Safety Standard for Booster Seats, 30837-30849 [2018-14133]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d),
good cause exists for making some
SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this
regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which
frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally
current. It, therefore—(1) is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979) ; and (3)
does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. For the same
reason, the FAA certifies that this
amendment will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97
Air traffic control, Airports,
Incorporation by reference, Navigation
(air).
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 15,
2018.
John S. Duncan,
Executive Director, Flight Standards Service.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the
authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14
CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or
removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the
dates specified, as follows:
PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT
APPROACH PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 97
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103,
40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514,
44701, 44719, 44721–44722.
2. Part 97 is amended to read as
follows:
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
■
Effective 19 July 2018
Kokhanok, AK, Kokhanok, RNAV (GPS) RWY
7, Amdt 1
Kokhanok, AK, Kokhanok, RNAV (GPS) RWY
25, Amdt 1
Kokhanok, AK, Kokhanok, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Fayette, AL, Richard Arthur Field, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Mountain View, CA, Moffett Federal Afld,
RNAV (GPS) RWY 14L, Orig
Mountain View, CA, Moffett Federal Afld,
RNAV (GPS) RWY 14R, Orig
Mountain View, CA, Moffett Federal Afld,
RNAV (GPS) RWY 32L, Orig
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 29, 2018
Jkt 244001
Upland, CA, Cable, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6,
Amdt 1B
Rangely, CO, Rangely, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7,
Orig
Rangely, CO, Rangely, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25,
Orig
New Haven, CT, Tweed-New Haven, ILS OR
LOC RWY 2, Amdt 18
New Haven, CT, Tweed-New Haven, VOR
RWY 2, Amdt 23, CANCELED
Boca Raton, FL, Boca Raton, RNAV (GPS) Y
RWY 23, Amdt 1B
Boca Raton, FL, Boca Raton, RNAV (RNP) Z
RWY 23, Orig-B
Boca Raton, FL, Boca Raton, VOR–A, Amdt
1B
Athens, GA, Athens/Ben Epps, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 9, Amdt 2
Atlanta, GA, Newnan Coweta County, ILS OR
LOC RWY 32, Orig-A
Donalsonville, GA, Donalsonville Muni,
RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1C
Donalsonville, GA, Donalsonville Muni,
RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1B
Donalsonville, GA, Donalsonville Muni,
VOR–A, Amdt 3B
Savannah, GA, Savannah/Hilton Head Intl,
RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 28, Amdt 2
Iowa City, IA, Iowa City Muni, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 25, Amdt 1
Iowa City, IA, Iowa City Muni, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 30, Amdt 1
Iowa City, IA, Iowa City Muni, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4
Champaign/Urbana, IL, University Of
Illinois-Willard, ILS OR LOC RWY 32R,
Amdt 13A
Plymouth, IN, Plymouth Muni, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 28, Orig-A
Plymouth, MA, Plymouth Muni, ILS OR LOC
RWY 6, Amdt 1F
Plymouth, MA, Plymouth Muni, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 6, Amdt 1D
Plymouth, MA, Plymouth Muni, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 15, Orig-A
Plymouth, MA, Plymouth Muni, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 24, Orig-C
Plymouth, MA, Plymouth Muni, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 33, Orig
Hattiesburg, MS, Hattiesburg Bobby L Chain
Muni, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 13, Amdt 1B
Omaha, NE, Eppley Airfield, RNAV (RNP) Z
RWY 32R, Amdt 1A
Manchester, NH, Manchester, ILS OR LOC
RWY 6, Amdt 3
Manchester, NH, Manchester, ILS OR LOC
RWY 17, Amdt 3
Manchester, NH, Manchester, ILS OR LOC
RWY 35, ILS RWY 35 SA CAT I, ILS RWY
35 CAT II, ILS RWY 35 CAT III, Amdt 3
Olean, NY, Cattaraugus County-Olean, LOC
RWY 22, Amdt 7
Olean, NY, Cattaraugus County-Olean, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 2
Olean, NY, Cattaraugus County-Olean, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 2
Watertown, NY, Watertown Intl, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 7, Amdt 3
Watertown, NY, Watertown Intl, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 10, Amdt 1
Toledo, OH, Toledo Executive, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 4, Amdt 1
Toledo, OH, Toledo Executive, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 32, Amdt 2
Toledo, OH, Toledo Executive, VOR RWY 4,
Amdt 9D, CANCELED
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30837
Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, COPTER LOC
RWY 26, Amdt 2
Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, COPTER VOR
RWY 8, Orig
Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, COPTER VOR/
DME OR GPS 066, Amdt 1, CANCELED
Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, ILS RWY 26, Amdt
3B
Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY
8, Amdt 1
Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY
26, Amdt 1
Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, VOR RWY 8, Amdt
12A
Meadville, PA, Port Meadville, LOC RWY 25,
Amdt 6E
Meadville, PA, Port Meadville, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 7, Amdt 1D
