Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6261 

1Section 14 (g) of the TREAD Act, November 1, 

2000, Pub. L. 106–414, 114 Stat. 1800. 

2 67 FR 67448, Docket NHTSA–2001–10053. 

3The EOU rating does not compare the crash 

performance of different child restraints. However, 

a child restraint is most effective if corectly 

installed in the vehicle as well as properly adjusted 

to the child. A child restraint that is easier to use 

should theoretically havea lower misuse rate. 

4 72 FR 3103, January 24, 20007. Full transcript 

can be found in Docket Number NHTSA–2007–

26833–23. 

Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. 

Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

Communications received within 45 

days of the date of this notice will be 

considered by FRA before final action is 

taken. Comments received after that 

date will be considered as far as 

practicable. All written communications 

concerning these proceedings are 

available for examination during regular 

business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the 

above facility. All documents in the 

public docket are also available for 

inspection and copying on the Internet 

at the docket facility’s Web site at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of any written 

communications and comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–19478). 

Issued in Washington, DC on January 28, 

2008. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety 

Standards and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E8–1866 Filed 1–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket NHTSA–2006–25344] 

Consumer Information; Rating 

Program for Child Restraint Systems 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice, final decision. 

SUMMARY: In response to Section 14(g) of 

the Transportation Recall Enhancement, 

Accountability, and Documentation Act, 

the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration established a yearly ease 

of use assessment program for add-on 

child restraints. Since the program was 

established, the most notable 

improvements have been made to child 

restraint harness designs, labels, and 

manuals. On November 23, 2007, the 

agency published a notice seeking 

comment on revisions to the program. 

This notice summarizes the comments 

received and provides the agency’s 

decision on how we will proceed. The 

agency has decided to enhance the 

program by including new rating 

features (the design aspects that are 

being evaluated) and criteria (the 

questions that evaluate the feature), 

adjusting the scoring system, and using 

stars to display the ease of use rating. 

We anticipate that these program 

changes will result in a more robust 

rating program for consumers while 

continuing to encourage manufacturers 

to refine current features and in some 

cases, install more features that help 

make child restraints easier to use. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues related to the Ease of 

Use rating program, you may call 

Nathaniel Beuse of the Office of Crash 

Avoidance Standards, at (202) 366–

4931. For legal issues, call Deirdre 

Fujita of the Office of Chief Counsel, at 

(202) 366–2992. You may send mail to 

these officials at the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC, 

20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Summary of Request for Comments 

A. Rating Categories and Their Associated 

Features 

1. Assembly 

2. Evaluation of Labels 

3. Evaluation of Instructions 

4. Securing the Child 

5. Vehicle Installation Features 

B. Rating System 

III. Summary of Comments 

IV. Discussion and Agency Decisions 

A. General Concerns 

1. Multi-Mode and ‘‘Basic’’ Child 

Restraints 

2. Timing of Upgraded Program 

3. Clarification of Terms 

B. Rating Categories and their Associated 

Features 

1. Assembly 

2. Evaluation of Labels 

3. Evaluation of Instructions 

4. Securing the Child 

5. Vehicle Installation Features 

C. Rating System 

D. Vehicle Rating System 

E. Cost and Retail Concerns 

F. Other 

V. Conclusion 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Ease of Use Rating Forms 

Appendix B: Ease of Use Score Forms 

Appendix C: Ease of Use Star Rating 

System 

I. Introduction 

In response to the Transportation 

Recall Enhancement, Accountability, 

and Documentation (TREAD) 1 Act, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) issued a final 

rule 2 on November 5, 2002 that 

established a program that rates child 

restraint systems (CRS) on how easy 

they are to use.3 To date, the agency’s 

Ease of Use (EOU) program has been 

very successful in encouraging child 

restraint manufacturers to improve child 

restraint designs, labels, and manuals 

such that now nearly all child restraints 

achieve the top rating. While child 

restraint manufacturers are to be 

commended for their overwhelming 

response to the program, today the 

ratings are such that it is difficult for 

consumers to discern ease of use 

differences between products. 

On November 23, 2007, NHTSA 

published a request for comment on the 

agency’s considered updates to the 

features and criteria used in the child 

restraint EOU ratings program, along 

with the method in which the ratings 

are displayed to consumers (72 FR 

65804, Docket 2006–25344). In 

proposing these revisions, the agency 

considered recent consumer use surveys 

conducted by the agency and others on 

Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children 

(LATCH), public comments submitted 

as a result of NHTSA’s February 8, 2007 

public meeting on LATCH,4 a 

comprehensive study of the agency’s 

EOU program, and feedback from 

current EOU raters. 

Our request for comment highlighted 

several changes that we believed would 

encourage consumers to purchase and 

manufacturers to provide easier to use 

features, in particular for LATCH 

hardware and child restraint harnesses. 

These changes would also allow the 

agency to begin recognizing newer 

design features that have entered the 

market since the program’s inception. 

We also sought to provide continued 

incentive for manufacturers to design 

child restraint features that are intuitive 

and easier to use. We sought comment 

on proposed changes to the numerical 

break points (e.g. ranges) used to assign 

different ratings to the restraints in 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

6262 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 

5See 49 CFR 571.213 

order to make the top rating harder to 

achieve. In addition to making the top 

ratings harder to achieve, the agency 

also requested comment on changes to 

the way it presents EOU ratings to the 

public. Rather than using a 3-level letter 

grading system, the agency proposed 

that the upgraded EOU ratings would be 

presented to consumers using our 

familiar 5-level star rating system, such 

as used in our vehicle safety ratings 

program. In conjunction with the rating 

criteria and feature changes, this change 

would allow for more levels of 

differentiation among products, and a 

more user-friendly system for 

consumers to use in making their 

purchasing decisions. 

In response to the notice, the agency 

received comments from research 

organizations, consumer groups, child 

restraint manufacturers and a trade 

organization representing a number of 

child seat manufacturers. While all of 

the commenters supported our efforts to 

update the EOU program, there were 

three main issues where the majority of 

commenters disagreed with the agency’s 

proposal. These issues involved the 

proposal to use stars to display child 

restraint ratings, the proposed labeling 

features, and proposed features relating 

to harness and LATCH lower 

attachment designs. This notice 

summarizes the comments, provides the 

agency’s analysis of those comments, 

and implements our proposal to 

enhance the EOU rating program. 

II. Summary of Request for Comments 

In our November 23, 2007, Federal 

Register notice, the agency proposed to 

continue rating each child restraint 

under every mode of correct use via 

three separate forms: rear-facing (RF), 

forward-facing (FF), and booster. We 

also discussed some significant changes 

with regard to the categories, features, 

and criteria used for rating child 

restraints. In addition, we proposed an 

update to the break points used to 

assign ratings to the restraints in an 

effort to make the top rating harder to 

achieve. The agency also proposed to 

change the way it presents the child 

restraint EOU ratings to the public. 

We pursued these changes because we 

first wanted to incorporate features that 

were not included in the original 

program. Secondly, we wanted to 

strengthen some existing features by 

reducing their criteria from three levels 

to two, reducing grade inflation 

resulting in an overall feature that is 

easier for the raters to evaluate. Thirdly, 

we wanted to combine related features 

into one in order to reduce redundancy. 

Lastly, we deleted some redundant 

features to also reduce the occurrence of 

grade inflation. The proposed changes 

are highlighted below. 

A. Rating Categories and Their 

Associated Features 

1. Assembly 

The agency proposed to eliminate the 

‘‘Assembly’’ rating category but 

distribute the features from this category 

among the ‘‘Evaluation of Instructions’’

and ‘‘Securing the Child’’ categories as 

they were still needed. The agency 

believed that most of the features in this 

category should be rated only under one 

mode (in the case of multi-mode child 

restraints) to reduce grade inflation. In 

addition, we believed that some features 

should have their rating criteria reduced 

from three levels to two. 

2. Evaluation of Labels 

Under this category, the agency 

proposed upgrading the rating forms to 

better assess child restraint labels for 

accuracy and completeness. The 

proposed rating forms contained the 

following features (each mode the 

feature would apply to is included in 

the parentheses): 

a. Clear indication of child’s size range. (RF, 

FF, Booster) 

b. Are all methods of installation for this 

mode of use clearly indicated? (RF, FF, 

Booster) 

c. Are the correct harness slots for this mode 

indicated? (RF, FF) 

d. Label warning against using a lap belt 

only. (Booster) 

e. Seat belt use and routing path clarity. (RF, 

FF, Booster) 

f. Shows how to prepare and use lower 

attachments. (RF, FF) 

g. Shows how to prepare and use tether. (FF) 

h. Durability of labels. (RF, FF, Booster) 

a. Clear indication of child’s size 

range. (RF, FF, Booster) 

The agency proposed to expand this 

feature to assess whether the child 

restraint labels contain additional sizing 

information beyond the required height 

and weight limits of Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213,5

‘‘Child Restraint Systems’’. We believed 

that parents and caregivers would 

benefit from visual indicators that 

describe how an appropriately sized 

child should fit in the restraint and 

noted that a limited number of child 

restraints currently provide this 

information. 

b. Are all methods of installation for 

this mode of use clearly indicated? (RF, 

FF, Booster) 

The agency suggested that it was 

going to clarify the criteria for the FF 

mode so that the tether is labeled with 

every configuration. We believed that 

the clarification would help reinforce 

the use of the tether with a FF child 

restraint. 

c. Are the correct harness slots for this 

mode indicated? (RF, FF) 

The agency proposed an update to 

this feature so that it included criteria 

to evaluate whether harness slots are 

labeled to indicate the modes of use to 

which they correspond. In addition, the 

agency proposed that the child restraint 

should indicate graphically how the 

harness should fit the child’s shoulders. 

