[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 225 (Friday, November 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65804-65833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-22912]


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

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, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In response to Section 14(g) of the Transportation Recall 
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration established a child 
restraint consumer information rating program. This program conducts a 
yearly assessment on the ease of using add-on child restraints and 
provides these ratings to the public. The program has been successful 
in encouraging child restraint manufacturers to improve their harness 
designs, labels, and manuals such that most now receive the top rating. 
However, some recent research, as well as a February 2007 public 
meeting held by the agency on the Lower Anchors and Tethers for 
Children (LATCH) system has indicated that some features that make 
child restraints easier to use are not being captured by the current 
program. Additionally, the agency wants to make sure that the program 
continues to provide useful information to the public. In an effort to 
further enhance the program and provide consumers with updated 
information we are proposing some new features and new rating criteria, 
and to adjust the scoring system. The agency anticipates that these 
program changes will result in more child restraints being used 
correctly by continuing to encourage manufacturers to install more 
features that help make the restraints easier to use.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that the 
Docket receives them not later than December 24, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket site. 
Please note, if you are submitting petitions electronically as a PDF 
(Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using an 
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency 
to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.
     Fax: 1-202-493-0402
     Mail: Docket Management; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 
20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New 
Jersey Ave., SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

[[Page 65805]]

(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:
I. Introduction
II. The Unrestrained Child
III. Child Restraint EOU Programs Worldwide
    A. Australia
    B. Consumers Union
    C. EuroNCAP
    D. Japan NCAP
IV. Overview of the Current Ease of Use Rating Program
V. Enhancing the Ease of Use Program
    A. LATCH Misuse Survey
    B. LATCH Public Meeting
    1. Labeling and Instructions
    2. Lower Attachment Design
    3. Other Comments
    C. Comprehensive Study of the Ease of Use Program
    D. Feedback from Current Ease of Use Raters
VI. Analysis and Agency Decision on Suggested Program Changes
    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
    C. Other Issues
VII. Rating Vehicles Based on Child Restraint Installation Features
VIII. Conclusion, Star-System, and Effective Date
IX. Public Comment
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

    Through the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and 
Documentation (TREAD) Act, Congress directed the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a child restraint 
safety rating system that was practicable and understandable (Section 
14 (g) of the TREAD Act, November 1, 2000, Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 
1800) and that would help consumers to make informed decisions when 
purchasing child restraints. In response to the TREAD Act, the agency 
issued a final rule \1\ on November 5, 2002 establishing a program to 
rate child restraint ease of use features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 67 FR 67448, Docket 2001-10053.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's Ease of Use (EOU) program is modeled after a program which, 
at that time, was being used by the Insurance Corporation of British 
Columbia (ICBC) to evaluate child restraints sold in Canada. NHTSA's 
program uses similar rating categories, features, and criteria as 
ICBC's did. Shortly after NHTSA established its EOU program, ICBC chose 
to abandon their in-house program and instead began directing their 
consumers to the NHTSA ratings Web site. They continue to provide 
information specific to Canadian consumers by publishing the equivalent 
Canadian model numbers of U.S. child restraints that NHTSA rates.
    To date, NHTSA's EOU program has been very successful in 
encouraging child restraint manufacturers to improve child restraint 
harness designs, labels, and manuals such that most now receive the top 
rating. However, some recent research, as well as the public hearing 
conducted by the agency on LATCH, has indicated that some features 
intended to make child restraints easier to use are not captured by the 
current program.
    NHTSA held a public meeting on February 8, 2007 \2\ that brought 
together child restraint and vehicle manufacturers, retailers, 
technicians, researchers, and consumer groups to explore possible ways 
to improve the design and increase the use of the Lower Anchors and 
Tethers for Children (LATCH) system. At the meeting, four panels were 
held, which focused specifically on: Improving in-vehicle LATCH design, 
improving child restraint LATCH design, child side-impact safety, and 
educating the public about seat belts and LATCH. At the child restraint 
LATCH design panel session, NHTSA presented some approaches that the 
agency was considering in making improvements to its EOU program. NHTSA 
requested that all attendees and participants submit formal comments to 
the Docket \3\ highlighting concerns they may or may not have expressed 
during the session. The agency wanted to use this input to make sure 
that the program continues to provide valuable information to the 
public as well as continuing to encourage manufacturers to further 
improve their designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 72 FR 3103, January 24, 2007. Full transcript can be found 
in Docket Number NHTSA-2007-26833-23.
    \3\ See Docket Number: NHTSA-2007-26833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The Unrestrained Child

    Child restraints are the most effective vehicle safety measure 
available for children. Research on the effectiveness of child 
restraints has found them to reduce fatal injury by 71 percent for 
infants (less than 1 year old) and by 54 percent for toddlers (1-4 
years old) in passenger cars.\4\ For infants and toddlers in light 
trucks, the corresponding reductions are 58 and 59 percent, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Traffic Safety Facts 2005: Occupant Protection, DOT HS 810 
621, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 1200 New Jersey 
Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency, along with manufacturers, local governments, and 
consumer groups, has established a consistent message for the public to 
put children in age-appropriate restraints in the rear seat of 
vehicles. This educational effort is working: Over the past decade the 
percentage of unrestrained child fatalities has decreased 
significantly. Among child fatalities for the 14 and under age group, 
46 percent were unrestrained in 2005; in 1995 this percentage was 65 
percent.\5\ In February of 2005, NHTSA conducted a National Occupant 
Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) to provide more detailed information 
about child restraint use. As a part of NOPUS, the Controlled 
Intersection Study found that 82 percent of children were properly 
restrained. Other findings were that 98 percent of children under 1 and 
93 percent of children from 1 to 3 were restrained.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Traffic Safety Facts 1995: Children, DOT 95F2, National 
Center for Statistics and Analysis, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., 
Washington, DC 20590.
    \6\ Traffic Safety Facts 2005: Children, DOT HS 810 618, 
National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 1200 New Jersey Ave., 
SE., Washington, DC 20590.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tragically, in 2005, there were 361 passenger vehicle occupant 
fatalities among children under 4 years of age.\7\ Restraint use was 
known for 344 of these 361 fatalities, and 110 (~30 percent) of those 
children were unrestrained. In contrast, in 2005, 420 lives are 
estimated to have been saved by child restraint use. Of these 420 lives 
saved, 382 were associated with the use of child restraints and 38 with 
the use of adult seat belts. At 100 percent child restraint use for 
children under 5, an estimated 98 additional lives, for a total of 518 
children, could have been saved in 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Traffic Safety Facts 2005: Occupant Protection, DOT HS 810 
621, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 1200 New Jersey 
Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency and all its safety partners must continue their efforts 
to get more children in age-appropriate restraints and to educate the 
public about their proper use and installation. Our belief is that the 
EOU rating program helps provide much needed guidance to consumers 
about certain child restraint features. We believe this guidance helps 
caregivers choose appropriate restraints for their child. The agency 
believes that an easy-to-use child restraint can result in more 
children being properly restrained.

[[Page 65806]]

III. Child Restraint EOU Programs Worldwide

A. Australia

    The New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority joined with the 
National Roads and Motorists Association and the Royal Automobile Club 
of Victoria to establish a joint program to assess both the relative 
performance and the ease of using child restraints available in 
Australia. The resulting program is known as CREP, or the Child 
Restraints Evaluation Program. In addition to frontal and side impact 
sled testing, the program covers installation and compatibility with 
vehicles and features specific to the child restraint itself.
    The Australian program uses child restraint evaluation criteria 
very similar to the program conducted by NHTSA under its EOU program. 
The CREP criteria assess how easily the child restraints can be 
installed as well as how easily a child can be secured. The criteria 
also include an evaluation of the information included in the 
instructions, the clarity and quality of labeling and packaging, and 
compatibility by securing the restraint in a vehicle.
    The child restraints are classified into three groups: infant 
restraints, child seats, and booster seats. They are rated on a letter 
scale that ranges from the best, or ``A,'' to the worst, which is a 
``D,'' for both the dynamic rating and the EOU ratings. The scores are 
presented to consumers separately; that is, the dynamic and EOU ratings 
are not combined. The highest scoring child restraint in each of the 
three classes is highlighted on the Web site and in CREP's annual 
brochure as the ``best performer in class.''

B. Consumers Union

    Consumers Union (CU), publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, is a 
nonprofit membership organization that evaluates child restraints in 
dynamic tests, assesses their ease of use, and evaluates compatibility 
with vehicles. CU rates child restraints for EOU by evaluating 
installation features, harness features, placing the child in the 
restraint, and removing the child from the restraint. All of the items 
are evaluated on a five part scale using the following rankings: 
``Excellent,'' ``Very good,'' ``Good,'' ``Fair,'' and ``Poor.'' The 
crash protection, EOU, and installation ratings are all combined into 
an overall rating.