Meadville, PA, Port Meadville, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 25, Amdt 1E
Meadville, PA, Port Meadville, VOR RWY 7,
Amdt 8B, CANCELED
Brownwood, TX, Brownwood Rgnl, LOC
RWY 17, Amdt 4B
Brownwood, TX, Brownwood Rgnl, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1A
Brownwood, TX, Brownwood Rgnl, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1A
Brownwood, TX, Brownwood Rgnl, VOR
RWY 35, Amdt 1C
San Antonio, TX, Boerne Stage Field, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1B
San Antonio, TX, Boerne Stage Field, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A
Wharton, TX, Wharton Rgnl, NDB RWY 14,
Orig-A
Wharton, TX, Wharton Rgnl, NDB RWY 32,
Orig-A
Wharton, TX, Wharton Rgnl, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 14, Orig-A
Wharton, TX, Wharton Rgnl, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 32, Orig-A
Milwaukee, WI, Lawrence J Timmerman,
VOR RWY 4L, Amdt 9C, CANCELED
Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, ILS Z OR LOC Z
RWY 19, Orig-B
RESCINDED: On June 5, 2018 (83 FR
25909), the FAA published an Amendment
in Docket No. 31195, Amdt No. 3801, to Part
97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations under
section 97.33. The following entry for
Oakland, CA, effective July 19, 2018, is
hereby rescinded in its entirety:
Oakland, CA, Metropolitan Oakland Intl,
RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 12, Amdt 2
[FR Doc. 2018–13934 Filed 6–29–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1237
[CPSC Docket No. 2017–0023]
Safety Standard for Booster Seats
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Consumer
Product Safety Improvement Act of
2008 (CPSIA), the U.S. Consumer
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02JYR1.SGM
02JYR1
30838
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is
issuing this final rule establishing a
safety standard for booster seats. The
Commission is also amending its
regulations regarding third party
conformity assessment bodies to include
the safety standard for booster seats in
the list of notices of requirements
(NORs).
DATES: This rule will become effective
January 2, 2020. The incorporation by
reference of the publication listed in
this rule is approved by the Director of
the Federal Register as January 2, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Keysha Walker, Lead Compliance
Officer, U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 4330 East-West Highway,
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: 301–
504–6820; email: kwalker@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Statutory Authority
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 and toddler
products. Standards issued under
section 104 of the CPSIA are to be
‘‘substantially the same as’’ the
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
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,’’ and
the statute specifies 12 categories of
products that are included in the
definition, including various types of
children’s chairs. Section 104(f)(2)(C) of
the CPSIA specifically identifies
‘‘booster chairs’’ as a durable infant or
toddler product. Additionally, the
Commission’s regulation requiring
product registration cards defines
‘‘booster seats’’ as a durable infant or
toddler product subject to the
registration card rule. 74 FR 68668 (Dec.
29, 2009); 16 CFR 1130.2(a)(3).
As required by section 104(b)(1)(A) of
the CPSIA, the Commission consulted
with manufacturers, retailers, trade
organizations, laboratories, consumer
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 29, 2018
Jkt 244001
advocacy groups, consultants, and the
public to develop this rule, largely
through the ASTM process. On May 19,
2017, the Commission issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for booster
seats.1 82 FR 22925. The NPR proposed
to incorporate by reference the
voluntary standard, without
modification, developed by ASTM
International, ASTM F2640–17ε1,
Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Booster Seats (ASTM
F2640–17ε1).
In this document, the Commission is
issuing a final mandatory consumer
product safety standard for booster
seats. Since the NPR published, ASTM
approved (April 1, 2018) and published
(April, 2018) the current version of the
voluntary standard for booster seats,
ASTM F2640–18, Standard Consumer
Safety Specification for Booster Seats
(ASTM F2640–18), with three changes
from the previous version:
• New performance and testing
requirements for a new type of booster
seat that hangs from the back of an adult
chair;
• Clarification of the installation
position for measuring a booster seat on
an adult chair; and
• New warning statement in the
instructional literature to address
booster seats that do not have a reclined
position.
As set forth in section IV.C.2 of this
preamble, the Commission finds that
each of these changes enhances the
safety of booster seats.2 Accordingly,
after the Commission’s review and
consideration of the revised ASTM
standard and the comments on the NPR,
the final rule incorporates by reference,
without modification, the most recent
voluntary standard for booster seats,
ASTM F2640–18.
Additionally, the final rule amends
the list of notices of requirements
(NORs) issued by the Commission in 16
CFR part 1112 to include the standard
for booster seats. Under section 14 of the
CPSA, the Commission promulgated 16
CFR part 1112 to establish requirements
1 Staff’s May 3, 2017 Briefing Package for the NPR
(Staff’s NPR Briefing Package) is available at:
https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Notice%20of
%20Proposed%20Rulemaking%20-%20Booster
%20Seats%20-%20May%203%202017.pdf?97
pmoM5UAGyQBBPFtTPyvFu_RjCZMAwL.
