Consumer Information; Rating Program for Child Restraint Systems, 6261-6291 [08-451]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6261-6291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-451]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 14 (g) of the TREAD Act, November 1, 2000, Pub. L. 
106-414, 114 Stat. 1800.
    \2\ 67 FR 67448, Docket NHTSA-2001-10053.
    \3\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 72 FR 3103, January 24, 20007. Full transcript can be found 
in Docket Number NHTSA-2007-26833-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 6262]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 49 CFR 571.213
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 6264]]

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 re-thread 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 multi-
mode 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

[[Page 6265]]

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-to-use 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ All commenters except for SNR/SBS-USA and CHOP addressed 
this issue.
    \7\ See 49 CFR 571.213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
    MDC \8\ 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 multi-mode 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NHTSA-2006-25344-0020.1.
    \9\ NHTSA-2006-25344-0024.1.
    \10\ NHTSA-2006-25344-0025.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NHTSA-2006-25344-0027.
    \12\ To 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 6266]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The 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.
    \14\ NHTSA-2006-25344-0017.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NHTSA-2006-25344-0026.
    \16\ NHTSA-2006-25344-0022.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NHTSA-2006-25344-0021.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
so-called ``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

[[Page 6267]]

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 belt-positioning 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NHTSA-2006-25344-0023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 6268]]

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 low-cost, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 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 de