By doing this, multi-mode child 

restraints would be encouraged to label 

harness slots for both the rear-facing and 

forward-facing modes and all restraints 

would provide caregivers with a visual 

that allows them to assess the child’s fit 

with respect to the harness. 

d. Label warning against using a lap 

belt only. (Booster) 

The agency proposed a new feature 

that would evaluate the presence of an 

illustrated warning advising against the 

use of a lap belt only if a booster is not 

supposed to be used with one. In 

making this proposal, the agency was 

not aware of any booster seats in the 

current market that were recommended 

for use with a lap belt only. The agency 

felt that the presence of an illustration 

could reinforce that these devices 

should only be used with a lap-shoulder 

belt. 

e. Seat belt use and routing path 

clarity. (RF, FF, Booster) 

We proposed to strengthen this 

feature by encouraging child restraints 

manufacturers to label belt and flexible 

lower anchor paths on both sides of the 

restraint. We believed this was 

necessary to ensure that regardless of 

the user’s point of installation, the belt 

and lower anchor path can easily be 

seen. 

f. Shows how to prepare and use 

lower attachments. (RF, FF) 

The agency proposed to combine two 

previous lower attachment-related 

features into one to make the resulting 

feature more objective and encourage 

more manufacturers to include better 

information. The proposed feature 

would evaluate whether the labels 

clearly depict all steps of lower 

attachment preparation and use. 

g. Shows how to prepare and use 

tether. (FF) 

The agency proposed to evaluate 

child restraints on whether proper 

tether use and preparation was 

sufficiently explained by clear 

illustrations and concise text on the 

child restraint labels. This update 

would help to encourage more 

widespread, correct use of the top 

tether. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6263 

h. Durability of labels. (RF, FF, 

Booster) 

In order to improve the strength of 

this feature as well as the rating system 

in general, the agency proposed to 

modify this feature so that we will only 

assess the durability of the labels on 

multi-mode child restraints once, in 

their youngest mode. For example the 

durability of the labels on a convertible 

child restraint would only be evaluated 

once, in the rear facing mode of use. 

3. Evaluation of Instructions 

For this category, the most significant 

change proposed by the agency was to 

reduce the weighted value for the 

majority of the features. Most of the 

concepts rated under the ‘‘Evaluation of 

Labels’’ category are also reflected in the 

‘‘Evaluation of Instructions’’ category so 

there was little need to rate them highly 

in both places. We also believe that 

pertinent information about correct 

daily use should be communicated 

clearly on the child restraint labels as 

well as in the instruction manual. The 

proposed rating forms contained the 

following features. Each mode the 

feature applies to is included in the 

parentheses: 

a. Owner’s manual easy to find? (RF, FF, 

Booster) 

b. Evaluate the manual storage system access 

in this mode. (RF, FF, Booster) 

c. Clear indication of child’s size range. (RF, 

FF, Booster) 

d. Are all methods of installation for this 

mode of use clearly indicated? (RF, FF, 

Booster) 

e. Air bag/rear seat warning? (RF, FF, 

Booster) 

f. Instructions for routing seat belt. (RF, FF, 

Booster) 

g. Shows how to prepare & use lower 

attachments. (RF, FF) 

h. Information in written instructions and on 

labels match? (RF, FF, Booster) 

a. Owner’s manual easy to find? (RF, 

FF, Booster) 

This feature was previously located 

under the ‘‘Assembly’’ category. In 

proposing to delete that category, the 

agency felt that the feature was still 

needed but that it should be moved to 

the ‘‘Evaluation of Instructions’’

category. Also, the agency proposed that 

this feature would now be assessed only 

once, when the child restraint is being 

evaluated in its youngest mode of use, 

to reduce grade inflation. 

b. Evaluate the manual storage system 

access in this mode. (RF, FF, Booster) 

Previously, this feature was assessed 

under the ‘‘Assembly’’ section, but 

similar to the feature above, the agency 

proposed to move it to this category. In 

addition, the agency also modified the 

feature to evaluate whether the storage 

device is difficult to access in addition 

to whether it is difficult to find or use. 

We believe that the child restraint 

manual should be easily stored, and the 

user should be able to retrieve it while 

the child restraint is installed and the 

child is in the restraint. 

c. Clear indication of child’s size 

range. (RF, FF, Booster) 

Similar to the updated label feature, 

the agency proposed that this criterion 

be expanded to include whether child 

restraint instructions contain additional 

sizing information beyond the height 

and weight limits of FMVSS No. 213. 

d. Are all methods of installation for 

this mode of use clearly indicated? (RF, 

FF, Booster) 

To reinforce the use of the tether with 

FF child restraints and if allowed by the 

manufacturer for boosters, the agency 

proposed clarifying the previous feature 

to encourage that the tether is labeled 

and pictured with every installation 

configuration. 

e. Air bag/rear seat warning? (RF, FF, 

Booster) 

The agency proposed to modify this 

feature so that instead of encouraging 

the identical warning for each type of 

child restraint, FF and booster seat 

instructions would be encouraged to 

contain warnings about the rear seat 

being the safest place for children only. 

With the exception of seats rated in the 

RF mode, the agency did not indicate a 

separate label was needed to do this. In 

this way, the instructions would be 

more consistent with child passenger 

safety recommendations. Child 

restraints evaluated under the RF forms 

would still need to convey this 

information in addition to the current 

FMVSS No. 213 airbag warning 

requirements for a separate, obvious, 

illustrated warning. 

f. Instructions for routing seat belt. 

(RF, FF, Booster) 

The agency proposed to enhance this 

feature by also evaluating whether 

manufacturers provided information on 

different seat belts styles, retractor 

types, and latch plate types and how 

each should be used with the child 

restraint in question. In this way, loose 

and incorrect installations due to seat 

belt misuse could be reduced. 

g. Shows how to prepare & use lower 

attachments and tether. (RF, FF) 

As in the ‘‘Evaluation of Labels’’

section, the agency proposed combining 

the ‘‘preparing’’ and ‘‘using’’ features for 

the lower attachments to reduce 

redundancy. Similarly, we proposed to 

remove the separate feature calling for a 

diagram depicting the correct 

orientation of the lower attachments. 

Additionally, it was proposed that FF 

child restraints be evaluated on whether 

or not they have complete tether 

directions. 

h. Information in written instructions 

and on labels match? (RF, FF, Booster) 

Because the agency still observed 

instances in which there was conflicting 

information between the written 

instructions and the labels, in addition 

to the existing criteria, the agency 

proposed new criteria that would 

evaluate whether or not all pictures on 

the labels are conveying the same 

information as in the written 

instructions. Also, for the purposes of 

recalls, the agency proposed that the 

presence of the child restraint model 

name be evaluated. 

4. Securing the Child 

The agency proposed the most 

changes in this category, which assesses 

child restraint features that help secure 

the child in the restraint. New features 

were proposed to be added to the rating 

and a number of previous features were 

combined to reduce grade inflation. We 

also proposed changes to many of the 

criteria used to evaluate the features. 

The proposed rating forms contained 

the following features. Each mode the 

feature applies to is included in the 

parentheses: 

a. Is the restraint assembled & ready to use? 

(RF, FF, Booster) 

b. Does harness clip require threading? Is it 

labeled? (RF, FF) 

c. Evaluate the harness buckle style. (RF, FF) 

d. Access to and use of harness adjustment 

system. (RF, FF) 

e. Number and adjustability of harness slots 

in shell and pad. (RF, FF) 

f. Visibility & alignment of harness slots. (RF, 

FF) 

g. Ease of conversion to this mode from all 

other possible modes of use. (RF, FF, 

Booster) 

h. Ease of conversion from high back to no 

back. (Booster) 

i. Ease of adjusting the harness for child’s 

growth. (RF, FF) 

j. Ease of reassembly after cleaning. (RF, FF, 

Booster) 

k. Ease of adjusting/removing shield. (RF, FF) 

a. Is the restraint assembled & ready 

to use? (RF, FF, Booster) 

This feature was previously located 

under the ‘‘Assembly’’ category. Since 

the agency proposed to delete that 

category, we felt that ‘‘Securing the 

Child’’ was its next appropriate 

location. We also proposed to reduce its 

three levels of criteria to two and to only 

evaluate this feature once, in the child 

restraint’s youngest mode of use, in 

order to reduce grade inflation. 

b. Does harness clip require 

threading? Is it labeled? (RF, FF) 

The agency proposed this new feature 

to evaluate the harness clip on a 

restraint. This feature would discourage 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

6264 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 

harness clips that require threading by 

the user each time the child is buckled 

into the child restraint and encourage 

the presence of a graphic or simple text 

that would provide a reminder of where 

the harness clip should be positioned on 

the properly restrained child. We 

believe that this will increase correct 

harness clip usage. 

c. Evaluate the harness buckle style. 

(RF, FF) 

Some buckle designs, known as ‘‘dual 

entry,’’ allow the user to insert each side 

of the buckle independently while 

‘‘single entry’’ styles require the user to 

hold the two shoulder portions of the 

buckle together and insert them at the 

same time. The agency believes that 

there are varying degrees of ease of use 

with these designs and proposed to 

modify this feature to evaluate how easy 

it is to use one type of harness buckle 

over another. 

d. Access to and use of harness 

adjustment system. (RF, FF) 

The agency believes that the ability to 

tighten the harness system should be 

accessible regardless of the installation 

mode. As such, in our proposal, the 

agency stated it would combine two 

previously separate features evaluating 

access to and use of the harness 

tightening system into one new feature. 

Additionally, the agency proposed that 

it would reduce the number of rating 

criteria for the upgraded feature from 

three levels to two. 

e. Number and adjustability of 

harness slots in shell and pad. (RF, FF) 

The agency proposed to reduce grade 

inflation surrounding related harness 

slot criteria by combining them into 

one. Previously, the agency evaluated 

whether the number of harness slots in 

the child restraint shell and seat pad 

matched and then separately evaluated 

how many there were. The agency will 

now evaluate these concepts as one 

feature. 

f. Visibility & alignment of harness 

slots. (RF, FF) 

The agency proposed applying this 

feature only to child restraints with rethread harness systems. Child restraints 

with ‘‘no-thread’’ harness systems 

would be rated an ‘‘n/a’’ for this feature 

since its primary purpose is to help 

facilitate rethreading. 

g. Ease of conversion to this mode 

from all other possible modes of use. 

(RF, FF, Booster) 

Because the relative complexity of 

converting a child restraint between its 

different modes was not fully reflected, 

the agency proposed a restructure of 

these features so that they better assess 

the entire process. In doing so, we 

recognized that many 3-in-1 and multimode child restraints would have 

difficulty achieving the top rating for 

this feature. However, we believed, 

given the relative difficulty of 

converting child restraints between 

modes, as well as the potential to 

introduce gross misuse and misplace 

critical pieces, that it was important to 

include such a feature. 

h. Ease of conversion from high back 

to no back. (Booster) 

The agency proposed to add this 

separate feature to assess the difficulty 

of converting high back boosters to 

backless boosters. 

i. Ease of adjusting the harness for 

child’s growth. (RF, FF) 

The agency proposed to strengthen 

the criteria for this feature to continue 

encouraging harness adjustment systems 

that do not require rethreading, are easy 

to understand, and are simple to use. 

j. Ease of reassembly after cleaning. 