C. EuroNCAP

    The European New Car Assessment Program, or EuroNCAP, provides 
consumers with safety ratings for vehicles sold in Europe. The program 
is funded by European governments and private motoring clubs. Under 
EuroNCAP, vehicle manufacturers recommend child restraints suitable for 
installation in their vehicles for subsequent dynamic testing. Each 
vehicle's rear seat is fitted with two restraints: one suitable for a 
3-year-old child and another suitable for an 18-month-old infant. 
Technicians provide an evaluation of the ease of installation in the 
vehicle when setting up the full-scale crash test. They also rate the 
quality of labeling information on the child restraint. This evaluation 
is included as a small part of an overall child protection rating that 
is determined by using points and then converted to a 5-star scale. 
This overall child protection rating is related more to the vehicle 
rather than the restraints themselves. For example, each restraint's 
ease of use and fitment assessment in the vehicle can contribute only 6 
points out of 49 possible points to the child protection rating. The 
remaining points are calculated from each child restraint's dynamic 
results and specific vehicle features such as air bag warning labels.

D. Japan NCAP

    The Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, in 
cooperation with the National Organization for Automotive Safety & 
Victims' Aid, tests and evaluates the safety of automobiles as part of 
its New Car Assessment Program (JNCAP). In 2002, the JNCAP began rating 
child restraints in both dynamic testing and child restraint usability. 
The results of these tests are released in print media and on the 
Internet.
    JNCAP rates child restraints on their usability in five categories. 
These categories are very similar to NHTSA's: The instruction manual, 
product markings (labels), the ease of using the restraint's features, 
the ease of installation in the vehicle, \8\ and the ease of securing 
the child in the restraint are evaluated. Each category contains a 
number of features for evaluation; these are very similar to the 
structure used in NHTSA's EOU program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ It should be noted that vehicles and child restraints in 
Japan are not required to come LATCH-equipped, so their installation 
features are based on the ease of routing and using vehicle belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The specialists in this program rate each feature on a scale of 1 
to 5, with ``3'' representing an ``average'' feature. The ratings given 
by all five specialists are averaged, and then all the features within 
each category are averaged as well. No overall rating is provided.

IV. Overview of the Current Ease of Use Rating Program

    NHTSA rates each child restraint under every mode of its correct 
use. This requires the agency to use three separate forms: rear-facing 
(RF), forward-facing (FF), and booster. Each of these forms is tailored 
to the mode of use and organized according to five categories:\9\ 
Assembly, Evaluation of Labels, Evaluation of Instructions, Securing 
the Child, and Installing in Vehicle. In addition to an overall letter 
grade for the child restraint, a letter grade is also assigned to each 
of these five categories and displayed on NHTSA's Web site. The Federal 
Register notice of November 5, 2002 included, as its Appendix C,\10\ 
the EOU rating forms used by the agency to evaluate each child 
restraint in every applicable mode of use. For example, a convertible 
restraint that can accommodate a child in both the rear-facing (RF) and 
forward-facing (FF) modes would be evaluated using both the rear- and 
forward-facing forms; it would also be awarded two separate EOU 
ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ICBC's ratings system was based on seven categories; NHTSA 
chose to adopt the same criteria for its ratings program but 
organized them into five categories.
    \10\ 67 FR 214, page 67472. See Docket NHTSA-2001-10053-66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each form contains features for rating the child restraint that are 
organized into five categories. Each feature is assessed on up to three 
criteria using an ``A'' (``good,'' worth 3 points), ``B'' 
(``acceptable,'' worth 2 points), or ``C'' (``poor,'' worth 1 point). 
In some cases, a feature may only be assessed on two criteria, ``A'' 
(``good,'' worth 3 points), or ``C'' (``poor,'' worth 1 point). If a 
feature does not pertain to the restraint in question, it is assigned a 
``not applicable,'' or ``n/a,'' which essentially eliminates it from 
the overall calculation so that it does not affect the restraint 
negatively or positively. An example of a situation where this is used 
would be for the overhead shield criteria. These devices are not very 
common, but if a child restraint manufacturer chooses to employ one the 
agency feels it is important to rate how easy it is to adjust. On the 
other hand, restraints that do not have this feature should not subject 
to a penalty for their absence.
    Each feature also has an associated weighting value that 
corresponds to its potential risk of injury if misused. A feature with 
the highest weighting factor has a numerical value of ``3'', which

[[Page 65807]]

means that its gross misuse could lead to severe injury. Items whose 
gross misuse was determined less likely to lead to severe injury are 
assigned a numerical value of ``2.'' Similarly, the features whose 
misuse was least likely to cause severe injury are assigned a weighting 
factor of 1. It should be noted that in the current rating system NHTSA 
does not have any features weighted ``1.''
    NHTSA displays both the overall letter rating and letter ratings 
for each of the five categories. NHTSA calculates the category letter 
ratings by taking the numerical value of the feature and multiplying it 
by the fixed weighting value for that feature. Then, the sum of these 
weighted feature ratings is divided by the sum of the applicable fixed 
weighting factors. The numerical category weighted average that results 
is assigned a letter grade according to the following scale:
     ``A'' = Category Weighted Average >= 2.40.
     ``B'' = 1.70 <= Category Weighted Average < 2.40.
     ``C'' = Category Weighted Average < 1.70.
    Point ranges for assigning both the category and overall ``A,'' 
``B,'' and ``C'' ratings were determined by dividing the range of 
possible overall scores into three sections. The minimum category or 
overall numerical score for any child restraint is 1.00; this is if all 
features were rated ``C''. The maximum category or overall numerical 
score for any child restraint is a 3.00; this is if all features are 
rated an ``A''.
    To calculate the overall rating for the child restraint, the sum of 
the weighted feature ratings from all five categories is divided by the 
sum of all the possible weighted scores for that category The score 
ranges for assigning a letter score to the overall rating are similar 
to those for the individual categories:
     ``A'' = Overall Weighted Average >= 2.40.
     ``B'' = 1.70 <= Overall Weighted Average < 2.40.
     ``C'' = Overall Weighted Average < 1.70.
    Consumers are presented EOU information on the NHTSA Web site in 
letter format only. However, the agency's practice has been to display 
the letter scores for each of the categories alongside the overall 
letter score.

V. Enhancing the Ease of Use Program

    As previously stated, manufacturers have responded positively to 
the EOU program; currently, an overwhelming majority of child 
restraints are rated an ``A''. For model year (MY) 2007, approximately 
81% of the child restraints received an overall ``A'' rating.\11\ This 
can be compared to approximately 57% when the program first began. This 
tremendous improvement in a short time has indeed led to improved child 
restraint designs. However, the homogeneity in scores makes it 
difficult for parents and caregivers to discern between products for 
purchase and more difficult for manufacturers to distinguish themselves 
thereby reducing the incentive to bring to market more innovative, easy 
to use child restraints and features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/CPS/CSSRating/Index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current forms, their features, and their criteria were designed 
prior to NHTSA's requirement of the LATCH hardware. As a result, the 
program does not fully discern between the different types of hardware 
that are now required equipment on child restraints and many of the 
rating criteria assume that LATCH is an optional piece of equipment on 
the child restraint. In addition, the criteria that are present were 
based only on the technology that was available at the time. Finally, 
the agency feels that some of the criteria need to be improved to 
reflect the ease of preparing and using different types of LATCH 
equipment that rear- and forward-facing child restraints must have.
    In deciding what changes to propose for the EOU program, NHTSA 
evaluated a recent survey it conducted on LATCH, reviewed comments 
submitted in response to the public meeting held on LATCH, and 
conducted an additional study designed to specifically evaluate the EOU 
program. NHTSA also considered feedback provided by actual EOU raters.

