Safety Standard for High Chairs, 69144-69161 [2015-28300]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
69144
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 80, No. 216
Monday, November 9, 2015
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1231
[Docket No. CPSC–2015–0031]
Safety Standard for High Chairs
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Danny Keysar Child
Product Safety Notification Act, section
104(b) of the Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’;
Pub. L. 110–314, 122 Stat. 3016),
requires the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission
(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘CPSC’’) to
promulgate consumer product safety
standards for durable infant or toddler
products. These standards must be
substantially the same as applicable
voluntary standards or more stringent
than the voluntary standard if the
Commission determines that more
stringent requirements would further
reduce the risk of injury associated with
a product. In response to the direction
under section 104(b) of the CPSIA, the
Commission is proposing a safety
standard for high chairs. The proposed
rule would incorporate by reference
ASTM F404–15, Standard Consumer
Safety Specification for High Chairs
(‘‘ASTM F404–15’’) into our new
regulation and impose more stringent
requirements for rearward stability and
warnings on labels and in instructional
literature. In addition, the Commission
proposes to amend our regulations to
include the newly proposed high chair
standard in the list of notice of
requirements (‘‘NORs’’) issued by the
Commission.
DATES: Submit comments by January 25,
2016.
ADDRESSES: Comments related to the
Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the
labeling and instructional literature
requirements of the proposed
mandatory standard for high chairs
should be directed to the Office of
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
Information and Regulatory Affairs, the
Office of Management and Budget, Attn:
CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–6974,
or emailed to oira_submission@
omb.eop.gov.
Other comments, identified by Docket
No. CPSC–2015–0031, may be
submitted electronically or in writing:
Electronic Submissions: Submit
electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
The Commission does not accept
comments submitted by electronic mail
(email), except through
www.regulations.gov. The Commission
encourages you to submit electronic
comments by using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, as described above.
Written Submissions: Submit written
comments by mail/hand delivery/
courier to: Office of the Secretary,
Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Room 820, 4330 East West Highway,
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301)
504–7923.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this proposed
rulemaking. All comments received may
be posted without change, including
any personal identifiers, contact
information, or other personal
information provided, to: https://
www.regulations.gov. Do not submit
confidential business information, trade
secret information, or other sensitive or
protected information that you do not
want to be available to the public. If
furnished at all, such information
should be submitted by mail/hand
delivery/courier.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to: https://
www.regulations.gov, and insert the
docket number, CPSC–2015–0031, into
the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the
prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stefanie C. Marques, Project Manager,
Directorate for Health Sciences, U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission,
5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850;
telephone: 301–987–2581; email:
smarques@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Statutory Authority
The CPSIA was enacted on August 14,
2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, part
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of the Danny Keysar Child Product
Safety Notification Act, requires the
Commission to: (1) examine and assess
the effectiveness of voluntary consumer
product safety standards for durable
infant or toddler products, in
consultation with representatives of
consumer groups, juvenile product
manufacturers, and independent child
product engineers and experts; and (2)
promulgate consumer product safety
standards for durable infant or toddler
products. Any standard the Commission
adopts under this directive must be
substantially the same as the applicable
voluntary standard or more stringent
than the voluntary standard if the
Commission determines that more
stringent requirements would further
reduce the risk of injury associated with
the product.
The term ‘‘durable infant or toddler
product’’ is defined in section 104(f)(1)
of the CPSIA as ‘‘a durable product
intended for use, or that may be
reasonably expected to be used, by
children under the age of 5 years.’’
Section 104(f)(2)(C) of the CPSIA
specifically identifies high chairs as a
durable infant or toddler product.
Pursuant to section 104(b)(1)(A) of the
CPSIA, the Commission consulted with
representatives of manufacturers,
consumer groups, consultants, retailers,
industry trade groups, and government
agencies in reviewing and assessing the
effectiveness of the existing voluntary
standard for high chairs, ASTM F404–
15, largely through ASTM
International’s (‘‘ASTM’’; formerly the
American Society for Testing and
Materials) standard-development
process. The standard the Commission
is proposing in this notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’) is based on ASTM
F404–15 with more stringent
requirements for rearward stability and
warnings in labels and instructional
literature.
The testing and certification
requirements of section 14(a) of the
Consumer Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’;
15 U.S.C. 2051–2089) apply to the
standards promulgated under section
104 of the CPSIA. Section 14(a)(3) of the
CPSA requires the Commission to
publish an NOR for the accreditation of
third party conformity assessment
bodies (i.e., test laboratories) to assess
whether a children’s product conforms
to applicable children’s product safety
rules. If adopted, the proposed rule for
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
69145
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules
high chairs would be a children’s
product safety rule that requires the
issuance of an NOR. For this reason, this
NPR also proposes to amend 16 CFR
part 1112 to include proposed 16 CFR
part 1231, the section in which the high
chair standard would be codified.
shoulder harnesses. High chair designs
include restaurant-style chairs, fourlegged A-frame styles, single-leg
pedestals, and Z-frame styles.
Restaurant-style high chairs are
discussed further in section VII. of this
preamble.
II. The Product
B. Market Description
A. Definition
ASTM F404–15 defines a ‘‘high chair’’
as ‘‘a free standing chair for a child up
to 3 years of age which has a seating
surface more than 15 in. above the floor
and elevates the child normally for the
purposes of feeding or eating.’’ The
ASTM standard further specifies that a
high chair may be sold with or without
a tray, have adjustable heights, and
recline for infants.
There are various designs and
construction materials for high chairs.
Typical high chairs consist of a plastic,
wood, or metal frame, often with a
padded fabric seat. Some models fold
for storage and transport or convert for
continued use as a child grows. Some
high chairs include a removable snack
tray or mounted toy accessories and
some have no trays. High chairs may
have a passive crotch restraint (i.e., two
separate bounded openings for the
occupant’s legs), a rigid front torso
support, a three-point restraint system,
or a five-point restraint system with
In 2013, the CPSC conducted a
Durable Nursery Product Exposure
Survey (‘‘DNPES’’) of U.S. households
with children under the age of 6. Data
from DNPES indicate that there are
approximately 9.74 million high chairs
in U.S. households with children under
the age of 6 and about 7.14 million high
chairs actually in use in those
households. High chairs range in price
from $35 to $650.
Staff identified 62 firms supplying
high chairs to the U.S. market. Fifty-one
of these are domestic, including 27
manufacturers, 19 importers, and five
wholesalers. The remaining 11 firms are
foreign, including nine manufacturers,
one importer, and one retailer. Of these
62 firms, 48 market their high chairs to
consumers. The remaining 14 firms
market their high chairs for use in
commercial settings, primarily in
restaurants, but these products generally
also are available to consumers.
III. Incident Data
The Commission receives data
regarding product-related injuries from
several sources. One such source is the
National Electronic Injury Surveillance
System (‘‘NEISS’’), from which CPSC
can estimate the number of injuries
associated with specific consumer
products that are treated in U.S. hospital
emergency departments (‘‘EDs’’)
nationwide, based on a probability
sample. Other sources include reports
from consumers and others through the
Consumer Product Safety Risk
Management System (which also
includes some NEISS data) and reports
from retailers and manufacturers
through CPSC’s Retailer Reporting
System (collectively referred to as
Consumer Product Safety Risk
Management System data (‘‘CPSRMS’’)).
Through CPSRMS sources, the
Commission has received 1,296 reports
of incidents related to high chairs that
occurred between January 1, 2011 and
December 31, 2014. Because several of
these reports include more than one
incident or issue, the total number of
incidents is 1,308. These reports include
one fatality and 138 injuries; for the
remaining incidents, no injury occurred,
or no injury was reported. Table 1
provides the number of incidents,
injuries, and fatalities by year for 2011
to 2014.
TABLE 1—CPSRMS INCIDENT REPORTS INVOLVING HIGH CHAIRS BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 2011 AND DECEMBER 31, 2014
Incident year
Total
Injuries
Fatalities
2011 .............................................................................................................................................
2012 * ...........................................................................................................................................
2013 * ...........................................................................................................................................
2014 * ...........................................................................................................................................
276
360
491
169
44
51
28
15
0
0
0
1
Total ......................................................................................................................................
1,296
138
1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Source: CPSC’s Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System
* data collection is ongoing
Of the 1,296 reports CPSC received
from CPSRMS sources, 923 provided the
age of the child involved. For incidents
in which age was reported, the majority
involved children between 7 and 18
months old.
EDs participating in NEISS reported
1,078 injuries and no deaths related to
high chairs between January 1, 2011 and
December 31, 2014. Extrapolating from
this probability sample, there were
approximately 31,300 injuries and no
fatalities related to high chairs treated in
EDs between January 1, 2011 and
December 31, 2014. Approximately 75
percent of injuries reported through
NEISS involved children between 7 and
23 months old.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
A. Fatalities
The Commission received a report in
2014 of one fatality associated with a
high chair. Apart from indicating that
the high chair involved had broken, the
report provided little information about
the decedent or the circumstances of the
incident. The Commission has been
unable to obtain additional information
regarding this incident.
B. Nonfatal Injuries
Of the 138 CPSRMS injuries related to
high chairs that occurred between 2011
and 2014, three resulted in moderate
injuries treated in EDs. These injuries
included a puncture wound to the
forehead, a broken collarbone, and a
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
lacerated finger. There were no severe
injuries, and the remaining injuries
primarily resulted in contusions,
abrasions, and lacerations. Many of the
incident descriptions in the remaining
1,157 reports that did not state that an
injury had occurred, nevertheless,
indicated the potential for injury.
For injuries reported through NEISS,
94 percent were treated and released.
The most commonly injured body parts
were the head (65 percent) and face (17
percent). The most common types of
injuries were injuries to internal organs
(48 percent), contusions and abrasions
(22 percent), and lacerations (11
percent). In 1,540 of the estimated
31,300 injuries treated in U.S. EDs,
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
69146
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules
severe head injuries, such as fractured
skulls and concussions, occurred.
C. Hazard Pattern Identification
CPSC staff reviewed NEISS and
CPSRMS data to identify hazard
patterns associated with high chairs.
Because CPSRMS data sources generally
provide greater detail about incidents,
staff was able to identify more distinct
hazard patterns using this data than
NEISS data. CPSC staff identified
several hazard patterns associated with
high chairs in reviewing the 1,308
CPSRMS incidents. Approximately 96
percent of the 1,308 incidents involved
issues with specific components of the
high chair, including the frame, seat,
restraint system, armrest, tray, toy
accessories, wheels, footrest, and other
features. Approximately 4 percent
involved general problems with the high
chair, including the design and stability,
and less than 1 percent fell into other
categories, including consumer
observations and incidents in which
reports provided insufficient
information to identify a hazard pattern
(i.e., undetermined). Staff was unable to
identify the hazard pattern for the one
fatality because there was insufficient
information in the report. Table 2
provides the frequency of each hazard
pattern and category.
TABLE 2—HAZARD PATTERNS FOR CPSRMS INCIDENTS INVOLVING HIGH CHAIRS BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 2011 AND
DECEMBER 31, 2014
Hazard pattern
Total incidents
Injuries
Fatalities
650
205
139
81
75
70
21
14
8
22
16
3
4
20
41
12
2
33
1
1
0
1
13
12
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Total ......................................................................................................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Frame ...........................................................................................................................................
Seat ..............................................................................................................................................
Restraint System .........................................................................................................................
Armrest ........................................................................................................................................
Tray ..............................................................................................................................................
Toy Accessories ..........................................................................................................................
Wheels .........................................................................................................................................
Footrest ........................................................................................................................................
Miscellaneous Issues ...................................................................................................................
Design ..........................................................................................................................................
Stability ........................................................................................................................................
Consumer Observations ..............................................................................................................
Undetermined ..............................................................................................................................
1,308
138
1
Issues with frames account for the
greatest number of incidents. Examples
of these incidents include broken
frames, legs, seat supports, and loose
screws. Issues with seats are associated
with the greatest number of injuries.
Examples of these incidents include
torn, cracked, or peeling seat pads and
seat-reclining issues. Examples of
restraint system incidents include
broken buckles and prongs, jamming,
easy release, torn or fraying straps,
pinching, and ineffective restraints.
Examples of issues with armrests
include cracking or breaking. Examples
of tray incidents include trays failing to
lock or remain locked, trays releasing
too easily, difficulty releasing trays, and
pinching. Examples of toy accessory
incidents include cracked or broken toy
accessories. Examples of incidents
involving wheels include broken or
loose wheels or wheels not locking.
Examples of footrest incidents include
cracked or broken footrests. Examples of
other miscellaneous issues include
unclear assembly instructions, excessive
lead content in paint, finish coming off,
poor construction quality, and loose
hardware.
General issues with the design and
stability of high chairs also contributed
to incidents and injuries. Examples of
incidents related to design issues
include children’s limbs, fingers, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
toes becoming entrapped in spaces or
openings. In two separate incidents,
children were entrapped by the neck in
the seatback opening and leg opening of
high chairs. Examples of incidents
involving stability issues include a high
chair actually or nearly tipping over.
CPSC identified two additional
categories that do not represent
particular hazard patterns. First, several
incident reports included consumer
observations that did not indicate an
incident with a high chair had occurred.
Examples of these include perceived
safety hazards and unauthorized sales of
recalled high chairs. Second, several
reports, including a fatality report,
provided insufficient information for
CPSC to determine the circumstances or
cause of the incident.
One issue that relates to several of
these hazard patterns is prevalent in
both NEISS and CPSRMS incidents—
namely, falls from high chairs. Many of
the incidents reported through NEISS
and CPSRMS sources involved children
falling from high chairs. Within NEISS
data, 78 percent of incidents involved
falls but did not specify the cause, and
an additional 18 percent involved
mainly falls that occurred when a
component of a high chair failed, a high
chair tipped over, or a child climbed in
or out of a high chair. Many of the
CPSRMS incidents also involved falls
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
from a high chair. Fall incidents are
particularly evident in the stability,
restraint system, tray, and frame hazard
patterns. Falls often occurred when
these features fail or the restraint system
is not used properly. Fall incidents have
the potential to result in serious
injuries, including severe head injuries,
which can cause brain damage and
impact a child’s development and
cognitive skills. Of the 1,308 CPSRMS
incidents, 79 fall incidents showed the
potential for serious injuries, and in
many of these incidents, the child
sustained a head injury. Of the 31,300
estimated NEISS incidents, 1,540
resulted in severe head injuries.
D. Product Recalls
Since January 1, 2010, there have
been 10 recalls of high chairs involving
eight firms. The recalled high chairs
were responsible for a total of 72
injuries, including 44 injuries involving
bumps and bruises, 11 lacerations
requiring medical closure (stitches, tape,
or glue), one scratched cornea, and one
hairline fracture to the arm. These
injuries were primarily due to falls from
the high chair.
IV. International Standards for High
Chairs
CPSC is aware of four international
standards that apply to high chairs:
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules
• ASTM F404–15;
• EN 14988: 2006, Children's High
ChairsÐSafety Requirements and Test
Methods (‘‘European standard’’);
• AS 4684–2009, High ChairsÐSafety
Requirements (‘‘Australian standard’’);
and
• ISO 9221: 1992, FurnitureÐ
Children's High Chairs (‘‘ISO
standard’’).
CPSC staff reviewed the provisions in
these four standards and believes that
ASTM F404–15 best addresses the
hazard patterns indicated in the
incident data CPSC has received. In
most areas, ASTM F404–15 includes
more stringent requirements than the
other three international standards. For
example, to test forward stability, the
European standard requires testing with
an 11-pound load and 5.6 foot-pound
force, while ASTM F404–15 requires
testing with a 40-pound load and 14
foot-pound force, making it the more
stringent standard.
In reviewing the provisions in which
one of the other international standards
includes more stringent requirements
than ASTM F404–15, CPSC found that
incident data do not indicate that the
more stringent standard is necessary to
reduce the risk of injury, and the
requirements in ASTM F404–15 are
sufficient. For example, the European
standard has height requirements for the
sides of high chairs, while ASTM F404–
15 does not. However, incident data do
not indicate that side height is a factor
in fall hazard patterns. Similarly, the
Australian standard requires castors or
gliders to be in specific configurations,
and the ISO standard only allows
castors for convertible high chairs,
while ASTM F404–15 has no
requirements for castors. However,
incident data do not indicate that
castors are a common cause of injury.
Based on these comparisons, CPSC
believes that ASTM F404–15 is, in
general, a more stringent standard than
the other three international standards
and is better tailored to address the
hazard patterns shown in the incident
data.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
V. ASTM F404–15
A. History of ASTM F404–15
ASTM first approved and published a
standard for high chairs in 1975, as
ASTM F404–75, Standard Consumer
Safety Specification for High Chairs.
ASTM has revised the voluntary
standard many times since then, adding
and modifying requirements. Some of
the more substantial additions over the
past 5 years include requirements for
tray-release mechanisms, visibility and
permanency of labels, restraint system
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:04 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
installation, and restraint anchor
integrity. ASTM approved the current
version, ASTM F404–15, on May 15,
2015.
B. Description of ASTM F404–15
CPSC staff, together with stakeholders
on the ASTM subcommittee task group
for high chairs, developed modified and
new requirements for ASTM F404–15 to
address the hazards associated with
high chairs. ASTM F404–15 includes
the following key provisions: scope,
terminology, calibration and
standardization, general requirements,
performance requirements, test
methods, labeling and warnings, and
instructional literature. The following
provides an overview of these
provisions; to view the complete
standard, see the instructions in section
X. of this preamble.
1. Scope
This section states the scope and
intent of the standard.
2. Terminology
This section provides definitions of
terms specific to the standard.
3. Calibration and Standardization
This section provides general
instructions for conducting tests.
4. General Requirements
This section includes general
requirements regarding various issues,
such as components of a high chair,
conversion kits, accessories, threaded
fasteners, sharp edges and points, small
parts, wood parts, latching or locking
mechanisms, labels, openings, toy
components, and lead in paint.
5. Performance Requirements and Test
Methods
These sections contain performance
requirements and associated test
methods for high chairs. The following
summarizes key requirements in these
sections.
a. Protective Components: These
requirements provide for testing
protective components such as caps and
plugs.
b. Tray or Front Torso Support—Drop
Test: Each removable tray and front
torso support must be dropped from a
specified height in multiple
orientations. The purpose of this
requirement is to test whether high
chair components continue to function
or exhibit mechanical hazards (e.g.,
sharp edges) after the drop test.
c. Tray or Front Torso Support—Pull
Tests: The tray or front torso support
must be pulled multiple times from
multiple sides and directions with a
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69147
specified force. The purpose of this
requirement is to test whether frontal
support can withstand kicking or
pulling.
d. Static Load: A high chair must
support specified weights on the seat,
tray, step, and footrest. The purpose of
this requirement is to test whether the
high chair seat and step can support
more than the weight of a child and
whether the tray can withstand
overloading.
e. Stability: A high chair must not tip
over when pulled forward, backward, or
sideways by a specified force. The
purpose of this requirement is to test the
high chair’s resistance to falling over if
an occupant leans forward, pushes off a
nearby surface, or the high chair is
otherwise pushed.
f. Exposed Coil Springs: Any exposed
coil springs that reach a specified
distance from each other during static
load testing must be designed to prevent
pinching or entrapment.
g. Scissoring, Shearing, and Pinching:
Each accessible point at which
components move (e.g., fastening
points, pivots) must admit a probe with
a specified diameter. The purpose of
this requirement is to prevent
scissoring, shearing, and pinching of an
occupant.
h. Restraint System: The standard
requires an active restraint system, such
as a belt, to secure a child in the high
chair. The restraint system must include
waist and crotch restraints. In addition,
the restraints must withstand upward
and downward force tests as well as
testing to pull on restraint system
attachments. The purpose of these
requirements is to ensure that the
restraint system and its closing means
remain anchored and functional under
various forces.
i. Completely-Bounded Openings:
This section requires high chairs with
completely-bounded openings in front
of the occupant to have a passive crotch
restraint with specified maximum sizes
for gaps and openings. The crotch
restraint must be installed or tethered in
place to prevent consumers from misinstalling or not installing it and tethers
must withstand specified forces. The
purpose of these provisions is to reduce
the likelihood of injury or death from an
occupant sliding through and being
entrapped in an opening.
j. Structural Integrity: A high chair
must withstand dynamic cycle testing,
involving repeated drops of a weight on
the seat, without any structural
components breaking or the seat height
or angle changing beyond a set limit.
The purpose of this requirement is to
test whether the high chair can
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
69148
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules
withstand the dynamic loads to which
it will be subjected.
k. Tray Latch Release Mechanisms:
The standard includes requirements for
tray latches to prevent unintentional or
accidental release. These requirements
include specific types and placements
for latch release mechanisms and testing
to ensure they can withstand a specified
force. The purpose of these
requirements is to address incidents in
which occupants fell from high chairs
that had passive restraints integrated
into the tray.
l. Side Containment: Any completelybounded openings on the sides of the
seat must meet specified maximum
dimensions for gaps and openings. The
purpose of this requirement is to reduce
the likelihood of injury or death from an
occupant sliding through and being
entrapped in an opening.
m. Protrusions: Projections must meet
certain dimensional requirements if
they are located on the outside of high
chair legs at a height a toddler is
susceptible to falling into. The purpose
of this requirement is to address the
incidents in which children outside of
high chairs sustained injuries from
falling into tray storage hooks or other
protrusions.
n. Locking Mechanisms: Locking
mechanisms must be able to withstand
a specified force.
o. Permanency of Labels and
Warnings: This section specifies testing
and criteria for determining the
permanency of labels.
6. Labeling and Warnings
This section contains various
requirements related to warnings and
labels, including content, format, and
prominence requirements.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7. Instructional Literature
This section requires that instructions
be provided with high chairs and be
easy to read and understand. The
instructions must comply with content,
format, and prominence requirements.
VI. Assessment of ASTM F404–15
CPSC considered the fatalities,
injuries, and non-injury incidents
associated with high chairs that
occurred between January 1, 2011 and
December 31, 2014, and staff evaluated
ASTM F404–15 to determine whether
the voluntary standard addresses these
hazards or whether more stringent
standards would reduce the risk of
injury associated with high chairs. CPSC
believes that ASTM F404–15 effectively
addresses the hazards indicated in the
incident data, with the exception of two
areas. CPSC believes that more stringent
requirements than those in ASTM
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
F404–15 would further reduce the risk
of injury associated with high chairs
regarding rearward stability and
warnings on labels and in instructional
literature. Consequently, CPSC proposes
additional requirements for those areas.