2 Tabs B and C of the June 20, 2018 Staff’s Draft
Final Rule for Booster Seats Under the Danny
Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act
(Staff’s Final Rule Briefing Package) explain and
assess the new warning statement and the
performance and testing requirements in the
standard. The Staff’s Final Rule Briefing Package is
available at https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/
Final%20Rule%20-%20Safety%20Standard%20for
%20Booster%20Seats%20-%20June%2020
%202018.pdf?cCIgKaAyOt3nn.yeNTa5f8
rpH7DsJB0v.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
for accreditation of third party
conformity assessment bodies (or testing
laboratories) to test for conformity with
a children’s product safety rule.
Amending part 1112 adds an NOR for
the booster seat standard to the list of
children’s product safety rules.
II. Product Information
A. Definition of ‘‘Booster Seat’’
ASTM F2640–18 defines a ‘‘booster
seat’’ as:
a juvenile chair, which is placed on an adult
chair to elevate a child to standard dining
table height. The booster seat is made for the
purpose of containing a child, up to 5 years
of age, and normally for the purposes of
feeding or eating. A booster seat may be
height adjustable and include a reclined
position.
Booster seats may be constructed from
a wide variety of materials, including
wood, plastic, fabric, metal, and/or
foam. Most booster seats, notably those
intended for home use, have removable
trays, allowing a table to be used as an
alternative eating surface. Some booster
seats are intended to double as floor
seats for toddlers, and others are high
chair/booster seat combination
products. The ASTM standard covers
combination products when the product
is in a booster seat configuration.
The definition of ‘‘booster seat’’ in
ASTM F2640–18 is broad and includes
within the scope of the standard booster
seats that are designed specifically for
use in restaurants. Several suppliers sell
these ‘‘food-service’’ booster seats
directly to restaurants or through
restaurant supply companies.
Consumers also may purchase some of
these products directly, for example,
through online third parties that act as
brokers between buyers and sellers.
Consequently, consumers use foodservice booster seats in homes and in
restaurant establishments open to the
public. The Commission agrees with the
scope of ASTM F2640–18, and is not
excluding food-service booster seats
from the final rule.
The final rule for booster seats does
not cover children’s seats intended for
use in motor vehicles, which are also
sometimes referred to as ‘‘booster seats.’’
B. Market Description
CPSC staff identified 44 domestic
firms supplying booster seats to the U.S.
market. Thirty-four (34) domestic firms
market their booster seats exclusively to
consumers, while ten (10) domestic
firms sell booster seats exclusively to
restaurant or restaurant supply stores
(usually through regional distributors or
an internal portal). Sixteen of the 34
domestic firms that sell exclusively to
E:\FR\FM\02JYR1.SGM
02JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
consumers are compliant with the
current voluntary standard for booster
seats. Of the 10 domestic firms selling
food-service booster seats, none are
compliant with the ASTM voluntary
standard. Of the 44 known domestic
suppliers, 29 are domestic
manufacturers (10 large and 19 small),
14 are domestic importers (five large
and nine small), and one is a small
domestic firm whose supply source staff
could not determine.3
Staff identified two foreign
manufacturers selling directly to the
United States. Other foreign booster
seats are entering the U.S. market in a
variety of ways as well. Staff found that
online storefronts and online retailers,
acting as brokers between buyers and
sellers, are the source of a large number
of booster seat products, particularly
from Asia and Europe. Products
purchased through these websites are
sometimes shipped by the individual
sellers. Often, staff cannot determine
whether an online seller is located in
the United States, or overseas, or
whether the seller is a manufacturer,
retailer, or importer, which makes it
difficult for staff to categorize these
companies for analysis. Staff found that
European booster seats are also entering
the U.S. market through foreign retailers
who are willing to ship directly to the
United States. Booster seats available
online from foreign suppliers are less
likely to be compliant with the ASTM
voluntary standard.
III. Incident Data
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
A. CPSRMS Data
The data discussed in this section
come from CPSC’s Consumer Product
Safety Risk Management System
(CPSRMS), which collects data from
consumer reports, medical examiners,
other state and local authorities, retailer
reports, newspaper clippings, death
certificates, and follow-up CPSC InDepth Investigations of reported
incidents.4 From the CPSRMS, CPSC is
aware of a total of 912 incidents (2 fatal
and 152 nonfatal injuries) related to
booster seats reported to have occurred
from January 1, 2008 through October
31, 2017.5 The 912 booster seat
3 Staff made determinations using information
from Dun & Bradstreet and ReferenceUSAGov, as
well as firm websites.
4 These reported deaths and incidents do not
provide a complete count of all that occurred
during this time period. However, they do provide
a minimum number of incidents occurring during
this period and illustrate the circumstances
involved in the incidents related to booster seats.