A. LATCH Misuse Survey

    The agency published a survey \12\ on December 22, 2006 that served 
as its first major review of the LATCH system since it was required on 
vehicles and child restraints in 2002. The results were encouraging but 
it also proved that the system was not recognized by as many caregivers 
as we had anticipated. It is consequently not being used as often as we 
had hoped. In addition, it has not solved as many installation problems 
as we originally suspected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Decina, Lawrence E., Lococo, Kathy H., and Doyle, Charlene 
T. Child Restraint Use Survey: LATCH Use and Misuse. DOT HS 810 679. 
December 22, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The survey highlighted some misuses that could be addressed by the 
EOU program. For example, it showed that nearly 10% of the child 
restraints in the study were installed with the lower attachments 
upside down. Other statistics highlighted misuses such as twisted upper 
tether and lower attachment straps, misrouted lower anchor straps, and 
loose installation. The survey also showed that a number of rear-facing 
child restraints (over 20%) were installed at an incorrect angle. 
Additionally, one of the findings found that approximately 45% of 
parents were not using their top tethers either because they were 
unaware it was available or unsure of how it was supposed to be used.
    The survey also highlighted that a number of people were not using 
the LATCH system at all. Participants indicated a variety of reasons 
for this, including the fact that they were simply not aware that the 
system existed or that it was present in their vehicle. Though this is 
primarily an education issue, the agency believes there are ways the 
EOU program can be used to help increase LATCH awareness.

B. LATCH Public Meeting

    NHTSA held a public meeting on February 8, 2007 \13\ that brought 
child restraint and vehicle manufacturers, retailers, technicians, 
researchers and consumer groups together to explore ways to improve and 
increase the use of the LATCH system. At the meeting, four panels were 
held specifically focusing on: vehicle LATCH design, child restraint 
LATCH ease of use, child side-impact safety, and educating the public 
about seat belts and LATCH. Participants were asked to submit written 
comments to the Docket highlighting issues they may or may not have 
expressed during the meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For a transcript of the meeting and all comments submitted 
please see Docket NHTSA-2007-26833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments from the LATCH public meeting specific to NHTSA's EOU 
program were received from: General Motors (GM), Honda Motor Company 
(Honda), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Advocates for Highway 
and Auto Safety (Advocates), Columbia Medical, Car-Safety.Org, Safe 
Ride News Publications (SRN Publications), SafetyBeltSafe USA, Cohort 
22 of the Florida International University BBA+ Weekend Program (Cohort 
22), UVA RN-BSN students (UVA), and several child passenger safety 
technicians (CPSTs). The comments can be grouped by labeling and 
instructions, lower anchor design, and other general observations.
1. Labeling and Instructions
    Though many commenters agreed with NHTSA that child restraint 
labels and instructions have been much improved since the beginning of 
the

[[Page 65808]]

EOU rating program, some commenters provided additional suggestions. 
Cohort 22 and the UVA suggested that either a DVD or a Web site link be 
included in instruction manuals for an installation video. UVA believes 
that poor instructional illustrations cause confusion during 
installation and should be replaced with actual photographs. SRN 
Publications believes that manuals should explicitly encourage the use 
of LATCH, rather than simply listing it as an option for installation. 
A CPST believed that clearer instructions are needed.
    GM, UVA, Advocates, AAP, and SRN Publication, suggested that tether 
and lower anchors in the vehicle could be better labeled,\14\ perhaps 
by using ISO-style symbols. While NHTSA's EOU program does not 
currently evaluate in-vehicle features, GM made the additional 
suggestion that symbols could also be included on the lower attachments 
and tether hooks on the child restraint. GM felt that by seeing the 
symbols in both places the consumer would be encouraged to use them 
more often.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Federal Standard No. 225, ``Child restraint anchorage 
systems,'' only requires symbols when the lower vehicle anchors are 
hidden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Lower Attachment Design
    Some commenters suggested that the agency evaluate and subsequently 
encourage a single technology for lower attachment. Honda and AAP 
commented that the agency conduct research on the ease of using various 
lower attachment hardware and possibly require the design that emerges 
as the most user-friendly. Some of the CPSTs suggested that all LATCH 
systems be identical in appearance so that the system is intuitive and 
installation is easy. They also suggested an audible confirmation of 
attachment. With regards to design, one CPST stated that the ``mini 
connector'' style lower attachments were the most user-friendly. SRN 
Publications encouraged restraint manufacturers and NHTSA to weigh the 
economic benefits of implementing only the most user-friendly design in 
lower anchor designs. They suggested that the agency encourage rigid 
attachments over flexible straps, and that all flexible systems, when 
used, should have adjustment mechanisms on each side of the restraint. 
SafetyBeltSafe USA recommended that a system be developed to prevent 
parents from using the wrong configuration for the lower attachments on 
convertible child restraints (i.e., routing the lower attachments 
through the RF path while trying to use the child restraint in the FF 
mode). Cohort 22 recommended an investigation into a more universal 
LATCH system for both the vehicle and the child restraint, stating that 
parents who purchase child restraints with LATCH attachments that are 
not easily compatible with their vehicles will likely just use seat 
belts instead.
3. Other Comments
    Comments to the docket from a few of the CPSTs indicated that the 
program should include criteria for lower attachment and tether storage 
systems. Many of the participants, including Honda, GM, SRN 
Publications, AAP, SafetyBeltSafe USA, Car-Safety.Org, and some of the 
CPSTs supported a variety of changes that could be made to vehicle 
designs rather than the child restraints themselves.

C. Comprehensive Study of the Ease of Use Program

    The agency commissioned a study \15\ by RONA Kinetics and 
Associates, a research firm that reviewed the current program and 
identified areas where improvements could be made. This study combined 
the expertise of RONA Kinetics with input from CPS technicians from the 
U.S. and Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Docket NHTSA-2006-25344].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the suggested program enhancements made in the RONA report 
was the incorporation of additional criteria that would pertain to the 
lower anchor and tether storage. The report also suggested that the 
ratings include a further evaluation of the child restraint 
instructions and that their storage system be accessible in all modes 
of the restraint's use. Further, it was suggested that the agency 
include more LATCH features, especially pertaining to flexible lower 
anchors. In addition, the report suggested that the agency consider 
changes to its method of calculating a restraint's score.

D. Feedback From Current Ease of Use Raters

    The agency also used input from its own child restraint raters as 
another source of information. One suggestion was to incorporate a 
feature that evaluated the recline capabilities of RF child restraints. 
Raters believed that such a feature could help aid the ability of 
parents to secure these child restraints without a ``pool noodle'' or 
other positioning device. It was also suggested that a number of the 
existing criteria could be changed to better reflect current and 
emerging designs. In some cases this could be achieved by combining 
related criteria into one. In other cases, deletions were suggested. 
For example, features that were anticipated but never realized in the 
actual market, like lower anchors that could be used in multiple 
orientations and harness buckles that could not be used in reverse, 
were suggested deletions. It was also felt that a reduction in the 
weighting factors assigned to many criteria could be adjusted to better 
convey which features were more critical to correct installation.

VI. Analysis and Agency Decision on Suggested Program Changes

    After a review of the comments received to the Docket from the 
public hearing, NHTSA's own review of the EOU program, and a review of 
consumers experience with LATCH, the agency has decided to propose 
several fundamental changes to the EOU program. The proposed changes 
outlined here serve to better reflect the current spectrum of features 
seen in the child restraint market. It is the agency's belief that 
through this upgrade, manufacturers will be encouraged to implement 
more widespread incorporation of features that will make it easier and 
more intuitive to install child restraints.
    The agency does not plan to change the scope of the EOU rating 
program. That is, we will continue to apply this program only to add-on 
child restraints and not built-in child restraints. \16\ Similarly, as 
before, the agency will continue to use three sets of forms to evaluate 
child restraints. One set will still be used to rate infant-only 
restraints, convertible restraints, and 3-in-1 restraints in their 
rear-facing configuration. Another set will rate convertible 
restraints, forward facing only restraints, combination forward facing/
booster restraints, and 3-in-1 restraints in their forward-facing 
configuration. The third set will be used to rate high- and low-back 
booster seats, combination forward facing/booster seats, and 3-in-1 
restraints in their belt-positioning booster configurations. Each child 
restraint selected for rating will be evaluated in each configuration 
that pertains to its proper use. For example, a convertible restraint 
would be evaluated and assigned a rating using both the rear-facing and 
forward-facing forms since it may be used in both configurations. A 
combination forward facing/booster restraint would be evaluated and 
assigned a rating for both the forward-facing and booster modes.

[[Page 65809]]

Additionally, 3-in-1 restraints that may be used rear-facing, forward-
facing, and booster seat mode would be evaluated and rated for all 
three modes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For MY 2007, only 7 of the estimated 381 makes and model 
had the option of purchasing a built-in child restraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure the most comprehensive revisions to the rating system, 
the agency examined all aspects of the current program. This required a 
thorough examination of the rating categories, features, criteria, 
weighting factors, the numerical ranges used to assign ratings, and the 
way the ratings themselves are conveyed.