This section provides CPSC’s
assessments of how ASTM F404–15
addresses the hazard patterns in the
incident data. In its analysis, CPSC
identified broad categories into which
the incidents fall. One category is
components of high chairs, including
issues with frames, seats, restraint
systems, armrests, trays, toy accessories,
wheels, footrests, and miscellaneous
issues. Another category is general
problems with high chairs, including
design and stability issues. And the
final category includes incidents that
did not clearly fall within any of the
above groupings—these are listed below
as consumer observations and
undetermined. This section discusses
each of these hazard patterns, in
descending order of frequency of
incidents within each of the three
categories (see Table 2, above). Section
VIII. discusses the additional
requirements that CPSC proposes for
rearward stability and warnings.
A. Frame
There were 650 CPSRMS incidents
involving the frame of a high chair,
resulting in a total of 20 injuries.
Common incidents included cracked
frames or height adjustors, loose screws,
and buckling legs. More than 80 percent
of frame-related incidents involved
cracked components on two similar
high chair models from one
manufacturer and resulted in only a few
minor injuries.
ASTM F404–15 contains two separate
requirements intended to provide
structural integrity to high chair
frames—a static load test and a drop
test. Several general requirements also
address the hazards associated with
frame failures, such as the requirements
regarding the use of certain screws for
key structural elements to provide for
proper installation and durability over
time. Since frame-related incidents are
not an industry-wide problem, CPSC
believes that the ASTM F404–15
requirements for structural integrity,
load tests, and fasteners effectively
address the safety hazards related to
high chair frames.
B. Seat
There were a total of 205 incidents
involving the seat of a high chair,
resulting in 41 injuries. Seat-related
issues include cracked or peeling seat
pads, broken seat reclining hardware,
seat backs detaching, and loose screws.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Nearly 60 percent of seat issues
involved a single manufacturer’s seat
pads cracking or peeling after multiple
washings. Eighty-three percent of seatrelated injuries involved cracked or
peeling seat pads scratching occupants’
legs.
ASTM F404–15 contains two
requirements that address the integrity
of structural components of a high chair,
including the seat. These are the static
load test and drop test. General
requirements, such as those regarding
sharp points and small parts, also
address the risk of laceration or choking
on pieces that detach from the seat.
CPSC believes that ASTM F404–15
effectively addresses the hazards
associated with high chair seats.
C. Restraint System
There were 139 incidents involving
the restraint system of a high chair,
resulting in 12 injuries. These issues
generally fall into two categories—
restraint systems that failed and unused
restraint systems.
Within the first category, incidents
included buckles breaking or separating
from straps, straps tearing or pulling out
of anchor points, and other issues. To
address these issues, ASTM F404–15
requires all high chairs to be shipped
with two types of restraint systems—a
pre-attached ‘‘active’’ crotch and waist
belt restraint system and a ‘‘passive’’
crotch restraint—that have undergone
testing to ensure they work as intended.
ASTM F404–15 also requires the
restraint anchors to withstand a pull
test. CPSC believes that ASTM F404–15
effectively addresses the hazard pattern
associated with restraint system failures.
As for the second category, unused
restraint systems, CPSC believes that a
more stringent standard for labels and
instructional literature than ASTM
F404–15 would further reduce the risk
of injuries associated with this issue.
CPSRMS and NEISS data indicate that,
in many incidents, caregivers did not
use the restraint system. CPSC believes
more effective warnings would increase
consumer use of restraint systems and
reduce these incidents.
CPSC’s review of CPSRMS data
revealed that of the 1,308 incidents
involving high chairs, there were
numerous cases in which the caregiver
did not use the high chair restraints,
resulting in the child falling or nearly
falling from the high chair. Although
many incident reports have limited
detail, CPSC noted that several
incidents involved a child falling from
a high chair when the tray disengaged,
suggesting the tray was used as the sole
restraint. Several reports also indicated
that a caregiver’s attention was
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules
elsewhere when the incident occurred.
And several other reports suggested that
the restraint system was ineffective at
restraining the child or was used
improperly.
CPSC’s review of NEISS data revealed
a similar pattern. The vast majority of
NEISS incidents involved falls, which
suggests that restraints were unused or
ineffective. Although NEISS data
provide limited details, many reports
state that the child was not restrained or
that the restraint had just been removed
when the incident occurred. In some
cases, the incident happened when a
caregiver turned away from the child,
and some reports stated the child was
strapped in before the fall, suggesting
the restraint fit poorly or was not
adjusted properly.
CPSC believes that the requirements
in ASTM F404–15 do not adequately
address the risk of injury associated
with unused or improperly used
restraint systems. ASTM F404–15
includes three types of requirements
relevant to this hazard. First, the
standard requires the passive crotch
restraint to arrive attached or tethered to
its manufacturer’s recommended use
position to reduce the chances that the
restraint is not installed before use.
Second, section 8 of ASTM F404–15
requires warnings about the risk of
serious injury or death from falling or
sliding out of a high chair, instructions
to use the restraint system, and a
warning never to leave a child
unattended. Some of these warnings
must be visible to a person standing
near the high chair at any one position
when a child is in the high chair, but
not necessarily visible from all
positions. Other warnings must be
visible to a caregiver while placing a
child in the high chair, but not
necessarily visible when the child is in
the high chair. Third, section 9 of ASTM
F404–15 specifies that instructional
literature provided with a high chair
must include the same warning
statements that are on the high chair;
state that only children capable of
sitting upright unassisted should use a
high chair; advise consumers to use the
restraint system; and inform consumers
that the tray is not a restraint system.
CPSC believes that more stringent
content, form, and placement
requirements for warnings than ASTM
F404–15’s would further reduce the risk
of injury associated with unused
restraint systems. Section VIII. discusses
CPSC’s proposed labeling and
instructional literature requirements in
greater detail.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
D. Armrest
Eighty-one high chair incidents
involved armrests and resulted in two
injuries. Many of the reports indicate
armrests broke as users removed the
tray. All but one of the armrest incidents
involved a single high chair model.
ASTM F404–15 includes several
performance tests that address this
hazard. For example, the static load and
pull tests for trays also evaluate the
durability of armrests because trays are
typically attached to armrests. CPSC
believes that ASTM F404–15 effectively
addresses the armrest hazard pattern.
The incident reports indicate this is not
an industry-wide problem; there were
only a small number of minor injuries
associated with armrests, and ASTM
F404–15 includes tests for armrest
durability.
E. Tray
A total of 75 high chair incidents
involved trays and resulted in 33
injuries. Common tray incidents
included pinching, and in addition, falls
that occurred when trays unexpectedly
detached or released too easily.
ASTM F404–15 contains several
performance requirements that address
tray incidents, including pull tests, a
static load test, and specific traylatching requirements. Provisions on
tray latch accessibility and latch
actuation that ASTM adopted in 2007
and 2010 have been effective at
reducing tray-related incidents, as data
show a decline in incidents for models
manufactured after those revisions.
General requirements, such as those for
sharp edges and scissoring, shearing,
and pinching, also address these
hazards. CPSC believes that ASTM
F404–15 effectively addresses the tray
hazard pattern.
F. Toy Accessories
Toy accessories were involved in 70
high chair incidents, resulting in one
injury. These reports indicate toy
accessories cracked or broke.
ASTM F404–15 includes
requirements for toy accessory
durability, requiring manufacturers to
attach toy accessories to the high chair
for testing, including tray drop testing
and load cycle testing. CPSC believes
ASTM F404–15 effectively addresses
the toy accessory hazard pattern. CPSC
expects the toy durability requirements
in ASTM F404–15, as well as the
general requirement in ASTM F404–15
calling for compliance with ASTM’s toy
standard, ASTM F963, Standard
Consumer Safety Specification for Toy
Safety, to reduce hazards related to
cracked or broken toy accessories.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69149
G. Wheels
Wheels were involved in 21 high
chair incidents, resulting in one injury.
Common incidents involved wheels
becoming loose, breaking, or not
locking. All but two of these incident
reports cited cracked or broken
components of high chairs from one
manufacturer and almost all of these
were the same model. In the single
incident that resulted in an injury, the
wheel was only a minor contributing
factor.
ASTM F404–15 evaluates wheel
durability through a static load test and
drop test. CPSC believes that ASTM
F404–15 effectively addresses this
hazard pattern, as wheel issues do not
appear to be an industry-wide hazard
pattern, do not contribute to a
substantial number of injuries, and
ASTM F404–15 contains provisions that
evaluate wheel integrity.
H. Footrests
Fourteen high chair incidents
involved footrests and resulted in no
injuries. All of the incident reports cited
footrests cracking on a single high chair
model.
ASTM F404–15 includes a static load
test to evaluate the durability of
footrests. CPSC believes that ASTM
F404–15 effectively addresses this
hazard pattern, as this is not an
industry-wide issue, and ASTM F404–
15 includes requirements for footrest
durability.
I. Miscellaneous Issues
High chair incident reports included
various additional issues, such as paint
with excessive lead content, cracked
wood finish, loose screws, and assembly
problems. Eight high chair incident
reports cited these miscellaneous issues
and resulted in one injury.
ASTM F404–15 contains several
requirements that address these various
issues, such as issues with screws on
consumer-assembled structural
components, sharp edges, small parts,
exposed wood, and compliance with 16
CFR part 1303 (banning lead-containing
paint). ASTM F404–15 also includes
requirements for instructional literature,
intended to provide clear assembly
instructions. CPSC believes that ASTM
F404–15 effectively addresses these
issues.
J. Design
Design issues were involved in 22
high chair incidents, resulting in 13
injuries. Incident reports relating to the
design of a high chair primarily cited
designs that create entrapment hazards.
These hazards commonly resulted in
children’s arms being entrapped
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
69150
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
between the back of a high chair and the
tray or children’s legs catching in the
gap between the bottom of the tray and
the top of the passive crotch restraint. In
the most severe cases, children slid into
leg hole openings under the tray and
hung by their necks.
To address these ‘‘submarining’’
cases, ASTM F404–15 contains several
performance tests that specifically
address openings, including a probe test
for gaps and completely-bounded
openings in front of occupants, around
the passive crotch restraint, and
between horizontal portions and the
tray. The standard also includes a test
for leg openings and openings around
the sides of the high chair seat to ensure
that occupants cannot slide through and
become entrapped. ASTM F404–15
requires manufacturers to attach passive
crotch restraints to the high chair to
increase the likelihood that consumers
will use restraints and reduce
submarining incidents. ASTM F404–
15’s requirements on openings and
scissoring, shearing, and pinching
address less serious entrapment
hazards. CPSC believes that ASTM
F404–15 effectively addresses the
design hazard pattern.
K. Stability
Stability issues played a role in 16
high chair incidents, resulting in 12
injuries. This hazard pattern includes
forward tip-overs, side tip-overs, and
rearward tip-overs. Tip-overs generally
occur when a child leans out of the high
chair or pushes off a nearby surface. In
NEISS reports that included enough
detail to identify the cause of the
incident, the vast majority of the
incidents were falls resulting from tipovers, mostly rearward tip-overs.
CPSRMS data also included reports of
many injuries resulting from high chairs
tipping over, also frequently rearward
tip-overs.
ASTM F404–15 requires forward,
sideways, and rearward tip-over testing.
The standard also contains a stability
requirement to simulate the load
applied by a child climbing into the
chair. CPSC believes that ASTM F404–
15 effectively addresses forward and
sideways tip-overs. However, based on
the frequency of rearward tip-over
incidents, CPSC believes that ASTM
F404–15 does not adequately address
rearward tip-over hazards and a more
stringent standard is necessary. Section
VIII. discusses CPSC’s proposed
rearward stability standard.
L. Consumer Observations
Three incident reports involved
consumers’ perceived safety hazards or
complaints about high chairs, but none
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
of the incidents resulted in injuries.
These reports did not provide enough
information for CPSC to assess the
adequacy of ASTM F404–15 regarding
the reported concerns.
M. Undetermined
Four high chair incident reports did
not provide sufficient information for
CPSC to determine how the incidents,
including the one reported death and
two injuries, occurred. The lack of
information available in these incident
reports made it impossible for CPSC to
assess the effectiveness of ASTM F404–
15 in addressing these issues.
VII. Restaurant-Style High Chairs
ASTM F404–15 applies to high chairs
without distinguishing where
consumers use them. However, many
high chairs are designed to be used in
commercial settings, primarily
restaurants (‘‘restaurant-style high
chairs’’). These high chairs generally
include features that are particularly
useful in commercial or restaurant
settings and may not present the same
hazards as high chairs used in the home.
Based on CPSC’s review of incident data
and the potential economic impact of
the requirements proposed in this NPR,
it is possible that, due to the unique
environmental factors in restaurant
settings, high chairs used in these
settings may present lesser hazards and
warrant fewer requirements to reduce
the risk of injury associated with high
chairs. The following describes the
factors that weigh in favor of and against
distinguishing restaurant-style high
chairs from other high chairs and
possible options for distinguishing
them.
Of the 1,296 CPSRMS incident
reports, three explicitly state that the
incidents occurred in restaurants while
consumers used the establishments’
high chairs. Restaurant-style high chairs
have several distinct features. This style
of chair is generally constructed from
robust materials, such as wood or
plastic and do not have trays. Therefore,
restaurant-style high chairs can be
pulled up to a table. In addition,
restaurant-style high chairs are designed
to be compact and stackable for easy
storage and have little space available
for labels. Restaurant-style high chairs
are also generally designed to be lower
to the ground and narrower than high
chairs intended for home use.
Additionally, restaurant-style high
chairs are designed not only to
accommodate a wide range of ages, from
infants to toddlers, but also
accommodate bulky outerwear and
shoes. These design attributes are
desirable in a restaurant setting to adapt
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to the environment and be versatile and
compact. However, these features also
make it difficult for these high chairs to
comply with the requirements in ASTM
F404–15 and the additional
requirements proposed in this NPR.
There are several requirements that
restaurant-style high chairs frequently
do not follow. Contrary to ASTM F404–
15, wedge blocks can generally pass
through the leg openings of restaurantstyle high chairs. The large side and
back openings also do not meet ASTM
F404–15. The belt used as a passive
restraint often fits loosely over the top
rail of the high chair and does not meet
the passive restraint requirements of
ASTM F404–15. The lower and
narrower stance of these high chairs also
may impact the chairs’ compliance with
the stability requirements in ASTM
F404–15. Moreover, there is little space
on these high chairs to accommodate
the label requirements in ASTM F404–
15 or the additional requirements CPSC
proposes.
There are several reasons it may be
appropriate to apply different
requirements to restaurant-style high
chairs. First, the environment in which
restaurant-style high chairs are used
may not present the same hazards that
are common in the home. In a restaurant
environment, caregivers sit next to the
child seated in the high chair, are
unlikely to leave a child unattended in
the high chair, and are not distracted by
the tasks that may divert the caregiver’s
attention in a home environment. For
these reasons, a caregiver would likely
be able to prevent an incident from
occurring, or correct any issue quickly,
before serious injury or death could
occur. None of the three incidents
involving restaurant-style high chairs
reported to CPSC involved children who
were unattended and entrapped in the
openings of the high chair. Because
caregivers are likely to be nearby and
attentive, it is likely to be less necessary
for warnings regarding attending the
child to be visible when the child is in
the high chair. Second, modifying
restaurant-style high chairs to comply
with ASTM F404–15 would likely
reduce their utility because these high
chairs would no longer accommodate
larger children or bulky clothes, and
would be less compact and not
stackable. Finally, given the possible
lesser safety issues, the proposed
requirements in this NPR impose
proportionately high costs on
restaurant-style high chair suppliers
because these products require more
changes to come into compliance.
There are also several reasons to
apply the same requirements to
restaurant-style high chairs and other
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules
high chairs. First, restaurant-style high
chairs are readily available to
consumers and are also used in homes.
Two of the firms that market their
products to consumers produce high
chairs identical to the wooden high
chairs used in restaurants. This negates
the environmental factors that support
distinguishing high chairs used in
restaurants. Second, there is minimal
incident data to indicate whether high
chairs actually pose lesser safety risks in
restaurant settings. It is also possible
that, although caregivers in restaurants
are near the child, caregivers may be
less likely to attend to the child or use
the restraint system because caregivers
assume they are near enough to the
child to prevent an incident. As the
incident data indicate, this may not be
correct, as incidents can happen
quickly. Finally, because high chairs are
readily available to consumers, it may
be difficult, practically, to apply
different requirements to these high
chairs.
Some options for treating restaurant
style-high chairs differently than other
high chairs include excluding
restaurant-style high chairs from the
proposed standard or modifying
individual requirements, such as label
placement and bounded-openings, to
reflect the features and lesser safety
issues associated with restaurant-style
high chairs.
CPSC requests comments on the
following factors: whether it is
appropriate to distinguish these high
chairs, which requirements should
differ, and how CPSC could apply those
distinctions.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VIII. Description of Proposed Changes
to ASTM Standard
The proposed rule would create part
1231, titled, Safety Standard for High
Chairs. As explained above, the
Commission believes that ASTM F404–
15 effectively addresses the safety
hazards associated with high chairs,
with the exception of rearward stability
and warnings in labels and instructional
literature. For this reason, the
Commission proposes to incorporate by
reference ASTM F404–15, with
modified requirements for rearward
stability and warnings. This section
discusses the proposed changes to
ASTM F404–15.
A. Rearward Stability
Based on the incident data discussed
above, CPSC believes that a more
stringent standard than ASTM F404–15
for rearward stability would further
reduce the risk of injury. CPSC staff has
tested the high chair models involved in
incidents and found that the tested
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
models passed the requirements of
ASTM F404–15. To develop a
performance test to measure and
improve the rearward stability of high
chairs, CPSC worked with an ASTM
task group to develop an alternative
rearward stability test, based on CPSC
staff’s and manufacturers’ testing.
Although this test is not included in
ASTM F404–15, ASTM may adopt the
test in future revisions. CPSC proposes
to adopt this test, in lieu of the rearward
stability test in ASTM F404–15.
The proposed standard is based on a
rearward stability index (‘‘SI’’) rating
that evaluates the factors that contribute
to rearward tip-overs and sets a
minimum SI score for high chairs. The
task group developed the SI based on a
review of various stability requirements,
the incident data, and testing numerous
high chair models, including those
involved in rearward tip-over incidents
and those not reported to be involved in
such incidents. The SI measures the
elements associated with high chair
occupants pushing back from a surface.
The SI rates high chairs based on two
characteristics associated with rearward
tip-overs—the force (‘‘F’’) required to tip
the chair over in the rearward direction
and the distance (‘‘D’’) that a reference
point on the seat travels as the chair tilts
from the manufacturer’s recommended
use position to the point of instability
just before tipping over. A chair design
will score well if it requires a large
push-off force and/or a long distance to
reach its tipping point. CPSC’s and
manufacturers’ tests determined that the
tip force is a more critical factor in
identifying unstable chairs. As such, the
SI weights F twice as heavily as D: SI
= 2F + D.
The test method CPSC developed
through this testing and proposes in this
NPR includes the following elements:
• Attach a force gauge to the center
line of the back of the seat, 7.25″ above
the seating surface and preload it with
3 pounds of force (to eliminate any slack
in fabric or loose seats);
• Establish an initial reference point
along the plane of the force gauge;
• Gradually apply a rearward,
horizontal force until the point at which
the chair becomes unstable and begins
to tip over backward;
• Record the maximum force applied
during the tip test, along with the total
distance the reference point moved from
its predetermined position; and
• Calculate the SI by multiplying the
force by a factor of two and adding the
distance. Based on the product testing
conducted, CPSC proposes requiring
high chairs to have an SI of 50 or more.
CPSC also proposes to include
requirements for the test surface and
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69151
positioning of the high chair for
rearward stability testing. These
requirements are based on CPSC staff’s
testing initiative and aim to reduce
variation in test results. First, CPSC
proposes to require the high chair seat
back, tray, seat, and wheels to be in
specific positions for rearward stability
testing. This will decrease variability in
test methods and results, and based on
testing, CPSC believes that these
positions are the most effective for
assessing high chair stability.
Second, CPSC proposes to require a
specific test surface, including 60-grit
sandpaper to prevent sliding and
maximum parameters for the stop block
placed behind a high chair with wheels
to instigate tipping. Without these
requirements, test results vary because
test surfaces differ and the height of a
stop block affects the amount of force
necessary to tip over a high chair.
The proposed rearward stability
requirement and test procedure are
effective at identifying high chairs that
have been involved in rearward tip-over
incidents. As such, CPSC believes this
more stringent standard would further
reduce the risk of injury associated with
rearward high chair tip-overs, and
proposes requiring this modification to
ASTM F404–15.
B. Warnings in Labels
Based on incident data discussed
above and research on effective
warnings, CPSC believes that the onproduct warning requirements in ASTM
F404–15 do not adequately address the
safety risks associated with high chairs;
therefore, CPSC proposes more stringent
requirements that would further reduce
the risk of injury associated with falls
from high chairs. Specifically, CPSC
proposes additional content, form, and
placement provisions for on-product
warnings labels. Tab E of CPSC staff’s
briefing package for this proposed rule
includes additional details about these
proposed requirements and the rationale
behind them. The briefing package is
available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/
Newsroom/FOIA/Commission-BriefingPackages/.
1. Content
CPSC proposes to require high chairs
to bear labels that address the following
statements:
Children have suffered skull fractures
after falling from high chairs. Falls can
happen quickly if child is not restrained
properly.
• Always use restraints, and adjust to
fit snugly. Tray is not designed to hold
child in chair.
• Stay near and watch your child
during use.
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69152
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules
CPSC believes this language would be
more effective than ASTM F404–15’s
language at reducing the risk of injury
associated with falls from high chairs.
CPSC developed the proposed warning
language from information developed
through research on the content of
warnings. The proposed rule refers to
ANSI Z535.4, Product Safety Signs and
Labels (‘‘ANSI Z535.4’’), for guidance on
warning label designs. ANSI Z535.4 is
the primary U.S. voluntary consensus
standard for product safety signs and
labels. The standard is available at:
https://www.ansi.org/. ANSI Z535.4
addresses the design, application, use,
and placement of on-product warning
labels. CPSC’s Division of Human
Factors regularly uses ANSI Z535.4.
As the staff briefing package
discusses, literature and guidelines
about warnings consistently recommend
that on-product warnings include:
• A description of the hazard;
• information about the consequences
of exposure to the hazard; and
• instructions about appropriate
hazard-avoidance behaviors.
The warning statements in ASTM
F404–15 lack important details
regarding the hazard and its
consequences, providing only a vague
description of the types of injuries that
may occur. As staff’s briefing package
for this proposed rule indicates,
providing more detailed and vivid
information in a warning increases its
effectiveness. Accordingly, CPSC
developed the proposed language,
describing the specific hazard,
consequent injuries, and precise actions
that can help reduce the likelihood of
the hazard.
As Tab E of CPSC staff’s briefing
package for this proposed rule
discusses, incident data and other
research reveals the following:
• Falls can happen quickly;
• falls occur when caregivers are not
close by or watching a child;
• falls occur when caregivers do not
use the restraint system;
• falls occur when caregivers do not
use the restraint system properly; and
• receiving information about a
hazard, its consequences, and mitigating
actions, motivates appropriate behavior.