5 The NPR described incidents reported to have
occurred from January 1, 2008 through September
30, 2016. A detailed description of these data can
be found in Tab A of the Staff’s NPR Briefing
Package.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 29, 2018
Jkt 244001
incidents include 45 new booster seatrelated incidents reported since
publication of the NPR (collected
between October 1, 2016 and October
31, 2017). None of the 45 newly
reported incidents is a fatality. All of the
newly reported incidents fall within the
same hazard patterns identified in the
NPR. Retailers and manufacturers
reporting through the CPSC’s ‘‘Retailer
Reporting Program’’ account for 93
percent of the newly reported incidents
(42 out of 45 incidents). CPSC received
the remaining three incident reports
from consumers using
SaferProducts.gov. CPSC Field staff
conducted an In-Depth Investigation on
one of the newly reported incidents.
1. Fatalities
CPSC received reports of two fatalities
associated with the use of a booster seat.
Both incidents occurred in 2013 and
were described in the NPR:
D In one incident, a 22-month-old
female, sitting on a booster seat attached
to an adult chair, pushed off from the
table and tipped the adult chair
backwards into a glass panel of a china
cabinet behind her. The cause of death
was listed as ‘‘exsanguination due to
hemorrhage from incised wound.’’
D In the other incident, a 4-year-old
male fell from a booster seat to the floor;
he seemed uninjured at the time, but
later that evening while riding his bike,
the child fell, became unresponsive, and
later died. The cause of death was
multiple blunt force trauma.
2. Nonfatalities
CPSC is aware of 152 booster seat
nonfatal injury incidents occurring
between January 1, 2008 and October
31, 2017 (146 incidents reported in the
NPR and 6 newly reported incidents). A
majority of these incidents involved
children 18 months and younger. The
severity of the injury types among the
152 reported injuries are described
below:
D Five children required a hospital
admission. The injuries were skull
fractures, concussions, and other head
injuries.
D Another 22 children were treated
and released from a hospital emergency
department (ED) for injuries resulting
mostly from falls.
D The remaining incidents primarily
involved contusions, abrasions, and
Tab A of the Staff’s Final Rule Briefing Package
provides a detailed description of the 45 newly
reported incidents (collected between October 1,
2016 and October 31, 2017). Fifty-three percent of
the 45 newly reported incidents were reported to
have occurred between October 2016 and October,
2017 (i.e., post-NPR timeframe). The remaining 47
percent of newly reported incidents occurred
during the timeframe covered in the NPR.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30839
lacerations, due to falls or entrapment of
limbs/extremities.
No injury occurred, or the report did
not mention an injury occurring, for the
remaining 758 incident reports (719
incidents reported in the NPR and 39
newly reported incidents). However,
CPSC staff’s review of these incident
report descriptions indicates the
potential for a serious injury or even
death.
B. Hazard Pattern Identification
CPSC considered all 912 reported
incidents to identify the following
hazard patterns associated with booster
seats:
1. Restraint/Attachment Problems
(37%): 339 incidents (317 incidents
reported in the NPR and 22 newly
reported incidents) involved the
mechanism for attaching a booster seat
to an adult chair, or the restraint system
that contains the child within the
booster seat. Issues with the attachment
mechanism included anchor buckles/
clasps/straps breaking, tearing, fraying,
detaching or releasing. Restraint-system
problems included: buckles/prongs
breaking, jamming, releasing too easily,
or separating from straps; straps tearing
or fraying, pinching, or coming undone;
and general inadequacy or
ineffectiveness of restraints in
containing the child in place. In 21
incident reports, staff could not
determine from the report if the buckle
or strap referred to in the report meant
the restraint or the attachment system.
In eight of the incident reports, both
systems were reported to have failed.
Thirty-seven injuries (all reported in the
NPR) are included in this category, of
which seven were treated at a hospital
ED.
2. Seat-Related Issues (28%): 255
incidents (254 incidents reported in the
NPR and 1 newly reported incident)
involved seat-related issues. These
incidents included failure of the lock/
latch that controls the seat-recline
function; tearing, cracking, and/or
peeling seat pads; detaching seat backs;
failure of seat height adjustment lock/
latches; and seats detaching from the
base of certain models. Twenty-two
injuries are included in this category:
Three resulting in hospitalization and
five ED-treated injuries. The newly
reported incident involved the booster
seatback detaching altogether, allowing
the child to fall and sustain multiple
skull fractures, requiring
hospitalization.
3. Tray-Related Issues (21%): 189
incidents (171 incidents reported in the
NPR and 18 newly reported incidents)
involved issues related to booster seat
trays. These incidents included tray
E:\FR\FM\02JYR1.SGM
02JYR1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
30840
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
paint finish peeling off, trays failing to
lock/stay locked, trays with sharp
protrusions on the underside, trays too
tight/difficult to release, and trays
pinching fingers. These incidents also
included complaints about broken toy
accessories, which are usually attached
to the tray (or tray insert). Thirty-eight
injuries are included in this category,
including one that required ED
treatment.