A. Rating Categories and Their Associated Features

    The specific changes to the EOU categories are organized by rating 
category and feature. With regards to changes made to the features, we 
first wanted to incorporate concepts 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. For 
example, a feature that had ``A'', ``B'', and ``C'' criteria could now 
only have ``A'' and ``C'' criteria. Thirdly, we evaluated some related 
features that could be combined in order to make the highest rating of 
the new feature more difficult to achieve. The agency also found a need 
to delete some features altogether. If a feature or its associated 
criteria is removed from a rating system, there is always concern that 
``backsliding'' could occur. That is, since manufacturers are no longer 
rated for a feature, they may revert to a previous (and likely less 
user-friendly) version of that feature due to cost or other 
considerations. The agency does not believe that is the case with the 
criteria we have chosen to eliminate. In some cases, a feature was 
removed because nearly every child restraint since the program was 
created has always been awarded an ``A'' for the feature. In other 
cases, a feature was removed because it has been incorporated into 
nearly all child restraint systems.
    The agency's proposed changes and the corresponding rationale are 
explained below. It should be noted that features are incorporated into 
the rating forms only as needed; for example, there are no LATCH 
features assessed on the booster rating forms since they are not 
required to have LATCH.
1. Assembly
    The agency is proposing to eliminate the ``Assembly'' rating 
category and distribute the features from this category among the 
``Evaluation of Instructions'' and ``Securing the Child'' categories. 
The ``Assembly'' category assessed three features on the RF and Booster 
forms and four on the FF forms (the additional feature encouraged that 
the tether arrive attached to the child restraint). A review of the 
current program revealed that most of the features in the current 
``Assembly'' category should only be assessed under one mode of a 
multi-mode child restraint to avoid grade inflation. Assessing these 
features under only one mode of use would then, in effect, require that 
feature to be marked ``n/a'' for its remaining modes. Therefore, for 
some child restraint modes, the entire ``Assembly'' category could be 
assigned a rating based on one feature. For these reasons, the agency 
is proposing to distribute the former ``Assembly'' category features 
among the four remaining categories. Additionally, many of the past 
``out-of-the-box'' issues covered by the ``Assembly'' category, such as 
child restraints that require tools to assemble, have disappeared from 
the market, further encouraging this proposal.
2. Evaluation of Labels
    Under this category, the labels from the child restraint itself are 
assessed for accuracy and completeness. The proposed upgraded rating 
forms, located in Appendix A, include the following features in the 
``Evaluation of Labels'' category. The forms that each are applied to 
are included in the parenthesis:
    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 would like to expand this feature to assess whether or 
not the child restraint labels contain additional sizing information 
beyond the required height and weight limits of Federal Standard No. 
213,\17\ ``Child Restraint Systems''. Parents and caregivers could 
benefit from visual indicators that help describe how an appropriately 
sized child should fit in the restraint. For example, the label could 
use a picture to show that the child's head must be more than 1 inch 
from the top of the restraint, or that the top of his or her ears must 
be below the top of the restraint. A limited number of child restraints 
provide this information now and we believe that this information is 
useful for parents and caregivers in achieving an appropriate fit for a 
child. Additionally, such information could reduce the number of 
children who are placed in child restraints not appropriate for their 
age.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 49 CFR 571.213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Are all methods of installation for this mode of use clearly 
indicated? (RF, FF, Booster)
    The agency feels that the current feature for assessing the proper 
methods of installation is sufficient. However, we would like to 
clarify the criteria to include that for the FF mode, the tether must 
be labeled with every configuration. Currently, the criteria only 
evaluates whether or not the tether is pictured but does not 
necessarily require it be labeled. The agency feels that having the top 
tether labeled could help to reinforce the use of the tether with FF 
child restraints.
c. Are the correct harness slots for this mode indicated? (RF, FF)
    The agency proposes to strengthen this feature to include criteria 
that evaluate harness slot labels under both the RF and FF modes of 
use. Previously, if there was nothing on the restraint indicating which 
harness slots were appropriate for each mode of use, the raters would 
search the manual for additional information. If it was determined from 
the manual that all the harness slots were able to be used in the 
forward-facing mode, the restraint was assigned an ``n/a.'' Now, child 
restraints can be encouraged to have harness slots that are labeled for 
both the rear-facing and forward-facing mode. The agency believes that 
consultation with the manual should not be necessary to properly use 
this feature. It is critical to the child's safety that the harness 
slots are used appropriately, as most often these are reinforced for 
strength; especially in the FF mode. Using RF harness slots for a FF 
child can lead to a very dangerous misuse, and in light of this, the 
agency wants to encourage harness slots that are labeled with a graphic 
or contrasting text to receive the highest rating for this feature.
    Additionally, the agency feels that all child restraints should 
contain some indication to help achieve the correct harness slot height 
for the child. This includes single mode child restraints and child 
restraints with no-thread harness adjustments. For example, a RF

[[Page 65810]]

child restraint may state or illustrate that the proper harness slots 
to use would be at or below the child's shoulder height. A FF child 
restraint could state or illustrate that the proper harness slot height 
to use would be at or above the child's shoulder height. In addition, 
restraints should illustrate this visual to better allow parents and 
caregivers the ability to assess the child's fit with respect to the 
harness.
d. Label warning against using a lap belt only. (Booster)
    The agency created a new feature for the booster rating forms. We 
are proposing that child restraints should be evaluated on the presence 
of an illustrative warning against the use of a lap belt only. The 
agency is not aware of any booster seats on the market that may be used 
without a three-point belt. As of model year 2008,\18\ all rear seating 
positions in passenger vehicles must come equipped with three point lap 
and shoulder belts. The agency feels that the presence of an 
illustration can reinforce that these devices must be used with a 
three-point belt. Boosters are arguably the simplest type of child 
restraints to use correctly and encouraging an extremely clear 
illustration to avoid a potentially dangerous situation is in the best 
interest of child safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 69 FR 70904. See Docket NHTSA-2004-18726.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Seat belt use and routing path clarity. (RF, FF, Booster)
    The agency would like to maintain this feature, which examines how 
obvious the seat belt and flexible lower attachment routing path is. 
However, we feel that its robustness could be improved. We propose that 
the criteria evaluate the restraints on whether or not the belt path is 
labeled on both sides of the restraint. This ensures that despite 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)
    There are currently two features that assess the content of lower 
attachment-related labels. One examines the labels pertaining to the 
preparation of the lower attachments and the other examines the 
instructions for their use. It has been the agency's experience that 
having these two separate features is unnecessary; it is sometimes 
difficult for raters to ascertain which operations should specifically 
constitute ``preparation'' and which should specifically constitute 
``use.'' In order to reduce this confusion, the agency is proposing 
that these two features now be combined. In effect, there will now be 
one complete feature to evaluate whether the labels clearly depict all 
steps of preparation and use.
g. Shows how to prepare and use tether. (FF)
    In an effort to encourage more widespread tether use, the agency 
proposes to evaluate child restraints on whether their proper use and 
preparation is sufficiently explained by illustrations and concise text 
on the child restraint labels.
h. Durability of labels. (RF, FF, Booster)
    The agency is proposing to modify this feature so that it better 
assesses the durability of the labels on the child restraint. The 
current forms require that the label durability be assessed in every 
mode of use. For child restraints with more than one mode of use, this 
tended to inflate the overall score since the same labels are evaluated 
each time. The agency is revising its forms so that restraints with 
more than one mode of use will now be assessed only once, under its 
youngest mode of use (configured to accommodate youngest child 
recommended for the restraint). The agency believes this will improve 
the robustness of the label category score and overall rating.
3. Evaluation of Instructions
    The most significant changes proposed in this category, which 
evaluates the restraint's instruction manual, is a reduction in weight 
for the majority of the criteria. Under the current program, most of 
the features rated under the ``Evaluation of Labels'' category are also 
carried through to the ``Evaluation of Instructions'' category. 
Essentially, the same information is encouraged in both places. Though 
the agency feels it is important to have pertinent information 
duplicated on the instructions and the labels, we also know that is it 
much easier for manufacturers to include complete information in an 
instruction manual than it is to convey the same information on the 
restraint labels. The agency certainly believes that a restraint's 
instruction manual must be carefully considered prior to using the 
restraint. However, NHTSA believes that the pertinent information 
required for correct daily use can be communicated on the child 
restraint labels themselves. The labels should reduce the need to 
consult the instructions.
    The upgraded rating forms, located in Appendix A, include the 
following ``Evaluation of Instructions'' features. The forms that each 
are applied to are included in the parenthesis:
    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. Airbag/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)
    The agency feels that if an instruction manual is attached to the 
child restraint in an obvious location, it has a greater likelihood of 
being seen and read. As a result, we are proposing to modify the 
criteria that examine whether the manual is easy to find when the child 
restraint is taken out of the box. Three levels of evaluation criteria 
for this feature will be reduced to two. It should be noted that this 
feature was previously assessed under the ``Assembly'' category; it was 
felt that moving the feature to the ``Evaluation of Instructions'' 
category was a better location. Also, this feature will 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)
    In addition to easily finding the child restraint instructions, the 
agency also feels that an obvious, accessible storage system can help 
caregivers continue to consult the instructions when needed. 
Previously, this feature was also assessed under the ``Assembly'' 
section.
    In the Final Rule establishing the EOU program, NHTSA shared its 
concerns about the accessibility and visibility of the manual when the 
child restraint was installed. NHTSA decided at that time that the 
storage system criteria would be sufficient to encourage easy access to 
the manual when the child restraint was installed. Instead, the 
criteria and our ratings focused on whether the storage mechanism is 
literally difficult to use, rather than difficult to access. There are 
some products on the market that receive the top rating for the storage 
system even though the manual cannot be easily accessed when the 
restraint is installed or when the child is seated.