(RF, FF, Booster) 

The agency proposed to clarify the 

existing criteria used to evaluate this 

feature. We will assess whether or not 

the harness requires rethreading, if loose 

critical parts are generated during 

disassembly, and whether the cover can 

be easily removed and replaced. We also 

proposed a similar feature for boosters, 

which had not been previously rated 

using a feature of this type. 

k. Ease of adjusting/removing shield. 

(RF, FF) 

Other than clarifying that the 

instructions for using these devices 

should be located on the child restraint 

itself, the agency did not propose any 

changes to this feature. 

5. Vehicle Installation Features 

The agency proposed that the title of 

this section be reworded to better clarify 

its scope. We proposed changes to the 

features in this category primarily to 

reduce grade inflation. New features 

were also proposed to reflect 

improvements made in child restraint 

designs since the EOU program began, 

as well as to include more 

comprehensive LATCH lower 

attachment assessments. The proposed 

rating forms contained the following 

features. Each mode the feature applies 

to is included in the parentheses: 

a. Ease of routing vehicle belt or flexible 

lower attachments in this mode. (RF, FF) 

b. Can vehicle belt or LATCH attachments 

interfere with harness? (RF, FF) 

c. Evaluate the tether adjustment. (FF) 

d. Ease of attaching/removing infant carrier 

from its base. (RF) 

e. Ease of use of any belt positioning devices. 

(RF, FF, Booster) 

f. Does the belt positioning device allow 

slack? Can the belt slip? (Booster) 

g. Evaluate child restraint’s angle feedback 

device and recline capabilities on the 

carrier and base. (RF) 

h. Do the lower attachments require twisting 

to remove from vehicle? (RF, FF) 

i. Storage for the LATCH system when not in 

use? (RF, FF) 

j. Indication on the child restraint for where 

to put the carrier handle? (RF) 

a. Ease of routing vehicle belt or 

flexible lower attachments in this mode. 

(RF, FF) 

Previously, the EOU program 

evaluated the ease of routing the seat 

belt and the flexible lower attachments 

separately, which was redundant since 

the two paths are normally one and the 

same. The agency proposed combining 

the two related features into one to 

reduce grade inflation and increase the 

robustness of the rating system. 

b. Can vehicle belt or LATCH 

attachments interfere with harness? (RF, 

FF) 

The original EOU program assessed 

the potential for unwanted interaction 

between the harness system and the 

seatbelt or the flexible lower 

attachments during routing, which was 

redundant since the two paths are 

normally one in the same. The agency 

proposed combining that the two related 

features into one to reduce grade 

inflation and increase the robustness of 

the rating system. 

c. Evaluate the tether adjustment. (FF) 

The agency proposed strengthening 

this feature by decreasing the number of 

criteria used to rate this feature from 

three to two. The agency hopes that by 

continuing to encourage simple tether 

adjustment mechanisms, more parents 

will opt to use them and use them 

correctly. 

d. Ease of attaching/removing infant 

carrier from its base. (RF) 

The agency proposed upgrading this 

feature so that it better evaluates the 

ease of attaching and removing an infant 

carrier from its base. The agency firmly 

believes there should be no indication 

that the carrier can appear secured to 

the base if it is not. In order to 

discourage designs that allow for this, 

the agency proposed updating the 

criteria for this feature. 

e. Ease of use of any belt positioning 

devices. (RF, FF, Booster) 

NHTSA proposed strengthening this 

feature by updating the criteria used to 

rate them. The agency would also like 

to encourage manufacturers to locate 

instructions for use directly on the 

restraint itself. 

f. Does the belt positioning device 

allow slack? Can the belt slip? (Booster) 

The agency proposed additional 

criterion for this feature after examining 

different devices in the current market. 

It was proposed that in addition to the 

former criteria, these devices should 

somehow inhibit the shoulder portion of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6265 

6All commenters except for SNR/SBS–USA and 

CHOP addressed this issue. 

7See 49 CFR 571.213. 

8NHTSA–2006–25344–0020.1. 

9NHTSA–2006–25344–0024.1. 

10NHTSA–2006–25344–0025.1. 

11NHTSA–2006–25344–0027. 

12To inquire about this service, please contact 

Alpha Technology Associate, Inc. 6315 Backlick 

Road, Suite 300, Springfield VA 22150–2632. 

Phone: (703) 866–4158. Fax: (703) 866–4159. 

the seat belt from slipping out of the 

device in order to receive the highest 

rating. 

g. Evaluate child restraint’s angle 

feedback device and recline capabilities 

on the carrier and base. (RF) 

The agency proposed additional 

criteria to evaluate the presence of a 

separate feedback device on the child 

restraint rather than the previously 

accepted ‘‘indicator lines’’ on labels. We 

also proposed to encourage devices with 

built-in recline devices through this 

feature. 

h. Do the lower attachments require 

twisting to remove from vehicle? (RF, 

FF) 

After our review of the LATCH 

system, we believe that that while the 

ease of installing lower attachments in 

a vehicle may be similar regardless of 

type removing them from the vehicle 

anchorages is not. As a result, we 

proposed criteria that would encourage 

lower attachments that retract from the 

vehicle anchors or that may be removed 

from the vehicle anchors without having 

to twist them. 

i. Storage for the LATCH system when 

not in use? (RF, FF) 

Largely in response to child passenger 

safety technicians (CPSTs) and 

consumer demand, the agency proposed 

this new feature that would evaluate 

seats on the presence of a storage system 

for the lower attachments and tether (FF 

only) when they are not being used. 

j. Indication on the child restraint for 

where to put the carrier handle? (RF) 

The agency also proposed a new RF 

rating feature that would encourage CRS 

manufacturers to indicate directly on 

their products where to place the infant 

carrier handle during driving 

conditions. 

B. Rating System 

As stated above, NHTSA proposed 

several changes to the rating structure of 

the program as well as the way in which 

it conveys those ratings to consumers. 

The agency proposed to reassign many 

of the feature weightings and made 

changes to the numerical ranges used to 

assign both category and overall ratings. 

In particular, the agency proposed to 

assign some features the weighting of 

‘‘1’’, which was not the case under the 

original program. Based on our pilot test 

results, the changes proposed to the 

features and criteria will create greater 

distinction between child restraints. 

NHTSA also proposed using its 

familiar five star rating system to convey 

child restraint EOU ratings to 

consumers, with five stars being the 

highest possible category and overall 

rating. Since the previous ratings were 

presented using three levels of 

evaluation (A, B, C), the agency 

proposed a redistribution of the category 

and overall weighted averages by the 

following five levels: 

• ‘‘5 stars’’ = Result ≥ 2.60 

• ‘‘4 stars’’ = 2.30 ≤ Result < 2.60 

• ‘‘3 stars’’ = 2.00 ≤ Result < 2.30 

• ‘‘2 stars’’ = 1.70 ≤ Result < 2.00 

• ‘‘1 star’’ = Result < 1.70 

The agency believed that displaying 

EOU ratings in terms of stars rather than 

letters would be more beneficial for 

consumers and manufacturers alike. For 

consumers, the system would be more 

recognizable. For manufacturers, more 

potential for effective promotion of their 

products will likely exist if EOU ratings 

are displayed using stars. 

III. Summary of Comments 

The agency received ten comments in 

response to the notice. They were 

received from: Safeguard/IMMI (IMMI), 

Millennium Development Corporation 

(MDC), American Academy of Pediatrics 

(AAP), Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety (Advocates), Dorel Juvenile 

Group (DJG), Graco Children’s Products, 

Inc. (Graco), The Center for Injury 

Research and Prevention at the 

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia 

(CHOP), Juvenile Products 

Manufacturers Association (JPMA), Safe 

Ride News Publications/SafetyBeltSafe 

USA (SRN/SBS–USA), and Safe Kids 

Worldwide (SKW). 

All of the commenters supported 

NHTSA’s efforts to upgrade its EOU 

rating program to provide consumers 

with more useful information and 

encourage the introduction of easier-touse child restraint features. However, 

every commenter except AAP that spoke 

to the issue opposed the agency’s 

proposal to use stars as the new method 

of conveying EOU ratings to 

consumers.6 These commenters felt that 

the stars would be misconstrued as 

representing a child restraint’s crash 

protection rating rather than its ease of 

use. Most of the responses also 

cautioned that child restraint 

manufacturers would have a difficult 

time meeting all of the agency’s 

upgraded labeling criteria, especially in 

light of upgraded FMVSS 213 labeling.7

Commenters voiced concerns that not 

enough space will be available on many 

child restraints to add labels that would 

include NHTSA’s upgraded EOU 

requirements. A number of commenters 

also oppose a variety of features for cost 

reasons, stating that higher ratings 

required more expensive equipment that 

would raise the prices of many 

products, affecting the consumer’s 

ability to purchase cost-efficient child 

restraints. 

IV. Discussion and Agency Decision 

Because many of the comments were 

relatively specific, the following 

discussion organizes commenters’

concerns and the resulting agency 

decision by category and individual 

feature. 

A. General Rating System Concerns 

1. Multi-Mode & ‘‘Basic’’ Child 

Restraints 

MDC8 and JPMA 9 indicated that the 

upgraded ratings prevent certain types 

of basic, low cost child restraints from 

achieving the highest possible rating. 

DJG 10 specifically mentioned that it 

could be difficult for multi-mode child 

restraints to achieve high ratings in all 

modes of use. Under our proposal, we 

acknowledged that it would be more 

difficult for any child restraint to 

receive the highest rating; however, we 

firmly believe that they are still 

achievable for most products. Similarly, 

in cases where it is difficult for a multimode restraint to achieve the highest 

rating, the agency believes that the 

upgraded score better reflects the 

inherent difficulty in using that style of 

restraint, especially when switching 

between modes. 

2. Timing of Upgraded Program 

JPMA, DJG, and Graco 11 raised 

concerns about the timing of the 

upgraded program and the effects it 

could have on products that did not 

receive high ratings. As such, DJG 

expressed interest in a system in which 

a product could be evaluated prior to its 

sale in order to allow the manufacturer 

to make improvements. We agree that 

there should be some opportunity for 

CRS manufacturers to receive feedback 

on their products prior to sale. In light 

of this, the agency has made 

arrangements with our current rating 

contractor 12 to provide this service. 