As discussed in further detail in Tab
E of CPSC staff’s briefing package, CPSC
does not believe that ASTM F404–15
includes adequately detailed
requirements to address many of these
factors. To increase the effectiveness of
warnings and further reduce the risk of
injury, CPSC proposes the following for
high chair warnings:
• A statement describing the speed
with which incidents can occur;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
• a detailed description of what
‘‘attending’’ means, including staying
near and watching a child;
• an instruction to use the restraint
system and a statement that the tray is
not part of the restraint system;
• an instruction to adjust the
restraints to fit the child snugly; and
• a warning statement regarding the
hazard, consequences, and appropriate
actions to appear together on a label.
Similarly to ASTM F404–15, CPSC
proposes that for high chairs that have
a seating component that is also used as
a seating component for a stroller, the
content of the labels must comply with
ASTM F833, Standard Consumer Safety
Performance Specification for Carriages
and Strollers (‘‘ASTM F833’’). However,
although ASTM F404–15 only requires
compliance with section 8.2.2.2 of
ASTM F833, CPSC also proposes to
require the additional warning provided
in section 8.2.2.1. CPSC incorporated
the most recent revision of this standard
(ASTM F833–13b) into 16 CFR part
1227 as the safety standard for carriages
and strollers, with some modifications,
effective September 10, 2015. 79 FR
13,208 (Mar. 10, 2014).
2. Form
Research indicates that the form of a
warning can affect the extent to which
consumers notice and read the warning.
The form of a warning can also
communicate the seriousness of a
hazard, which can affect compliance
with recommended behavior. CPSC
considered research on effective forms
for warnings, including the
requirements in ANSI Z535.4, in
developing the proposed form
requirements. ASTM F404–15 does not
include several of the features that have
been found to be effective, including
colors, contrast, typeface, and layout.
As discussed in Tab E of CPSC staff’s
briefing package for this proposed rule,
research indicates the following points
about the format of warnings:
• Certain colors, particularly red,
orange, and yellow, attract attention and
help convey the presence of a hazard;
• the degree of contrast contributes to
readability;
• certain typeface styles, such as
sentence capitalization (i.e., mixed
upper and lowercase) and boldface, are
easier to read and more effective at
highlighting information than extensive
capitalization;
• left-justified text is easier to read
than fully-justified text;
• condensed or narrow typeface is
less effective at conveying information;
and
• lists and outline formats provide for
better absorption and retention of
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information than continuous paragraph
text.
ASTM F404–15 does not include
specific requirements for many of these
factors. To increase the effectiveness of
warnings and further reduce the risk of
injury, based on this research, CPSC
proposes the following for high chair
warnings:
• Red, orange, or yellow on-product
warnings;
• highly contrasting colors, such as
black and white;
• sentence capitalization, with key
phrases emphasized in boldface;
• left-justified text;
• non-condensed typeface; and
• outline format.
3. Placement
As discussed above, the warning
placement and visibility requirements
in ASTM F404–15 permit different
portions of warning information to
appear on separate labels. CPSC believes
that to be most effective, all of the
warning information should appear
together because the hazard description
and potential injuries help motivate
caregivers to take the recommended
actions. Similarly, CPSC believes that it
is important for caregivers to be able to
see the warnings when putting a child
into a high chair and when the child is
in it. This will remind users to use the
restraint system when putting the child
into the high chair and to stay near and
watch the child once the high chair is
in use. ASTM F404–15 only requires
certain warning information to be
visible when a caretaker is placing a
child in the high chair, not once the
chair is occupied; and the standard
requires other warning information to be
visible when the child is in the chair.
Based on the incident data, CPSC
believes it would more effectively
reduce the risk of injury associated with
falls from high chairs if users could see
the warning after putting a child in the
high chair and before leaving the child
unattended. As such, CPSC proposes
requiring warning labels to be visible
when placing the occupant in the high
chair and once the child is in the high
chair.
4. Additional Guidance
CPSC also proposes to include a note
in the regulatory text referencing ANSI
Z535.4 for optional additional guidance.
CPSC would not require compliance
with ANSI Z535.4, but the standard may
offer regulated entities additional useful
information for developing effective
labels.
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules
C. Warnings in Instructional Literature
For reasons similar to using warnings
in on-product labels, CPSC proposes
more stringent requirements for
warnings in instructional literature than
ASTM F404–15 provides. CPSC believes
that more stringent requirements will
further reduce the risk of injury
associated with high chairs by providing
more effective warnings regarding the
hazard, potential injuries, and
recommended behavior. This includes
requirements about the content and
form of warnings in instructional
literature. The discussion below
provides the rationale for these morestringent requirements, and the
requirements are discussed in
additional detail in Tab E of CPSC staff’s
briefing package for this proposed rule.
1. Content
Section 9.2 of ASTM F404–15
requires that instructional literature
contain the same warnings as the
warnings required on the high chair.
CPSC believes that this requirement is
appropriate. However, because CPSC
proposes to require different on-product
warning label content than ASTM
F404–15, the more-stringent warning
requirements also would apply to
instructional literature. The
Commission agrees with the additional
content requirement listed in section
9.2.1 of ASTM F404–15. Therefore,
CPSC does not propose to modify that
requirement.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Form
Unlike on-product warning labels,
ASTM F404–15 does not specify the
form in which warning statements in
instructional literature must appear.
Similarly to on-product warning labels,
research and guidance indicate that
specific forms are more effective at
conveying information. The proposed
rule refers to ANSI Z535.6, Product
Safety Information in Product Manuals,
Instructions, and Other Collateral
Materials (‘‘ANSI Z535.6’’) for guidance
on the design and location of product
safety messages in instructional
literature. The standard is available at:
https://www.ansi.org/.
CPSC proposes to require the same
form requirements for warnings in
instructional literature as the
requirements proposed for on-product
warning labels, with one exception.
CPSC believes that these form
requirements will further reduce the
risk of injury associated with high
chairs for the same reasons discussed
for on-product warning labels. However,
CPSC does not propose to require the
use of specific colors (i.e., red, orange,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
yellow) for warnings in instructional
literature unless a manufacturer opts to
use color, in which case the same color
requirements as on-product labels
would apply.
3. Additional Guidance
Similar to ANSI Z535.4, CPSC also
proposes to include a note in the
regulatory text referencing ANSI Z535.6
for optional additional guidance. CPSC
would not require compliance with
ANSI Z535.6, but the standard may offer
regulated entities additional useful
information for developing effective
warnings in instructional literature.
IX. Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112 To
Include NOR for High Chair Standard
Section 14 of the CPSA establishes
requirements for product testing and
certification. Manufacturers of products
that are subject to a consumer product
safety rule under the CPSA or another
rule the Commission enforces must
certify, based on product testing, that
their product complies with all such
rules. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1).
Additionally, manufacturers of
children’s products that are subject to a
children’s product safety rule must have
these products tested by a third party
conformity assessment body that CPSC
has accredited, and manufacturers must
certify that their products comply with
all applicable children’s product safety
rules. Id. at 2063(a)(2). The Commission
must publish an NOR for the
accreditation of third party conformity
assessment bodies to assess conformity
with a children’s product safety rule. Id.
at 2063(a)(3). Because the proposed rule
is a children’s product safety rule, if the
Commission issues 16 CFR part 1231,
Safety Standard for High Chairs, as a
final rule, the CPSC must also issue an
NOR.
The Commission published a final
rule, codified at 16 CFR part 1112,
titled, Requirements Pertaining to Third
Party Conformity Assessment Bodies,
which established requirements for
accreditation of third party conformity
assessment bodies to test for conformity
with children’s product safety rules in
accordance with the CPSA. 78 FR 15836
(Mar. 12, 2013). Part 1112 also codifies
all of the NORs the Commission
previously issued.
NORs for new children’s product
safety rules, such as the high chair
standard, require the Commission to
amend part 1112. To accomplish this, as
part of this NPR, the Commission
proposes to amend part 1112 to add
high chairs to the list of children’s
product safety rules for which CPSC has
issued an NOR.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69153
Test laboratories applying for
acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third
party conformity assessment body to
test for compliance with the proposed
standard for high chairs would be
required to meet the third party
conformity assessment body
accreditation requirements in part 1112.
When a laboratory meets the
requirements of a CPSC-accepted third
party conformity assessment body, the
laboratory can apply to CPSC to have 16
CFR part 1231, Safety Standard for High
Chairs, included in the laboratory’s
scope of accreditation of CPSC safety
rules listed for the laboratory on the
CPSC Web site at: www.cpsc.gov/
labsearch.
X. Incorporation by Reference
Section 1231.2(a) of the proposed rule
incorporates by reference ASTM F404–
15. The Office of the Federal Register
(‘‘OFR’’) has regulations concerning
incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part
51. Under these regulations, in the
preamble of the NPR, an agency must
summarize the incorporated material
and discuss the ways the material is
reasonably available to interested
parties or how the agency worked to
make the materials reasonably available.
1 CFR 51.5(a).
In accordance with the OFR’s
requirements, section V.B. of this
preamble summarizes the provisions of
ASTM F404–15 that the Commission
proposes to incorporate by reference.
ASTM F404–15 is copyrighted. By
permission of ASTM, interested parties
may view the standard as a read-only
document during the comment period of
this NPR at: https://www.astm.org/
cpsc.htm. Interested parties may also
purchase a copy of ASTM F404–15 from
ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor
Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428; https://
www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may also
inspect a copy at CPSC’s Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330
East West Highway, Bethesda, MD
20814, telephone 301–504–7923.
XI. Effective Date
The Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 551–559) generally requires that
the effective date of a rule be at least 30
days after publication of the final rule.
5 U.S.C. 553(d). To allow time for high
chairs to come into compliance with the
standard, the Commission proposes that
the standard become effective 6 months
after publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. Without evidence to
the contrary, CPSC generally considers
6 months to be sufficient time for
suppliers to come into compliance with
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
69154
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules
a new standard, and 6 months is typical
for other CPSIA section 104 rules. Six
months is also the period that the
Juvenile Products Manufacturers
Association (‘‘JPMA’’) typically allows
for products in the JPMA certification
program to transition to a new standard
once that standard is published. We also
propose that the amendment to part
1112 become effective 6 months after
publication of the final rule. We ask for
comments on this proposed effective
date.
XII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
A. Introduction
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(‘‘RFA’’; 5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires
agencies to consider the impact of
proposed rules on small entities,
including small businesses. Section 603
of the RFA requires the Commission to
prepare an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) and make it available
to the public for comment when the
NPR is published. The IRFA must
describe the impact of the proposed rule
on small entities and identify significant
alternatives that accomplish the
statutory objectives and minimize any
significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities.
Specifically, the IRFA must discuss:
• The reasons the agency is
considering the action;
• the objectives and legal basis of the
proposed rule;
• the small entities that would be
subject to the proposed rule and, when
possible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that would be impacted;
• the projected reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule,
including the classes of small entities
subject to it and the professional skills
necessary to prepare the reports or
records; and
• the relevant federal rules that may
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule. 5 U.S.C. 603.
This section summarizes the IRFA for
this proposed rule. Based on CPSC’s
analysis, staff cannot rule out a
significant economic impact for 20 of
the 38 firms (53 percent) operating in
the U.S. market for high chairs.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Market Description
CPSC identified 62 firms that supply
high chairs to the U.S. market. The
majority of these firms are domestic
(including 27 manufacturers, 19
importers, and 5 wholesalers). The
remaining 11 firms are foreign
(including 9 manufacturers, 1 importer,
and 1 retailer). Forty-eight of these firms
market their products to consumers,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
The Commission is also proposing
more stringent requirements for
warnings in labels and instructional
literature. All firms would be affected
by the proposed requirements for
warnings in labels and instructional
literature. Each firm would need to
modify the text and formatting of the
warnings for both the product and the
instructional literature. Firms would
C. Reason for Agency Action, Objectives, need to move warning labels to the
specified location, ensuring that the
and Legal Basis for Proposed Rule
warnings are visible when the child is
Section 104 of the CPSIA requires the placed in the high chair and when the
CPSC to promulgate a mandatory
child is in the high chair. If the high
standard for high chairs that is
chair can be used with and without
substantially the same as the voluntary
padding, this would require placing the
standard or more stringent than the
warning on both the high chair and the
voluntary standard if the Commission
padding. Section XII.F. of this preamble
determines that more stringent
discusses staff’s assessment of the
requirements would further reduce the
impact of these proposed requirements
risk of injury associated with the
on small entities.
product.
E. Other Relevant Federal Rules
D. Description of the Proposed Rule
CPSC staff has not identified any
CPSC proposes to adopt ASTM F404–
federal or state rules that duplicate,
15 with modifications to the rearward
overlap or conflict with the proposed
stability test and requirements for
rule.
warnings on labels and instructional
literature. Section V. of this preamble
F. Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small
discusses key provisions of ASTM
Businesses
F404–15.
CPSC believes that the high chairs of
CPSC is aware of approximately 62
37 firms comply with ASTM F404. This firms currently marketing high chairs in
is because JPMA has certified the high
the United States, 51 of which are
chairs supplied by 12 firms, and the
domestic firms. Under U.S. Small
remaining 25 firms state that they
Business Administration (‘‘SBA’’)
comply with the voluntary standard. As guidelines, a high chair manufacturer is
such, these firms will not incur
‘‘small’’ if it has 500 or fewer
additional costs to comply with the
employees, and importers and
provisions of ASTM F404–15, which
wholesalers are small if they have 100
CPSC proposes to adopt.
or fewer employees. CPSC limited its
In addition to incorporating ASTM
analysis to domestic firms because SBA
F404–15 by reference, CPSC proposes to guidelines and definitions pertain to
adopt modified requirements for
U.S. entities. Based on these guidelines
rearward stability and warnings in
and available information about the
labels and instructional literature
firms, staff has identified 38 of the 51
because CPSC believes that more
domestic suppliers as small (21
stringent standards in these areas would manufacturers, 13 importers, and 4
further reduce the risk of injury. Section wholesalers). There may be additional
VIII. of this preamble discusses these
small domestic high chair suppliers that
proposed provisions.
CPSC is not aware of who are operating
Preliminary testing by CPSC staff and in the U.S. market. Table 3 lists the
other members of the ASTM task group
number of firms by category:
indicates that most high chairs would
pass the proposed rearward stability
TABLE 3—FIRMS THAT MARKET HIGH
test, and therefore, would not require
CHAIRS IN THE U.S.
any modifications to meet the proposed
standard. Through testing high chairs
Number of
Category
and other market research, staff
firms
identified only three high chairs that
Domestic ...............................
51
might not pass the modified rearward
Small .................................
38
stability test, based on their design.
Manufacturers ................
21
However, CPSC expects that the cost of
Compliant with ASTM
modifying the design to increase
F404 .......................
12
rearward stability would be low, and
Not Compliant with
that this could likely be accomplished
ASTM F404 ............
9
by adding flat supports to the bottom of
Importers and Wholesalers .........................
17
each back leg.
while 14 firms market their products for
use in commercial settings, such as
restaurants, hotels, and day care centers.
However, consumers are able to
purchase high chairs that are generally
designed and marketed for use in
commercial settings; two of the firms
that market their products to consumers
also produce high chairs identical to the
wooden high chairs used in restaurants.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—FIRMS THAT MARKET HIGH
CHAIRS IN THE U.S.—Continued
Category
Number of
firms
and the costs of developing a compliant
product.
3. Third Party Testing Costs for Small
Manufacturers
2. Small Manufacturers with
NonCompliant High Chairs
Under section 14 of the CPSA, if
CPSC adopts the proposed high chair
requirements, all manufacturers will be
subject to the third party testing and
certification requirements under 16 CFR
part 1107. Third party testing would
include any physical and mechanical
test requirements specified in a final
high chair rule. Manufacturers and
importers should already be conducting
required lead testing for high chairs.
Third party testing costs would be in
addition to the direct costs of meeting
the high chair standard.
More than half of small high chair
manufacturers (11 out of 21) are already
testing their products to verify
compliance with the ASTM standard,
although not necessarily by a third party
laboratory. For these manufacturers, the
impact on testing costs would be limited
to the difference between the cost of
third party tests and the cost of current
testing regimes. The suppliers that CPSC
staff contacted estimate that obtaining
third party testing for high chairs would
cost about $600 to $900 per model
sample. For manufacturers that are
already testing, the incremental costs
will be lower than that.
Based on CPSC staff’s examination of
firm revenues from recent Dun &
Bradstreet or ReferenceUSAGov reports,
the impact of third party testing, alone
is unlikely to be economically
significant for small manufacturers of
noncompliant high chairs. Even without
knowing how many samples would be
needed to meet the ‘‘high degree of
assurance’’ criterion in part 1107, more
than 12 units per model would be
required before testing costs exceed 1
percent of gross revenue for the small
manufacturer with the lowest gross
revenue. CPSC could not obtain revenue
information for one small manufacturer,
and therefore, could not evaluate the
impact on that firm. CPSC requests
comments on testing costs and
incremental costs of third party testing
(i.e., how much does moving from a
voluntary to a mandatory third party
testing regime add to testing costs, in
total, and on a per-test basis). In
particular, CPSC requests comments on
the preliminary determination that third
party testing is unlikely to lead to
significant economic impacts for small
high chair manufacturers. In addition,
CPSC would like comments about the
number of high chair units that typically
need to be tested to provide a ‘‘high
degree of assurance.’’
Nine small manufacturers produce
high chairs that do not comply with the
9
voluntary standard, five who market
8 their products for use in commercial
13 settings, primarily in restaurants. CPSC
11 believes it is possible that there would
be a significant economic impact on
Total .......................
62 some of these manufacturers. The five
producers of restaurant-style high chairs
1. Small Manufacturers With Compliant would need to make several changes to
High Chairs
meet the base requirements of ASTM
F404–15. As discussed previously,
Of the 21 small manufacturers, 12
different circumstances and needs exist
produce high chairs that comply with
for restaurant-style high chairs.
ASTM F404–14. In general, CPSC
Complying with the proposed rule may
expects small manufacturers that
undermine some of the characteristics
already comply with the voluntary
that make certain high chair features
standard will continue to comply with
desirable in restaurant settings. For
the standard as the standard evolves
example, leg holes tend to be larger for
because they follow, and in three cases,
restaurant-style high chairs to
actively participate in ASTM’s standard- accommodate children clothed in
development process. As such,
outerwear and children of varied ages
compliance with the voluntary standard and sizes. The proposed standard would
is part of these firms’ established
preclude some features.
business practice. Because ASTM
Manufacturers of restaurant-style high
approved ASTM F404–15 on May 15,
chairs may also need to make changes
2015, these firms would likely be in
to meet the proposed warning label
compliance with the standard before the
requirements. For example, two firms
proposed rule would take effect.
manufacture plastic high chairs that
For this reason, the economic impact
may need to be redesigned to comply
of the proposed rule should be small for with the proposed warning label
10 of the 12 small domestic
requirements.
manufacturers. These 10 firms include
Four firms that do not currently
one firm that may need to modify its
comply with the ASTM standard
high chair to meet the proposed
produce high chairs for home use. One
rearward stability test; as discussed
of these four firms likely would need to
above, the cost associated with this
make significant changes to its product
modification is likely small.
to meet the proposed warning label
However, the proposed warning label requirements, given the compact design
of its product. The three remaining
requirements may create a significant
firms appear to have sufficient room on
economic impact for two small
manufacturers. Both firms produce high their high chairs to accommodate the
proposed warning labels without
chairs with compact designs, with one
redesign, and any modifications to the
serving the commercial restaurant
high chairs would be due to the
market. Redesigning the seat back
requirements of ASTM F404–15.
would provide additional space for
However, CPSC staff could not
warning labels, but may reduce the
determine the extent or cost of the
chairs’ compactness, which may be an
changes that may be necessary, so we
important feature for marketability. For
cannot rule out a significant economic
one firm, high chairs represent a small
impact.
part of its product line, but it is unclear
whether the firm could stop producing
CPSC requests comments on the
high chairs because CPSC was unable to differences between restaurant-style
obtain sales revenue information. For
high chairs and high chairs produced
the second firm, high chairs represent
for home use, as well as the desirability
an integral part of its commercial
of particular features in these respective
product line, so discontinuing that
environments. CPSC also requests
product line could create a significant
information about the changes that
economic burden. CPSC requests input
would be necessary to meet the
on consumer preferences for compact
proposed requirement, including
high chairs, how compact high chair
whether redesign or retrofitting would
manufacturers would respond to the
be necessary and whether there would
proposed warning label requirements,
be any associated costs.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Compliant with ASTM
F404 .......................
Not Compliant with
ASTM F404 ............
Large .................................
Foreign ..................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
69155
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
69156
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Small Importers and Wholesalers
With Compliant High Chairs
CPSC considered the economic
impact to importers and wholesalers
together, because both rely on outside
firms to supply the products they
distribute to the U.S. market. Importers
distribute products made by foreign
firms and are often closely related to the
firms producing their products. CPSC
was unable to determine the source of
wholesalers’ high chairs, but the sources
are likely from other suppliers that may
be foreign or domestic.
In the absence of a mandatory
regulation, the nine firms (seven small
importers and two small wholesalers)
currently in compliance with the
voluntary standard likely would remain
in compliance with new versions.
However, the high chairs these firms
supply would require modifications to
meet the proposed requirements. There
are two firms that may require
modifications to meet the rearward
stability requirement (one importer and
one wholesaler) but, as discussed above,
these costs are likely to be low. The cost
of modifying the wording and format of
the warnings should be small, as well,
given that such changes typically add
only a few cents per unit to production
costs.
The proposed placement
requirements for warnings, however,
could be more costly, possibly requiring
firms to retrofit or redesign their high
chairs. Four of the nine firms likely
would have to modify the design of
their high chairs to meet the proposed
warnings label visibility requirement.
The high chairs of two firms have
compact designs, making the display of
warning labels difficult. The remaining
two firms provide information in a
number of languages that would exceed
the space available on their high chairs.
Finding an alternative supply source
would not be a viable alternative for
three of the four firms, due to close
relationships with their suppliers;
however, all three firms supply a
sufficient number of other products that
could probably allow these firms to
eliminate high chairs from their product
line entirely. The fourth firm is a
commercial supplier, and high chairs
are an integral part of this firm’s product
line; therefore, exiting the high chair
market would likely cause this firm to
go out of business. CPSC requests
comments on how importers would
respond to the proposed rule and what
are the costs of developing a compliant
product.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
5. Small Importers and Wholesalers
With Noncompliant High Chairs
There is insufficient information to
rule out a significant impact for any of
the eight importers and wholesalers of
noncompliant high chairs. Whether
there would be a significant economic
impact would depend upon the extent
of the changes required for these firms
to come into compliance and the
response of their suppliers. Their
suppliers may pass on to the importers
and wholesalers any increase in
production costs that result from the
proposed changes.