[[Page 65811]]

Therefore, the agency is proposing that the feature be updated so that 
manufacturers are encouraged to design storage systems that are 
accessible regardless of mode of use, and whether or not the child is 
sitting in the child restraint. NHTSA believes a 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 is proposing to 
expand these criteria to include whether the child restraint 
instructions contain additional sizing information beyond the height 
and weight limits. As previously discussed, such information should 
decrease the number of children in child restraints not appropriate for 
their age. Along with the evaluations for clear height and weight 
limits, the instructions should contain a picture and text indicating 
additional child sizing information as discussed previously in the 
``Evaluation of Labels'' section.
    d. Are all methods of installation for this mode of use clearly 
indicated? (RF, FF, Booster)
    The agency feels that the current evaluation for illustrating the 
proper methods of installation is sufficient. As a result, the feature 
has been clarified only to include that for the FF mode; the tether 
must be labeled and pictured in every configuration. The agency feels 
that this will help to reinforce the use of the tether with FF child 
restraints.
e. Airbag/rear seat warning? (RF, FF, Booster)
    The agency is proposing to change the airbag warning criteria. 
Currently, all three forms contain a feature that encourages an airbag/
rear-facing restraint interaction warning. Instead of encouraging the 
same warning for each type of child restraint, the agency proposes 
encouraging FF and booster seat instructions to contain warnings about 
the rear seat being the safest place for children, since this is more 
consistent with child passenger safety recommendations. Child 
restraints evaluated under the RF forms will also have to convey this 
information in addition to the current airbag warning requirements for 
a separate, obvious, illustrated warning.
f. Instructions for routing seat belt. (RF, FF, Booster)
    The agency is proposing to enhance its requirements for seat belt 
routing instructions. In addition to looking for a diagram showing a 
clear, contrasting belt path, manufacturers should be encouraged to 
include information on different seat belt styles, retractor types, and 
latch plate types and how each should be used with the child restraint 
in question. In this, the agency hopes to continue reducing loose and 
incorrect installations due to seat belt misuse.
g. Shows how to prepare and use lower attachments and tether. (RF, FF)
    As in the ``Evaluation of Labels'' section, the features for 
``preparing'' and ``using'' the lower attachments should be combined. 
The agency also proposes to remove the separate feature that looks for 
a diagram depicting the correct orientation of the lower attachments. 
Instead, the correct orientation criteria should be included within 
this feature. The criteria for this feature is similar to those for the 
labels: Lower attachment instructions must clearly depict all steps of 
preparation and use, including routing flexible lower attachments 
properly for that mode and making certain the user is prompted to 
tighten the straps. FF child restraints must also have complete tether 
directions included to satisfy this feature.
h. Information in written instructions and on labels match? (RF, FF, 
Booster)
    The current rating forms assess whether the height and weight 
information on the labels matches. Prior to the EOU program, it was 
common to see confusing and even incorrect sizing information between 
the instructions and labels. Though it is much less common now, the 
agency proposes to maintain and strengthen this feature since we still 
see instances where there is conflicting information between the manual 
and the labels. In some cases, for example, the child restraint labels 
do not show the same style base or lower attachments as is found in the 
instructions. In addition to satisfying the current criteria, all 
pictures on the labels must convey the same information as in the 
manual. In addition to this, the child restraint model name should be 
found directly on the product as well as in the manual. The agency 
feels it is confusing to receive a manual where the purchased product's 
model name cannot be found.
4. Securing the Child
    This category, which examines the child restraint features that 
help secure the child in the restraint, has the most proposed changes. 
The rating forms, located in Appendix A, include the following 
``Securing the Child'' features. The forms that each are applied to are 
included in the parentheses:
a. Is the restraint assembled and 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.
    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)
    One feature that has been very successful in influencing the child 
restraint market has been our encouragement that child restraints 
arrive completely ready to use when taken out of the box. As a result 
of the current rating program, virtually every child restraint on the 
market today does, in fact, arrive fully assembled. The agency 
considered but ultimately determined not to propose removing the 
feature from the rating system. Hopefully this will maintain the 
incentive for child restraints to continue arriving fully assembled 
when purchased by consumers. This feature was originally located in the 
``Assembly'' category. Since that category is being dissolved it was 
decided that ``Securing the Child'' was the next logical location. The 
agency also proposes to reduce these three levels of criteria to two. 
Now, to receive the highest rating for this feature, a child restraint 
cannot require any assembly, regardless of whether it needs tools. 
Also, this feature would only be evaluated once, when the child 
restraint is rated under its youngest mode of use, in order to reduce 
grade inflation.
b. Does harness clip require threading? Is it labeled? (RF, FF)
    Previously, there was no EOU feature to evaluate the harness clip 
on a restraint. The agency has decided to propose one so as to 
encourage harness clips that do not require threading. In addition, 
NHTSA would like to encourage them to be labeled with simple text or a 
graphic that can provide some indication of where they should

[[Page 65812]]