JPMA and Graco indicated concern 

over the agency’s proposal to begin 

rating products without allowing the 

manufacturers time to respond to the 

criteria, citing consumer and retailer 

confusion about the drop in ratings. The 

agency understands these concerns but 

believes it is in the best interest of the 

consumer to provide the most updated 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

6266 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 

13The Original Final Rule (See 67 FR 67448, 

Docket 2001–10053) detailed that any variations 

between ratings from team to team were never 

enough to affect the overall rating. The agency’s 

experience agrees with this, and in fact has never 

even seen variations that affect the category ratings. 

14NHTSA–2006–25344–0017.1. 

15NHTSA–2006–25344–0026. 

16NHTSA–2006–25344–0022.1. 17NHTSA–2006–25344–0021.1. 

ratings we have available in a timely 

fashion. As a result and consistent with 

SKW, SRN/SBS–USA, CHOP, and AAP, 

NHTSA does not believe that we need 

to delay implementation of these 

program enhancements. 

3. Clarification of Terms 

JPMA asked that NHTSA clarify a 

number of terms used throughout the 

rating forms, including ‘‘illustrated,’’

‘‘illustration,’’ ‘‘better,’’ and ‘‘clearly.’’

NHTSA agrees, and provides the 

following clarifications in this final 

notice. ‘‘Illustrated’’ or ‘‘illustration’’ in 

terms of these ratings means that a clear 

graphic, diagram, or photograph exists 

to convey the idea in question. ‘‘Better,’’

generally refers to instances in which 

the agency clarified language from the 

previous program. ‘‘Clearly’’ implies 

that it is highly unlikely for the user to 

misinterpret any part of the graphic or 

text. 

JPMA also asked that the forms 

contain more objective criteria and 

specify requirements in more defined 

terms. However, no specific examples of 

where this was needed were cited in 

their submission. In our proposal, the 

agency outlined a number of ways we 

have worked to reduce subjectivity in 

the EOU ratings. NHTSA has 

experienced excellent repeatability 

within the EOU ratings program since 

its inception.13 The original EOU ratings 

program was also externally reviewed 

by a third party who had similar 

repeatability findings.14 Our initial pilot 

testing, published with our proposal, 

indicated that the upgraded system is as 

repeatable as the previous one. 

B. Rating Categories and Their 

Associated Features 

1. Assembly 

SKW,15 Advocates 16 and JPMA 

indicated their support for the removal 

of the Assembly section and NHTSA’s 

decision to disseminate the features 

among the remaining categories. 

2. Evaluation of Labels 

AAP indicated support for the 

agency’s approach to encouraging 

improved child restraint labels, citing 

the benefits of ‘‘pictorial instructions 

and labeling specific parts of the 

restraint according to their correct 

use.’’ 17 SKW, MDC, and JPMA 

expressed general concerns about 

whether child restraints on the current 

market have the physical space 

available to fit more labeling. These 

commenters also raised concerns about 

the upgraded labeling features leading 

to ‘‘information overload’’ for 

consumers. JPMA remarked that this 

seems to be in contrast with agency 

efforts to ‘‘simplify the information on 

the product.’’ The agency agrees that 

poorly written, text-heavy labeling has 

the potential to overwhelm and confuse 

the consumer. However, we reviewed 

current child restraints on the market 

and believe that the upgraded labeling 

features we have proposed can be 

incorporated into existing and future 

product designs. The agency also does 

not believe that we are encouraging an 

extensive amount of new labeling on 

child restraints and has already seen a 

number of child restraints on the market 

that will receive high ratings. The 

majority of upgrades to the labeling 

criteria focus on improving the clarity of 

information that is already encouraged 

by the program. 

JPMA and SKW also suggested that 

NHTSA consider developing and rating 

standardized, universal illustrative 

icons for use across CRS models. Graco 

similarly suggested that the agency work 

with CRS manufacturers and safety 

advocates to develop standard 

‘‘pictograms’’ for industry to use in their 

labeling and instructions. The agency 

agrees that standard icons would be 

beneficial to the public. Similarly, a 

number of manufacturers have already 

developed improved graphics for 

conveying these ideas. However, there is 

no industry or consensus amongst the 

child passenger safety community as to 

what these standard icons should be or 

what icon would relay clear and concise 

information to consumers. Given our 

desire to implement the other program 

enhancements immediately, we do not 

believe that such criteria can be added 

to the EOU program at this time. We do 

believe that standardized icons are a 

worthwhile endeavor and will certainly 

work with CRS manufacturers and child 

passenger safety advocates to develop 

and consumer test such icons. 

SKW specifically mentioned that the 

agency consider color-coding as an 

option for labels; in this, they feel that 

using one color code per mode on a 

child restraint can help reduce misuse. 

For example, labels and features that 

pertain to rear-facing use can be one 

color while labels and features that 

pertain to forward-facing use can be 

another. The agency agrees that this 

practice has the potential for increasing 

the clarity of labeling information. 

However, this type of practice would 

require additional cooperative effort 

with the child restraint manufacturers 

and other interested parties to develop 

agreement on uniformity and messaging. 

As such, we cannot incorporate this 

feature in the EOU ratings at this time. 

We will instead work with 

manufacturers and other interested 

parties to develop this concept further. 

a. Clear indication of child’s size 

range. (RF, FF, Booster) 

JPMA indicated that there was no 

need for manufacturers to include socalled ‘‘best practice’’ information on 

CRS labels, stating that ‘‘CRS 

manufacturers may not agree with this 

recommendation.’’ Advocates and SKW 

supported the inclusion of this 

information in the rating system. 

The agency would like to take this 

opportunity to clarify its intentions. 

Under the upgraded EOU program, the 

agency is encouraging that CRS labels 

and manuals include additional sizing 

information beyond height and weight 

that can help parents visually determine 

whether their child properly fits in the 

restraint. In our proposal, the agency 

did suggest commonly used indicators 

such as ‘‘child’s head must be no more 

than 1 inch from top of CRS’’ and ‘‘top 

of his or her ears must be below the top 

of the restraint’’ or pictograms that 

indicate this type of information. 

However, this was not intended to be an 

all-inclusive list. The agency believes 

every manufacturer can develop visual 

cues that can help caregivers assess 

whether their child is appropriately 

sized for the restraint in question. As a 

result, the agency is maintaining this 

feature as it was proposed in the notice. 

b. Are all methods of installation for 

this mode of use clearly indicated? (RF, 

FF, Booster) 

No specific comments indicating 

concern over our proposal were 

received. As a result, our proposed 

feature is being adopted as the final 

feature. 

c. Are the correct harness slots for this 

mode indicated? (RF, FF) 

SKW suggested color coding for 

different modes of use and that many 

manufacturers were already using 

systems that don’t require removal to 

adjust. The agency agrees that color 

coding has potential but in order to be 

effective, we believe that all CRS 

manufacturers would all have to use the 

same color scheme. Similarly, SKW 

indicated that color is a significant 

factor in what type of seat a consumer 

buys. Given that the agency has no data 

on which to choose a color and the lack 

of data to indicate whether or not such 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6267 

18NHTSA–2006–25344–0023. 

a criteria in this feature would make 

sense, the agency is not adopting this 

suggestion at this time. 

d. Label warning against using a lap 

belt only. (Booster) 

SKW indicated that the agency should 

focus more on what consumers should 

do to as opposed to what they should 

not. We would like to clarify that the 

rating system also has a separate feature 

that encourages the proper use. In effect, 

the agency is merely seeking to reinforce 

a manufacturer’s own instructions 

against using a lap belt with beltpositioning boosters. There is also a 

separate feature that encourages a 

picture of its proper use with a lap and 

shoulder belt. As a result, our proposed 

feature is being adopted as the final 

feature. 

e. Seat belt use and routing path 

clarity. (RF, FF, Booster) 

Advocates and AAP indicated their 

support for the agency’s proposal to 

encourage belt path labels on both sides 

of the child restraint, while JPMA 

expressed concern about available 

labeling space. The agency believes that 

this feature is important to include 

because it can provide the user with 

critical routing information despite his 

or her point of installation. In addition, 

we believe that labels of this type can 

be integrated onto most child restraints 

and should not create problems with 

respect to space as some child restraint 

manufacturers are already doing this. In 

light of this, the EOU forms will contain 

this feature and its criteria as proposed. 

f. Shows how to prepare and use 

lower attachments. (RF, FF) 

g. Shows how to prepare and use 

tether. (FF) 

CHOP,18 AAP, SRN/SBS–USA, SKW, 

and Advocates indicated their support 

for NHTSA’s improved lower 

attachment and tether labeling criteria 

as part of our effort to increase both 

awareness and proper use. SKW 

indicated that color coding of the tether 

could encourage more use. The agency 

is not aware of any data that suggest one 

way or the other whether or not color 

coding of the tether would be an 

effective way to encourage consumers to 

use the top tether more, especially 

absent similar coding in the vehicle. As 

such, we are adopting the proposed 

feature as the final feature. 

h. Durability of labels. (RF, FF, 

Booster) 

SKW and SRN/SBS–USA did not 

disagree with the agency’s proposal but 

suggested that we should also improve 

our evaluation of the label criteria by 

also evaluating whether a label will 

‘‘stand up to normal usage’’ and under 

different climate conditions. No 

suggestions were provided to the agency 

as to why the current evaluation is 

deficient or exactly what improvements 

could be made or how to otherwise 

evaluate them. As a result, our proposed 

feature is being adopted as the final 

feature. 

3. Evaluation of Instructions 

JPMA, SKW, and MDC indicated their 

concern that the agency is trying to 

reduce the consumer’s responsibility to 

read a child restraint’s accompanying 

instructions by relying too heavily on 

the information presented on CRS 

labels. The agency would like to stress 

that this is most certainly not our 

intention. While we feel that our 

proposed labeling upgrades may reduce 

the need for consumers to consult the 

manual for some daily restraint use, 

they do not serve to replace the need to 

read the accompanying manual. We also 

agree with SKW that CRS manufacturers 

need to better prioritize the information 

in the written instructions; however, we 

do not believe that it is a feature that 

can be rated easily under the proposed 

program. This issue requires further 

discussion with the CRS manufacturers 

to see how the readability of written 

instructions can be improved. 

a. Owner’s manual easy to find? (RF, 

FF, Booster) 

JPMA and SKW supported the 

inclusion of this feature as a part of 

NHTSA’s EOU program. They also 

mentioned that this feature should be of 

primary concern where the instruction 

manual is concerned and that the 

following feature pertaining to its 

storage system should be secondary. 

