row seat back. If the longitudinal excursion of a
child seated in a forward-facing child restraint device exceeds this
distance, it is likely the child's head would strike the forward row
seat back. Comparable FMVSS 213 test requirements specify 32 inches of
free space ahead.
Under FMVSS 213, the aircraft test is essentially an inversion
test. The performance requirement is that the child test dummy not slip
out of the restraining harness in the child seat when the seat is
inverted. This test is adequate for gauging automotive CRS performance
in air turbulence situations, but may not be adequate for gauging
whether the CRS will move relative to the aircraft seat in a forward
deceleration crash mode. This finding leads to the question of whether
further tests, similar to those FAA has performed, are necessary to
assess the longitudinal excursion of child test dummies on forward-
facing CRS's.
Although the 1995 Report contains an economic analysis, the focus
of this ANPRM is on the technical aspects of CRS design and usage.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213
Prior to 1984, when the FAA Technical Standard Order (TSO) C-100
requirements were combined into FMVSS 213, there was a disparity
between the number of child restraint models available for motor
vehicle use and the number available for aircraft use. The lack of
child restraints for aircraft use aroused several safety concerns. One
was that some families traveling by air were discouraged from taking
unapproved child restraints with them, and thus did not have them
available for use at their destination to protect their children while
the family was driving. The other concern was that those families who
nevertheless took their unapproved child restraint devices on trips had
to stow the restraints in the aircraft cargo compartment, and thus were
not able to use them to protect their children during the flight.
In 1984, FAA and NHTSA amended the FMVSS and TSO requirements to
permit manufacturers to ``self-certify'' their restraints for aircraft
use, provided that they meet the FMVSS 213 requirements and an
additional requirement, an inversion test. (49 FR 34357; August 30,
1984). The effect of the 1984 rulemaking was to speed certification of
child restraints for aircraft use, and thereby increase the
availability of aircraft-certified child restraints.
However, the CAMI test results indicate that it may be prudent to
assess whether the current FMVSS 213 test requirements adequately
address aircraft crash conditions. Under FMVSS 213, the aircraft test
is essentially an inversion test for turbulence. The performance
requirement is that the child test dummy not slip out of the
restraining harness in the child seat. This is not a test to ensure
that the child restraint system does not move relative to the aircraft
seat.
In addition, the seat belt anchor locations and seat cushions
specified in the FMVSS 213 test fixture are not representative of
airplane seats. Tests of CRS's in airplane passenger seats conducted by
both the FAA and NHTSA have confirmed that the longitudinal excursion
of forward-facing CRS's is much greater in airplane passenger seats
than when tested in the FMVSS 213 fixture. Thus, an adequate assessment
of forward-facing CRS's may necessitate the use of aircraft-specific
tests in addition to those required by FMVSS 213.
FAA Efforts To Develop Child Restraint Systems for Use On Board
Aircraft
The FAA is investigating potential solutions to performance
problems with CRS's. First, CAMI has developed and fully tested a
prototype aircraft seat insert platform. The platform is inserted under
the child restraint device and secured to the aircraft seat using the
aircraft passenger seat belt. A different set of belts, which is part
of the platform, is used to secure the child restraint device to the
platform. The platform makes the child restraint device easier to
install in the airplane seat and reduces the likelihood of improper
installation. The platform's design goal is to provide a better
interface between a child restraint device and an aircraft passenger
seat.
A second alternative is to develop an aircraft-only child restraint
device that could be used in either a forward- or aft-facing
configuration. Prototype models have been successfully designed,
developed, and tested independently in the United States and Canada as
part of a cooperative project with Transport Canada.
A third alternative is to modify a certain number of passenger
seats on each airplane and install seat belts with relocated anchorage
points. This could serve to improve the performance of existing child
restraint devices. However, relocating anchorage points may prove
impractical because: (1) Structural locations at which to attach new
anchorage points may not exist; and (2) passenger seat recertification
may be necessary.
NHTSA NPRM: ``Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint
Systems; Tether Anchorages for Child Restraint Systems; Child Restraint
Anchorage System''
NHTSA has proposed revisions to FMVSS 213 to upgrade CRS
performance in automotive applications (62 FR 7857; February 29, 1997).