be positioned on the properly restrained child. The agency feels that 
this will increase the correct usage of these devices.
c. Evaluate the harness buckle style. (RF, FF)
    In the current rating system, a child restraint is assessed on 
whether the harness buckle may be secured (and released easily) if it 
is buckled in reverse. The agency anticipated that parents may find 
reversing the buckle a sufficient deterrent for children who attempt to 
release the harness system on their own. The agency has no evidence, 
anecdotal or otherwise, that this technique is widely used. As a 
result, we are proposing to remove this feature from the rating 
program, as nearly all child restraint buckles already receive the top 
rating.
    However, there is no current feature that evaluates the ease of 
using one type of harness buckle over another. Some buckles allow the 
user to insert each side of the buckle independently. Other styles 
require the user to hold the two shoulder portions of the buckle 
together and insert them at the same time, commonly referred to as a 
``puzzle buckle'' style. Some manufacturers use these ``puzzle 
buckles'' to prevent either side from being incorrectly latched, which 
could lead to a dangerous misuse. However, according to many CPSTs, 
they are also more difficult for the user. Restraints with shoulder 
strap buckles that may be inserted independently of one another are 
ideal from an ease of use perspective, while buckles requiring both 
shoulder strap pieces to be inserted at together are not. Some ``puzzle 
buckles'' are more forgiving than others and have an intermediate 
method of keeping the two pieces together prior to their insertion into 
the buckle. For example, some use a small magnet or hook to hold the 
two separate pieces together, which can ease the process. As such, we 
are proposing to modify the criteria based on the presence of such 
features.
d. Access to and use of harness adjustment system. (RF, FF)
    The agency proposes to combine the features that evaluate both 
access to and use of the harness tightening system. It is critical that 
there is access to the mechanism used to tighten the harness system 
regardless of the installation mode. A restraint cannot be used 
correctly if the harness system cannot be tightened onto the child. The 
condition for access will be assessed using the FMVSS 213 bench by 
installing the child restraint with both the lower attachments and seat 
belt (as necessary). We will also continue encouraging harness systems 
that may be adjusted with a single action. However, the agency proposes 
reducing the number of levels this new feature is evaluated on from 
three to two. For example, in order to receive the highest rating for 
this feature, there must be access to the harness adjustment system in 
that mode of installation and the mechanism for adjusting the system 
must be simple to use.
e. Number and adjustability of harness slots in shell and pad. (RF, FF)
    The agency is proposing to combine some related harness slot 
criteria from this section. The current rating program separately 
evaluates the number of harness slots and whether the number of harness 
slots in the shell and padding matches. The agency feels that differing 
numbers of slots in the shell and pad can easily lead to misrouting the 
harness straps when they are adjusted. However, these are examples of 
features that almost always receive the top rating. As a result, the 
agency would like to combine these features so that no backsliding can 
occur. This feature will apply to both re-threadable and fully 
adjustable harness systems. Rather than encouraging a certain number of 
harness slots for adjustable systems, the agency will encourage that 
they be adjustable to a minimum of three heights.
f. Visibility & alignment of harness slots. (RF, FF)
    The agency maintains its position that having obvious, clear 
harness slots in the shell and pad helps to reinforce their proper use 
and avoids misrouting issues. We will continue assessing the alignment 
of the harness slots in the seat pad with the child restraint shell. 
The criteria have been re-written for clarity but their requirements 
are unchanged. Under the new rating system, however, we propose that 
child restraints with ``no-thread'' harness systems receive an ``n/a'' 
for this feature since its purpose is to help facilitate rethreading.
g. Ease of conversion to this mode from all other possible modes of 
use. (RF, FF, Booster)
    The agency is proposing to restructure the features that assess the 
ease of converting a child restraint. Previously, the criteria were 
written in a way that did not fully evaluate the relative complexity of 
converting a child restraint between its different modes, especially 
for those equipped with flexible lower anchor systems that need to be 
re-routed to change to another mode. In addition to this, a number of 
needs specific to 3-in-1 child restraint systems were not being 
reflected. For example, the complexity of removing and replacing the 
harness when a child restraint is converted from and to its booster 
mode was not reflected.
    Child restraints would now be evaluated on the difficulty a user 
would experience converting the restraint back to the mode in question 
from any other mode it could be used in. The agency recognizes that 
multi-mode child restraints, especially 3-in-1 child restraints, will 
have difficulty achieving the top rating for this feature. 
Additionally, the agency recognizes that the process of converting a 
child restraint is normally an infrequent occurrence. However, given 
the relative difficulty of converting child restraints between modes, 
as well as the potential to introduce gross misuse and misplace 
critical pieces, NHTSA feels it is important to include such a feature 
in the new ratings.
h. Ease of conversion from high back to no back. (Booster)
    The agency is proposing to add a separate feature to assess the 
difficulty of converting high back boosters to backless boosters. It 
was felt that the relative ease of converting a high back to a low back 
booster versus, for example, converting a 3-in-1 child restraint 
between its modes, warranted its own feature. In the upgraded ratings, 
a schematic should be found on the child restraint showing the 
conversion process; in addition, the process must be simple to perform.
i. Ease of adjusting the harness for child's growth.
    Though the harness system usually needs to be adjusted when 
converting the child restraint to another mode, it must also be 
adjusted as the child grows. The agency is proposing to upgrade its 
evaluation of harness adjustment systems. The agency is now encouraging 
child restraints to have fully adjustable or ``no-thread'' systems that 
are both easy to understand and simple to use. Any restraint that must 
be rethreaded to adjust or that still has the possibility of misrouting 
(some no-thread systems can still be misrouted) will not receive the 
top rating for this feature.
j. Ease of reassembly after cleaning. (RF, FF, Booster)
    Removing the child restraint cover in order to launder it can 
introduce potential misuse. Similar to the conversion process, 
harnesses may have to be removed and loose pieces that are generated 
during the disassembly can be misplaced. Some restraints still require

[[Page 65813]]

tools to remove the padding. The current RF and FF forms evaluate this 
feature by assessing whether loose parts will result from removing the 
cover and whether the harness system could be routed incorrectly. The 
agency is proposing to maintain this feature but is clarifying the 
three rating criteria. Child restraints will continue to be evaluated 
on whether the harness requires rethreading, if loose critical parts 
are generated during disassembly, and whether the cover can be easily 
removed and replaced.
    The agency is proposing to add a similar feature to the booster 
forms, as they did not contain any criteria for this before. Since 
boosters do not have harnesses that require rethreading, however, there 
will be no ``B'' option for this feature on the booster rating forms. 
The child restraint will receive the highest rating if there are no 
loose parts and if the pad is easy to remove.
k. Ease of adjusting/removing shield. (RF, FF)
    The agency has not made any significant changes to the criteria for 
this feature. However, the criteria have been clarified to require that 
the instructions for its use should be found on the child restraint 
itself.
5. Vehicle Installation Features
    The title of this section has been reworded in order to better 
clarify its scope. This category examines child restraint features that 
help to ensure correct installation. It does not necessarily assess the 
difficulty of installing the child restraint in a given vehicle.
    The rating forms, located in Appendix A, include the following 
features under the ``Vehicle Installation Features'' category. The 
forms that each are applied to are included in the parenthesis:
    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)
    The agency is proposing to update the feature that examines the 
ease of routing the seat belt through the child restraint belt path. It 
will now reflect that flexible lower attachments are usually routed 
through the same path. Previously, there were two separate features, 
which lead to unnecessary grade inflation. Combining these two features 
into one will increase the robustness of the rating system.
b. Can vehicle belt or LATCH attachments interfere with harness? (RF, 
FF)
    The agency is proposing to restructure the feature that focuses on 
interactions between the harness system (including crotch strap) and 
the seat belt or flexible lower attachments. Interference with any part 
of the harness system can create an unsafe condition. Hidden slack may 
be introduced into the system if it becomes tangled with the vehicle 
belt. In this situation, there is a possibility that neither the 
harness nor the belt could be tightened enough.
    The current FF form separates this idea into two features: One 
evaluates possible interaction from the seat belt and the other 
evaluates the possible interaction from the flexible lower attachments. 
The current RF form contains separate criteria similar to the FF form 
but in addition, raters are required to evaluate the base and carrier 
separately for a total of four criteria. There is an element of 
redundancy in keeping these ideas separate since the flexible lower 
attachments often share the same routing path as the seat belt. In 
addition, the design of most child restraints that may be used rear-
facing, especially those with add-on bases, is such that interaction 
with the seat belt or flexible lower attachments is impossible. As a 
result, the agency has combined the separate features on each form into 
one comprehensive feature for each mode. This will help avoid grade 
inflation.
c. Evaluate the tether adjustment. (FF)
    The agency already evaluates tether adjustment hardware but is 
proposing to strengthen the criteria. There will now be two rather than 
three criteria available to rate this feature. 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 is proposing to strengthen the feature that evaluates 
attaching and removing an infant carrier from its base. In addition to 
maintaining the previous criteria that it be simple to attach and 
release, there will be a secondary criteria that there be no way to 
mistake that the carrier is secured to the base. Some designs lend 
themselves to a dangerous misuse in which the user can mistakenly 
believe he or she has achieved positive attachment. In this case, the 
infant carrier may in fact be completely free and not attached to the 
base. The agency does not believe there should be any indication that 
the carrier can appear secured to the base if it is not. In order to 
encourage designs that do not allow for this, the agency proposes 
including this feature.
e. Ease of use of any belt positioning devices. (RF, FF, Booster)
    NHTSA proposes strengthening the feature that evaluates the belt-
positioning and lock-off devices \19\ for seat belts. Rather than 
evaluate the belt positioning device based on the number of hands it 
requires to use, the agency would encourage that the device be ``simple 
to use'' and have its instructions for use located on the restraint 
itself. The agency feels this can encourage more widespread, correct 
use of these devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ A lock-off is a device that locks the seat belt webbing in 
place, thereby preventing movement of the child restraint relative 
to the seat belt webbing. It is often found on belt-positioning 
boosters but may also be found on RF and FF child restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Does the belt positioning device allow slack? Can the belt slip? 
(Booster)
    On the current booster forms, this feature examines whether the 
shoulder belt positioning device can inadvertently create slack in the 
belt. The agency has decided to propose an additional criterion for 
this feature after examining the differences in devices seen in the 
market. Under the upgraded rating system, the belt positioning device 
will still have to avoid introducing slack into the shoulder belt, but 
in addition, it must not allow the shoulder portion of the belt to 
easily slip 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 current feature evaluates the presence of a feedback device on 
the carrier and the base. The agency feels there is a need to improve 
this feature,