4. Design Problems (3.8%): 35
incidents (33 discussed in the NPR and
2 newly reported) involved a potential
entrapment hazard due to the design of
the booster seat. Most of these incidents
involved limbs, fingers, and toes
entrapped in spaces/openings between
the armrest and seat back/tray, between
the passive crotch-restraint bar and the
seat/tray, between the tray inserts, or in
toy accessories. Sixteen injuries were
included in this category, two requiring
ED treatment.
5. Stability-Related Issues (3.4%): 31
incidents, discussed in the NPR,
involved booster seat stability. Most of
these incidents (27 of 31) concerned the
adult chair to which the booster seat
was attached tipping back or tipping
over. Some of these incidents resulted
from the child pushing back from the
table or counter. Twenty-two injuries
(including two hospitalizations and five
ED-treated injuries) and one fatality are
included in this category.
6. Armrest Problems (2.6%): 24
incidents, discussed in the NPR,
involved booster seat armrests cracking
or breaking. In a few cases, the armrest
reportedly arrived broken inside the
booster seat packaging. One injury is
included in this category.
7. Miscellaneous Product Issues
(1.9%): 17 miscellaneous incidents (16
incidents reported in the NPR and 1
newly reported incidents) involved a
variety of product-related issues,
including unclear assembly
instructions, poor quality construction,
odor, rough surface, rough edges,
breakage, or loose hardware at
unspecified sites. One incident report
alleged that the poor design of the
booster seat failed to contain/support
the child and led to a fall injury. Ten
injuries were included in this category,
including two ED-treated injuries.
8. Combination of Multiple Issues
(1.9%): 17 incidents, discussed in the
NPR, involved a combination of the
product hazards listed above. Four
injuries were included in this category.
9. Unknown Issues (0.5%): Five
incidents involved unknown issues (4
incidents reported in the NPR and 1
newly reported incident). In these
incidents, CPSC staff had insufficient
information to determine how the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 29, 2018
Jkt 244001
incidents occurred. One incident in this
category, a fatality, reported
confounding factors that likely
contributed to the death. Two other
injuries were reported in this category,
including a fall injury.
C. NEISS Data
The National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System (NEISS), a
statistically valid injury surveillance
system,6 is the source of the injury
estimates discussed in this section.
Since the NPR, new ED-treated injury
data have become available for 2016.
However, the estimates for 2016 are not
reportable per NEISS publication
criteria.7 As such, the Commission
presents the injury estimates and injury
characteristics for the aggregate data
from 2008 through 2016.
CPSC staff estimates a total of 12,000
injuries (sample size = 455, coefficient
of variation = 0.10) related to booster
seats were treated in U.S. hospital EDs
over the 9-year period from 2008
through 2016. NEISS data for 2017 is
not complete at this point in time.
Similar to 2016, staff cannot report
injury estimates for some of the other
individual years because of the NEISS
publication criteria. Note, however, that
staff did not observe any trend over the
9-year period regarding injuries
increasing or decreasing.
No deaths were reported through the
NEISS. About 64 percent of the injured
were younger than 2 years of age; among
the remaining, 24 percent, 8 percent,
and 4 percent were 2-year-olds, 3-yearolds, and 4-year-olds, respectively. For
the ED-treated injuries related to booster
seats reported in the 9-year period, the
following characteristics occurred most
frequently:
• Hazard—falls out of the booster seat
(97 percent). Most of the falls were due
to:
6 NEISS injury data are gathered from EDs of
hospitals selected as a probability sample of all the
U.S. hospitals with EDs open 24 hours a day that
have at least six beds. The surveillance data
gathered from the sample hospitals enable the CPSC
staff to make timely national estimates of the
number of injuries associated with specific
consumer products.
Staff extracted all data coded under product code
1556 (Attachable high chairs including booster
seats) for patients aged under 5 years. Staff
considered certain records out-of-scope for the
purposes of this memorandum. For example, staff
excluded hook-on chair-related incidents that are
also covered under product code 1556 or car
booster seats incorrectly coded as 1556; and also
considered out-of-scope a sibling or a pet knocking
over the adult chair holding the booster seat
containing the child. Staff excluded these records
prior to deriving the statistical injury estimates.
7 According to the NEISS publication criteria, an
estimate must be 1,200 or greater, the sample size
must be 20 or greater, and the coefficient of
variation must be 33 percent or smaller.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Æ Unspecified circumstances (55
percent).
Æ Unspecified tip overs (18 percent);
tip overs due to child pushing back or
rocking in seat (6 percent).
Æ Booster seat attachment or childrestraint mechanism failure/defeat/nonuse (8 percent).
• Injured body part—head (58
percent), face (22 percent), and mouth (7
percent).
• Injury type—internal organ injury
(40 percent), lacerations (24 percent),
and contusions/abrasions (19 percent).
• Disposition—treated and released
(about 98 percent).
Incidents in a Restaurant Setting. For
the NPR, CPSC staff noted that although
most of the incidents occurred in home
settings, one incident report explicitly
mentioned a restaurant where an infant
was using a booster seat provided by the
establishment. Among the new
incidents that staff analyzed, none
occurred at a restaurant.