The agency agrees, and the proposed 

rating system structured these two 

features accordingly; this feature has a 

higher weighting factor than the 

following one does. As a result, the 

enhanced program will contain this 

feature as proposed. 

b. Evaluate the manual storage system 

access in this mode. (RF, FF, Booster) 

MDC and JPMA indicated concern 

with the agency’s inclusion of an 

upgraded manual storage system feature 

in the EOU rating. Each stated that 

particular styles of child restraints that 

would be difficult to redesign to achieve 

the highest rating. While the agency 

recognizes that certain styles of CRS 

have limited locations available for 

these devices, we have seen systems 

across restraint styles that can still 

receive the highest rating. We encourage 

manufacturers to develop innovative 

solutions to the challenge and note that 

consumers, in our experience, have 

indicated this is a feature they desire. 

The upgraded EOU program will 

contain this feature and its criteria as 

proposed. 

c. Clear indication of child’s size 

range. (RF, FF, Booster) 

No specific comments indicating 

concern over our proposal were 

received. As a result, our proposed 

feature is being adopted as the final 

feature. 

d. Are all methods of installation for 

this mode of use clearly indicated? (RF, 

FF, Booster) 

No specific comments indicating 

concern over our proposal were 

received. As a result, our proposed 

feature is being adopted as the final 

feature. 

e. Air bag/rear seat warning? (RF, FF, 

Booster) 

No specific comments indicating 

concern over our proposal were 

received, though SKW asked for 

clarification on whether the two 

concepts could be combined into one 

idea to reduce labeling. The agency 

would like to clarify that this feature 

only applies to the instruction manual; 

therefore, the labeling space 

considerations expressed by SKW are 

not an issue. As a result, our proposed 

feature is being adopted as the final 

feature. 

f. Instructions for routing seat belt. 

(RF, FF, Booster) 

The agency would like to clarify that 

this feature only applies to the 

instruction manual; therefore the 

labeling space considerations 

mentioned by SKW are not a concern. 

AAP supported the agency’s addition of 

criteria requiring child restraint 

manuals to include information about 

various types of seat belts, latch plates, 

and seat belt retractor systems. 

However, AAP cautioned that the 

agency should pay close attention to the 

clarity of language as the amount of 

information pertaining to these devices 

may be extensive. Advocates suggested 

NHTSA evaluate this information along 

with belt lock-off devices and their 

instructions for use. JPMA opposed the 

inclusion of this information as part of 

an EOU rating and stated that the 

information provided by child seat 

manufacturers on these items should be 

‘‘generic in nature, sending the caregiver 

to the vehicle owner manual for 

specifics.’’

The agency agrees that there is a 

definite need for consumers to consult 

their vehicle owner’s manuals when 

searching for specifics on their vehicle’s 

seat belts. The agency is not seeking to 

transfer the responsibility for defining 

vehicle equipment instructions to child 

restraint manufacturers. We do believe, 

however, that child restraint 

manufacturers have a responsibility to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

6268 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 

19The agency would like to clarify that the 

alignment portion of this feature is assessed 

independently of additional accessories such as 

body pillows and infant head inserts. 

define seat belt, latch plate, and 

retractor types that may be used 

correctly with their products and which 

may not. As a result, NHTSA will be 

maintaining this feature as it was 

proposed. Similarly, in light of the AAP 

and SKW concerns, the agency would 

like to work with the manufacturers and 

others so that the clarity, content, and 

type of information can be consistent 

from child restraint to child restraint. 

Finally, as the agency has a separate 

feature for rating belt lock-offs, there is 

no need to include the evaluation of 

these devices within this feature as well. 

g. Shows how to prepare & use lower 

attachments and tether. (RF, FF) 

CHOP, AAP, SRN/SBS–USA, and 

Advocates indicated support for 

NHTSA’s improved lower attachment 

and tether requirements as part of our 

efforts to increase both awareness and 

proper use. SRN/SBS–USA also 

suggested that NHTSA encourage an 

educational message about the benefits 

of tethers within the instruction 

manuals to reinforce their importance. 

The agency recognizes that this may be 

helpful but the agency is working with 

CRS manufacturers, child safety 

advocates, and vehicle manufacturers in 

the development of a new message and 

icon (that will be released shortly) to 

help promote the LATCH system which 

will partly address the tether-use issue. 

We also believe that CRS manufacturers 

will use this new messaging in their 

manual design as well as their own 

intuitive ideas to explore additional 

ways to promote tether use with their 

products. As such, we will be adopting 

this feature into the rating system as 

originally proposed. 

h. Information in written instructions 

and on labels match? (RF, FF, Booster) 

No specific comments were received. 

As a result, our proposed feature is 

being adopted as the final feature. 

4. Securing the Child 

The AAP and SKW indicated their 

support for the agency’s proposal to 

include a variety of new features in this 

category, including the new harness clip 

criteria, new harness buckle criteria, 

and ‘‘no-thread’’ harness systems. 

a. Is the restraint assembled & ready 

to use? (RF, FF, Booster) 

Advocates and SKW indicated their 

support for the agency in its decision to 

retain this feature as a part of its EOU 

ratings program. 

b. Does harness clip require 

threading? Is it labeled? (RF, FF) 

JPMA indicated concern over the 

agency’s proposal to encourage that 

harness clips are labeled with 

instructions for their correct use because 

of space concerns about the devices. 

AAP and SKW supported the agency’s 

addition of this feature to the program 

because of its potential safety benefits. 

The agency agrees with AAP and SKW. 

We believe that these potential safety 

benefits are worth encouraging. In 

addition, we have seen a variety of lowcost, space-conscious solutions that may 

be used to achieve the highest rating. As 

a result, the upgraded forms will 

contain this feature and its criteria as 

proposed. 

c. Evaluate the harness buckle style. 

(RF, FF) 

MDC and SKW indicated concern 

over the agency’s decision to include a 

feature to evaluate harness buckle style. 

MDC noted that the single-entry, or 

‘‘puzzle buckle,’’ has a safety advantage 

over other styles as they cannot be 

buckled without inserting all required 

pieces. SKW indicated that buckle style 

should be up to the consumer. The 

agency agrees with both of these 

commenters. The intent of this feature is 

merely to capture the distinction that 

dual entry buckles, which allow for a 

section of the harness to be buckled 

without the other, are relatively easier to 

use than ‘‘puzzle buckles.’’ Consumers 

have indicated to us the desire for the 

rating system to capture that difference. 

Similarly, as we indicated in our 

proposal, there are some ‘‘puzzle 

buckle’’ designs that will also score 

well. Finally, no evidence was provided 

by MDC to support the real-world 

advantage of ‘‘puzzle buckles.’’ As a 

result, the enhanced EOU forms will 

contain this feature and its criteria as 

they were proposed. 

d. Access to and use of harness 

adjustment system. (RF, FF) 

No specific comments indicating 

concern over our proposal was received. 

SKW did indicate that perhaps AAP, 

JPMA, SRN/SBS–USA, and others 

should get together to discuss and 

coordinate on a consolidated consumer 

guide which discussed different harness 

designs. If such a group is formed, we 

would like to participate. Our proposed 

feature is being adopted as the final 

feature. 

e. Number and adjustability of 

harness slots in shell and pad. (RF, FF) 

No specific comments indicating 

concern over our proposal were 

received. As a result, our proposed 

feature is being adopted as the final 

feature. 

f. Visibility & alignment of harness 

slots. (RF, FF) 

JPMA indicated concern that the 

agency was rating harness slot visibility 

in the presence of additional padding 

such as infant inserts and head 

pillows 19. The agency notes that as 

optional accessories not required for 

proper use, these items are not required 

to come attached to the child restraint 

in order to achieve the highest rating for 

the assembly-related EOU feature. The 

manufacturer has the option of leaving 

these items separate from the CRS in an 

effort to improve their rating for this 

feature; this is similar to how most child 

restraint manufacturers package other 

optional accessories such as cup 

holders. 

JPMA indicated that the harness slot 

visibility encouraged by this feature 

could have the unintended effect of 

creating overly wide harness slots in the 

child restraint market. We would like to 

clarify that the upgraded feature is 

merely just a combination of the two 

previous features. As such, there is no 

substantial change to this feature. The 

agency does not anticipate that the 

upgraded criteria will encourage 

harness slots of any different size than 

the current EOU program seeks to 

encourage. 

JPMA also proposed that the agency 

only require that ‘‘any foam between the 

pad and the molded seat should be in 

line; however, the sewn pad * * * 

should be judged acceptable provided 

the opening in the pad allows easy 

access to the slots in the foam and the 

seat back.’’ The agency believes that 

requiring all three components (shell, 

foam, and pad) to be aligned is ideal 

from an EOU perspective. As such, the 

agency has decided that the upgraded 

forms will contain the feature and 

criteria as it was previously proposed. 

g. Ease of conversion to this mode 

from all other possible modes of use. 

(RF, FF, Booster) 

No specific comments indicating 

concern over our proposal were 

received. SKW questioned whether we 

were encouraging another label. While 

FMVSS No. 213 does not require a label 

of this type, the agency has seen 

manufacturers electing to include 

information of this type on their 

products and would like to encourage 

others to do so. As long as the 

information is clear and concise, the 

agency has no opinion on whether it is 

included as part of another related label 

and we are finalizing this proposed 

feature. 

h. Ease of conversion from high back 

to no back. (Booster) 

No specific comments were received. 

As a result, our proposed feature is 

being adopted as the final feature. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6269 

i. Ease of adjusting the harness for 

child’s growth. (RF, FF) 

Extensive comments were received on 

the agency’s proposal to upgrade the 

criteria for this feature. AAP indicated 

support for the agency’s proposal to 

encourage no-thread harness systems. 

SKW, JPMA and MDC indicated 

concern over the upgraded feature for a 

variety of reasons. While JPMA 

acknowledged that a ‘‘no thread’’

harness offers ease of use benefits for 

consumers, they also indicated their 

belief that ‘‘simple, easy to rethread 

harness design is still a very viable 

design.’’ However, they, along with 

SKW, cautioned the agency that the 

higher costs associated with these 

systems may have the unintended effect 

of limiting options for consumers who 

must include cost as a factor in their 

child restraint purchasing decisions. 

The agency does not disagree with these 

statements about rethreadable 

harnesses. The agency expects that the 

majority of harnessed child restraints in 

the near future will continue to utilize 

a rethreadable harness system design 

because of a variety of factors, including 

cost. 