[[Page 65814]]

especially since the LATCH survey showed that 20 percent of infant 
child restraints were not installed at the correct recline level \20\. 
Many child restraints, especially infant carriers, provide users with 
an obvious, separate device for determining whether the child restraint 
is at the proper angle for rear-facing infants. Many others, however, 
simply print an indication line on a label or the shell itself that 
must be kept ``level to ground.'' The agency feels that dedicated 
devices that provide the user feedback about the child restraint angle 
are more helpful to consumers and should be rated accordingly. In 
addition, the agency felt that this feature could be expanded to 
encourage more child restraints to provide adjustable systems for 
achieving the proper angle in the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Decina, Lawrence E., Lococo, Kathy H., and Doyle, Charlene 
T. Child Restraint Use Survey: LATCH Use and Misuse. DOT HS 810 679. 
December 22, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the RF mode, the agency proposes to evaluate convertible and 3-
in-1 child restraints separately from infant carriers with separate 
bases. Convertibles and 3-in-1 child restraints will be evaluated on 
whether they have one obvious, separate, recline device and three 
levels of recline. Infant carriers with separate bases will also 
undergo this evaluation; however, they will also be evaluated on 
whether they provide an additional feedback indicator for whichever 
piece of the system does not have a ``separate'' device. For example, 
if the manufacturer decides to place their ``separate'' feedback device 
on the child restraint base, they must also provide feedback on the 
carrier since the consumer may choose to install that on its own. The 
agency believes that this can increase the consumer's ability to 
achieve the proper angle during installation.
h. Do the lower attachments require twisting to remove from vehicle? 
(RF, FF)
    In NHTSA's experience, as well as in other organizations' such as 
Transport Canada \21\, certain styles of lower attachments are proving 
to be more user-friendly. Participants at the LATCH Public meeting and 
commenters to the Docket, as discussed above, also indicate this. While 
the ease of attaching the lower attachments to the vehicle may be 
similar regardless of type, removing the connectors is a different 
challenge. There is a feature in the current rating system that 
attempts to discern between different connectors, but the agency feels 
that it needs to be rewritten in order to be more effective. The 
current feature assesses whether the lower attachments can ``be 
installed in reverse.'' The way the feature is written requires the 
raters to assess whether the attachments can physically be installed 
upside-down without being considered a misuse. At the time this feature 
was developed, the agency's experience with LATCH was limited. It was 
written to accommodate lower attachments that would still be used 
correctly if they were installed upside-down on the vehicle anchors. 
The agency is not aware of any system that actually allows the lower 
attachments to be installed upside-down, and as a result, proposes to 
restructure the feature and its criteria. In order to capture the 
relative difference between using different types of connectors, the 
agency reworded this feature to encourage attachments that do not 
require twisting to remove from the vehicle anchors. The agency 
proposes to encourage lower attachments that retract on their own and 
attachments that may be released from the anchors without having to 
twist them from the vehicle anchors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Docket NHTSA-2007-26833-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Storage for the LATCH system when not in use? (RF, FF)
    Many participants at the LATCH public meeting, as well as 
commenters to the accompanying Docket \22\, expressed their desire for 
the agency to begin rating LATCH component storage systems. In response 
to this, the agency proposes adding a feature to rate storage systems 
for the lower attachments and tether (FF only) when they are not being 
used. Separate, obvious storage systems with clear labeling will be 
encouraged. Lower attachment systems that fully retract when not in use 
would also be encouraged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Docket NHTSA-2007-26833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

j. Indication on the child restraint for where to put the carrier 
handle? (RF)
    The agency is proposing to add a new RF rating feature to encourage 
the manufacturer to specify where to place the infant carrier handle 
during driving conditions. It has been the agency's experience that 
this information is often hard to find in the manual; it can also be 
very ambiguous. Identifying the correct carrier handle position 
directly on the child restraint is the most effective way of ensuring 
proper installation.

B. Rating System

    NHTSA is proposing changes to the rating structure of the program 
as well as the way in which it conveys those ratings to consumers. The 
individual feature and criteria changes can be seen in Appendix B, 
which contains the upgraded EOU scoring forms. We reassigned many of 
the feature weightings and made changes to the numerical ranges used to 
assign both category and overall EOU letter grades. These two changes 
have the net effect of improving the robustness of the rating system. 
Previously, there were no features assigned a ``1'' (once equal to a 
``C'') weighting. This would not be true of the upgraded program. 
Features have been re-weighted according to the following, which is 
similar to the original ICBC methodology but has since been re-visited 
because of additional criteria and experience gained in the program.
     ``3'' weighted feature--Misuse of this feature would 
correspond to the greatest risk of severe injury.
     ``2'' weighted feature--Misuse of this feature would 
correspond to a lower risk of severe injury.
     ``1'' weighted feature--Misuse of this feature would 
correspond to a low risk of severe injury.
    NHTSA will continue providing consumers with ratings for each of 
the four categories as well as the restraint's overall rating. However, 
rather than displaying the scores as letters, the agency is proposing 
to present the ratings in terms of stars. These star ratings, which can 
be seen in Appendix C, will be used on NHTSA's Web site and in its 
brochures for displaying category and overall ratings. Figures 1 
through 5 of Appendix C will be used to represent the range of ratings 
from ``1 star'' to ``5 star,'' respectively. In this, a ``1 star'' will 
now be used to convey the lowest category and overall rating, while a 
``5 star'' will now be the highest rating a child restraint will 
receive.
    Raters will continue to assess each feature using the letters 
``A'', ``B'', and ``C''; in addition, the numerical values of these 
letters will continue being ``3'', ``2'', and ``1'', respectively. The 
agency is also maintaining its current method for calculating feature 
ratings by taking the feature's rated value (i.e., the numerical 
equivalent of the letter rating given for that feature) and multiplying 
it by the fixed weighted value of that feature. Then, the sum of these 
weighted feature ratings is divided by the sum of the applicable fixed 
weighting factors. The numerical category weighted average that results 
is assigned a star rating according to the following scale:
     ``5 stars'' = Category Weighted Average >= 2.60.
     ``4 stars'' = 2.30 <= Category Weighted Average < 2.60.
     ``3 stars'' = 2.00 <= Category Weighted Average < 2.30.
     ``2 stars'' = 1.70 <= Category Weighted Average < 2.00.

[[Page 65815]]

     ``1 star'' = Category Weighted Average < 1.70.
    In the original rating system, point ranges for assigning both the 
category and overall ratings were determined by dividing the range of 
possible overall scores into three nearly equal parts. The minimum 
category or overall score for any child restraint is 1.00; this is if 
all features are rated ``C''. The maximum category or overall score for 
any child restraint is a 3.00; this is if all features are rated an 
``A''. These updated ranges have been set so that the numerical score 
needed to receive the middle ``3 star'' rating is a 2.00, which is the 
score a restraint would receive if every feature was awarded a ``B.'' 
Previously, the numerical weighted average of a category could be less 
than an average of ``B'' but the child restraint could still receive a 
``B'' rating for that category. Under the proposed system, the 
restraint must receive an average of a ``B'' for all the features in 
that category to receive a ``3 star'' for the category. In the original 
rating program, a numerical value of 1.70 was the break point for a 
``C''. In order to maintain some continuity, 1.70 will be maintained as 
the cutoff point for a ``1 star'' under the new rating system. In 
establishing the remaining break points, the agency created relatively 
equal numerical ranges while also taking into consideration 
realistically achievable ratings.
    To calculate the overall rating for the child restraint, the sum of 
the weighted feature ratings from all four categories is divided by the 
sum of all the possible weighted scores for that category. The score 
ranges for assigning an overall star rating to the restraint are 
structured so that they are similar to those for the individual 
categories:
     ``5 stars'' = Overall Weighted Average >= 2.60.
     ``4 stars'' = 2.30 <= Overall Weighted Average < 2.60.
     ``3 stars'' = 2.00 <= Overall Weighted Average < 2.30.
     ``2 stars'' = 1.70 <= Overall Weighted Average < 2.00.
     ``1 star'' = Overall Weighted Average < 1.70.
    It should be noted that the same method was used to establish the 
break points for the overall star rating as was used for the category 
star ratings.
    The agency feels that displaying EOU category and overall ratings 
in terms of stars rather than letters will have an overall positive 
effect on the program. The five levels of ratings that are proposed 
allow for more discrimination between child restraints, and will likely 
better assist consumers in their purchasing decisions. The agency also 
feels that stars could allow the child restraint manufacturers to 
promote product ratings more effectively than the current system, as 
they may also be more recognizable to consumers than letter grades. In 
conclusion, the agency feels these changes will create greater 
delineation between child restraints and improve the robustness of this 
rating program.