Among the NEISS ED-treated injury
data, from 2008 to 2016, 31 injury
reports explicitly mentioned that the
injury occurred in a restaurant setting.
Although these 31 reports are included
in the larger sample that yielded the
total estimated number of injuries of
12,000, a national injury estimate for
restaurant injuries only does not meet
the NEISS publication criteria and is not
presented here. Staff reviewed the
injury characteristics in these reports,
which indicated that all of the injuries
resulted from falls, but the
circumstances were unspecified for the
most part. Staff cannot discern from the
injury reports whether the booster seats
involved were provided by the
establishment.
D. Product Recalls
Compliance staff reviewed recalls of
booster seats that occurred from January
1, 2008 to May 30, 2018. During that
time, two consumer-level recalls
involved booster seats. Both recalls
involved a fall hazard. One recalled
product was associated with a fall
hazard when the stitching on the
booster seat’s restraint straps loosened,
allowing the straps to separate from the
seat and the child to fall out of the seat.
Another recall involved the booster seat
restraint buckle, which opened
unexpectedly, allowing a child to fall
from the chair and be injured.
IV. Overview and Assessment of ASTM
F2640
A. Overview of ASTM F2640
The voluntary standard for booster
seats, ASTM F2640, Standard Consumer
Safety Specification for Booster Seats, is
E:\FR\FM\02JYR1.SGM
02JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
intended to minimize the risk of injury
or death to infants in booster seats
associated with falls from booster seats,
tipping over or out of booster seats,
restraint disengagement or lack of a
restraint system, tray disengagement,
booster seats stability while attached to
an adult chair, entrapments in booster
seats, and other hazards such as cuts,
bruises, and lacerations. ASTM F2640
was first approved and published in
2007, as ASTM F2640–07, Standard
Consumer Safety Specification for
Booster Seats. ASTM has since revised
the voluntary standard 11 times. Tab C
of Staff’s Final Rule Briefing Package
includes a description of each revision
through 2018.
The current version of the standard,
ASTM F2640–18, was approved on
April 1, 2018, and published in April
2018. ASTM F2640–18 includes three
changes from the version of the standard
proposed in the NPR, ASTM F2640–
17ε1:
• New performance and testing
requirements for a new type of booster
seat that hangs from the back of an adult
chair;
• Clarification of the installation
position for measuring a booster seat on
an adult chair; and
• New warning statement in
Instructional Literature to address
booster seats that do not have a recline
position.
In section IV.C below, we describe
and assess each change.
B. Description of ASTM F2640–18
ASTM F2640–18 includes these key
provisions: Scope, terminology, general
requirements, performance
requirements, test methods, marking
and labeling, and instructional
literature.
Scope. This section describes what
constitutes a ‘‘booster seat.’’ As stated in
section II.A. of this preamble, the Scope
section describes a booster seat as ‘‘a
juvenile chair, which is placed on an
adult chair to elevate a child to standard
dining table height.’’ The description
further specifies appropriate ages for
children using a booster seat, stating, a
‘‘booster seat is made for the purpose of
containing a child, up to 5 years of age,
and normally for the purposes of
feeding or eating.’’
Terminology. This section defines
terms specific to this standard.
General Requirements. This section
addresses numerous hazards with
several general requirements; most of
these general requirements are also
found in the other ASTM juvenile
product standards. The general
requirements included in this section
are:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 29, 2018
Jkt 244001
D Sharp points or edges;
D Small parts;
D Wood parts;
D Lead in paint;
D Scissoring, shearing, and pinching;
D Openings;
D Exposed coil springs;
D Protective components;
D Labeling; and
D Toys.
Performance Requirements and Test
Methods. These sections contain
performance requirements specific to
booster seats (discussed here) and the
required test methods to assess
conformity with such requirements.
D Tray impact test: This test assesses
the tray’s resistance to breaking into
small pieces or creating sharp points/
edges when dropped from a specified
height.
D Tray engagement test: This test
assesses the tray’s ability to remain
engaged to the booster seat when
subjected to a specified force
horizontally and vertically.
D Static load test: This test assesses
whether the booster seat can support its
maximum recommended weight, by
gradually applying a static load on the
center of the seating surface for a
specified amount of time.
D Restraint system test: This test
assesses whether the restraint system
can secure a child in the manufacturer’s
recommended-use positions.
D Seat attachment test: This test
specifies that a booster seat must have
a means of attaching a booster seat to an
adult chair and assesses the booster
seat’s ability to remain fastened to the
adult chair when force is applied.
D Structural integrity (dynamic load):
This requirement assesses the durability
of the booster seat, including locking/
latching devices which prevent folding
or adjustment of the booster seat.
D Maximum booster seat dimensions:
This requirement assesses how large a
booster seat can be in relation to the
adult chair dimensions specified on the
booster seat’s packaging.