However, the agency also believes 

that the no-thread systems can be an 

important device in helping decrease 

child restraint misuse. Rethreading a 

harness system can be a complicated 

task, introducing a variety of gross 

misuses (such as misplaced or 

misrouted hardware and straps) that 

would otherwise be avoided if replaced 

with a no-thread system. In addition, 

revising the previous harness 

adjustment criteria for this feature has 

the added benefit of further improving 

the robustness of the system. Previously, 

raters were asked to rate rethreadable 

harness designs as either a ‘‘B’’ or a ‘‘C’’

by distinguishing whether the slots were 

‘‘large’’ or ‘‘small.’’ Under the proposed 

criteria, raters no longer have to 

distinguish between relative slot sizes 

since all rethreadable systems will be 

assigned a ‘‘C’’ for that feature. In light 

of these reasons, the upgraded rating 

forms will contain this feature and its 

criteria as we proposed. 

j. Ease of reassembly after cleaning. 

(RF, FF, Booster) 

No specific comments indicating 

concern over our proposal were 

received. As a result, our proposed 

feature is being adopted as the final 

feature. 

k. Ease of adjusting/removing shield. 

(RF, FF) 

No specific comments indicating 

concern over our proposal were 

received. As a result, our proposed 

feature is being adopted as the final 

feature. 

5. Vehicle Installation Features 

a. Ease of routing vehicle belt or 

flexible lower attachments in this mode. 

(RF, FF) 

No specific comments were received. 

As a result, our proposed feature is 

being adopted as the final feature. 

b. Can vehicle belt or LATCH 

attachments interfere with harness? (RF, 

FF) 

No specific comments indicating 

concern over our proposal were 

received. However, SKW did question 

whether this was more of a convenience 

issue rather than a safety issue. We 

believe that a seatbelt or a lower 

attachment strap routed through a 

harness can pose a safety issue if that 

misrouting prevents a secure fit from 

being achieved. Seatbelt or flexible 

lower attachment straps tangled with a 

harness can prevent a secure fit to the 

vehicle and child. As such, our 

proposed feature is being adopted as the 

final feature. 

c. Evaluate the tether adjustment. (FF) 

No specific comments indicating 

concern over our proposal were 

received. However, SKW indicated this 

feature should also highlight those 

products that encourage their use. We 

agree and think that our messaging 

efforts along with some of the upgraded 

features we have discussed will help to 

encourage their use. In addition, this 

concept is already reflected in some 

more appropriate features, such as the 

increased encouragement of tether 

labeling on the child restraint and in the 

manual. As a result, the agency will not 

be incorporating this concept into this 

specific feature and will adopt this 

feature as proposed. 

d. Ease of attaching/removing infant 

carrier from its base. (RF) 

No specific comments indicating 

concern over our proposal were 

received. As a result, our proposed 

feature is being adopted as the final 

feature. 

e. Ease of use of any belt positioning 

devices. (RF, FF, Booster) 

Comments made by Advocates, JPMA, 

and MDC suggested a need for the 

agency to further clarify this feature. We 

have never evaluated, nor do we intend 

to evaluate, the ease of using a locking 

clip through EOU as these devices are 

not specific to the design of the child 

restraint in question. The agency 

recognizes the need for these devices in 

the marketplace and does not want to 

discourage manufacturers from 

providing them to consumers. 

For ease of discussion, the agency has 

used the term ‘‘belt positioning’’ to 

generically represent any belt 

positioning device found on (integral to) 

a child restraint. These often vary by the 

type of restraint. For RF and FF modes, 

this feature has traditionally rated belt 

lock-off devices that may be found on 

the restraint. For booster modes, this 

feature evaluates the shoulder belt 

positioning guide. 

AAP and SKW indicated support for 

NHTSA’s decision to upgrade the belt 

positioning feature. MDC and JPMA, on 

the other hand, indicated concern over 

NHTSA’s proposal to upgrade this 

feature. JPMA stated that rating the 

‘‘ease of use’’ of these devices is in itself 

‘‘vague and subjective’’ which makes it 

‘‘difficult for CRS manufacturers to use 

in evaluating their products.’’ Both MDC 

and JPMA indicated their belief that 

including the feature in an EOU rating 

would discourage manufacturers from 

installing the devices. Under both the 

original and upgraded rating programs, 

only those child restraints with these 

devices are subject to rating under this 

feature; those that do not have the 

devices are not rated under this feature. 

This is consistent with NHTSA’s 

practice for rating other relatively 

uncommon devices like overhead 

shields. Given that a similar beltpositioning feature existed on the 

previous forms, the agency does not feel 

its inclusion in the upgraded system 

will prevent manufacturers from 

installing these devices. The agency also 

maintains its position that providing 

instructions for using these devices 

directly on the child restraint is ideal 

from a usability standpoint. Therefore, 

the EOU forms will contain this feature 

and its criteria as proposed in the 

previous Notice. 

f. Does the belt positioning device 

allow slack? Can the belt slip? (Booster) 

No specific comments were received. 

As a result, our proposed feature is 

being adopted as the final feature. 

g. Evaluate child restraint’s angle 

feedback device and recline capabilities 

on the carrier and base. (RF) 

In response to JPMA, the agency 

would like to clarify that ‘‘three levels 

of recline’’ is an equivalent term to 

‘‘three adjustment levels.’’ The agency 

would also like to clarify the 

requirement for separate feedback 

devices as it pertains to infant seats. The 

feature does not require that one device 

is installed on the base and another is 

installed on the carrier. The CRS 

manufacturer has the option of 

installing the device on either the base 

or the carrier; the agency believes 

however, that if the carrier may be 

installed alone, that device should be 

located on the carrier. 

AAP and SKW indicated support for 

the agency’s upgraded feature 

encouraging separate recline feedback 

devices on child restraints that may be 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

6270 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 

20 JPMA noted that the ‘‘indicator line’’ style of 

recline feedback can be used regardless of the 

surface a vehicle is parked on, while feedback 

devices must be used on level ground. 

21NHTSA–2007–26833–0024 

22NHTSA–2006–25344–0019.1 

used rear-facing. AAP further added that 

the agency should encourage CRS 

manufacturers to include information to 

assist caregivers in their proper use and 

importance. AAP also suggested that the 

agency consider encouraging 

manufacturers to provide additional 

guidance in the instructions if the 

written restraint’s built-in device cannot 

achieve the proper recline angle. JPMA 

indicated concern over the inclusion of 

a feature encouraging a separate 

feedback device on RF child restraints, 

citing their additional cost as a 

drawback as well as their limitations in 

use.20

The agency believes that the ability of 

these devices to provide feedback to the 

user makes them preferred from an ease 

of use standpoint. The agency also 

believes that ‘‘indicator lines’’ printed 

on child restraint labels have an 

increased tendency to go unnoticed and 

perhaps unused when compared to 

separate feedback devices. The agency is 

aware that some child restraints with 

multiple recline levels may still have 

difficulty achieving the proper recline 

angle in certain vehicles; however we 

agree with AAP that this information is 

useful for consumers. Though we have 

not included a feature to evaluate this 

under the upgraded rating system, it has 

been the agency’s experience that the 

vast majority of manufacturers already 

include information of this type in their 

instruction manuals. The agency hopes 

that by encouraging appropriate child 

restraints to come with built-in recline 

mechanisms and feedback devices, we 

can also help reduce the need for 

consumers to install child restraints 

with accessories such as pool noodles or 

rolled towels. As a result, the upgraded 

forms will contain this feature and its 

criteria as proposed. 

h. Do the lower attachments require 

twisting to remove from vehicle? (RF, 

FF) 

AAP and SKW indicated support for 

NHTSA’s efforts to rate lower 

attachments. AAP also mentioned a 

preference that agency require ‘‘pushon’’ connectors. SKW indicated their 

belief that the criteria might be too 

restrictive and prohibit future designs. 

JPMA opposes the agency’s proposal to 

rate lower attachment style under the 

EOU rating program and recommend 

that we instead increase education 

efforts about the system. They 

commented that the removal of lower 

attachments from the vehicle is an 

‘‘interface issue between the CRS and 

the vehicle’’ and that vehicle 

characteristics play a part in the 

operation as well. NHTSA agrees that 

the ease of attaching and removing 

lower attachments from vehicle anchors 

is partly dependent on the vehicle and, 

as JPMA suggests, some interface 

between the two. We do not believe that 

our criteria are too restrictive and feel 

they are sufficiently broad enough to 

capture current designs as well as allow 

for future designs. Similarly, the agency 

will continually update the criteria, as 

needed, to capture new designs or new 

information as it becomes available in 

the marketplace. 

It has been NHTSA’s experience, as 

well as Transport Canada’s,21 that there 

are EOU benefits specific to lower 

attachment type as well. CHOP 

indicated their support for any EOU 

feature that encourages the 

manufacturer to indicate lower anchor 

and tether orientation information on 

the attachments themselves. The agency 

agrees this would be useful and could 

be achieved by having common 

symbols. However, the agency could not 

develop objective criteria within the 

time period of the assessment to rate a 

feature of this type; as a result, the 

upgraded forms will assess this feature 

only to the extent that the agency 

proposed in the Notice. 

i. Storage for the LATCH system when 

not in use? (RF, FF) 

No specific comments were received. 

As a result, our proposed feature is 

being adopted as the final feature. 

j. Indication on the child restraint for 

where to put the carrier handle? (RF) No 

specific comments were received. As a 

result, our proposed feature is being 

adopted as the final feature. 

C. Rating System 

SKW, IMMI and SRN/SBS–USA 

supported the agency’s decision to 

present EOU ratings on five levels of 

evaluation rather than three.22

Advocates believed that creating five 

rating levels, regardless of whether stars 

or an alternative icon is used, is 

‘‘counterproductive’’ as ‘‘the agency has 

already made a case for deleting the 

middle ‘‘B’’ category for certain * * *

features to make the resulting ratings 

more separate and distinct.’’ The agency 

would like to clarify that its primary 

intent in removing most of the ‘‘B’’

feature ratings was to strengthen the 

importance of certain individual 

features by rating on their presence 

(‘‘A’’) or their absence (‘‘C’’). This has 

the added benefit of increasing the 

robustness of the ratings and, as the 

Advocates stated, can make the ratings 

more separate and distinct. However, 

we believe that the overall scores will 

likely be more varied than they have 

been in previous years simply because 

of the program’s revised and more 

comprehensive content. The agency 

does not feel that the decision to reduce 

some features’’ criteria from three to two 

prohibits separating the ratings into five 

levels. 

MDC proposed that the agency 

develop an alternative method of 

restraints that takes into account the 

higher costs associated with some 

features. The EOU ratings have no 

precedence for weighting results based 

on cost; as there is no direct correlation 

between price and rating we do not 

believe that lower cost seats are 

somehow prohibited from achieving top 

ratings. However, we will monitor the 

costs of child restraints and are 

interested in any information regarding 

whether the price of child restraints 

increase due to manufacturers’’ placing 

more higher-cost features on the 

restraints to achieve a higher EOU rating 

and what that impact will be on 

consumers with lower economic means. 