Six of the eight importers and
wholesalers with noncompliant high
chairs do not appear to have direct ties
to their product suppliers. Therefore,
these firms may choose to switch to
alternative suppliers or manufacture
other products, rather than bear the
costs of complying with the proposed
standard. It is unclear whether the costs
of complying with the proposed
requirements would be significant for
these firms. Three firms supply
restaurant-style high chairs, including
one plastic high chair. As such,
although the three firms may find
compliant high chairs from alternative
supply sources, these firms would share
the same concerns as restaurant-style
high chair manufacturers regarding the
desirability of their product to their
customers. Two of the six firms supply
high chairs to the consumer market that
are identical to several supplied to the
commercial market. Although the costs
of complying with the proposed
standard could be significant for these
two firms, high chairs make up only a
small part of their product lines.
Therefore, the two firms may eliminate
high chairs from their product lines or
select compliant high chairs from
another supplier. However, CPSC was
unable to obtain sales revenue for high
chairs and could not determine whether
exiting the high chair market would
generate significant economic impacts.
The remaining two firms are directly
tied to their foreign suppliers.
Therefore, finding an alternative supply
source would not be a viable alternative.
However, these foreign suppliers may
wish to comply with the proposed
requirements to continue to market their
products in the United States. Although
it is possible that these firms could stop
selling high chairs, it is unlikely for two
of these firms because high chairs
represent one of only a few products in
their lines. Again, CPSC could not
determine whether exiting the high
chair market would generate significant
economic impacts, given the lack of
sales revenue for high chairs.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6. Third Party Testing Costs for Small
Importers and Wholesalers
As with manufacturers, all importers
and wholesalers would be subject to
third party testing and certification
requirements, if CPSC adopts a final
high chair standard. Consequently,
importers and wholesalers would be
subject to costs similar to
manufacturers’ costs if the foreign
suppliers of importers and wholesalers
do not obtain third party testing. Just
over half of high chair importers and
wholesalers (9 out of 17) already test
their products to verify compliance with
the ASTM standard. Any additional
costs associated with a final high chair
rule thus would be limited to the
incremental costs of third party testing
over the current testing regime.
There may be significant costs for two
or three firms that do not comply with
the ASTM standard to obtain third party
certification. Specifically, for two firms,
the cost of testing as few as three units
per model could exceed 1 percent of
their gross revenue. A third firm would
need to test about six units per model
before testing costs would exceed 1
percent of its gross revenue. CPSC was
unable to obtain revenue data for one
small, noncompliant importer, and
therefore, could not examine the size of
the impact on that firm.
7. Summary of Impacts
CPSC staff is aware of 38 small firms
that currently market high chairs in the
United States, of which 21 are domestic
manufacturers and 17 are domestic
importers or wholesalers. Of the 21
small manufacturers, 10 are unlikely to
experience significant economic
impacts as a result of the proposed rule.
However, CPSC cannot rule out a
significant economic impact for the
remaining 11 manufacturers. For eight
of the small importers and wholesalers,
it is unlikely the proposed rule would
have a significant economic impact,
based on a review of firm revenues and
the options available to each firm.
However, it is possible that the
proposed rule would have a significant
economic impact on the remaining nine
small importers and wholesalers.
Therefore, in total, based on current
information, CPSC cannot rule out a
significant economic impact for 20 of
the 38 firms (53 percent) operating in
the U.S. high chair market.
8. Impacts of Test Laboratory
Accreditation Requirements on Small
Laboratories
In accordance with section 14 of the
CPSA, all children’s products that are
subject to a children’s product safety
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
rule must be tested by a third party
conformity assessment body that has
been accredited by CPSC. These third
party conformity assessment bodies test
products for compliance with applicable
children’s product safety rules. Testing
laboratories that want to conduct this
testing must meet the NOR for third
party conformity testing. CPSC has
codified NORs in 16 CFR part 1112.
CPSC proposes to amend 16 CFR part
1112 to establish an NOR for testing
laboratories to test for compliance with
the proposed high chair standard. This
section assesses the impact of this
proposed amendment on small
laboratories.
CPSC conducted a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) when it
adopted part 1112. 78 FR 15836 (Mar.
12, 2013). The FRFA concluded that the
accreditation requirements would not
have a significant adverse impact on a
substantial number of small laboratories
because no requirements were imposed
on laboratories that did not intend to
provide third party testing services. The
only laboratories that were expected to
provide such services were laboratories
that anticipated receiving sufficient
revenue from the mandated testing to
justify accepting the requirements as a
business decision.
For the same reasons, including the
NOR for high chairs in part 1112 would
not have a significant adverse impact on
small laboratories. Moreover, CPSC
expects that only a small number of
laboratories would request accreditation
to test high chairs, based on the number
of laboratories that have applied for
CPSC accreditation to test for
conformance to other juvenile product
standards. Most laboratories would
already have accreditation to test for
conformance to other juvenile product
standards, and then the only costs
would be to add the high chair standard
to their scope of accreditation. Test
laboratories have indicated that this cost
is extremely low when they are already
accredited for other CPSIA section 104
rules. Therefore, the Commission
certifies that the NOR for the high chair
standard will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
G. Alternatives
At least four alternatives are available
to minimize the economic impact on
small entities supplying high chairs
while also complying with the direction
of section 104 of the CPSIA: (1) Adopt
ASTM F404–15 with no modifications;
(2) adopt ASTM F404–15 with the
proposed modifications, except for
requirements on the placement of
warning labels; (3) adopt ASTM F404–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
15 with the proposed modifications, but
exclude restaurant-style high chairs
from the scope of the rule; and (4)
provide a later effective date for some or
all high chairs.
First, section 104 of the CPSIA directs
the Commission to promulgate a
standard that is either substantially the
same as the voluntary standard or more
stringent if the Commission determines
that would further reduce the risk of
injury associated with the product.
Therefore, adopting ASTM F404–15
with no modifications is the least
stringent rule CPSC could adopt. This
alternative would reduce the economic
impact on all of the small businesses
supplying high chairs to the U.S.
market. Although, choosing this
alternative would not reduce the testing
costs associated with the rule, this
option would eliminate the economic
impact of complying with the
requirements that CPSC proposes in
addition to ASTM F404–15 for many
firms. Specifically, this option would
eliminate the cost of complying with the
additional requirements for the 10 small
domestic manufacturers and 9 small
importers and wholesalers with
compliant high chairs, all of whom
would likely comply with ASTM F404–
15 by the time a CPSC final rule for high
chairs would take effect. However, the
requirements that CPSC proposes in
addition to ASTM F404–15 would
reduce the risk of injuries associated
with backward tip-over incidents and
fall incidents where caregivers did not
use restraints or used the restraints
improperly. Adopting ASTM F404–15
with no modifications would not meet
these objectives.
Second, the Commission could reduce
impacts to small businesses by adopting
ASTM F404–15 with the proposed
modifications, except for the
requirement regarding the placement
and visibility requirements for warning
labels. One option is to require warning
labels to be visible only as a child is
being placed into the high chair. This
would reduce the proportion of high
chair models with backs that would
need to be redesigned and expanded to
accommodate labels that are visible
when the high chair is occupied.
Another option would be to allow
duplicate labels. Manufacturers could
place one label on the front seat back,
which would be visible when the child
is placed in the seat, and manufacturers
could place a second label in a location
that is visible when the child is in the
high chair. This alternative would
reduce the economic impact on compact
high chairs or high chairs with smaller
backs.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69157
Third, because a substantial portion of
the economic impact of the proposed
rule would fall on small, restaurantstyle high chair suppliers, CPSC could
exclude restaurant-style high chairs
from this rule. Restaurant settings have
unique requirements, including a need
for smaller high chairs and to
accommodate children of various sizes.
It would be difficult to retain these
features and comply with the proposed
requirements. Moreover, CPSC has
identified only a few injuries that
involved high chairs in restaurant
settings. Therefore, the reduction in
safety benefits associated with limiting
the rule’s scope likely would be
minimal.
If restaurants could no longer provide
high chairs with the desirable attributes,
restaurants may stop providing high
chairs for customers, which could result
in customers using less safe options,
such as placing infant carriers on tables
or chairs, or using booster seats for
children under the appropriate age.
CPSC requests comments on the
potential impact of excluding
restaurant-style high chairs from the
proposed rule, including cost and safety
impacts.
Because restaurant-style high chairs
are also available to consumers for home
use, CPSC could take steps to reduce the
potential safety risks of these high
chairs through other means. For
example, CPSC could require restaurantstyle high chair suppliers to label their
products: ‘‘not intended for home use.’’
Additionally, CPSC could develop
separate warning label requirements for
these products to inform users of the
specific hazard patterns related to
restaurant-style high chairs. ASTM
could also develop requirements
specific to restaurant-style high chairs.
CPSC requests comments on the
possibility of excluding restaurant-style
high chairs from the proposed
requirements, including the
implications for safety and costs.
Fourth, the Commission could reduce
the economic impact of the proposed
rule on small businesses by setting a
later effective date for some or all high
chairs. A later effective date would
reduce the economic impact on firms in
two ways. First, firms would be less
likely to experience a lapse in
production or imports that could result
if they are unable to come into
compliance and secure third party
testing within the required timeframe.
Second, firms could spread costs over a
longer period, thereby reducing annual
costs, as well as the present value of
total costs. CPSC requests comments on
the 6-month effective date, as well as
feedback on how firms likely would
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
69158
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules
address the proposed rule. CPSC could
also consider a longer effective date for
firms that supply restaurant-style high
chairs. However, this may not reduce
the economic impact on these firms
because the primary cost issue for them
is the utility of their high chairs, not the
time needed to comply with the
standard. Nevertheless, CPSC requests
comments, particularly from restaurants
and other commercial establishments,
on the validity of this conclusion.
XIII. Environmental Considerations
The Commission’s regulations outline
the types of agency actions that require
an environmental assessment (‘‘EA’’) or
environmental impact statement
(‘‘EIS’’). Rules that have ‘‘little or no
potential for affecting the human
environment’’ fall within a ‘‘categorical
exclusion’’ under the National
Environmental Policy Act (‘‘NEPA’’; 42
U.S.C. 4231–4370h) and the regulations
implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts
1500–1508) and do not normally require
an EA or EIS. As stated in 16 CFR
1021.5(c)(1), rules or safety standards
that provide design or performance
requirements for products fall within
that categorical exclusion. Because this
proposed rule would create design and
performance requirements for high
chairs, the proposed rule falls within
the categorical exclusion, and thus, no
EA or EIS is required.
XIV. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains
information collection requirements that
are subject to public comment and
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (‘‘OMB’’) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (‘‘PRA’’; 44
U.S.C. 3501–3521). Under 44 U.S.C.
3507(a)(1)(D), an agency must publish
the following information:
• a title for the collection of
information;
• a summary of the collection of
information;
• a brief description of the need for
the information and the proposed use of
the information;
• a description of the likely
respondents and proposed frequency of
response to the collection of
information;
• an estimate of the burden that shall
result from the collection of
information; and
• notice that comments may be
submitted to OMB.
In accordance with this requirement,
the Commission provides the following
information:
Title: Safety Standard for High Chairs
Description: The proposed rule would
require each high chair to comply with
ASTM F404–15, with additional
requirements regarding rearward
stability and warnings in labels and
instructional literature. Sections 8 and 9
of ASTM F404–15 contain requirements
for labels and instructional literature.
These requirements fall within the
definition of ‘‘collection of information’’
provided in the PRA at 44 U.S.C.
3502(3).
Description of Respondents: Persons
who manufacture or import high chairs.
Estimated Burden: CPSC estimates the
burden of this collection of information
as follows:
TABLE 4—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN
Number of
respondents
Frequency of
responses
Total annual
responses
Hours per
response
Total burden
hours
1231.2 ..................................................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16 CFR section
62
2
124
1
124
CPSC’s estimate is based on the
following:
Section 8.1 of ASTM F404–15
requires that the name and address (city,
state, and zip code) of the manufacturer,
distributor, or seller be marked on each
high chair. Section 8.2 of ASTM F404–
15 requires a code mark or other
product identification on each high
chair and the high chair’s package that
indicates the date (month and year) of
manufacture.
Sixty-two known entities supply high
chairs to the U.S. market and may need
to modify their existing labels to comply
with ASTM F404–15. CPSC estimates
that the time required to make these
modifications is about 1 hour per
model. Based on an evaluation of
supplier product lines, each entity
supplies an average of two models of
high chairs. Therefore, the estimated
burden associated with labels is 1 hour
per model × 62 entities × 2 models per
entity = 124 hours. CPSC estimates the
hourly compensation for the time
required to create and update labels is
$30.19 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
‘‘Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation,’’ Mar. 2015, Table 9,
total compensation for all sales and
office workers in goods-producing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
private industries: https://www.bls.gov/
ncs/). Therefore, the estimated annual
cost associated with the proposed
labeling requirements is $3,743.56
($30.19 per hour × 124 hours =
$3,743.56). No operating, maintenance,
or capital costs are associated with the
collection.
Section 9.1 of ASTM F404–15
requires instructions to be supplied
with a high chair. High chairs are
products that generally require use and
assembly instructions. As such, high
chairs sold without use and assembly
instructions would not be able to
compete successfully with high chairs
that supply this information. Under
OMB’s regulations, the time, effort, and
financial resources necessary to comply
with a collection of information
incurred by parties in the ‘‘normal
course of their activities’’ are excluded
from a burden estimate when an agency
demonstrates that the disclosure
activities required are ‘‘usual and
customary.’’ 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). CPSC is
unaware of high chairs that generally
require use or assembly instructions but
lack such instructions. Therefore, CPSC
estimates that no burden hours are
associated with section 9.1 of ASTM
F404–15, because any burden associated
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
with supplying instructions with high
chairs would be ‘‘usual and customary,’’
and thus, excluded from ‘‘burden’’
estimates under OMB’s regulations.
Based on this analysis, the proposed
standard for high chairs would impose
a burden to industry of 124 hours at a
cost of $3,743.56 annually.
CPSC has submitted the information
collection requirements of this rule to
OMB for review in accordance with
PRA requirements. 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
CPSC requests interested parties submit
comments regarding information
collection to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see the
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of
this notice). Pursuant to 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A), the Commission invites
comments on:
• whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of CPSC’s functions,
including whether the information will
have practical utility;
• the accuracy of CPSC’s estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
• ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information the
Commission proposes to collect;
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules
• ways to reduce the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of
information technology; and
• the estimated burden hours
associated with modifying labels and
instructional literature, including any
alternative estimates.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
XV. Preemption
Under section 26(a) of the CPSA, no
state or political subdivision of a state
may establish or continue in effect a
requirement dealing with the same risk
of injury as a federal consumer product
safety standard under the CPSA unless
the state requirement is identical to the
federal standard. 15 U.S.C. 2075(a).
States or political subdivisions of states
may, however, apply to the Commission
for an exemption, allowing them to
establish or continue such a
requirement if the state requirement
provides a significantly high degree of
protection from the risk of injury and
does not unduly burden interstate
commerce. Id. at 2075(c).
One of the functions of the CPSIA was
to amend the CPSA, adding several
provisions to CPSA, including CPSIA
section 104 in 15 U.S.C. 2056a. As such,
consumer product safety standards that
the Commission creates under CPSIA
section 104 are covered by the
preemption provision in the CPSA.
Consequently, the rule proposed in this
NPR would be a federal consumer
product safety standard, and the
preemption provision in section 26 of
the CPSA would apply.
XVI. Request for Comments
This NPR begins a rulemaking
proceeding under section 104(b) of the
CPSIA to issue a consumer product
safety standard for high chairs and to
amend part 1112 to add high chairs to
the list of children’s product safety rules
for which CPSC has issued an NOR. We
invite all interested persons to submit
comments on any aspect of the
proposed mandatory safety standard for
high chairs and on the proposed
amendment to part 1112. Specifically,
the Commission requests comments on
the following:
• the requirements in ASTM F404–
15, including their effectiveness in
addressing the risk of injury associated
with high chairs and the costs of
complying with these requirements;
• the additional requirements
proposed for rearward stability,
including its effectiveness in addressing
the risk of injury associated with
rearward tip-overs and the costs of
complying with these requirements;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
• the additional requirements
proposed for warnings in labels and
instructional literature, including their
effectiveness at addressing the risk of
injury associated with falls from high
chairs and the costs of complying with
these requirements;
• whether application of different
requirements to restaurant-style high
chairs is appropriate, relevant safety
implications, and options for applying
distinct standards;
• the costs to small businesses
associated with the requirements
proposed in this NPR, including the
costs to comply with the proposed
rearward stability requirements, content
and form requirements for labels and
instructional literature, and placement
requirements for labels;
• alternatives to the proposed
standard that would reduce impacts on
small businesses;
• the proposed effective date and
whether an extended effective date
would further mitigate the impact on
small businesses and to what extent;
and
• any additional information relevant
to the issues discussed in this NPR and
the proposed requirements.
During the comment period, ASTM
F404–15 is available for review. Please
see section X. for instructions on
viewing it.
Please submit comments in
accordance with the instructions in the
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of
this NPR.
List of Subjects
16 CFR Part 1112
Administrative practice and
procedure, Audit, Consumer protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Third party conformity
assessment body.
16 CFR Part 1231
Consumer protection, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Infants and
children, Labeling, Law enforcement,
and Toys.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Commission proposes to
amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 1112—REQUIREMENTS
PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY
CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT BODIES
1. The authority citation for part 1112
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Pub. L. 110–314, section 3, 122
Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008); 15 U.S.C. 2063.
2. Amend § 1112.15 by adding
paragraph (b)(44) to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69159
§ 1112.15 When can a third party
conformity assessment body apply for
CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule
or test method?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(44) 16 CFR part 1231, Safety
Standard for High Chairs.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Add part 1231 to read as follows:
PART 1231–SAFETY STANDARD FOR
HIGH CHAIRS
Sec.
1231.1
1231.2
Scope.
Requirements for high chairs.
Authority: The Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110–314,
§ 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Pub.
L. 112–28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).
§ 1231.1
Scope.
This part establishes a consumer
product safety standard for high chairs.
§ 1231.2
Requirements for high chairs.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs
(b) through (e) of this section, each high
chair must comply with all applicable
provisions of ASTM F404–15, Standard
Consumer Safety Specification for High
Chairs, approved on May 15, 2015. The
Director of the Federal Register
approves this incorporation by reference
in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy
from ASTM International, 100 Bar
Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428; https://
www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may
inspect a copy at the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330
East West Highway, Bethesda, MD
20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at
the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal
_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) Instead of complying with section
6.5 of ASTM F404–15, comply with the
following:
(1) 6.5.1 Forward and sideways
stability—A chair shall not tip over
when forces are applied in accordance
with 7.7.2.4 and 7.7.2.5.
(2) 6.5.2 Rearward stability—When
tested in accordance with 7.7.2.6
(paragraph (c)(3) of this section), a high
chair shall not have a Rearward Stability
Index of 50 or more.
(c) For rearward stability testing,
instead of complying with sections
7.7.2.1, 7.7.2.2, and 7.7.2.6 of ASTM
F404–15, comply with the following:
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
69160
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules
wheels shall be locked during stability
testing.
(2) 7.7.2.2 Place the high chair on a
rigid, horizontal test surface covered
with 60 grit sandpaper or equivalent to
prevent the chair from sliding on the
test surface during the test. If a high
chair slides on the test surface during
the test or has wheels that do not lock,
place a stop on the test surface to
prevent sliding during the test. The stop
shall be low profile, minimum height
required to prevent sliding, and shall
not inhibit the tipping of the high chair
or affect the test results.
(3) 7.7.2.6 Rearward stability—
(i) 7.7.2.6.1 Attach a force gauge to
the rear surface of the seat back at the
lateral centerline and 7 1⁄4 in. (184 mm)
above the occupant seating surface as
shown in Figure 1. For high chairs with
a seat back 7 1⁄4 in. (184 mm) high or
less, attach the force gauge at the lateral
centerline and top surface of the seat
back.
(ii) 7.7.2.6.2 With the high chair in
the at rest position, gradually apply a
preload force ‘‘F’’ of 3 lbf (13 N) to the
seat back surface of the high chair and
while maintaining the force, establish
the initial location of a reference point
some distance away from the force
gauge as shown in Figure 1.
(iii) 7.7.2.6.3 Gradually increase the
horizontal force over a period of at least
5 seconds and continue to pull the high
chair rearward until the high chair
reaches the point that it becomes
unstable and is on the verge of tipping
over. Record the maximum force ‘‘F’’ in
pounds (lbs.) applied during the test
and the horizontal distance ‘‘D’’ in
inches (in.) from the initial location of
the reference point to the location of the
reference point where the high chair
becomes unstable and is on the verge of
tipping over. Force ‘‘F’’ shall be
maintained in a horizontal direction
throughout the test.
(iv) 7.7.2.6.4 Calculate the Rearward
Stability Index using the formula shown
below.
Rearward Stability Index = 2F + D
Force ‘‘F’’ is measured in pounds (lbs.).
Distance ‘‘D’’ in measured in inches (in.)
(d) Instead of complying with section
8.4 of ASTM F404–15, comply with the
following:
(1) 8.4 Warning Statements—Each
Product Shall Have Warning
Statements:
(i) 8.4.1 The warnings shall be easy
to read and understand and be in the
English language at a minimum.
(ii) 8.4.2 Any labels or written
instructions provided in addition to
those required by this section shall not
contradict or confuse the meaning of the
required information, or be otherwise
misleading to the consumer.
(iii) 8.4.3 The warning statements
shall be conspicuous, in highly
contrasting color(s) (e.g., black text on a
white background), permanent, and in
non-condensed sans serif style type.
(iv) 8.4.4 Each warning statement or
group of warning statements shall be
preceded by the Safety Alert Symbol
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:37 Nov 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and the signal word ‘‘WARNING’’ shall
not be less than 0.2 in. (5 mm) high and
the remainder of the text shall be in
characters whose uppercase shall not be
less than 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) high. The
height of the safety alert symbol shall
equal or exceed the signal word height.
(v) 8.4.5 The safety alert symbol
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
EP09NO15.320</GPH>
and the signal word ‘‘WARNING’’ in
bold uppercase letters. If warnings are
placed directly under or adjacent to one
another, then the safety alert symbol
and the signal word WARNING need to
be displayed only once. The Safety Alert
Symbol
EP09NO15.319</GPH> EP09NO15.320</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(1) 7.7.2.1 Place the high chair in a
manufacturer’s recommended use
position with all legs on a level floor
and with the seat back adjusted into the
most upright position. Attach the tray in
the rear position, closest to the high
chair seat back. For high chairs with
height-adjustable seats, adjust the seat
into the highest manufacturer’s
recommended use position or the
position deemed most likely to fail. If a
high chair has lockable wheels, those
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
Note: For optional additional guidance on
the design of warnings for instructional
literature, see the most-recent addition of
ANSI Z535.6, Product Safety Information in
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Product Manuals, Instructions, and Other
Collateral Materials, American National
Standards Institute, Inc., available at https://
www.ansi.org/.
Dated: November 2, 2015.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015–28300 Filed 11–6–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
25 CFR Part 30
[167 A2100DD/AAKC001030/
A0A501010.999900]
Notice of Intent To Establish a
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee
Bureau of Indian Education,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent; request for
nominations for tribal representatives;
and comments.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Indian
Education (BIE) is announcing its intent
to establish an Accountability
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee
(Committee). The Committee will
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
EP09NO15.321</GPH>
(vi) 8.4.6 The warning statements
shall be in a location that is visible by
the caregiver while placing the occupant
into the high chair in each of the
manufacturer’s recommended use
positions.
(vii) 8.4.7 High chairs that do not
have a seating component that is also
used as a seating component of a
stroller, shall, in the same label, address
the following warning statements:
Children have suffered skull fractures
after falling from high chairs. Falls can
happen quickly if child is not restrained
properly.
• Always use restraints, and adjust to
fit snugly. Tray is not designed to hold
child in chair.
• Stay near and watch your child
during use.
(viii) 8.4.8 High chairs that have a
seating component that is also used as
a seating component of a stroller shall
use the warning statements as specified
in subsections 8.2.2.1 and 8.2.2.2 of the
version of the standard that is
incorporated by reference in part 1227
of this subchapter, in place of the
warning statements in 8.4.7 (paragraph
(d)(vii) of this section).
(e) Instead of complying with section
9.2 of ASTM F404–15, comply with the
following:
(1) 9.2 The instructions shall contain
the warnings as specified in section 8.4
(paragraph (d)(1) of this section).
Additional warnings similar to the
statements included in this section shall
also be included. These required
warning statements shall meet the
requirements described in section 8.4
(paragraph (d)(1) of this section), except
for the color requirements (i.e., the
background of the signal word panel
need not be orange, red, or yellow).
However, the warning statements still
must be in highly contrasting color(s)
(e.g., black text on a white background),
and if color is used, those colors must
meet the color requirements specified in
section 8.4 (paragraph (d)(1) of this
section).
(2) Reference to section 9.2 of ASTM
F404–15 in paragraph (e) of this section
includes only the introductory
paragraph of section 9.2 and does not
include subsections 9.2.1 or 9.2.2 of
ASTM F404–15.
EP09NO15.320</GPH>
Note: For optional additional guidance on
the design of warnings, see the most-recent
edition of ANSI Z535.4, Product Safety Signs
and Labels, American National Standards
Institute, Inc., available at https://
www.ansi.org/.
shall be the same color as the
background. The remainder of the text
EP09NO15.320</GPH>
and the signal word ‘‘WARNING’’ shall
be orange, red, or yellow, whichever
provides the best contrast against the
shall be black. The exclamation mark of
the safety alert symbol
shall be black, with key words
highlighted using boldface, on a white
background surrounded by a solid black
line border. This text also shall be leftjustified, in upper and lowercase letters
(i.e., sentence capitalization), and in list
or outline format, with precautionary
statements indented from hazard
statements and preceded with bullet
points. An example label in the format
described in this section is shown in
Figure 2.
EP09NO15.320</GPH> EP09NO15.320</GPH>
and the signal word ‘‘WARNING’’ shall
be in contrasting color to the
background and delineated with solid
black line borders. The background
color behind the safety alert symbol
product background. The signal word
‘‘WARNING’’ and the solid triangle
portion of the safety alert symbol
69161
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69144-69161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28300]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 69144]]
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1231
[Docket No. CPSC-2015-0031]
Safety Standard for High Chairs
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act,
section 104(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008
(``CPSIA''; Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016), requires the United
States Consumer Product Safety Commission (``Commission'' or ``CPSC'')
to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or
toddler products. These standards must be substantially the same as
applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary
standard if the Commission determines that more stringent requirements
would further reduce the risk of injury associated with a product. In
response to the direction under section 104(b) of the CPSIA, the
Commission is proposing a safety standard for high chairs. The proposed
rule would incorporate by reference ASTM F404-15, Standard Consumer
Safety Specification for High Chairs (``ASTM F404-15'') into our new
regulation and impose more stringent requirements for rearward
stability and warnings on labels and in instructional literature. In
addition, the Commission proposes to amend our regulations to include
the newly proposed high chair standard in the list of notice of
requirements (``NORs'') issued by the Commission.
DATES: Submit comments by January 25, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of
the labeling and instructional literature requirements of the proposed
mandatory standard for high chairs should be directed to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Office of Management and
Budget, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or emailed to
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.
Other comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2015-0031, may be
submitted electronically or in writing:
Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept
comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through
www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic
comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.
Written Submissions: Submit written comments by mail/hand delivery/
courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814;
telephone (301) 504-7923.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this proposed rulemaking. All comments received
may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers,
contact information, or other personal information provided, to: https://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information,
trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information
that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at
all, such information should be submitted by mail/hand delivery/
courier.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to: https://www.regulations.gov, and insert the
docket number, CPSC-2015-0031, into the ``Search'' box, and follow the
prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stefanie C. Marques, Project Manager,
Directorate for Health Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 301-987-
2581; email: smarques@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Statutory Authority
The CPSIA was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the
CPSIA, part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act,
requires the Commission to: (1) examine and assess the effectiveness of
voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or
toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer
groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product
engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety
standards for durable infant or toddler products. Any standard the
Commission adopts under this directive must be substantially the same
as the applicable voluntary standard or more stringent than the
voluntary standard if the Commission determines that more stringent
requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with
the product.
The term ``durable infant or toddler product'' is defined in
section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as ``a durable product intended for use,
or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the
age of 5 years.'' Section 104(f)(2)(C) of the CPSIA specifically
identifies high chairs as a durable infant or toddler product.
Pursuant to section 104(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA, the Commission
consulted with representatives of manufacturers, consumer groups,
consultants, retailers, industry trade groups, and government agencies
in reviewing and assessing the effectiveness of the existing voluntary
standard for high chairs, ASTM F404-15, largely through ASTM
International's (``ASTM''; formerly the American Society for Testing
and Materials) standard-development process. The standard the
Commission is proposing in this notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPR'')
is based on ASTM F404-15 with more stringent requirements for rearward
stability and warnings in labels and instructional literature.
The testing and certification requirements of section 14(a) of the
Consumer Product Safety Act (``CPSA''; 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089) apply to
the standards promulgated under section 104 of the CPSIA. Section
14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to publish an NOR for the
accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (i.e., test
laboratories) to assess whether a children's product conforms to
applicable children's product safety rules. If adopted, the proposed
rule for
[[Page 69145]]
high chairs would be a children's product safety rule that requires the
issuance of an NOR. For this reason, this NPR also proposes to amend 16
CFR part 1112 to include proposed 16 CFR part 1231, the section in
which the high chair standard would be codified.
II. The Product
A. Definition
ASTM F404-15 defines a ``high chair'' as ``a free standing chair
for a child up to 3 years of age which has a seating surface more than
15 in. above the floor and elevates the child normally for the purposes
of feeding or eating.'' The ASTM standard further specifies that a high
chair may be sold with or without a tray, have adjustable heights, and
recline for infants.
There are various designs and construction materials for high
chairs. Typical high chairs consist of a plastic, wood, or metal frame,
often with a padded fabric seat. Some models fold for storage and
transport or convert for continued use as a child grows. Some high
chairs include a removable snack tray or mounted toy accessories and
some have no trays. High chairs may have a passive crotch restraint
(i.e., two separate bounded openings for the occupant's legs), a rigid
front torso support, a three-point restraint system, or a five-point
restraint system with shoulder harnesses. High chair designs include
restaurant-style chairs, four-legged A-frame styles, single-leg
pedestals, and Z-frame styles. Restaurant-style high chairs are
discussed further in section VII. of this preamble.
B. Market Description
In 2013, the CPSC conducted a Durable Nursery Product Exposure
Survey (``DNPES'') of U.S. households with children under the age of 6.
Data from DNPES indicate that there are approximately 9.74 million high
chairs in U.S. households with children under the age of 6 and about
7.14 million high chairs actually in use in those households. High
chairs range in price from $35 to $650.
Staff identified 62 firms supplying high chairs to the U.S. market.
Fifty-one of these are domestic, including 27 manufacturers, 19
importers, and five wholesalers. The remaining 11 firms are foreign,
including nine manufacturers, one importer, and one retailer. Of these
62 firms, 48 market their high chairs to consumers. The remaining 14
firms market their high chairs for use in commercial settings,
primarily in restaurants, but these products generally also are
available to consumers.
III. Incident Data
The Commission receives data regarding product-related injuries
from several sources. One such source is the National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System (``NEISS''), from which CPSC can estimate the
number of injuries associated with specific consumer products that are
treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments (``EDs'') nationwide,
based on a probability sample. Other sources include reports from
consumers and others through the Consumer Product Safety Risk
Management System (which also includes some NEISS data) and reports
from retailers and manufacturers through CPSC's Retailer Reporting
System (collectively referred to as Consumer Product Safety Risk
Management System data (``CPSRMS'')).
Through CPSRMS sources, the Commission has received 1,296 reports
of incidents related to high chairs that occurred between January 1,
2011 and December 31, 2014. Because several of these reports include
more than one incident or issue, the total number of incidents is
1,308. These reports include one fatality and 138 injuries; for the
remaining incidents, no injury occurred, or no injury was reported.
Table 1 provides the number of incidents, injuries, and fatalities by
year for 2011 to 2014.
Table 1--CPSRMS Incident Reports Involving High Chairs Between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incident year Total Injuries Fatalities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................................................ 276 44 0
2012 *.......................................................... 360 51 0
2013 *.......................................................... 491 28 0
2014 *.......................................................... 169 15 1
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 1,296 138 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CPSC's Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System
* data collection is ongoing
Of the 1,296 reports CPSC received from CPSRMS sources, 923
provided the age of the child involved. For incidents in which age was
reported, the majority involved children between 7 and 18 months old.
EDs participating in NEISS reported 1,078 injuries and no deaths
related to high chairs between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014.
Extrapolating from this probability sample, there were approximately
31,300 injuries and no fatalities related to high chairs treated in EDs
between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014. Approximately 75 percent
of injuries reported through NEISS involved children between 7 and 23
months old.
A. Fatalities
The Commission received a report in 2014 of one fatality associated
with a high chair. Apart from indicating that the high chair involved
had broken, the report provided little information about the decedent
or the circumstances of the incident. The Commission has been unable to
obtain additional information regarding this incident.
B. Nonfatal Injuries
Of the 138 CPSRMS injuries related to high chairs that occurred
between 2011 and 2014, three resulted in moderate injuries treated in
EDs. These injuries included a puncture wound to the forehead, a broken
collarbone, and a lacerated finger. There were no severe injuries, and
the remaining injuries primarily resulted in contusions, abrasions, and
lacerations. Many of the incident descriptions in the remaining 1,157
reports that did not state that an injury had occurred, nevertheless,
indicated the potential for injury.
For injuries reported through NEISS, 94 percent were treated and
released. The most commonly injured body parts were the head (65
percent) and face (17 percent). The most common types of injuries were
injuries to internal organs (48 percent), contusions and abrasions (22
percent), and lacerations (11 percent). In 1,540 of the estimated
31,300 injuries treated in U.S. EDs,
[[Page 69146]]
severe head injuries, such as fractured skulls and concussions,
occurred.
C. Hazard Pattern Identification
CPSC staff reviewed NEISS and CPSRMS data to identify hazard
patterns associated with high chairs. Because CPSRMS data sources
generally provide greater detail about incidents, staff was able to
identify more distinct hazard patterns using this data than NEISS data.
CPSC staff identified several hazard patterns associated with high
chairs in reviewing the 1,308 CPSRMS incidents. Approximately 96
percent of the 1,308 incidents involved issues with specific components
of the high chair, including the frame, seat, restraint system,
armrest, tray, toy accessories, wheels, footrest, and other features.
Approximately 4 percent involved general problems with the high chair,
including the design and stability, and less than 1 percent fell into
other categories, including consumer observations and incidents in
which reports provided insufficient information to identify a hazard
pattern (i.e., undetermined). Staff was unable to identify the hazard
pattern for the one fatality because there was insufficient information
in the report. Table 2 provides the frequency of each hazard pattern
and category.
Table 2--Hazard Patterns for CPSRMS Incidents Involving High Chairs Between January 1, 2011 and December 31,
2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Hazard pattern incidents Injuries Fatalities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frame........................................................... 650 20 0
Seat............................................................ 205 41 0
Restraint System................................................ 139 12 0
Armrest......................................................... 81 2 0
Tray............................................................ 75 33 0
Toy Accessories................................................. 70 1 0
Wheels.......................................................... 21 1 0
Footrest........................................................ 14 0 0
Miscellaneous Issues............................................ 8 1 0
Design.......................................................... 22 13 0
Stability....................................................... 16 12 0
Consumer Observations........................................... 3 0 0
Undetermined.................................................... 4 2 1
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 1,308 138 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issues with frames account for the greatest number of incidents.
Examples of these incidents include broken frames, legs, seat supports,
and loose screws. Issues with seats are associated with the greatest
number of injuries. Examples of these incidents include torn, cracked,
or peeling seat pads and seat-reclining issues. Examples of restraint
system incidents include broken buckles and prongs, jamming, easy
release, torn or fraying straps, pinching, and ineffective restraints.
Examples of issues with armrests include cracking or breaking. Examples
of tray incidents include trays failing to lock or remain locked, trays
releasing too easily, difficulty releasing trays, and pinching.
Examples of toy accessory incidents include cracked or broken toy
accessories. Examples of incidents involving wheels include broken or
loose wheels or wheels not locking. Examples of footrest incidents
include cracked or broken footrests. Examples of other miscellaneous
issues include unclear assembly instructions, excessive lead content in
paint, finish coming off, poor construction quality, and loose
hardware.
General issues with the design and stability of high chairs also
contributed to incidents and injuries. Examples of incidents related to
design issues include children's limbs, fingers, and toes becoming
entrapped in spaces or openings. In two separate incidents, children
were entrapped by the neck in the seatback opening and leg opening of
high chairs. Examples of incidents involving stability issues include a
high chair actually or nearly tipping over.
CPSC identified two additional categories that do not represent
particular hazard patterns. First, several incident reports included
consumer observations that did not indicate an incident with a high
chair had occurred. Examples of these include perceived safety hazards
and unauthorized sales of recalled high chairs. Second, several
reports, including a fatality report, provided insufficient information
for CPSC to determine the circumstances or cause of the incident.
One issue that relates to several of these hazard patterns is
prevalent in both NEISS and CPSRMS incidents--namely, falls from high
chairs. Many of the incidents reported through NEISS and CPSRMS sources
involved children falling from high chairs. Within NEISS data, 78
percent of incidents involved falls but did not specify the cause, and
an additional 18 percent involved mainly falls that occurred when a
component of a high chair failed, a high chair tipped over, or a child
climbed in or out of a high chair. Many of the CPSRMS incidents also
involved falls from a high chair. Fall incidents are particularly
evident in the stability, restraint system, tray, and frame hazard
patterns. Falls often occurred when these features fail or the
restraint system is not used properly. Fall incidents have the
potential to result in serious injuries, including severe head
injuries, which can cause brain damage and impact a child's development
and cognitive skills. Of the 1,308 CPSRMS incidents, 79 fall incidents
showed the potential for serious injuries, and in many of these
incidents, the child sustained a head injury. Of the 31,300 estimated
NEISS incidents, 1,540 resulted in severe head injuries.
D. Product Recalls
Since January 1, 2010, there have been 10 recalls of high chairs
involving eight firms. The recalled high chairs were responsible for a
total of 72 injuries, including 44 injuries involving bumps and
bruises, 11 lacerations requiring medical closure (stitches, tape, or
glue), one scratched cornea, and one hairline fracture to the arm.
These injuries were primarily due to falls from the high chair.
IV. International Standards for High Chairs
CPSC is aware of four international standards that apply to high
chairs:
[[Page 69147]]
ASTM F404-15;
EN 14988: 2006, Children's High Chairs--Safety
Requirements and Test Methods (``European standard'');
AS 4684-2009, High Chairs--Safety Requirements
(``Australian standard''); and
ISO 9221: 1992, Furniture--Children's High Chairs (``ISO
standard'').
CPSC staff reviewed the provisions in these four standards and
believes that ASTM F404-15 best addresses the hazard patterns indicated
in the incident data CPSC has received. In most areas, ASTM F404-15
includes more stringent requirements than the other three international
standards. For example, to test forward stability, the European
standard requires testing with an 11-pound load and 5.6 foot-pound
force, while ASTM F404-15 requires testing with a 40-pound load and 14
foot-pound force, making it the more stringent standard.
In reviewing the provisions in which one of the other international
standards includes more stringent requirements than ASTM F404-15, CPSC
found that incident data do not indicate that the more stringent
standard is necessary to reduce the risk of injury, and the
requirements in ASTM F404-15 are sufficient. For example, the European
standard has height requirements for the sides of high chairs, while
ASTM F404-15 does not. However, incident data do not indicate that side
height is a factor in fall hazard patterns. Similarly, the Australian
standard requires castors or gliders to be in specific configurations,
and the ISO standard only allows castors for convertible high chairs,
while ASTM F404-15 has no requirements for castors. However, incident
data do not indicate that castors are a common cause of injury.
Based on these comparisons, CPSC believes that ASTM F404-15 is, in
general, a more stringent standard than the other three international
standards and is better tailored to address the hazard patterns shown
in the incident data.
V. ASTM F404-15
A. History of ASTM F404-15
ASTM first approved and published a standard for high chairs in
1975, as ASTM F404-75, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for High
Chairs. ASTM has revised the voluntary standard many times since then,
adding and modifying requirements. Some of the more substantial
additions over the past 5 years include requirements for tray-release
mechanisms, visibility and permanency of labels, restraint system
installation, and restraint anchor integrity. ASTM approved the current
version, ASTM F404-15, on May 15, 2015.
B. Description of ASTM F404-15
CPSC staff, together with stakeholders on the ASTM subcommittee
task group for high chairs, developed modified and new requirements for
ASTM F404-15 to address the hazards associated with high chairs. ASTM
F404-15 includes the following key provisions: scope, terminology,
calibration and standardization, general requirements, performance
requirements, test methods, labeling and warnings, and instructional
literature. The following provides an overview of these provisions; to
view the complete standard, see the instructions in section X. of this
preamble.
1. Scope
This section states the scope and intent of the standard.
2. Terminology
This section provides definitions of terms specific to the
standard.
3. Calibration and Standardization
This section provides general instructions for conducting tests.
4. General Requirements
This section includes general requirements regarding various
issues, such as components of a high chair, conversion kits,
accessories, threaded fasteners, sharp edges and points, small parts,
wood parts, latching or locking mechanisms, labels, openings, toy
components, and lead in paint.
5. Performance Requirements and Test Methods
These sections contain performance requirements and associated test
methods for high chairs. The following summarizes key requirements in
these sections.
a. Protective Components: These requirements provide for testing
protective components such as caps and plugs.
b. Tray or Front Torso Support--Drop Test: Each removable tray and
front torso support must be dropped from a specified height in multiple
orientations. The purpose of this requirement is to test whether high
chair components continue to function or exhibit mechanical hazards
(e.g., sharp edges) after the drop test.
c. Tray or Front Torso Support--Pull Tests: The tray or front torso
support must be pulled multiple times from multiple sides and
directions with a specified force. The purpose of this requirement is
to test whether frontal support can withstand kicking or pulling.
d. Static Load: A high chair must support specified weights on the
seat, tray, step, and footrest. The purpose of this requirement is to
test whether the high chair seat and step can support more than the
weight of a child and whether the tray can withstand overloading.
e. Stability: A high chair must not tip over when pulled forward,
backward, or sideways by a specified force. The purpose of this
requirement is to test the high chair's resistance to falling over if
an occupant leans forward, pushes off a nearby surface, or the high
chair is otherwise pushed.
f. Exposed Coil Springs: Any exposed coil springs that reach a
specified distance from each other during static load testing must be
designed to prevent pinching or entrapment.
g. Scissoring, Shearing, and Pinching: Each accessible point at
which components move (e.g., fastening points, pivots) must admit a
probe with a specified diameter. The purpose of this requirement is to
prevent scissoring, shearing, and pinching of an occupant.
h. Restraint System: The standard requires an active restraint
system, such as a belt, to secure a child in the high chair. The
restraint system must include waist and crotch restraints. In addition,
the restraints must withstand upward and downward force tests as well
as testing to pull on restraint system attachments. The purpose of
these requirements is to ensure that the restraint system and its
closing means remain anchored and functional under various forces.
i. Completely-Bounded Openings: This section requires high chairs
with completely-bounded openings in front of the occupant to have a
passive crotch restraint with specified maximum sizes for gaps and
openings. The crotch restraint must be installed or tethered in place
to prevent consumers from mis-installing or not installing it and
tethers must withstand specified forces. The purpose of these
provisions is to reduce the likelihood of injury or death from an
occupant sliding through and being entrapped in an opening.
j. Structural Integrity: A high chair must withstand dynamic cycle
testing, involving repeated drops of a weight on the seat, without any
structural components breaking or the seat height or angle changing
beyond a set limit. The purpose of this requirement is to test whether
the high chair can
[[Page 69148]]
withstand the dynamic loads to which it will be subjected.
k. Tray Latch Release Mechanisms: The standard includes
requirements for tray latches to prevent unintentional or accidental
release. These requirements include specific types and placements for
latch release mechanisms and testing to ensure they can withstand a
specified force. The purpose of these requirements is to address
incidents in which occupants fell from high chairs that had passive
restraints integrated into the tray.
l. Side Containment: Any completely-bounded openings on the sides
of the seat must meet specified maximum dimensions for gaps and
openings. The purpose of this requirement is to reduce the likelihood
of injury or death from an occupant sliding through and being entrapped
in an opening.
m. Protrusions: Projections must meet certain dimensional
requirements if they are located on the outside of high chair legs at a
height a toddler is susceptible to falling into. The purpose of this
requirement is to address the incidents in which children outside of
high chairs sustained injuries from falling into tray storage hooks or
other protrusions.
n. Locking Mechanisms: Locking mechanisms must be able to withstand
a specified force.
o. Permanency of Labels and Warnings: This section specifies
testing and criteria for determining the permanency of labels.
6. Labeling and Warnings
This section contains various requirements related to warnings and
labels, including content, format, and prominence requirements.
7. Instructional Literature
This section requires that instructions be provided with high
chairs and be easy to read and understand. The instructions must comply
with content, format, and prominence requirements.
VI. Assessment of ASTM F404-15
CPSC considered the fatalities, injuries, and non-injury incidents
associated with high chairs that occurred between January 1, 2011 and
December 31, 2014, and staff evaluated ASTM F404-15 to determine
whether the voluntary standard addresses these hazards or whether more
stringent standards would reduce the risk of injury associated with
high chairs. CPSC believes that ASTM F404-15 effectively addresses the
hazards indicated in the incident data, with the exception of two
areas. CPSC believes that more stringent requirements than those in
ASTM F404-15 would further reduce the risk of injury associated with
high chairs regarding rearward stability and warnings on labels and in
instructional literature. Consequently, CPSC proposes additional
requirements for those areas.
This section provides CPSC's assessments of how ASTM F404-15
addresses the hazard patterns in the incident data. In its analysis,
CPSC identified broad categories into which the incidents fall. One
category is components of high chairs, including issues with frames,
seats, restraint systems, armrests, trays, toy accessories, wheels,
footrests, and miscellaneous issues. Another category is general
problems with high chairs, including design and stability issues. And
the final category includes incidents that did not clearly fall within
any of the above groupings--these are listed below as consumer
observations and undetermined. This section discusses each of these
hazard patterns, in descending order of frequency of incidents within
each of the three categories (see Table 2, above). Section VIII.
discusses the additional requirements that CPSC proposes for rearward
stability and warnings.
A. Frame
There were 650 CPSRMS incidents involving the frame of a high
chair, resulting in a total of 20 injuries. Common incidents included
cracked frames or height adjustors, loose screws, and buckling legs.
More than 80 percent of frame-related incidents involved cracked
components on two similar high chair models from one manufacturer and
resulted in only a few minor injuries.
ASTM F404-15 contains two separate requirements intended to provide
structural integrity to high chair frames--a static load test and a
drop test. Several general requirements also address the hazards
associated with frame failures, such as the requirements regarding the
use of certain screws for key structural elements to provide for proper
installation and durability over time. Since frame-related incidents
are not an industry-wide problem, CPSC believes that the ASTM F404-15
requirements for structural integrity, load tests, and fasteners
effectively address the safety hazards related to high chair frames.
B. Seat
There were a total of 205 incidents involving the seat of a high
chair, resulting in 41 injuries. Seat-related issues include cracked or
peeling seat pads, broken seat reclining hardware, seat backs
detaching, and loose screws. Nearly 60 percent of seat issues involved
a single manufacturer's seat pads cracking or peeling after multiple
washings. Eighty-three percent of seat-related injuries involved
cracked or peeling seat pads scratching occupants' legs.
ASTM F404-15 contains two requirements that address the integrity
of structural components of a high chair, including the seat. These are
the static load test and drop test. General requirements, such as those
regarding sharp points and small parts, also address the risk of
laceration or choking on pieces that detach from the seat. CPSC
believes that ASTM F404-15 effectively addresses the hazards associated
with high chair seats.
C. Restraint System
There were 139 incidents involving the restraint system of a high
chair, resulting in 12 injuries. These issues generally fall into two
categories--restraint systems that failed and unused restraint systems.
Within the first category, incidents included buckles breaking or
separating from straps, straps tearing or pulling out of anchor points,
and other issues. To address these issues, ASTM F404-15 requires all
high chairs to be shipped with two types of restraint systems--a pre-
attached ``active'' crotch and waist belt restraint system and a
``passive'' crotch restraint--that have undergone testing to ensure
they work as intended. ASTM F404-15 also requires the restraint anchors
to withstand a pull test. CPSC believes that ASTM F404-15 effectively
addresses the hazard pattern associated with restraint system failures.
As for the second category, unused restraint systems, CPSC believes
that a more stringent standard for labels and instructional literature
than ASTM F404-15 would further reduce the risk of injuries associated
with this issue. CPSRMS and NEISS data indicate that, in many
incidents, caregivers did not use the restraint system. CPSC believes
more effective warnings would increase consumer use of restraint
systems and reduce these incidents.
CPSC's review of CPSRMS data revealed that of the 1,308 incidents
involving high chairs, there were numerous cases in which the caregiver
did not use the high chair restraints, resulting in the child falling
or nearly falling from the high chair. Although many incident reports
have limited detail, CPSC noted that several incidents involved a child
falling from a high chair when the tray disengaged, suggesting the tray
was used as the sole restraint. Several reports also indicated that a
caregiver's attention was
[[Page 69149]]
elsewhere when the incident occurred. And several other reports
suggested that the restraint system was ineffective at restraining the
child or was used improperly.
CPSC's review of NEISS data revealed a similar pattern. The vast
majority of NEISS incidents involved falls, which suggests that
restraints were unused or ineffective. Although NEISS data provide
limited details, many reports state that the child was not restrained
or that the restraint had just been removed when the incident occurred.
In some cases, the incident happened when a caregiver turned away from
the child, and some reports stated the child was strapped in before the
fall, suggesting the restraint fit poorly or was not adjusted properly.
CPSC believes that the requirements in ASTM F404-15 do not
adequately address the risk of injury associated with unused or
improperly used restraint systems. ASTM F404-15 includes three types of
requirements relevant to this hazard. First, the standard requires the
passive crotch restraint to arrive attached or tethered to its
manufacturer's recommended use position to reduce the chances that the
restraint is not installed before use. Second, section 8 of ASTM F404-
15 requires warnings about the risk of serious injury or death from
falling or sliding out of a high chair, instructions to use the
restraint system, and a warning never to leave a child unattended. Some
of these warnings must be visible to a person standing near the high
chair at any one position when a child is in the high chair, but not
necessarily visible from all positions. Other warnings must be visible
to a caregiver while placing a child in the high chair, but not
necessarily visible when the child is in the high chair. Third, section
9 of ASTM F404-15 specifies that instructional literature provided with
a high chair must include the same warning statements that are on the
high chair; state that only children capable of sitting upright
unassisted should use a high chair; advise consumers to use the
restraint system; and inform consumers that the tray is not a restraint
system.
CPSC believes that more stringent content, form, and placement
requirements for warnings than ASTM F404-15's would further reduce the
risk of injury associated with unused restraint systems. Section VIII.
discusses CPSC's proposed labeling and instructional literature
requirements in greater detail.
D. Armrest
Eighty-one high chair incidents involved armrests and resulted in
two injuries. Many of the reports indicate armrests broke as users
removed the tray. All but one of the armrest incidents involved a
single high chair model.
ASTM F404-15 includes several performance tests that address this
hazard. For example, the static load and pull tests for trays also
evaluate the durability of armrests because trays are typically
attached to armrests. CPSC believes that ASTM F404-15 effectively
addresses the armrest hazard pattern. The incident reports indicate
this is not an industry-wide problem; there were only a small number of
minor injuries associated with armrests, and ASTM F404-15 includes
tests for armrest durability.
E. Tray
A total of 75 high chair incidents involved trays and resulted in
33 injuries. Common tray incidents included pinching, and in addition,
falls that occurred when trays unexpectedly detached or released too
easily.
ASTM F404-15 contains several performance requirements that address
tray incidents, including pull tests, a static load test, and specific
tray-latching requirements. Provisions on tray latch accessibility and
latch actuation that ASTM adopted in 2007 and 2010 have been effective
at reducing tray-related incidents, as data show a decline in incidents
for models manufactured after those revisions. General requirements,
such as those for sharp edges and scissoring, shearing, and pinching,
also address these hazards. CPSC believes that ASTM F404-15 effectively
addresses the tray hazard pattern.
F. Toy Accessories
Toy accessories were involved in 70 high chair incidents, resulting
in one injury. These reports indicate toy accessories cracked or broke.
ASTM F404-15 includes requirements for toy accessory durability,
requiring manufacturers to attach toy accessories to the high chair for
testing, including tray drop testing and load cycle testing. CPSC
believes ASTM F404-15 effectively addresses the toy accessory hazard
pattern. CPSC expects the toy durability requirements in ASTM F404-15,
as well as the general requirement in ASTM F404-15 calling for
compliance with ASTM's toy standard, ASTM F963, Standard Consumer
Safety Specification for Toy Safety, to reduce hazards related to
cracked or broken toy accessories.
G. Wheels
Wheels were involved in 21 high chair incidents, resulting in one
injury. Common incidents involved wheels becoming loose, breaking, or
not locking. All but two of these incident reports cited cracked or
broken components of high chairs from one manufacturer and almost all
of these were the same model. In the single incident that resulted in
an injury, the wheel was only a minor contributing factor.
ASTM F404-15 evaluates wheel durability through a static load test
and drop test. CPSC believes that ASTM F404-15 effectively addresses
this hazard pattern, as wheel issues do not appear to be an industry-
wide hazard pattern, do not contribute to a substantial number of
injuries, and ASTM F404-15 contains provisions that evaluate wheel
integrity.
H. Footrests
Fourteen high chair incidents involved footrests and resulted in no
injuries. All of the incident reports cited footrests cracking on a
single high chair model.
ASTM F404-15 includes a static load test to evaluate the durability
of footrests. CPSC believes that ASTM F404-15 effectively addresses
this hazard pattern, as this is not an industry-wide issue, and ASTM
F404-15 includes requirements for footrest durability.
I. Miscellaneous Issues
High chair incident reports included various additional issues,
such as paint with excessive lead content, cracked wood finish, loose
screws, and assembly problems. Eight high chair incident reports cited
these miscellaneous issues and resulted in one injury.
ASTM F404-15 contains several requirements that address these
various issues, such as issues with screws on consumer-assembled
structural components, sharp edges, small parts, exposed wood, and
compliance with 16 CFR part 1303 (banning lead-containing paint). ASTM
F404-15 also includes requirements for instructional literature,
intended to provide clear assembly instructions. CPSC believes that
ASTM F404-15 effectively addresses these issues.
J. Design
Design issues were involved in 22 high chair incidents, resulting
in 13 injuries. Incident reports relating to the design of a high chair
primarily cited designs that create entrapment hazards. These hazards
commonly resulted in children's arms being entrapped
[[Page 69150]]
between the back of a high chair and the tray or children's legs
catching in the gap between the bottom of the tray and the top of the
passive crotch restraint. In the most severe cases, children slid into
leg hole openings under the tray and hung by their necks.
To address these ``submarining'' cases, ASTM F404-15 contains
several performance tests that specifically address openings, including
a probe test for gaps and completely-bounded openings in front of
occupants, around the passive crotch restraint, and between horizontal
portions and the tray. The standard also includes a test for leg
openings and openings around the sides of the high chair seat to ensure
that occupants cannot slide through and become entrapped. ASTM F404-15
requires manufacturers to attach passive crotch restraints to the high
chair to increase the likelihood that consumers will use restraints and
reduce submarining incidents. ASTM F404-15's requirements on openings
and scissoring, shearing, and pinching address less serious entrapment
hazards. CPSC believes that ASTM F404-15 effectively addresses the
design hazard pattern.
K. Stability
Stability issues played a role in 16 high chair incidents,
resulting in 12 injuries. This hazard pattern includes forward tip-
overs, side tip-overs, and rearward tip-overs. Tip-overs generally
occur when a child leans out of the high chair or pushes off a nearby
surface. In NEISS reports that included enough detail to identify the
cause of the incident, the vast majority of the incidents were falls
resulting from tip-overs, mostly rearward tip-overs. CPSRMS data also
included reports of many injuries resulting from high chairs tipping
over, also frequently rearward tip-overs.
ASTM F404-15 requires forward, sideways, and rearward tip-over
testing. The standard also contains a stability requirement to simulate
the load applied by a child climbing into the chair. CPSC believes that
ASTM F404-15 effectively addresses forward and sideways tip-overs.
However, based on the frequency of rearward tip-over incidents, CPSC
believes that ASTM F404-15 does not adequately address rearward tip-
over hazards and a more stringent standard is necessary. Section VIII.
discusses CPSC's proposed rearward stability standard.
L. Consumer Observations
Three incident reports involved consumers' perceived safety hazards
or complaints about high chairs, but none of the incidents resulted in
injuries. These reports did not provide enough information for CPSC to
assess the adequacy of ASTM F404-15 regarding the reported concerns.
M. Undetermined
Four high chair incident reports did not provide sufficient
information for CPSC to determine how the incidents, including the one
reported death and two injuries, occurred. The lack of information
available in these incident reports made it impossible for CPSC to
assess the effectiveness of ASTM F404-15 in addressing these issues.
VII. Restaurant-Style High Chairs
ASTM F404-15 applies to high chairs without distinguishing where
consumers use them. However, many high chairs are designed to be used
in commercial settings, primarily restaurants (``restaurant-style high
chairs''). These high chairs generally include features that are
particularly useful in commercial or restaurant settings and may not
present the same hazards as high chairs used in the home. Based on
CPSC's review of incident data and the potential economic impact of the
requirements proposed in this NPR, it is possible that, due to the
unique environmental factors in restaurant settings, high chairs used
in these settings may present lesser hazards and warrant fewer
requirements to reduce the risk of injury associated with high chairs.
The following describes the factors that weigh in favor of and against
distinguishing restaurant-style high chairs from other high chairs and
possible options for distinguishing them.
Of the 1,296 CPSRMS incident reports, three explicitly state that
the incidents occurred in restaurants while consumers used the
establishments' high chairs. Restaurant-style high chairs have several
distinct features. This style of chair is generally constructed from
robust materials, such as wood or plastic and do not have trays.
Therefore, restaurant-style high chairs can be pulled up to a table. In
addition, restaurant-style high chairs are designed to be compact and
stackable for easy storage and have little space available for labels.
Restaurant-style high chairs are also generally designed to be lower to
the ground and narrower than high chairs intended for home use.
Additionally, restaurant-style high chairs are designed not only to
accommodate a wide range of ages, from infants to toddlers, but also
accommodate bulky outerwear and shoes. These design attributes are
desirable in a restaurant setting to adapt to the environment and be
versatile and compact. However, these features also make it difficult
for these high chairs to comply with the requirements in ASTM F404-15
and the additional requirements proposed in this NPR.
There are several requirements that restaurant-style high chairs
frequently do not follow. Contrary to ASTM F404-15, wedge blocks can
generally pass through the leg openings of restaurant-style high
chairs. The large side and back openings also do not meet ASTM F404-15.
The belt used as a passive restraint often fits loosely over the top
rail of the high chair and does not meet the passive restraint
requirements of ASTM F404-15. The lower and narrower stance of these
high chairs also may impact the chairs' compliance with the stability
requirements in ASTM F404-15. Moreover, there is little space on these
high chairs to accommodate the label requirements in ASTM F404-15 or
the additional requirements CPSC proposes.
There are several reasons it may be appropriate to apply different
requirements to restaurant-style high chairs. First, the environment in
which restaurant-style high chairs are used may not present the same
hazards that are common in the home. In a restaurant environment,
caregivers sit next to the child seated in the high chair, are unlikely
to leave a child unattended in the high chair, and are not distracted
by the tasks that may divert the caregiver's attention in a home
environment. For these reasons, a caregiver would likely be able to
prevent an incident from occurring, or correct any issue quickly,
before serious injury or death could occur. None of the three incidents
involving restaurant-style high chairs reported to CPSC involved
children who were unattended and entrapped in the openings of the high
chair. Because caregivers are likely to be nearby and attentive, it is
likely to be less necessary for warnings regarding attending the child
to be visible when the child is in the high chair. Second, modifying
restaurant-style high chairs to comply with ASTM F404-15 would likely
reduce their utility because these high chairs would no longer
accommodate larger children or bulky clothes, and would be less compact
and not stackable. Finally, given the possible lesser safety issues,
the proposed requirements in this NPR impose proportionately high costs
on restaurant-style high chair suppliers because these products require
more changes to come into compliance.
There are also several reasons to apply the same requirements to
restaurant-style high chairs and other
[[Page 69151]]
high chairs. First, restaurant-style high chairs are readily available
to consumers and are also used in homes. Two of the firms that market
their products to consumers produce high chairs identical to the wooden
high chairs used in restaurants. This negates the environmental factors
that support distinguishing high chairs used in restaurants. Second,
there is minimal incident data to indicate whether high chairs actually
pose lesser safety risks in restaurant settings. It is also possible
that, although caregivers in restaurants are near the child, caregivers
may be less likely to attend to the child or use the restraint system
because caregivers assume they are near enough to the child to prevent
an incident. As the incident data indicate, this may not be correct, as
incidents can happen quickly. Finally, because high chairs are readily
available to consumers, it may be difficult, practically, to apply
different requirements to these high chairs.
Some options for treating restaurant style-high chairs differently
than other high chairs include excluding restaurant-style high chairs
from the proposed standard or modifying individual requirements, such
as label placement and bounded-openings, to reflect the features and
lesser safety issues associated with restaurant-style high chairs.
CPSC requests comments on the following factors: whether it is
appropriate to distinguish these high chairs, which requirements should
differ, and how CPSC could apply those distinctions.
VIII. Description of Proposed Changes to ASTM Standard
The proposed rule would create part 1231, titled, Safety Standard
for High Chairs. As explained above, the Commission believes that ASTM
F404-15 effectively addresses the safety hazards associated with high
chairs, with the exception of rearward stability and warnings in labels
and instructional literature. For this reason, the Commission proposes
to incorporate by reference ASTM F404-15, with modified requirements
for rearward stability and warnings. This section discusses the
proposed changes to ASTM F404-15.
A. Rearward Stability
Based on the incident data discussed above, CPSC believes that a
more stringent standard than ASTM F404-15 for rearward stability would
further reduce the risk of injury. CPSC staff has tested the high chair
models involved in incidents and found that the tested models passed
the requirements of ASTM F404-15. To develop a performance test to
measure and improve the rearward stability of high chairs, CPSC worked
with an ASTM task group to develop an alternative rearward stability
test, based on CPSC staff's and manufacturers' testing. Although this
test is not included in ASTM F404-15, ASTM may adopt the test in future
revisions. CPSC proposes to adopt this test, in lieu of the rearward
stability test in ASTM F404-15.
The proposed standard is based on a rearward stability index
(``SI'') rating that evaluates the factors that contribute to rearward
tip-overs and sets a minimum SI score for high chairs. The task group
developed the SI based on a review of various stability requirements,
the incident data, and testing numerous high chair models, including
those involved in rearward tip-over incidents and those not reported to
be involved in such incidents. The SI measures the elements associated
with high chair occupants pushing back from a surface. The SI rates
high chairs based on two characteristics associated with rearward tip-
overs--the force (``F'') required to tip the chair over in the rearward
direction and the distance (``D'') that a reference point on the seat
travels as the chair tilts from the manufacturer's recommended use
position to the point of instability just before tipping over. A chair
design will score well if it requires a large push-off force and/or a
long distance to reach its tipping point. CPSC's and manufacturers'
tests determined that the tip force is a more critical factor in
identifying unstable chairs. As such, the SI weights F twice as heavily
as D: SI = 2F + D.
The test method CPSC developed through this testing and proposes in
this NPR includes the following elements:
Attach a force gauge to the center line of the back of the
seat, 7.25'' above the seating surface and preload it with 3 pounds of
force (to eliminate any slack in fabric or loose seats);
Establish an initial reference point along the plane of
the force gauge;
Gradually apply a rearward, horizontal force until the
point at which the chair becomes unstable and begins to tip over
backward;
Record the maximum force applied during the tip test,
along with the total distance the reference point moved from its
predetermined position; and
Calculate the SI by multiplying the force by a factor of
two and adding the distance. Based on the product testing conducted,
CPSC proposes requiring high chairs to have an SI of 50 or more.
CPSC also proposes to include requirements for the test surface and
positioning of the high chair for rearward stability testing. These
requirements are based on CPSC staff's testing initiative and aim to
reduce variation in test results. First, CPSC proposes to require the
high chair seat back, tray, seat, and wheels to be in specific
positions for rearward stability testing. This will decrease
variability in test methods and results, and based on testing, CPSC
believes that these positions are the most effective for assessing high
chair stability.
Second, CPSC proposes to require a specific test surface, including
60-grit sandpaper to prevent sliding and maximum parameters for the
stop block placed behind a high chair with wheels to instigate tipping.
Without these requirements, test results vary because test surfaces
differ and the height of a stop block affects the amount of force
necessary to tip over a high chair.
The proposed rearward stability requirement and test procedure are
effective at identifying high chairs that have been involved in
rearward tip-over incidents. As such, CPSC believes this more stringent
standard would further reduce the risk of injury associated with
rearward high chair tip-overs, and proposes requiring this modification
to ASTM F404-15.
B. Warnings in Labels
Based on incident data discussed above and research on effective
warnings, CPSC believes that the on-product warning requirements in
ASTM F404-15 do not adequately address the safety risks associated with
high chairs; therefore, CPSC proposes more stringent requirements that
would further reduce the risk of injury associated with falls from high
chairs. Specifically, CPSC proposes additional content, form, and
placement provisions for on-product warnings labels. Tab E of CPSC
staff's briefing package for this proposed rule includes additional
details about these proposed requirements and the rationale behind
them. The briefing package is available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/FOIA/Commission-Briefing-Packages/.
1. Content
CPSC proposes to require high chairs to bear labels that address
the following statements:
Children have suffered skull fractures after falling from high
chairs. Falls can happen quickly if child is not restrained properly.
Always use restraints, and adjust to fit snugly. Tray is
not designed to hold child in chair.
Stay near and watch your child during use.
[[Page 69152]]
CPSC believes this language would be more effective than ASTM F404-
15's language at reducing the risk of injury associated with falls from
high chairs. CPSC developed the proposed warning language from
information developed through research on the content of warnings. The
proposed rule refers to ANSI Z535.4, Product Safety Signs and Labels
(``ANSI Z535.4''), for guidance on warning label designs. ANSI Z535.4
is the primary U.S. voluntary consensus standard for product safety
signs and labels. The standard is available at: https://www.ansi.org/.
ANSI Z535.4 addresses the design, application, use, and placement of
on-product warning labels. CPSC's Division of Human Factors regularly
uses ANSI Z535.4.
As the staff briefing package discusses, literature and guidelines
about warnings consistently recommend that on-product warnings include:
A description of the hazard;
information about the consequences of exposure to the
hazard; and
instructions about appropriate hazard-avoidance behaviors.
The warning statements in ASTM F404-15 lack important details
regarding the hazard and its consequences, providing only a vague
description of the types of injuries that may occur. As staff's
briefing package for this proposed rule indicates, providing more
detailed and vivid information in a warning increases its
effectiveness. Accordingly, CPSC developed the proposed language,
describing the specific hazard, consequent injuries, and precise
actions that can help reduce the likelihood of the hazard.
As Tab E of CPSC staff's briefing package for this proposed rule
discusses, incident data and other research reveals the following:
Falls can happen quickly;
falls occur when caregivers are not close by or watching a
child;
falls occur when caregivers do not use the restraint
system;
falls occur when caregivers do not use the restraint
system properly; and
receiving information about a hazard, its consequences,
and mitigating actions, motivates appropriate behavior.
As discussed in further detail in Tab E of CPSC staff's briefing
package, CPSC does not believe that ASTM F404-15 includes adequately
detailed requirements to address many of these factors. To increase the
effectiveness of warnings and further reduce the risk of injury, CPSC
proposes the following for high chair warnings:
A statement describing the speed with which incidents can
occur;
a detailed description of what ``attending'' means,
including staying near and watching a child;
an instruction to use the restraint system and a statement
that the tray is not part of the restraint system;
an instruction to adjust the restraints to fit the child
snugly; and
a warning statement regarding the hazard, consequences,
and appropriate actions to appear together on a label.
Similarly to ASTM F404-15, CPSC proposes that for high chairs that
have a seating component that is also used as a seating component for a
stroller, the content of the labels must comply with ASTM F833,
Standard Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Carriages and
Strollers (``ASTM F833''). However, although ASTM F404-15 only requires
compliance with section 8.2.2.2 of ASTM F833, CPSC also proposes to
require the additional warning provided in section 8.2.2.1. CPSC
incorporated the most recent revision of this standard (ASTM F833-13b)
into 16 CFR part 1227 as the safety standard for carriages and
strollers, with some modifications, effective September 10, 2015. 79 FR
13,208 (Mar. 10, 2014).
2. Form
Research indicates that the form of a warning can affect the extent
to which consumers notice and read the warning. The form of a warning
can also communicate the seriousness of a hazard, which can affect
compliance with recommended behavior. CPSC considered research on
effective forms for warnings, including the requirements in ANSI
Z535.4, in developing the proposed form requirements. ASTM F404-15 does
not include several of the features that have been found to be
effective, including colors, contrast, typeface, and layout.
As discussed in Tab E of CPSC staff's briefing package for this
proposed rule, research indicates the following points about the format
of warnings:
Certain colors, particularly red, orange, and yellow,
attract attention and help convey the presence of a hazard;
the degree of contrast contributes to readability;
certain typeface styles, such as sentence capitalization
(i.e., mixed upper and lowercase) and boldface, are easier to read and
more effective at highlighting information than extensive
capitalization;
left-justified text is easier to read than fully-justified
text;
condensed or narrow typeface is less effective at
conveying information; and
lists and outline formats provide for better absorption
and retention of information than continuous paragraph text.
ASTM F404-15 does not include specific requirements for many of
these factors. To increase the effectiveness of warnings and further
reduce the risk of injury, based on this research, CPSC proposes the
following for high chair warnings:
Red, orange, or yellow on-product warnings;
highly contrasting colors, such as black and white;
sentence capitalization, with key phrases emphasized in
boldface;
left-justified text;
non-condensed typeface; and
outline format.
3. Placement
As discussed above, the warning placement and visibility
requirements in ASTM F404-15 permit different portions of warning
information to appear on separate labels. CPSC believes that to be most
effective, all of the warning information should appear together
because the hazard description and potential injuries help motivate
caregivers to take the recommended actions. Similarly, CPSC believes
that it is important for caregivers to be able to see the warnings when
putting a child into a high chair and when the child is in it. This
will remind users to use the restraint system when putting the child
into the high chair and to stay near and watch the child once the high
chair is in use. ASTM F404-15 only requires certain warning information
to be visible when a caretaker is placing a child in the high chair,
not once the chair is occupied; and the standard requires other warning
information to be visible when the child is in the chair. Based on the
incident data, CPSC believes it would more effectively reduce the risk
of injury associated with falls from high chairs if users could see the
warning after putting a child in the high chair and before leaving the
child unattended. As such, CPSC proposes requiring warning labels to be
visible when placing the occupant in the high chair and once the child
is in the high chair.
4. Additional Guidance
CPSC also proposes to include a note in the regulatory text
referencing ANSI Z535.4 for optional additional guidance. CPSC would
not require compliance with ANSI Z535.4, but the standard may offer
regulated entities additional useful information for developing
effective labels.
[[Page 69153]]
C. Warnings in Instructional Literature
For reasons similar to using warnings in on-product labels, CPSC
proposes more stringent requirements for warnings in instructional
literature than ASTM F404-15 provides. CPSC believes that more
stringent requirements will further reduce the risk of injury
associated with high chairs by providing more effective warnings
regarding the hazard, potential injuries, and recommended behavior.
This includes requirements about the content and form of warnings in
instructional literature. The discussion below provides the rationale
for these more-stringent requirements, and the requirements are
discussed in additional detail in Tab E of CPSC staff's briefing
package for this proposed rule.
1. Content
Section 9.2 of ASTM F404-15 requires that instructional literature
contain the same warnings as the warnings required on the high chair.
CPSC believes that this requirement is appropriate. However, because
CPSC proposes to require different on-product warning label content
than ASTM F404-15, the more-stringent warning requirements also would
apply to instructional literature. The Commission agrees with the
additional content requirement listed in section 9.2.1 of ASTM F404-15.
Therefore, CPSC does not propose to modify that requirement.
2. Form
Unlike on-product warning labels, ASTM F404-15 does not specify the
form in which warning statements in instructional literature must
appear. Similarly to on-product warning labels, research and guidance
indicate that specific forms are more effective at conveying
information. The proposed rule refers to ANSI Z535.6, Product Safety
Information in Product Manuals, Instructions, and Other Collateral
Materials (``ANSI Z535.6'') for guidance on the design and location of
product safety messages in instructional literature. The standard is
available at: https://www.ansi.org/.
CPSC proposes to require the same form requirements for warnings in
instructional literature as the requirements proposed for on-product
warning labels, with one exception. CPSC believes that these form
requirements will further reduce the risk of injury associated with
high chairs for the same reasons discussed for on-product warning
labels. However, CPSC does not propose to require the use of specific
colors (i.e., red, orange, yellow) for warnings in instructional
literature unless a manufacturer opts to use color, in which case the
same color requirements as on-product labels would apply.
3. Additional Guidance
Similar to ANSI Z535.4, CPSC also proposes to include a note in the
regulatory text referencing ANSI Z535.6 for optional additional
guidance. CPSC would not require compliance with ANSI Z535.6, but the
standard may offer regulated entities additional useful information for
developing effective warnings in instructional literature.
IX. Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112 To Include NOR for High Chair
Standard
Section 14 of the CPSA establishes requirements for product testing
and certification. Manufacturers of products that are subject to a
consumer product safety rule under the CPSA or another rule the
Commission enforces must certify, based on product testing, that their
product complies with all such rules. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1).
Additionally, manufacturers of children's products that are subject to
a children's product safety rule must have these products tested by a
third party conformity assessment body that CPSC has accredited, and
manufacturers must certify that their products comply with all
applicable children's product safety rules. Id. at 2063(a)(2). The
Commission must publish an NOR for the accreditation of third party
conformity assessment bodies to assess conformity with a children's
product safety rule. Id. at 2063(a)(3). Because the proposed rule is a
children's product safety rule, if the Commission issues 16 CFR part
1231, Safety Standard for High Chairs, as a final rule, the CPSC must
also issue an NOR.
The Commission published a final rule, codified at 16 CFR part
1112, titled, Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity
Assessment Bodies, which established requirements for accreditation of
third party conformity assessment bodies to test for conformity with
children's product safety rules in accordance with the CPSA. 78 FR
15836 (Mar. 12, 2013). Part 1112 also codifies all of the NORs the
Commission previously issued.
NORs for new children's product safety rules, such as the high
chair standard, require the Commission to amend part 1112. To
accomplish this, as part of this NPR, the Commission proposes to amend
part 1112 to add high chairs to the list of children's product safety
rules for which CPSC has issued an NOR.
Test laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third
party conformity assessment body to test for compliance with the
proposed standard for high chairs would be required to meet the third
party conformity assessment body accreditation requirements in part
1112. When a laboratory meets the requirements of a CPSC-accepted third
party conformity assessment body, the laboratory can apply to CPSC to
have 16 CFR part 1231, Safety Standard for High Chairs, included in the
laboratory's scope of accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed for the
laboratory on the CPSC Web site at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.
X. Incorporation by Reference
Section 1231.2(a) of the proposed rule incorporates by reference
ASTM F404-15. The Office of the Federal Register (``OFR'') has
regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. Under
these regulations, in the preamble of the NPR, an agency must summarize
the incorporated material and discuss the ways the material is
reasonably available to interested parties or how the agency worked to
make the materials reasonably available. 1 CFR 51.5(a).
In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section V.B. of this
preamble summarizes the provisions of ASTM F404-15 that the Commission
proposes to incorporate by reference. ASTM F404-15 is copyrighted. By
permission of ASTM, interested parties may view the standard as a read-
only document during the comment period of this NPR at: https://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. Interested parties may also purchase a copy of
ASTM F404-15 from ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box
0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; https://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You
may also inspect a copy at CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway,
Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923.
XI. Effective Date
The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally
requires that the effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after
publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). To allow time for high
chairs to come into compliance with the standard, the Commission
proposes that the standard become effective 6 months after publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register. Without evidence to the
contrary, CPSC generally considers 6 months to be sufficient time for
suppliers to come into compliance with
[[Page 69154]]
a new standard, and 6 months is typical for other CPSIA section 104
rules. Six months is also the period that the Juvenile Products
Manufacturers Association (``JPMA'') typically allows for products in
the JPMA certification program to transition to a new standard once
that standard is published. We also propose that the amendment to part
1112 become effective 6 months after publication of the final rule. We
ask for comments on this proposed effective date.
XII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
A. Introduction
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''; 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires
agencies to consider the impact of proposed rules on small entities,
including small businesses. Section 603 of the RFA requires the
Commission to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(``IRFA'') and make it available to the public for comment when the NPR
is published. The IRFA must describe the impact of the proposed rule on
small entities and identify significant alternatives that accomplish
the statutory objectives and minimize any significant economic impact
of the proposed rule on small entities. Specifically, the IRFA must
discuss:
The reasons the agency is considering the action;
the objectives and legal basis of the proposed rule;
the small entities that would be subject to the proposed
rule and, when possible, an estimate of the number of small entities
that would be impacted;
the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including the classes of
small entities subject to it and the professional skills necessary to
prepare the reports or records; and
the relevant federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed rule. 5 U.S.C. 603.
This section summarizes the IRFA for this proposed rule. Based on
CPSC's analysis, staff cannot rule out a significant economic impact
for 20 of the 38 firms (53 percent) operating in the U.S. market for
high chairs.
B. Market Description
CPSC identified 62 firms that supply high chairs to the U.S.
market. The majority of these firms are domestic (including 27
manufacturers, 19 importers, and 5 wholesalers). The remaining 11 firms
are foreign (including 9 manufacturers, 1 importer, and 1 retailer).
Forty-eight of these firms market their products to consumers, while 14
firms market their products for use in commercial settings, such as
restaurants, hotels, and day care centers. However, consumers are able
to purchase high chairs that are generally designed and marketed for
use in commercial settings; two of the firms that market their products
to consumers also produce high chairs identical to the wooden high
chairs used in restaurants.
C. Reason for Agency Action, Objectives, and Legal Basis for Proposed
Rule
Section 104 of the CPSIA requires the CPSC to promulgate a
mandatory standard for high chairs that is substantially the same as
the voluntary standard or more stringent than the voluntary standard if
the Commission determines that more stringent requirements would
further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.
D. Description of the Proposed Rule
CPSC proposes to adopt ASTM F404-15 with modifications to the
rearward stability test and requirements for warnings on labels and
instructional literature. Section V. of this preamble discusses key
provisions of ASTM F404-15.
CPSC believes that the high chairs of 37 firms comply with ASTM
F404. This is because JPMA has certified the high chairs supplied by 12
firms, and the remaining 25 firms state that they comply with the
voluntary standard. As such, these firms will not incur additional
costs to comply with the provisions of ASTM F404-15, which CPSC
proposes to adopt.
In addition to incorporating ASTM F404-15 by reference, CPSC
proposes to adopt modified requirements for rearward stability and
warnings in labels and instructional literature because CPSC believes
that more stringent standards in these areas would further reduce the
risk of injury. Section VIII. of this preamble discusses these proposed
provisions.
Preliminary testing by CPSC staff and other members of the ASTM
task group indicates that most high chairs would pass the proposed
rearward stability test, and therefore, would not require any
modifications to meet the proposed standard. Through testing high
chairs and other market research, staff identified only three high
chairs that might not pass the modified rearward stability test, based
on their design. However, CPSC expects that the cost of modifying the
design to increase rearward stability would be low, and that this could
likely be accomplished by adding flat supports to the bottom of each
back leg.
The Commission is also proposing more stringent requirements for
warnings in labels and instructional literature. All firms would be
affected by the proposed requirements for warnings in labels and
instructional literature. Each firm would need to modify the text and
formatting of the warnings for both the product and the instructional
literature. Firms would need to move warning labels to the specified
location, ensuring that the warnings are visible when the child is
placed in the high chair and when the child is in the high chair. If
the high chair can be used with and without padding, this would require
placing the warning on both the high chair and the padding. Section
XII.F. of this preamble discusses staff's assessment of the impact of
these proposed requirements on small entities.
E. Other Relevant Federal Rules
CPSC staff has not identified any federal or state rules that
duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule.
F. Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small Businesses
CPSC is aware of approximately 62 firms currently marketing high
chairs in the United States, 51 of which are domestic firms. Under U.S.
Small Business Administration (``SBA'') guidelines, a high chair
manufacturer is ``small'' if it has 500 or fewer employees, and
importers and wholesalers are small if they have 100 or fewer
employees. CPSC limited its analysis to domestic firms because SBA
guidelines and definitions pertain to U.S. entities. Based on these
guidelines and available information about the firms, staff has
identified 38 of the 51 domestic suppliers as small (21 manufacturers,
13 importers, and 4 wholesalers). There may be additional small
domestic high chair suppliers that CPSC is not aware of who are
operating in the U.S. market. Table 3 lists the number of firms by
category:
Table 3--Firms That Market High Chairs in the U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Category firms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic................................................ 51
Small................................................. 38
Manufacturers....................................... 21
Compliant with ASTM F404.......................... 12
Not Compliant with ASTM F404...................... 9
Importers and Wholesalers........................... 17
[[Page 69155]]
Compliant with ASTM F404.......................... 9
Not Compliant with ASTM F404...................... 8
Large................................................. 13
Foreign................................................. 11
---------------
Total........................................... 62
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Small Manufacturers With Compliant High Chairs
Of the 21 small manufacturers, 12 produce high chairs that comply
with ASTM F404-14. In general, CPSC expects small manufacturers that
already comply with the voluntary standard will continue to comply with
the standard as the standard evolves because they follow, and in three
cases, actively participate in ASTM's standard-development process. As
such, compliance with the voluntary standard is part of these firms'
established business practice. Because ASTM approved ASTM F404-15 on
May 15, 2015, these firms would likely be in compliance with the
standard before the proposed rule would take effect.
For this reason, the economic impact of the proposed rule should be
small for 10 of the 12 small domestic manufacturers. These 10 firms
include one firm that may need to modify its high chair to meet the
proposed rearward stability test; as discussed above, the cost
associated with this modification is likely small.
However, the proposed warning label requirements may create a
significant economic impact for two small manufacturers. Both firms
produce high chairs with compact designs, with one serving the
commercial restaurant market. Redesigning the seat back would provide
additional space for warning labels, but may reduce the chairs'
compactness, which may be an important feature for marketability. For
one firm, high chairs represent a small part of its product line, but
it is unclear whether the firm could stop producing high chairs because
CPSC was unable to obtain sales revenue information. For the second
firm, high chairs represent an integral part of its commercial product
line, so discontinuing that product line could create a significant
economic burden. CPSC requests input on consumer preferences for
compact high chairs, how compact high chair manufacturers would respond
to the proposed warning label requirements, and the costs of developing
a compliant product.
2. Small Manufacturers with NonCompliant High Chairs
Nine small manufacturers produce high chairs that do not comply
with the voluntary standard, five who market their products for use in
commercial settings, primarily in restaurants. CPSC believes it is
possible that there would be a significant economic impact on some of
these manufacturers. The five producers of restaurant-style high chairs
would need to make several changes to meet the base requirements of
ASTM F404-15. As discussed previously, different circumstances and
needs exist for restaurant-style high chairs. Complying with the
proposed rule may undermine some of the characteristics that make
certain high chair features desirable in restaurant settings. For
example, leg holes tend to be larger for restaurant-style high chairs
to accommodate children clothed in outerwear and children of varied
ages and sizes. The proposed standard would preclude some features.
Manufacturers of restaurant-style high chairs may also need to make
changes to meet the proposed warning label requirements. For example,
two firms manufacture plastic high chairs that may need to be
redesigned to comply with the proposed warning label requirements.
Four firms that do not currently comply with the ASTM standard
produce high chairs for home use. One of these four firms likely would
need to make significant changes to its product to meet the proposed
warning label requirements, given the compact design of its product.
The three remaining firms appear to have sufficient room on their high
chairs to accommodate the proposed warning labels without redesign, and
any modifications to the high chairs would be due to the requirements
of ASTM F404-15. However, CPSC staff could not determine the extent or
cost of the changes that may be necessary, so we cannot rule out a
significant economic impact.
CPSC requests comments on the differences between restaurant-style
high chairs and high chairs produced for home use, as well as the
desirability of particular features in these respective environments.
CPSC also requests information about the changes that would be
necessary to meet the proposed requirement, including whether redesign
or retrofitting would be necessary and whether there would be any
associated costs.
3. Third Party Testing Costs for Small Manufacturers
Under section 14 of the CPSA, if CPSC adopts the proposed high
chair requirements, all manufacturers will be subject to the third
party testing and certification requirements under 16 CFR part 1107.
Third party testing would include any physical and mechanical test
requirements specified in a final high chair rule. Manufacturers and
importers should already be conducting required lead testing for high
chairs. Third party testing costs would be in addition to the direct
costs of meeting the high chair standard.
More than half of small high chair manufacturers (11 out of 21) are
already testing their products to verify compliance with the ASTM
standard, although not necessarily by a third party laboratory. For
these manufacturers, the impact on testing costs would be limited to
the difference between the cost of third party tests and the cost of
current testing regimes. The suppliers that CPSC staff contacted
estimate that obtaining third party testing for high chairs would cost
about $600 to $900 per model sample. For manufacturers that are already
testing, the incremental costs will be lower than that.
Based on CPSC staff's examination of firm revenues from recent Dun
& Bradstreet or ReferenceUSAGov reports, the impact of third party
testing, alone is unlikely to be economically significant for small
manufacturers of noncompliant high chairs. Even without knowing how
many samples would be needed to meet the ``high degree of assurance''
criterion in part 1107, more than 12 units per model would be required
before testing costs exceed 1 percent of gross revenue for the small
manufacturer with the lowest gross revenue. CPSC could not obtain
revenue information for one small manufacturer, and therefore, could
not evaluate the impact on that firm. CPSC requests comments on testing
costs and incremental costs of third party testing (i.e., how much does
moving from a voluntary to a mandatory third party testing regime add
to testing costs, in total, and on a per-test basis). In particular,
CPSC requests comments on the preliminary determination that third
party testing is unlikely to lead to significant economic impacts for
small high chair manufacturers. In addition, CPSC would like comments
about the number of high chair units that typically need to be tested
to provide a ``high degree of assurance.''
[[Page 69156]]
4. Small Importers and Wholesalers With Compliant High Chairs
CPSC considered the economic impact to importers and wholesalers
together, because both rely on outside firms to supply the products
they distribute to the U.S. market. Importers distribute products made
by foreign firms and are often closely related to the firms producing
their products. CPSC was unable to determine the source of wholesalers'
high chairs, but the sources are likely from other suppliers that may
be foreign or domestic.
In the absence of a mandatory regulation, the nine firms (seven
small importers and two small wholesalers) currently in compliance with
the voluntary standard likely would remain in compliance with new
versions. However, the high chairs these firms supply would require
modifications to meet the proposed requirements. There are two firms
that may require modifications to meet the rearward stability
requirement (one importer and one wholesaler) but, as discussed above,
these costs are likely to be low. The cost of modifying the wording and
format of the warnings should be small, as well, given that such
changes typically add only a few cents per unit to production costs.
The proposed placement requirements for warnings, however, could be
more costly, possibly requiring firms to retrofit or redesign their
high chairs. Four of the nine firms likely would have to modify the
design of their high chairs to meet the proposed warnings label
visibility requirement. The high chairs of two firms have compact
designs, making the display of warning labels difficult. The remaining
two firms provide information in a number of languages that would
exceed the space available on their high chairs. Finding an alternative
supply source would not be a viable alternative for three of the four
firms, due to close relationships with their suppliers; however, all
three firms supply a sufficient number of other products that could
probably allow these firms to eliminate high chairs from their product
line entirely. The fourth firm is a commercial supplier, and high
chairs are an integral part of this firm's product line; therefore,
exiting the high chair market would likely cause this firm to go out of
business. CPSC requests comments on how importers would respond to the
proposed rule and what are the costs of developing a compliant product.
5. Small Importers and Wholesalers With Noncompliant High Chairs
There is insufficient information to rule out a significant impact
for any of the eight importers and wholesalers of noncompliant high
chairs. Whether there would be a significant economic impact would
depend upon the extent of the changes required for these firms to come
into compliance and the response of their suppliers. Their suppliers
may pass on to the importers and wholesalers any increase in production
costs that result from the proposed changes.
Six of the eight importers and wholesalers with noncompliant high
chairs do not appear to have direct ties to their product suppliers.
Therefore, these firms may choose to switch to alternative suppliers or
manufacture other products, rather than bear the costs of complying
with the proposed standard. It is unclear whether the costs of
complying with the proposed requirements would be significant for these
firms. Three firms supply restaurant-style high chairs, including one
plastic high chair. As such, although the three firms may find
compliant high chairs from alternative supply sources, these firms
would share the same concerns as restaurant-style high chair
manufacturers regarding the desirability of their product to their
customers. Two of the six firms supply high chairs to the consumer
market that are identical to several supplied to the commercial market.
Although the costs of complying with the proposed standard could be
significant for these two firms, high chairs make up only a small part
of their product lines. Therefore, the two firms may eliminate high
chairs from their product lines or select compliant high chairs from
another supplier. However, CPSC was unable to obtain sales revenue for
high chairs and could not determine whether exiting the high chair
market would generate significant economic impacts.
The remaining two firms are directly tied to their foreign
suppliers. Therefore, finding an alternative supply source would not be
a viable alternative. However, these foreign suppliers may wish to
comply with the proposed requirements to continue to market their
products in the United States. Although it is possible that these firms
could stop selling high chairs, it is unlikely for two of these firms
because high chairs represent one of only a few products in their
lines. Again, CPSC could not determine whether exiting the high chair
market would generate significant economic impacts, given the lack of
sales revenue for high chairs.
6. Third Party Testing Costs for Small Importers and Wholesalers
As with manufacturers, all importers and wholesalers would be
subject to third party testing and certification requirements, if CPSC
adopts a final high chair standard. Consequently, importers and
wholesalers would be subject to costs similar to manufacturers' costs
if the foreign suppliers of importers and wholesalers do not obtain
third party testing. Just over half of high chair importers and
wholesalers (9 out of 17) already test their products to verify
compliance with the ASTM standard. Any additional costs associated with
a final high chair rule thus would be limited to the incremental costs
of third party testing over the current testing regime.
There may be significant costs for two or three firms that do not
comply with the ASTM standard to obtain third party certification.
Specifically, for two firms, the cost of testing as few as three units
per model could exceed 1 percent of their gross revenue. A third firm
would need to test about six units per model before testing costs would
exceed 1 percent of its gross revenue. CPSC was unable to obtain
revenue data for one small, noncompliant importer, and therefore, could
not examine the size of the impact on that firm.
7. Summary of Impacts
CPSC staff is aware of 38 small firms that currently market high
chairs in the United States, of which 21 are domestic manufacturers and
17 are domestic importers or wholesalers. Of the 21 small
manufacturers, 10 are unlikely to experience significant economic
impacts as a result of the proposed rule. However, CPSC cannot rule out
a significant economic impact for the remaining 11 manufacturers. For
eight of the small importers and wholesalers, it is unlikely the
proposed rule would have a significant economic impact, based on a
review of firm revenues and the options available to each firm.
However, it is possible that the proposed rule would have a significant
economic impact on the remaining nine small importers and wholesalers.
Therefore, in total, based on current information, CPSC cannot rule out
a significant economic impact for 20 of the 38 firms (53 percent)
operating in the U.S. high chair market.
8. Impacts of Test Laboratory Accreditation Requirements on Small
Laboratories
In accordance with section 14 of the CPSA, all children's products
that are subject to a children's product safety
[[Page 69157]]
rule must be tested by a third party conformity assessment body that
has been accredited by CPSC. These third party conformity assessment
bodies test products for compliance with applicable children's product
safety rules. Testing laboratories that want to conduct this testing
must meet the NOR for third party conformity testing. CPSC has codified
NORs in 16 CFR part 1112. CPSC proposes to amend 16 CFR part 1112 to
establish an NOR for testing laboratories to test for compliance with
the proposed high chair standard. This section assesses the impact of
this proposed amendment on small laboratories.
CPSC conducted a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``FRFA'')
when it adopted part 1112. 78 FR 15836 (Mar. 12, 2013). The FRFA
concluded that the accreditation requirements would not have a
significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small
laboratories because no requirements were imposed on laboratories that
did not intend to provide third party testing services. The only
laboratories that were expected to provide such services were
laboratories that anticipated receiving sufficient revenue from the
mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a business
decision.
For the same reasons, including the NOR for high chairs in part
1112 would not have a significant adverse impact on small laboratories.
Moreover, CPSC expects that only a small number of laboratories would
request accreditation to test high chairs, based on the number of
laboratories that have applied for CPSC accreditation to test for
conformance to other juvenile product standards. Most laboratories
would already have accreditation to test for conformance to other
juvenile product standards, and then the only costs would be to add the
high chair standard to their scope of accreditation. Test laboratories
have indicated that this cost is extremely low when they are already
accredited for other CPSIA section 104 rules. Therefore, the Commission
certifies that the NOR for the high chair standard will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
G. Alternatives
At least four alternatives are available to minimize the economic
impact on small entities supplying high chairs while also complying
with the direction of section 104 of the CPSIA: (1) Adopt ASTM F404-15
with no modifications; (2) adopt ASTM F404-15 with the proposed
modifications, except for requirements on the placement of warning
labels; (3) adopt ASTM F404-15 with the proposed modifications, but
exclude restaurant-style high chairs from the scope of the rule; and
(4) provide a later effective date for some or all high chairs.
First, section 104 of the CPSIA directs the Commission to
promulgate a standard that is either substantially the same as the
voluntary standard or more stringent if the Commission determines that
would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.
Therefore, adopting ASTM F404-15 with no modifications is the least
stringent rule CPSC could adopt. This alternative would reduce the
economic impact on all of the small businesses supplying high chairs to
the U.S. market. Although, choosing this alternative would not reduce
the testing costs associated with the rule, this option would eliminate
the economic impact of complying with the requirements that CPSC
proposes in addition to ASTM F404-15 for many firms. Specifically, this
option would eliminate the cost of complying with the additional
requirements for the 10 small domestic manufacturers and 9 small
importers and wholesalers with compliant high chairs, all of whom would
likely comply with ASTM F404-15 by the time a CPSC final rule for high
chairs would take effect. However, the requirements that CPSC proposes
in addition to ASTM F404-15 would reduce the risk of injuries
associated with backward tip-over incidents and fall incidents where
caregivers did not use restraints or used the restraints improperly.
Adopting ASTM F404-15 with no modifications would not meet these
objectives.
Second, the Commission could reduce impacts to small businesses by
adopting ASTM F404-15 with the proposed modifications, except for the
requirement regarding the placement and visibility requirements for
warning labels. One option is to require warning labels to be visible
only as a child is being placed into the high chair. This would reduce
the proportion of high chair models with backs that would need to be
redesigned and expanded to accommodate labels that are visible when the
high chair is occupied. Another option would be to allow duplicate
labels. Manufacturers could place one label on the front seat back,
which would be visible when the child is placed in the seat, and
manufacturers could place a second label in a location that is visible
when the child is in the high chair. This alternative would reduce the
economic impact on compact high chairs or high chairs with smaller
backs.
Third, because a substantial portion of the economic impact of the
proposed rule would fall on small, restaurant-style high chair
suppliers, CPSC could exclude restaurant-style high chairs from this
rule. Restaurant settings have unique requirements, including a need
for smaller high chairs and to accommodate children of various sizes.
It would be difficult to retain these features and comply with the
proposed requirements. Moreover, CPSC has identified only a few
injuries that involved high chairs in restaurant settings. Therefore,
the reduction in safety benefits associated with limiting the rule's
scope likely would be minimal.
If restaurants could no longer provide high chairs with the
desirable attributes, restaurants may stop providing high chairs for
customers, which could result in customers using less safe options,
such as placing infant carriers on tables or chairs, or using booster
seats for children under the appropriate age. CPSC requests comments on
the potential impact of excluding restaurant-style high chairs from the
proposed rule, including cost and safety impacts.
Because restaurant-style high chairs are also available to
consumers for home use, CPSC could take steps to reduce the potential
safety risks of these high chairs through other means. For example,
CPSC could require restaurant-style high chair suppliers to label their
products: ``not intended for home use.'' Additionally, CPSC could
develop separate warning label requirements for these products to
inform users of the specific hazard patterns related to restaurant-
style high chairs. ASTM could also develop requirements specific to
restaurant-style high chairs. CPSC requests comments on the possibility
of excluding restaurant-style high chairs from the proposed
requirements, including the implications for safety and costs.
Fourth, the Commission could reduce the economic impact of the
proposed rule on small businesses by setting a later effective date for
some or all high chairs. A later effective date would reduce the
economic impact on firms in two ways. First, firms would be less likely
to experience a lapse in production or imports that could result if
they are unable to come into compliance and secure third party testing
within the required timeframe. Second, firms could spread costs over a
longer period, thereby reducing annual costs, as well as the present
value of total costs. CPSC requests comments on the 6-month effective
date, as well as feedback on how firms likely would
[[Page 69158]]
address the proposed rule. CPSC could also consider a longer effective
date for firms that supply restaurant-style high chairs. However, this
may not reduce the economic impact on these firms because the primary
cost issue for them is the utility of their high chairs, not the time
needed to comply with the standard. Nevertheless, CPSC requests
comments, particularly from restaurants and other commercial
establishments, on the validity of this conclusion.
XIII. Environmental Considerations
The Commission's regulations outline the types of agency actions
that require an environmental assessment (``EA'') or environmental
impact statement (``EIS''). Rules that have ``little or no potential
for affecting the human environment'' fall within a ``categorical
exclusion'' under the National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA''; 42
U.S.C. 4231-4370h) and the regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts
1500-1508) and do not normally require an EA or EIS. As stated in 16
CFR 1021.5(c)(1), rules or safety standards that provide design or
performance requirements for products fall within that categorical
exclusion. Because this proposed rule would create design and
performance requirements for high chairs, the proposed rule falls
within the categorical exclusion, and thus, no EA or EIS is required.
XIV. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains information collection requirements
that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (``PRA''; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), an
agency must publish the following information:
a title for the collection of information;
a summary of the collection of information;
a brief description of the need for the information and
the proposed use of the information;
a description of the likely respondents and proposed
frequency of response to the collection of information;
an estimate of the burden that shall result from the
collection of information; and
notice that comments may be submitted to OMB.
In accordance with this requirement, the Commission provides the
following information:
Title: Safety Standard for High Chairs
Description: The proposed rule would require each high chair to
comply with ASTM F404-15, with additional requirements regarding
rearward stability and warnings in labels and instructional literature.
Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F404-15 contain requirements for labels and
instructional literature. These requirements fall within the definition
of ``collection of information'' provided in the PRA at 44 U.S.C.
3502(3).
Description of Respondents: Persons who manufacture or import high
chairs.
Estimated Burden: CPSC estimates the burden of this collection of
information as follows:
Table 4--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Frequency of Total annual Hours per Total burden
16 CFR section respondents responses responses response hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1231.2............................................................. 62 2 124 1 124
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPSC's estimate is based on the following:
Section 8.1 of ASTM F404-15 requires that the name and address
(city, state, and zip code) of the manufacturer, distributor, or seller
be marked on each high chair. Section 8.2 of ASTM F404-15 requires a
code mark or other product identification on each high chair and the
high chair's package that indicates the date (month and year) of
manufacture.
Sixty-two known entities supply high chairs to the U.S. market and
may need to modify their existing labels to comply with ASTM F404-15.
CPSC estimates that the time required to make these modifications is
about 1 hour per model. Based on an evaluation of supplier product
lines, each entity supplies an average of two models of high chairs.
Therefore, the estimated burden associated with labels is 1 hour per
model x 62 entities x 2 models per entity = 124 hours. CPSC estimates
the hourly compensation for the time required to create and update
labels is $30.19 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation,'' Mar. 2015, Table 9, total compensation for all
sales and office workers in goods-producing private industries: https://www.bls.gov/ncs/). Therefore, the estimated annual cost associated with
the proposed labeling requirements is $3,743.56 ($30.19 per hour x 124
hours = $3,743.56). No operating, maintenance, or capital costs are
associated with the collection.
Section 9.1 of ASTM F404-15 requires instructions to be supplied
with a high chair. High chairs are products that generally require use
and assembly instructions. As such, high chairs sold without use and
assembly instructions would not be able to compete successfully with
high chairs that supply this information. Under OMB's regulations, the
time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a
collection of information incurred by parties in the ``normal course of
their activities'' are excluded from a burden estimate when an agency
demonstrates that the disclosure activities required are ``usual and
customary.'' 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). CPSC is unaware of high chairs that
generally require use or assembly instructions but lack such
instructions. Therefore, CPSC estimates that no burden hours are
associated with section 9.1 of ASTM F404-15, because any burden
associated with supplying instructions with high chairs would be
``usual and customary,'' and thus, excluded from ``burden'' estimates
under OMB's regulations.
Based on this analysis, the proposed standard for high chairs would
impose a burden to industry of 124 hours at a cost of $3,743.56
annually.
CPSC has submitted the information collection requirements of this
rule to OMB for review in accordance with PRA requirements. 44 U.S.C.
3507(d). CPSC requests interested parties submit comments regarding
information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB (see the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this
notice). Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Commission invites
comments on:
whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of CPSC's functions, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
the accuracy of CPSC's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information the Commission proposes to collect;
[[Page 69159]]
ways to reduce the burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques,
when appropriate, and other forms of information technology; and
the estimated burden hours associated with modifying
labels and instructional literature, including any alternative
estimates.
XV. Preemption
Under section 26(a) of the CPSA, no state or political subdivision
of a state may establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing
with the same risk of injury as a federal consumer product safety
standard under the CPSA unless the state requirement is identical to
the federal standard. 15 U.S.C. 2075(a). States or political
subdivisions of states may, however, apply to the Commission for an
exemption, allowing them to establish or continue such a requirement if
the state requirement provides a significantly high degree of
protection from the risk of injury and does not unduly burden
interstate commerce. Id. at 2075(c).
One of the functions of the CPSIA was to amend the CPSA, adding
several provisions to CPSA, including CPSIA section 104 in 15 U.S.C.
2056a. As such, consumer product safety standards that the Commission
creates under CPSIA section 104 are covered by the preemption provision
in the CPSA. Consequently, the rule proposed in this NPR would be a
federal consumer product safety standard, and the preemption provision
in section 26 of the CPSA would apply.
XVI. Request for Comments
This NPR begins a rulemaking proceeding under section 104(b) of the
CPSIA to issue a consumer product safety standard for high chairs and
to amend part 1112 to add high chairs to the list of children's product
safety rules for which CPSC has issued an NOR. We invite all interested
persons to submit comments on any aspect of the proposed mandatory
safety standard for high chairs and on the proposed amendment to part
1112. Specifically, the Commission requests comments on the following:
the requirements in ASTM F404-15, including their
effectiveness in addressing the risk of injury associated with high
chairs and the costs of complying with these requirements;
the additional requirements proposed for rearward
stability, including its effectiveness in addressing the risk of injury
associated with rearward tip-overs and the costs of complying with
these requirements;
the additional requirements proposed for warnings in
labels and instructional literature, including their effectiveness at
addressing the risk of injury associated with falls from high chairs
and the costs of complying with these requirements;
whether application of different requirements to
restaurant-style high chairs is appropriate, relevant safety
implications, and options for applying distinct standards;
the costs to small businesses associated with the
requirements proposed in this NPR, including the costs to comply with
the proposed rearward stability requirements, content and form
requirements for labels and instructional literature, and placement
requirements for labels;
alternatives to the proposed standard that would reduce
impacts on small businesses;
the proposed effective date and whether an extended
effective date would further mitigate the impact on small businesses
and to what extent; and
any additional information relevant to the issues
discussed in this NPR and the proposed requirements.
During the comment period, ASTM F404-15 is available for review.
Please see section X. for instructions on viewing it.
Please submit comments in accordance with the instructions in the
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this NPR.
List of Subjects
16 CFR Part 1112
Administrative practice and procedure, Audit, Consumer protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Third party conformity
assessment body.
16 CFR Part 1231
Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants
and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, and Toys.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes
to amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 1112--REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY CONFORMITY
ASSESSMENT BODIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 1112 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 110-314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017
(2008); 15 U.S.C. 2063.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1112.15 by adding paragraph (b)(44) to read as follows:
Sec. 1112.15 When can a third party conformity assessment body apply
for CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule or test method?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(44) 16 CFR part 1231, Safety Standard for High Chairs.
* * * * *
0
3. Add part 1231 to read as follows:
PART 1231-SAFETY STANDARD FOR HIGH CHAIRS
Sec.
1231.1 Scope.
1231.2 Requirements for high chairs.
Authority: The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008,
Pub. L. 110-314, Sec. 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Pub.
L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).
Sec. 1231.1 Scope.
This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for high
chairs.
Sec. 1231.2 Requirements for high chairs.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this
section, each high chair must comply with all applicable provisions of
ASTM F404-15, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for High Chairs,
approved on May 15, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves
this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from ASTM International, 100 Bar
Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; https://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may inspect a copy at the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East
West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923, or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) Instead of complying with section 6.5 of ASTM F404-15, comply
with the following:
(1) 6.5.1 Forward and sideways stability--A chair shall not tip
over when forces are applied in accordance with 7.7.2.4 and 7.7.2.5.
(2) 6.5.2 Rearward stability--When tested in accordance with
7.7.2.6 (paragraph (c)(3) of this section), a high chair shall not have
a Rearward Stability Index of 50 or more.
(c) For rearward stability testing, instead of complying with
sections 7.7.2.1, 7.7.2.2, and 7.7.2.6 of ASTM F404-15, comply with the
following:
[[Page 69160]]
(1) 7.7.2.1 Place the high chair in a manufacturer's recommended
use position with all legs on a level floor and with the seat back
adjusted into the most upright position. Attach the tray in the rear
position, closest to the high chair seat back. For high chairs with
height-adjustable seats, adjust the seat into the highest
manufacturer's recommended use position or the position deemed most
likely to fail. If a high chair has lockable wheels, those wheels shall
be locked during stability testing.
(2) 7.7.2.2 Place the high chair on a rigid, horizontal test
surface covered with 60 grit sandpaper or equivalent to prevent the
chair from sliding on the test surface during the test. If a high chair
slides on the test surface during the test or has wheels that do not
lock, place a stop on the test surface to prevent sliding during the
test. The stop shall be low profile, minimum height required to prevent
sliding, and shall not inhibit the tipping of the high chair or affect
the test results.
(3) 7.7.2.6 Rearward stability--
(i) 7.7.2.6.1 Attach a force gauge to the rear surface of the seat
back at the lateral centerline and 7 \1/4\ in. (184 mm) above the
occupant seating surface as shown in Figure 1. For high chairs with a
seat back 7 \1/4\ in. (184 mm) high or less, attach the force gauge at
the lateral centerline and top surface of the seat back.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.319
(ii) 7.7.2.6.2 With the high chair in the at rest position,
gradually apply a preload force ``F'' of 3 lbf (13 N) to the seat back
surface of the high chair and while maintaining the force, establish
the initial location of a reference point some distance away from the
force gauge as shown in Figure 1.
(iii) 7.7.2.6.3 Gradually increase the horizontal force over a
period of at least 5 seconds and continue to pull the high chair
rearward until the high chair reaches the point that it becomes
unstable and is on the verge of tipping over. Record the maximum force
``F'' in pounds (lbs.) applied during the test and the horizontal
distance ``D'' in inches (in.) from the initial location of the
reference point to the location of the reference point where the high
chair becomes unstable and is on the verge of tipping over. Force ``F''
shall be maintained in a horizontal direction throughout the test.
(iv) 7.7.2.6.4 Calculate the Rearward Stability Index using the
formula shown below.
Rearward Stability Index = 2F + D
Force ``F'' is measured in pounds (lbs.).
Distance ``D'' in measured in inches (in.)
(d) Instead of complying with section 8.4 of ASTM F404-15, comply
with the following:
(1) 8.4 Warning Statements--Each Product Shall Have Warning
Statements:
(i) 8.4.1 The warnings shall be easy to read and understand and be
in the English language at a minimum.
(ii) 8.4.2 Any labels or written instructions provided in addition
to those required by this section shall not contradict or confuse the
meaning of the required information, or be otherwise misleading to the
consumer.
(iii) 8.4.3 The warning statements shall be conspicuous, in highly
contrasting color(s) (e.g., black text on a white background),
permanent, and in non-condensed sans serif style type.
(iv) 8.4.4 Each warning statement or group of warning statements
shall be preceded by the Safety Alert Symbol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.320
and the signal word ``WARNING'' in bold uppercase letters. If warnings
are placed directly under or adjacent to one another, then the safety
alert symbol and the signal word WARNING need to be displayed only
once. The Safety Alert Symbol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.320
and the signal word ``WARNING'' shall not be less than 0.2 in. (5 mm)
high and the remainder of the text shall be in characters whose
uppercase shall not be less than 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) high. The height of
the safety alert symbol shall equal or exceed the signal word height.
(v) 8.4.5 The safety alert symbol
[[Page 69161]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.320
and the signal word ``WARNING'' shall be in contrasting color to the
background and delineated with solid black line borders. The background
color behind the safety alert symbol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.320
and the signal word ``WARNING'' shall be orange, red, or yellow,
whichever provides the best contrast against the product background.
The signal word ``WARNING'' and the solid triangle portion of the
safety alert symbol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.320
shall be black. The exclamation mark of the safety alert symbol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.320
shall be the same color as the background. The remainder of the text
shall be black, with key words highlighted using boldface, on a white
background surrounded by a solid black line border. This text also
shall be left-justified, in upper and lowercase letters (i.e., sentence
capitalization), and in list or outline format, with precautionary
statements indented from hazard statements and preceded with bullet
points. An example label in the format described in this section is
shown in Figure 2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.321
Note: For optional additional guidance on the design of
warnings, see the most-recent edition of ANSI Z535.4, Product Safety
Signs and Labels, American National Standards Institute, Inc.,
available at https://www.ansi.org/.
(vi) 8.4.6 The warning statements shall be in a location that is
visible by the caregiver while placing the occupant into the high chair
in each of the manufacturer's recommended use positions.
(vii) 8.4.7 High chairs that do not have a seating component that
is also used as a seating component of a stroller, shall, in the same
label, address the following warning statements:
Children have suffered skull fractures after falling from high
chairs. Falls can happen quickly if child is not restrained properly.
Always use restraints, and adjust to fit snugly. Tray is
not designed to hold child in chair.
Stay near and watch your child during use.
(viii) 8.4.8 High chairs that have a seating component that is also
used as a seating component of a stroller shall use the warning
statements as specified in subsections 8.2.2.1 and 8.2.2.2 of the
version of the standard that is incorporated by reference in part 1227
of this subchapter, in place of the warning statements in 8.4.7
(paragraph (d)(vii) of this section).
(e) Instead of complying with section 9.2 of ASTM F404-15, comply
with the following:
(1) 9.2 The instructions shall contain the warnings as specified in
section 8.4 (paragraph (d)(1) of this section). Additional warnings
similar to the statements included in this section shall also be
included. These required warning statements shall meet the requirements
described in section 8.4 (paragraph (d)(1) of this section), except for
the color requirements (i.e., the background of the signal word panel
need not be orange, red, or yellow). However, the warning statements
still must be in highly contrasting color(s) (e.g., black text on a
white background), and if color is used, those colors must meet the
color requirements specified in section 8.4 (paragraph (d)(1) of this
section).
(2) Reference to section 9.2 of ASTM F404-15 in paragraph (e) of
this section includes only the introductory paragraph of section 9.2
and does not include subsections 9.2.1 or 9.2.2 of ASTM F404-15.
Note: For optional additional guidance on the design of warnings
for instructional literature, see the most-recent addition of ANSI
Z535.6, Product Safety Information in Product Manuals, Instructions,
and Other Collateral Materials, American National Standards
Institute, Inc., available at https://www.ansi.org/.
Dated: November 2, 2015.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-28300 Filed 11-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