Marking and Labeling. This section
contains various requirements related to
warnings, labeling, and required
markings for booster seats, and it
prescribes various substance, format,
and prominence requirements for this
information.
Instructional Literature. This section
requires that easily readable and
understandable instructions be provided
with booster seats. Additionally, the
section contains requirements related to
instructional literature contents and
format.
C. Assessment of ASTM F2640–18
CPSC staff identified 912 incidents
(including two fatalities) related to the
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30841
use of booster seats. CPSC staff
examined the incident data, identified
hazard patterns in the data, and worked
with ASTM to develop and update the
performance requirements in ASTM
F2640. The incident data and identified
hazard patterns formed the basis for
ASTM to develop ASTM F2640–18 with
CPSC staff’s support throughout the
process.8 The following section
discusses how each of the identified
product-related issues or hazard
patterns listed in section III.C. of this
preamble is addressed by the current
voluntary standard, and it also describes
and assesses each of the three changes
included in ASTM F2640–18.
1. Adequacy of ASM F2640–18 To
Address Hazard Patterns
a. Restraint/Attachment Problems
Restraint system and attachment
problems included buckles/prongs
breaking, jamming, releasing too easily,
or separating from straps; straps tearing
or fraying, pinching, or coming undone;
and inadequacy or ineffectiveness of
restraints in containing the child in
place, Similarly, complaints about the
seat attachment system involved anchor
buckles/clasps/straps breaking, tearing,
fraying, detaching, or releasing. The
Commission has reviewed CPSC staff’s
evaluation of the attachment and
restraint system tests in ASTM F2640–
18, and concludes that these tests
adequately address the identified
hazards.
Section 6.5 of ASTM F2640–18
requires that a booster seat must have a
means of ‘‘attaching’’ to an adult chair,
and be able to withstand a specified
force without becoming detached from
the adult chair. Booster seats may
employ several methods to secure to an
adult chair, including straps, suction,
and anti-skid bottoms or grip feet that
minimize slippage on the chair by
means of friction. However, because
‘‘grip feet’’ and ‘‘friction bottoms’’ do
not actually attach (i.e., fasten) the
booster seat to an adult chair, the ASTM
standard does not consider these to be
a means of securing or attaching booster
seats to an adult chair. The Commission
agrees. Conversely, because suction
physically fastens the booster seat to an
adult chair, the ASTM standard
considers suction to be a means of
attachment under Section 6.5 of the
current ASTM standard. The
Commission agrees with this as well.
Accordingly, the final rule requires any
booster seat using suction as a means of
8 Assessment of ASTM F2640–17ε1 in the NPR is
at 82 FR 22928–29, and in Tab B of Staff’s NPR
Briefing Package.
E:\FR\FM\02JYR1.SGM
02JYR1
30842
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
attachment to pass the attachment test
to be compliant.
b. Seat-Related Issues
Seat-related issues included failure of
the lock/latch that controls the seatrecline function; seat pads tearing,
cracking, and/or peeling; seat backs
detaching altogether; seat height
adjustment lock/latch failures; and seat
detachment from the base that is
available for certain models. The
Commission has reviewed CPSC staff’s
evaluation of the static load and
dynamic booster seat tests in ASTM
F2640–18, and concludes that these
tests adequately address these hazards.
c. Tray-Related Issues
Tray-related issues included trays
with paint finish peeling off, trays
failing to lock/stay locked, trays with
sharp protrusions on the underside,
trays that were too tight/difficult to
release, and trays pinching fingers. The
Commission has reviewed CPSC staff’s
evaluation of the standard, and
concludes that the general requirements
section of F2640–18 adequately
addresses peeling paint, sharp
protrusions, and pinching hazards, and
the standard’s tray engagement test
adequately address the tray locking
failures.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
d. Design Problems
Booster seat design problems resulted
in limbs, fingers, and toes entrapped in
spaces/openings between the armrest
and seat back/tray, between a passive
crotch restraint bar and seat/tray,
between tray inserts, or in toy
accessories. The Commission has
reviewed CPSC staff’s evaluation of the
general requirements of ASTM 2640–18
(namely requirements relating to
scissoring, shearing, and pinching,
openings, and toys) and concludes that
the ASTM standard adequately
addresses the identified hazards.
e. Stability-Related Issues
Stability-related incidents included
instances where the adult chair, to
which the booster seat was attached,
tipped back or tipped over. Addressing
the stability of the booster seat while
attached to an adult chair is difficult in
a standard for booster seats because
stability depends on the adult chair. The
ASTM booster seat subcommittee and
CPSC staff worked diligently to find an
effective requirement to adequately
address stability without specifying
requirements for the adult chair.