Advocates suggested that the agency 

‘‘grade on the curve,’’ or essentially rank 

products against each other. We believe 

that the design of the EOU program and 

the rating of features provide a more 

meaningful way for consumers to 

compare child seats than a ranking 

system. A ranking system, as proposed 

by the Advocates, would imply a level 

of certainty that the agency does not 

believe exists for the ease of use 

program. As such, the agency does not 

see a need to incorporate this concept 

into the rating scheme. 

SRN/SBS–USA suggested that the 

agency provide more information on its 

website about the features each child 

restraint has. They noted that this 

information could be used for 

comparison purposes across similar 

seats as well as provide a way for 

NHTSA to highlight features that may 

convey benefits in a crash. While 

NHTSA’s EOU rating system is 

somewhat based on the presence of 

certain features, we also often assess the 

labeling, instructions, and ease of 

actually using such features. Merely 

highlighting the presence or absence of 

a feature without assessing its Ease of 

Use, we believe, would not be a robust 

enough criteria for most features. 

Similarly, it is not clear to the agency 

what ‘‘crash’’ features above those 

already required by the FMVSS No. 213 

standard would warrant inclusion in the 

program. We are aware of several 

manufacturers beginning to market 

products as side impact tested but the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6271 

23See Docket NHTSA–2006–25344. 

24NHTSA–2006–25344–0016. 

agency has not fully evaluated these 

products to determine if they would 

indeed result in safety benefits in the 

real world. As such, it would be 

premature to further encourage these 

types of ‘‘features’’ until they can be 

assessed as to their actual benefit. As 

such, we will not be incorporating this 

concept into the presentation of EOU 

ratings. However, we do note that we 

are upgrading the presentation of the 

information on the EOU website and 

will complete that work later this year. 

SRN/SBS–USA suggested that the 

agency consider ‘‘failing’’ child 

restraints that do not have certain styles 

of features. In addition, they suggested 

that ‘‘extra points’’ be awarded for the 

presence of certain other features. The 

agency believes that the structure of the 

current rating system incorporates to 

some extent both of these concepts. 

While we do not ‘‘fail’’ or award ‘‘extra 

points’’ to a restraint based on the 

presence or absence of feature, we do 

evaluate and weight the features based 

on objective criteria which do take into 

account the presence of a feature. As 

such, we do not believe that it is 

necessary to include additional ‘‘points’’

that would modify a child restraints 

score. It should also be noted that all of 

the features suggested by SRN/SBS–

USA as items the agency should use for 

‘‘failing’’ and awarding ‘‘extra points’’

are being incorporated into the 

upgraded rating system. 

AAP and SKW indicated support for 

NHTSA’s intention to use stars as ‘‘they 

are highly recognizable and 

understandable.’’ IMMI, MDC, 

Advocates, DJG, Graco and JPMA 

indicated concern over the agency’s 

proposal to use a 5-star system to 

convey the child restraint ease of use 

ratings to consumers. These commenters 

indicated their belief that the use of 

stars to present EOU ratings could be 

misleading to consumers who may 

associate stars exclusively with 

NHTSA’s vehicle crashworthiness 

ratings. The five commenters indicated 

that consumers would mistakenly 

believe they were child restraint safety 

ratings rather than an evaluation of how 

easy the child seat was to use. JPMA 

submitted a variety of alternative icons 

they believed would better serve to 

convey these ratings to the public. 

Advocates suggested that the agency 

maintain its current letter grading 

system for presenting the upgraded EOU 

ratings to consumers. They noted that 

the agency could add ‘‘D’’ and ‘‘F’’ to 

the previous ‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’,’’C’’ letter grading 

scheme in its effort to divide the ratings 

into five levels. In addition, Advocates 

felt it would be beneficial to include an 

‘‘F’’ criteria to rate the worst features. 

The agency cautions that this suggestion 

is somewhat arbitrary. The concepts 

contained in the features and their 

rating criteria are designed to 

encompass the entire spectrum of 

products in the market. In many cases 

it is difficult to develop more than three 

levels of objective criteria for many 

criteria, given current product designs. 

Similarly, we do not believe there are 

enough levels to include ‘‘F’’ criteria 

throughout the forms. 

In addition, none of the commenters 

provided any evidence that consumers 

would make these purported 

assumptions about the use of stars, and 

subsequent consumer research 

conducted by the agency supports our 

proposal. In order to determine whether 

star ratings could be used to 

successfully present EOU child restraint 

ratings to the public, the agency 

conducted mall intercepts of consumers 

in two U.S. cities.23 The data collected 

from this study, while not statistically 

projectable to the entire U.S. market, 

allowed the agency to gain valuable 

insight to consumer perspective. The 

study found that an overwhelming 

majority of respondents preferred stars 

(48%) or found them equally as effective 

(30%) as presenting the ratings in letter 

form. Many indicated their preference 

for the system as being, among other 

things, ‘‘more familiar,’’ ‘‘visually easier 

to compare,’’ and ‘‘more user-friendly.’’

In addition, only two respondents out of 

the two hundred participants surveyed 

felt the agency’s use of stars for both 

vehicle crashworthiness ratings and 

child restraint ease of use ratings could 

be misconstrued. In light of this study, 

and lack of data to the contrary, the 

agency is going forward with its 

proposal to use a 5-star rating system to 

present EOU ratings to consumers. 

Advocates also commented that the 

method used to calculate the ratings was 

‘‘elaborate and overly complicated’’ and 

that the division of ‘‘star scores’’ is 

‘‘arbitrary.’’ The agency would like to 

restate that no changes were made to the 

method used to calculate the weighted 

category or overall averages from the 

original EOU program, which was 

adopted from a similar program created 

by the Insurance Corporation of British 

Columbia (ICBC). In addition, the 

agency does not believe that the star 

rating divisions are arbitrary. Our 

reasoning for establishing both the 

category and overall star ratings was 

outlined extensively in the November 

23, 2007 notice.24 As such, we are 

implementing the star rating break 

points and calculation methodology as 

outlined in that document. 

D. Vehicle Rating System 

SKW, JPMA, and SRN/SBS–USA 

indicated support for NHTSA’s efforts to 

develop a rating based on vehicle 

features that facilitate easier child 

restraint installation. The agency agrees 

and looks forward to working with 

JPMA, vehicle manufacturers, and 

others to develop this program. 

E. Cost and Retail Concerns 

SKW, MDC, JPMA, and Graco 

indicated their belief that there is a 

potential for features encouraged under 

the new rating system to add costs to 

child restraints. They also expressed 

concern about potentially low ratings 

under the upgraded system and how 

that would affect retail demands for 

only the highest rated child restraints. 

With decreasing demands for certain 

products, MDC, JPMA, and Graco also 

believe it will affect the ability for CRS 

manufacturers to offer some basic, costeffective child restraints that offer the 

same dynamic protection as many of the 

higher-priced models. All indicated 

their belief that this could have negative 

consequences with respect to overall 

child passenger safety efforts if fewer 

consumers are able to afford restraints. 

In addition, they believed it is contrary 

to the agency’s goal of protecting every 

child. 

The agency is aware that some of the 

features included in the upgrade have 

the potential to add cost to child 

restraints. However, the agency believes 

there are a number of no- and low-cost 

solutions (further labeling and 

instruction manual improvements) that 

can be used in an effort to fulfill some 

of the upgraded criteria and improve 

product ratings. The agency received 

similar concerns about decreasing 

product demands after proposing the 

original EOU program as well, and its 

experience has not indicated a 

reduction in the number of products 

available to consumers. In fact, nearly 

each year the number of products 

available for evaluation by the agency 

increases. 

AAP commented that the move to a 

star-based rating system allows the 

manufacturer further opportunity to 

promote products over the former letterbased ratings system, and the agency 

concurs with this. Given the results of 

recent consumer intercepts, we believe 

that the decision to use stars to relate 

EOU ratings offers manufacturers 

renewed marketing potential for their 

products to both consumers and 

retailers, especially in more competitive 

market sectors. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

6272 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 

25NHTSA–2007–28934–0001. 

F. Other 

AAP suggested that the agency 

include criteria that would encourage 

manufacturers to design products that 

may ‘‘be used for long periods in several 

modes of use.’’ While the agency agrees 

that restraints designed to accommodate 

taller, older, and heavier children have 

obvious safety implications, we find it 

difficult to develop a case for including 

a feature of this type in an EOU rating. 

AAP also urged the agency to increase 

its educational efforts surrounding the 

program, especially in light of the 

agency’s proposal to move to a 5-star 

rating system. They noted that ‘‘many 

families simply are not aware that the 

Ease of Use System exists, and so do not 

benefit from the information it 

provides.’’ NHTSA is planning to 

increase its educational efforts with 

respect to the EOU program and 

believes that our proposed upgrades 

offer an opportunity to improve its 

popularity. We will continue working 

with organizations such as JPMA, AAP, 

and a variety of retailers in order to 

accomplish this. The agency’s other 

efforts, such as our recent work to 

develop a LATCH educational 

message,25 also serve as channels for 

increasing consumer awareness of a 

variety of child passenger safety issues. 

SRN/SBS–USA suggested the agency 

also ‘‘rate highly any product which 

recommends for use of tether above 40 

lbs.’’ While it is conceivable that there 

would be benefits for a child to use a 

top-tether above 40 lbs, even if a child 

restraint’s tether attachment were to 

suggests its use over 40 lbs, the user 

would have to also consult his or her 

vehicle owner’s manual to ascertain 

whether the vehicle tether anchor is 

rated higher than 40 lbs. Therefore, 

giving a CRS credit for a feature that 

might not provide any use to the 

consumer in his or her vehicle could be 

considered misleading. Similarly, a 

working group of CRS and vehicle 

manufacturers are looking at this and 

other structural features related to 

LATCH. We believe that this issue 

would be better addressed in the context 

of that work as opposed to the EOU 

rating program. As a result, the agency 

does not believe this is an appropriate 

feature to include in the upgraded rating 

system at this time. 