The NHTSA proposal considered two new methods of securing child
restraints in vehicles, in addition to the current method of securing
the restraints by using seat belts. Both methods require the motor
vehicle to have a dedicated anchorage system for child restraints. The
first method consists of two latchplates positioned at the seat bight
(the intersection of the seat cushion and the seat back), which would
connect to two buckle mechanisms affixed to the child seat. The second
method consists of rigid or semi-rigid D-rings installed at the vehicle
seat bight, and matching hardware on the child seat to attach to those
D-rings. Such hardware could include latches similar to those used for
vehicle door and truck latches, which are attached to rigid prongs on
the child seat. The FAA has expressed a concern that the rigid prongs
on this type of child seat may not be compatible with aircraft seat
cushions or suited for narrow aircraft seat usage.
Both methods under consideration by NHTSA would include a top
tether anchorage strap. The tether is designed to be attached to a ring
installed on either the car's backlight deck under the rear window or
on the rear-seat's underside to keep the back support of the child
restraint device from rotating forward on impact. The tether strap
[[Page 8327]]
installation is not currently compatible with aircraft passenger seats.
Request for Information
The FAA is issuing this ANPRM to gather operational and technical
data from air carriers, the public, manufacturers, and other interested
parties to determine the best way to ensure the safety of small
children in CRS's during takeoff, landing, and in turbulent conditions
while on board the aircraft. The FAA requests comments and suggestions
on all issues related to the use of CRS's. The FAA will consider all
comments and suggestions. The following are issues of particular
concern:
(1) General
The FAA requests comments regarding problems with fit, function,
and performance that have been encountered with existing child
restraint devices, especially installation problems in general aviation
and commuter aircraft. For example, some child restraint device designs
are simply too big to fit on some narrow aircraft seats, with or
without an interfacing platform. FAA's finding that these dimensional
mismatches can occur is based on a limited survey of larger commercial
aircraft seats. Smaller, commuter aircraft seats are not included in
this survey. Mismatches with the commuter and general aviation fleet of
aircraft could be more prevalent.
Accordiingly, FAA seeks detailed information about the dimensions
of existing or possible future CRS designs regarding their ability to
fit into the range of airline passenger seat sizes that are installed
in commercial aircraft. The FAA also seeks information from airlines
about how frequently passengers attempt to use CRS's that are too large
for the aircraft seat. Airlines are asked to comment on how they handle
such situations now, and how they would envision addressing such
situations if CRS use was mandatory. Finally, the FAA queries whether
it would be appropriate or practical, under FMVSS 213, to establish
dimensional limits for CRS's that are dual-use certified for both
automotive and aircraft use.
(2) Forward-Facing CRS's
The FAA requests comments regarding the safety of forward-facing
CRS's especially in air carrier aircraft, including any current
research data regarding forward-facing child restraint devices.
In particular, should airplane-specific tests be required, in
addition to those conducted under FMVSS 213, to adequately assess the
longitudinal excursion of child test dummies in forward-facing CRS's?
Should child seats certified for aircraft use undergo testing in
conditions representative of those found in a commercial transport
airplane accident? For example, should there be a requirement for
dynamic testing of a child restraint device to 16 g's when attached to
an airplane seat using lap- and seat-belt anchorages representative of
the belt assemblies and anchorages found in commercial transport
airplanes?
(3) Aft-Facing CRS's
The FAA request comments regarding problems that may be associated
with aft-facing child restraint devices, including any current research
data regarding aft-facing child restrain devices. Should the current
dual-use certification policy continue for both aft-facing and forward-
facing CRS's, or should the policy be limited to only aft-facing seats?
(4) Approval of CRS's
The FAA requests comments about the advisability of having child
restraint devices certified under FMVSS 213 for aircraft use. Should a
separate aviation standard be developed for aircraft use ? In
particular, CRS manufacturers are invited to comment on whether, under
a mandatory CRS-use regulation, they would choose to dual-certify their
products, if (1) additional aircraft- specific tests were required, and
(2) it was optional for CRS manufacturers to dual-certify their
product.
(5) Research on Child Restraint Systems
The FAA requests comments about new CRS's that are being developed,
relative to their appropriateness for use in both automobiles and
aircraft. In addition, the FAA requests comments on devices that are
being developed or that are already available that are similar to the
prototype seat insert platform previously described in this notice.
Specifically, the FAA would like to know if there are any problems that
will preclude manufacturers from developing such devices.
Similarly, comments are sought on the potential availability,
performance capabilities, and ease-of use of aircraft-only CRS designs.
Further, the FAA also queries whether any design limitations and/or
labeling requirements should be placed on aircraft-only CRS's
(6) Changing Anchor Point Locations for Aircraft Passenger Seat Belts
CAMI data indicate that changes to the location of the anchor
points for passenger seat belts would greatly enhance the performance
of existing child restraint devices. The FAA requests information on
the technical and operational feasibility of changing these anchor
points on a few passenger seats on existing aircraft as well as on
aircraft seats manufactured in the future. Information is also
requested on the feasibility of equipping some aircraft seats with a
top tether anchorage, such as on the underside of the seat.
(7) Evacuation of Aircraft With Children in Child Restraint Systems
The FAA requests data on the effect of child restraint systems on
passenger egress times.
(8) Mandatory Use of Child Restraint Systems for Children Under 40
Inches and Under 40 Pounds
The FAA requests comments regarding the safety consequences of
requiring all children under 40 inches and under 40 pounds to be in an
appropriate CRS. What effect would such a requirement likely have
relative to injuries sustained in both aircraft crashes and air
turbulence conditions? Also, the FAA requests data on the effect of
height and weight on the efficacy of both current and future automotive
CRS's, as well as aircraft-only CRS's. In particular, the FAA would
like to know whether CRS's should be mandatory where the passenger is:
(1) Both under 40 inches and under 40 pounds; or (2) either under 40
inches or under 40 pounds. Current FAA regulations do not require the
use of restraint systems designed specifically for children; for
example, a two-year-old, regardless of size and weight may be
restrained in either a CRS or a passenger seat belt, and a child under
two years of age may be lap held. In addition, the FAA is seeking data
regarding how many children travel by aircraft that are under: (1) Two
years of age; or (2) 40 inches and 40 pounds. The FAA is seeking
comment regarding an air carrier's ability to enforce the weight and
height requirements for CRS usage.
(9) Providing Child Restraint Systems on Aircraft
The FAA requests comments regarding the effects of requiring air
carriers to supply appropriate CRS's. For example, how would air
carriers ensure that appropriate CRS's were available for flights?
(10) Impacts on Small Businesses
The FAA requests comments regarding the effects of mandatory CRS
use, including supplying CRS's, on small air carriers.
[[Page 8328]]
(11) Using a Dedicated Method for Aircraft Applications
The FAA requests comments about the appropriateness of
incorporating a dedicated child restraint anchorage system, such as
those being considered by NHTSA (62 FR 7857), into current aircraft
fleets.
(12) Current Practices
The FAA requests data and comments on the current practice of
allowing an adult to hold a child two years of age or younger on his or
her lap while seated in a forward or rear-facing seat. Estimates of the
number of small children and infants that travel in this manner are
especially sought.
(13) Additional Rear Facing Seats
The FAA is requesting data and comments regarding the impact of
requiring air carriers to supply rear-facing seats on aircraft. Some
have suggested that requiring a limited number of rear-facing seats
would enhance the safety of child passengers.
(14) Children Per Flight Requiring Child Restraint Seats
The FAA requests comment on the number of children that require
CRS's, both on an average and on a peak basis.
(15) Other Solutions
The FAA requests comments about other possible solutions to ensure
that small children are properly restrained while on board aircraft.
Regulatory Process Matters
Economic Impact
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires Federal agencies to
consider the extent that proposed rules may have ``a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' Although
the FAA is unable, at this time, to determine the likely costs of
imposing regulations requiring small children to be restrained in CRS's
in aircraft, following a review of the comments submitted to this
ANPRM, the FAA will determine what the potential costs and benefits of
the various rulemaking options are.
Likewise, at this preliminary stage, it is not yet possible to
determine whether there will be a significant economic impact to a
substantial number of small entities or what the paperwork burden, if
any, might be. These regulatory matters will be addressed at the time
of publication of any NPRM on the subject.
Significance
This preliminary rulemaking is considered a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This preliminary
rulemaking is also considered significant under the regulatory policies
and procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034;
February 2, 1979) because of considerable public interest. In addition,
any NPRM subsequently developed based on comments to this ANPRM may be
considered significant.
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 11, 1998.
Ava L. Mims,
Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 98-3954 Filed 2-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