C. Other Issues

    The following serves to address the comments from the LATCH Public 
Meeting as well as responses to the corresponding Docket that have not 
otherwise been previously discussed.
    The agency does not plan to incorporate SRN Publications' 
suggestion that manuals should explicitly encourage the use of LATCH, 
rather than simply listing it as an option for installation. For one, 
there is still a considerable portion of the vehicle fleet that is not 
LATCH-equipped. NHTSA feels that encouraging LATCH over vehicle seat 
belts could be misleading for those caregivers who have to use their 
vehicle belts for child restraint installation. The agency maintains 
its position that child restraints installed tightly and correctly with 
vehicle seat belts and the top tether are as safe as an installation 
that uses the LATCH system correctly. There are some seating positions 
in which the LATCH system is not available, such as in the third row of 
some minivans and sport utility vehicles. The agency would never want 
to discourage caregivers from installing child restraints with vehicle 
seat belts in these positions.
    UVA suggested that the agency include a DVD feature in the ratings 
program as well as begin encouraging real photographs (as opposed to 
diagrams) into owner's manuals. NHTSA has decided not to propose such 
an evaluation in the EOU program. The agency does not discourage 
manufacturers from electing to provide these features but we believe 
that including these criteria in the EOU program would be overly 
burdensome with little to no impact on the ability of caregivers to 
correctly install child restraints into their vehicles. Raters would 
have to objectively assess the validity of its information, which would 
require that we could continuously monitor the content and develop new 
objective criteria. The agency has also decided not to propose UVA's 
suggestion to replace diagrams in manuals with photographs. The 
upgraded EOU program, like the current one, has an extensive section to 
evaluate the manual's graphic instructions. In the agency's experience, 
having photographs in the manual does not guarantee the information 
will be clear and concise. In fact, the agency has seen that some ideas 
and instructions may be better conveyed through graphics. Many diagrams 
found in child restraint manuals already do an excellent job of 
conveying clear instructions.
    Honda, AAP, some CPSTs, SRN Publications, SafetyBeltSafe and Cohort 
22 suggested making certain lower connector types a requirement.\23\ 
Others asked that the agency mandate rigid systems for child 
restraints, or specify that two adjustment mechanisms be present on 
flexible lower anchors. Others asked that the agency mandate a single 
system for lower anchors or require they have an audible confirmation 
of attachment. The agency has proposed additional criteria into the EOU 
program to highlight those lower attachment styles that are easier to 
use. The agency will consider these comments in the context of possible 
future changes to its safety standard rather than in this update to the 
EOU program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Federal Standard No. 213, ``Child Restraint Systems,'' 
requires a standard type of tether hook connector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GM, UVA, Advocates, AAP, and SRN Publications suggested that the 
agency rate child restraints for the presence of ISO-style symbols on 
the lower attachments and tether hook connectors. These commenters 
indicated that if child restraints and vehicles were equipped with 
these symbols it might encourage a more widespread use of LATCH. 
Currently the use of ISO symbols in vehicles is not well documented and 
at this time, it is unknown whether or not manufacturers would include 
these for all applicable seating positions in all future vehicle 
designs. Furthermore, the effectiveness and benefit of using symbols to 
identify LATCH seating positions are also unknown. In consideration of 
these issues and because the perceived benefit of the suggestion 
assumes that these symbols would also be present in the vehicle, we 
have decided not to include this suggestion in our proposed upgrade. 
However, the possibility exists to incorporate something similar in the 
future, especially if a corresponding vehicle symbol is either 
encouraged through a ratings program or required as part of a 
regulation.
    The agency will not propose a feature in the new rating system that 
encourages flexible lower anchor straps that can be adjusted from both 
sides, which was suggested by SRN Publications. After reviewing the 
available technologies in the child

[[Page 65816]]

restraint market the agency did not determine that having an adjuster 
on either side of the child restraint would necessarily make installing 
the child restraint easier. In addition, the agency could not find 
objective, repeatable criteria with which to evaluate this feature. 
Regardless of the number of adjusters on the lower straps, (except when 
the flexible lower anchors are self-tightening) the user must still be 
reminded to tighten the attachments on the child restraint through 
updated labeling and instruction requirements.
    In response to AAP's suggestion that information on the type of 
lower attachment device on each child restraint be included in the 
ratings, the agency will investigate the feasibility of including this 
additional information on the EOU Web site and whether or not consumers 
would find this additional information helpful in purchasing a child 
restraint. In addition, the agency welcomes the opportunity to 
collaborate with AAP on their publication, and is partnering with them 
not only on our existing brochure but theirs as well.

VII. Rating Vehicles Based on Child Restraint Installation Features

    The agency believes that a vehicle rating program is a natural 
element in reducing the incompatibility between child restraints and 
vehicles. The agency agrees with the commenters to the LATCH public 
meeting that the ease of installing a child restraint is not solely 
dependant on features specific to the restraint and that the vehicle's 
features play a vital role in determining whether a child restraint can 
achieve a correct and secure installation. The agency recognizes that 
even the child restraint rated highest for EOU may do little good if 
the user attempts installation in a vehicle or a seating position that 
is not ideal.
    However, the agency has concluded that developing a ratings program 
to address the issue of child restraint and vehicle interaction is 
premature at this time and is best explored as a separate activity. 
Therefore it is not part of this proposed upgrade. We are currently 
evaluating several approaches from around the world in order to develop 
a vehicle rating that would help address the incompatibility between 
vehicles and child restraints. The agency will likely publish its 
intentions by the end of next year.

VIII. Conclusion, Star-System, and Effective Date

    Therefore, in consideration of recent surveys conducted on LATCH 
and the EOU program itself, as well as NHTSA's public meeting on LATCH, 
NHTSA is proposing to update the features and criteria it uses for its 
child restraint EOU ratings program, along with the method in which we 
display the ratings to consumers. The changes will not only recognize 
easier to install features, specifically for the LATCH hardware, but it 
will also provide an incentive for manufacturers to continue to design 
child restraints with features that are intuitive and easier to use. 
The agency feels this approach provides additional incentives to 
manufacturers while at the same time providing consumers with useful 
information. Similarly, novel design features and products that have 
entered the market will be recognized by these enhancements to the 
program. Furthermore, our changes to the numerical break points that 
determine a child restraint's category and overall ratings will make 
the top rating harder to achieve. In addition to making the ratings 
harder to achieve, the agency is also proposing to change the way it 
conveys these ratings to the public. Rather than using a letter grading 
system with three levels, EOU ratings would now be presented to 
consumers using a star rating system containing five levels. The agency 
feels that the additional levels of discrimination could further aid 
consumers in their purchasing decisions and continue to add to the 
robustness of the rating system.
    We believe that this consumer information program must undergo the 
changes outlined in this document to continue encouraging child 
restraint manufacturers to develop and maintain features that make it 
easier for consumers to use and install child restraints. The agency 
believes that the presence of easier to use features on child 
restraints leads to an increase in their correct use, which thereby 
results in increased safety for child passengers. NHTSA believes that 
these changes should be implemented as soon as possible and as such, 
these program enhancements are proposed for inclusion in the 2008 
ratings program, which will begin after we issue a notice of final 
decision.

IX. Public Comment

    Comments are sought on the proposed requirements discussed herein. 
To facilitate analysis of the comments, it is requested that responses 
be organized by the requirements listed above. NHTSA will consider all 
comments and suggestions in deciding what changes, if any, should be 
made to program described here.

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must be no longer than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). 
We establish this limit to encourage the preparation of comments in a 
concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents 
to your comments. There is no limit to the length of the attachments.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. This submission must include the 
information that you are claiming to be private; that is, confidential 
business information. In addition, you should submit two copies, from 
which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, 
to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When 
you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential 
business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in our confidential business information 
regulation (49 CFR part 512).

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments that are received by Docket 
Management before the close of business on the comment closing date 
indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also 
consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If 
Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in 
developing a proposal concerning this label, we will consider that 
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How can I read comments submitted by other people?

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act

[[Page 65817]]

Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 
65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23NO07.004


[[Page 65818]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23NO07.005


[[Page 65819]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23NO07.006


[[Page 65820]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23NO07.007


[[Page 65821]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23NO07.008


[[Page 65822]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23NO07.009


[[Page 65823]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23NO07.010


[[Page 65824]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23NO07.011


[[Page 65825]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23NO07.012


[[Page 65826]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23NO07.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23NO07.014


[[Page 65827]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23NO07.015


[[Page 65828]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23NO07.016


[[Page 65829]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23NO07.017


[[Page 65830]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23NO07.018


[[Page 65831]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23NO07.019


[[Page 65832]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23NO07.020


[[Page 65833]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23NO07.021


    Issued on: November 15, 2007.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-22912 Filed 11-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C