SRN/SBS–USA suggested that while 

boosters are not required to come 

LATCH-equipped, the agency include a 

feature in its EOU ratings to evaluate 

those that allow for the use of this 

equipment with these restraints. Lower 

attachments and tethers can help to 

retain a booster in the vehicle if the 

restraint is unoccupied; SRN/SBS–USA 

also noted that this can help stabilize 

the restraint in the vehicle when 

children are seating themselves. The 

agency does not believe that we have 

enough information about this issue to 

include it in the upgraded EOU rating 

system. We believe that the 

encouragement of LATCH hardware on 

boosters warrant further analysis and 

consideration. Until it is explored 

further, especially to determine if there 

are any unintended consequences from 

using the LATCH system in this 

manner, the agency will not be 

incorporating this feature into the EOU 

ratings. 

Graco suggested that the agency take 

into account the improved usability of 

child restraints that voluntarily provide 

bi-lingual (English/Spanish) product 

labels. They also noted that the 

upgraded rating system may force them 

to remove Spanish-language labels in 

order to meet the new requirements. At 

this time the agency will not examine 

labeling content presented in other 

languages. Although Spanish is the most 

common second language seen on child 

restraints, the agency comes across 

labels in other languages as well. The 

agency would like to clarify that while 

the content will not be evaluated at this 

time, as long as the graphics, coloring, 

and overall feel of the Spanish-language 

labeling is a ‘‘mirror image’’ of the 

English labels found on the opposite 

side, the child restraint will receive 

credit for related features. For example, 

the upgraded ratings contain a feature 

that encourages the belt path to be 

labeled on both sides of the restraint. 

One side of the restraint may contain 

Spanish text and the other may contain 

English text. As long as the graphics and 

coloring for the label are visually 

analogous, the child restraint would 

receive the highest rating for that 

feature. It has been the agency’s 

experience that this is the approach CRS 

manufacturers normally take when 

labeling their products using two 

languages. 

CHOP suggested that the agency seek 

to include a feature that encourages 

manufacturers to install dual adjustors 

on flexible lower attachment straps in 

order to reduce opportunities for misuse 

from loose installations. The agency 

explored opportunities to include this 

concept as a feature in the proposed 

ratings, but found it difficult to develop 

enough objective criteria to distinguish 

between current products on the market. 

The agency expects that the improved 

labeling criteria and the emphasis on 

improved conversion instructions 

between modes of use can help to 

alleviate this problem in the absence of 

an additional feature. CHOP also 

commented on their preference for rigid 

LATCH systems, and urged the agency 

to reconsider requiring these systems. 

NHTSA has not changed its position 

with regards to requiring these systems. 

However, we note that a number of 

upgraded features were included to 

continue providing incentive for 

manufacturers who wish to incorporate 

these systems in their products. 

V. Conclusion 

NHTSA has decided to move forward 

with the upgraded Ease of Use child 

restraint rating program as presented in 

this notice of final decision. The agency 

believes that improvements made to the 

program will not only recognize easier 

to install features, specifically for the 

LATCH hardware, but they will also 

provide motivation for manufacturers to 

continue to design child restraints with 

features that are intuitive and easier to 

use. The agency believes this approach 

provides incentives to manufacturers 

while at the same time providing 

consumers with useful information. In 

addition, this upgrade allows us to 

recognize design features and products 

that have entered the market since the 

program was developed. Furthermore, 

our changes to the numerical ranges that 

determine the ratings will make the 

highest scores harder to achieve, which 

we believe, will spur product 

improvements and innovations that will 

enhance ease of use and ultimately the 

safety of child passengers. In addition to 

making high ratings harder to achieve, 

the agency is also changing the way it 

conveys these ratings to the public. EOU 

ratings will now be presented to 

consumers using NHTSA’s familiar star 

rating system, which contains five 

levels. The agency believes that the 

additional levels of differentiation will 

further aid consumers in their 

purchasing decisions and add to the 

robustness of the rating system. 

We believe that this consumer 

information program must undergo the 

changes outlined in this document to 

continue encouraging child restraint 

manufacturers to develop and maintain 

features that make it easier for 

consumers to use and install child 

restraints. The agency believes that the 

presence of easier to use features on 

child restraints leads to an increase in 

their correct use, which thereby results 

in increased safety for child passengers. 

NHTSA believes that these changes 

should be implemented as soon as 

possible and as such, these program 

enhancements are proposed for 

inclusion in the 2008 ratings program. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6273 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN01FE08.009</GPH>
6274 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN01FE08.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6275 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN01FE08.011</GPH>
6276 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN01FE08.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6277 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN01FE08.013</GPH>
6278 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN01FE08.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6279 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN01FE08.015</GPH>
6280 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN01FE08.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6281 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN01FE08.017</GPH>
6282 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN01FE08.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6283 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN01FE08.019</GPH>
6284 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN01FE08.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6285 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN01FE08.021</GPH>
6286 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN01FE08.022</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6287 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN01FE08.023</GPH>
6288 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN01FE08.024</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6289 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN01FE08.025</GPH>
6290 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN01FE08.026</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6291 

1BNSF was granted authority to operate the line 

in The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway 

Company—Trackage Rights Exemption—Illinois 

Central Railroad Company, STB Finance Docket 

No. 33765 (STB served June 23, 1999). 

Issued on: January 28, 2008. 

Nicole R. Nason, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 08–451 Filed 1–30–08; 10:30 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Docket No. AB–6 (Sub-No. 462X)] 

BNSF Railway Company—

Discontinuance of Trackage Rights 

Exemption—in Cook County, IL 

On January 14, 2008, BNSF Railway 

Company (BNSF) filed with the Surface 

Transportation Board (Board) a petition 

under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption 

from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 

to discontinue overhead trackage rights 

over a 17.8-mile line of railroad owned 

by Illinois Central Railroad Company, 

between milepost 1.7 at Chicago, and 

milepost 19.5 at Harvey, in Cook 

County, IL.1 The line traverses U.S. 

Postal Service Zip Codes 60426, 60605, 

60609, 60615, 60616, 60620, 60621, 

60643, and 60653. 

The interest of railroad employees 

will be protected by the conditions set 

forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.—

Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 

(1979). 

By issuance of this notice, the Board 

is instituting an exemption proceeding 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final 

decision will be issued by May 2, 2008. 

Because this is a discontinuance 

proceeding and not an abandonment, 

trail use/rail banking and public use 

conditions are not appropriate. 

Similarly, no environmental or historic 

documentation is required under 49 

CFR 1105.6(c)(2) and 1105.8(b). 

Any offer of financial assistance 

(OFA) for subsidy under 49 CFR 

1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 

10 days after service of a decision 

granting the petition for exemption. 

Each OFA must be accompanied by the 

filing fee, which is currently set at 

$1,300. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). 

All filings in response to this notice 

must refer to STB Docket No. AB–6 

(Sub-No. 462X) and must be sent to: (1) 

Surface Transportation Board, 395 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001; and (2) Karl Morell, 1455 F Street, 

NW., Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005. 

Replies to the petition are due on or 

before February 21, 2008. 

Persons seeking further information 

concerning discontinuance procedures 

may contact the Board’s Office of 

Congressional and Public Services at 

(202) 245–0230 or refer to the full 

abandonment and discontinuance 

regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. 

Questions concerning environmental 

issues may be directed to the Board’s 

Section of Environmental Analysis 

(SEA) at (202) 245–0305. [Assistance for 

the hearing impaired is available 

through the Federal Information Relay 

Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.] 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at http:// 

www.stb.dot.gov. 

Decided: January 23, 2008. 

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Anne K. Quinlan, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–1652 Filed 1–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

Increase in Mileage Reimbursement 

Rate and Deductible Amounts in the 

Beneficiary Travel Program 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice is to inform the 

public of the Secretary’s decision to 

increase the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) Beneficiary Travel program 

mileage reimbursement rate and 

deductible amounts under 38 U.S.C. 111 

for travel of eligible beneficiaries in 

connection with VA health care and for 

other purposes. Effective February 1, 

2008, the beneficiary travel mileage 

reimbursement rate is increased from 11 

cents to 28.5 cents based upon mileage 

traveled to or from a Department facility 

or other place in connection with 

vocational rehabilitation, counseling 

required by the Secretary pursuant to 38 

U.S.C. chapter 34, ‘‘Educational 

Assistance’’ or chapter 35, ‘‘Survivors’

and Dependents’ Educational 

Assistance’’ or for the purpose of 

examination, treatment or care. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tony A. Guagliardo, Director, Business 

Policy, Chief Business Office (16), VA 

Central Office, 810 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, D.C. 20420, (202) 

254–0406. (This is not a toll-free 

number) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with 38 U.S.C. 111, 

‘‘Payments or allowances for beneficiary 

travel’’ the Secretary has authority to 

establish rates for payment of mileage 

reimbursement for certain eligible 

beneficiaries. Funding for beneficiary 

travel mileage reimbursement comes 

directly from the annual health care 

appropriation and General Operating 

Expenses covers the chapter 34 and 

chapter 35 reimbursement. Funds 

expended for beneficiary travel decrease 

those available for direct medical care. 

Accordingly, due to the steady rise in 

patient workload and the associated 

increased demand for VA medical care 

resources, the beneficiary travel mileage 

reimbursement rate has not been 

changed since 1978. The 2008 

Appropriations Act provided funding in 

VA’s health care appropriation to 

increase the beneficiary travel mileage 

reimbursement rate to 28.5 cents per 

mile, which is the current 

reimbursement rate for Federal 

employees if a Government-owned 

vehicle is available. The Secretary has 

thus made the decision to increase VA’s 

beneficiary travel mileage 

reimbursement rate to 28.5 cents per 

mile. In making this decision, the 

Secretary also reviewed and analyzed 

other factors including the increase in 

the cost of depreciation of vehicles, 

gasoline and oil, maintenance, 

accessories, parts, and tires, insurances 

and taxes; the availability of and time 

required for public transportation; and 

the other mileage allowances authorized 

for Federal employees. 

Title 38 U.S.C. 111(c)(5) requires VA 

to adjust proportionately the beneficiary 

travel mileage reimbursement rate 

deductibles for travel in relation to 

examination, treatment or care 

(currently $3 one way; $6 round trip, 

with a maximum of $18 per calendar 

month) effective on the date of a 

beneficiary travel mileage 

reimbursement rate change. Therefore, 

based on the increase of the beneficiary 

travel mileage reimbursement rate the 

deductible is adjusted proportionately 

to $7.77 per one way trip; $15.54 for a 

round trip; with a maximum deductible 

of $46.62 per calendar month. These 

deductibles may be waived in 

accordance with 38 CFR 17.144(b) when 

their imposition would cause severe 

financial hardship. 

Approved: January 24, 2008 

James B. Peake, 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. E8–1641 Filed 1–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES