EOU Final Notice NVS January 2008.pdf

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.

Table of Contents

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

1 Section 14 (g) of the TREAD Act, November 1, 2000, Pub. L. 106–414, 114 Stat. 1800

(NHTSA) issued a final rule2 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

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 correctly installed in the vehicle as well as properly adjusted to the child. A child restraint that is easier to use should theoretically have a lower misuse rate.

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

sought comment on proposed changes to the numerical break points (e.g. ranges) used to assign different ratings to the restraints in 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)

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. 2135, “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)

5 See 49CFR571.213

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.

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 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 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.

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

6 All commenters except for SNR/SBS-USA and CHOP addressed this issue.

7 See 49 CFR 571.213

MDC8 and JPMA9 indicated that the upgraded ratings prevent certain types of basic, low cost child restraints from achieving the highest possible rating. DJG10 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.

2. Timing of Upgraded Program

JPMA, DJG, and Graco11 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 contractor12 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

8 NHTSA-2006-25344-0020.1

9 NHTSA-2006-25344-0024.1

10 NHTSA-2006-25344-0025.1

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.

concerns but believes it is in the best interest of the consumer to provide the most updated 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 inception13.

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

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

1. Assembly

SKW15, Advocates16 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

15 NHTSA-2006-25344-0026

16 NHTSA-2006-25344-0022.1

17 NHTSA-2006-25344-0021.1

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.

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 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)

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

18NHTSA-2006-25344-0023

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, 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 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?