Although ASTM F2640–18 does not
contain a performance requirement to
address this hazard, it does contain a
labeling provision, requiring that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 29, 2018
Jkt 244001
booster seats must contain a cautionary
statement: ‘‘Never allow a child to push
away from table.’’ Moreover, ASTM
F2640–18 requires a booster seat to
identify on the booster seat packaging
the size of adult chair on which the
booster seat can fit, thereby allowing
consumers to make a more informed
purchasing choice.
f. Armrest Problems
Armrest problems included booster
seat armrests cracking, and in a few
cases, the armrest arriving to the
consumer broken in the packaging. The
Commission has reviewed CPSC staff’s
evaluation of the static and dynamic
load tests contained in ASTM F2640–
18, and concludes that those tests
adequately address armrest-related
hazards.
g. Miscellaneous Product-Related Issues
Miscellaneous product-related issues
included unclear assembly instructions,
poor quality construction, odor, rough
surfaces, breakage, or loose hardware at
unspecified sites. The Commission has
reviewed CPSC staff’s evaluation of the
general requirements section, as well as
the instructional literature requirements
of ASTM F2640–18, and concludes that
those requirements adequately address
this hazard.
2. Description and Assessment of
Changes in ASTM F2640–18
Below we describe each of the three
changes in the voluntary standard since
publication of the NPR, as reflected in
ASTM F2640–18. The Commission
finds that each of these requirements
enhances the safety of booster seats and
strengthens the standard incorporated as
the final rule for booster seats.
a. New Performance and Testing
Requirements for a New Type of Booster
Seat That Hangs From the Back of an
Adult Chair
The new style of booster seat attaches
to the adult chair fundamentally
differently than typical booster seats.
This new design can fold and is
marketed as a travel booster seat.
Typical booster seats are placed on the
seat of the chair and usually attached to
the seat and back with straps. Thus, the
typical booster seat rests on the chair
seat and the adult chair seat bears all of
the booster seat’s weight. The new style
of booster seat has a frame that hangs
over the top of the adult chair seat back,
usually with umbrella style hooks, and
has feet that rest on the seat of the adult
chair. The child’s seating area is
attached to the frame. Tab C of Staff’s
Final Rule Briefing Package contains a
picture of this design.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Section 6.7 of ASTM F2640–18
addresses this style of booster seat and
has two requirements. The first
requirement states that, when in all
manufacturer’s recommended use
positions, the booster seat must not tilt
forward more than 10 degrees from the
horizontal. This requirement was added
because a seat that is tilted forward too
far may result in a child falling out of
the seat. The second requirement states
that the backrest support contact must
contact the top of the adult chair
backrest and extend over and below the
top rear edge of the adult chair backrest.
This requirement was added to ensure
that the booster seat is reasonably secure
to the adult chair backrest so that the
booster seat does not fall off the adult
chair.
Section 6.8 of ASTM F2640–18
addresses the maximum booster seat
dimensions. The previous version,
ASTM F2640–17ε1, also had a section
addressing maximum dimensions, but it
did not include requirements for the
new, over-the-backrest-style booster
seats. The latest version incorporates the
previous requirements, but it also
includes the requirements specific to
this new style of booster seat.
b. Clarification of the Installation
Position for Measuring a Booster Seat on
an Adult Chair
Section 7.10.1.1 of ASTM F2640–18
explains how to measure the maximum
booster seat dimension for both
traditional and over-the-backrest style
booster seats and includes a diagram of
a test fixture to be used for over-thebackrest seats and a diagram of their
proper installation. This test protocol
was added to provide clarity and ensure
that testing labs are performing the tests
consistently.
c. New Warning Statement in
Instructional Literature To Address
Booster Seats That Do Not Have a
Recline Position
Section 9 (Instructional Literature) of
F2640–18 contains a new requirement,
Section 9.5, stating that if the booster
seat has no recline feature, the
instructions shall contain a statement
addressing that the product is only for
children capable of sitting upright
unassisted.
D. International Standards for Booster
Seats
The Commission is aware of one
international voluntary standard
pertaining to booster seats, BS EN16120
Child Use and Care Articles—Chair
Mounted Seat. CPSC staff compared the
performance requirements of ASTM
F2640–18 to the performance
E:\FR\FM\02JYR1.SGM
02JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
requirements of BS EN16120, which is
intended for a similar product category,
and identified several differences.
Primarily, the scope of ASTM F2640–18
includes products intended for children
up to 5 years of age, while EN 16120 is
intended for products up to an age of 36
months, or a maximum weight of 15 kg
(33 lbs.).
Staff found that some individual
requirements in the BS EN16120
standard are more stringent than ASTM
F2640–18. For example, BS EN16120
includes requirements for head
entrapment, lateral protection, surface
chemicals, cords/ribbons, material
shrinkage, packaging film, and
monofilament threads. Staff did not
identify any hazard patterns in CPSC’s
incident data that such provisions could
address. Conversely, some individual
requirements in ASTM F2640–18 are
more stringent than those found in EN
16120. For example, ASTM F2640–18
includes requirements for tray
performance and toy accessories.
Currently, CPSC is not aware of any
technically feasible method to test for
the most prevalent and dangerous
hazard pattern, falls resulting from
tipping over in an adult chair. However,
CPSC staff will continue to monitor
hazard patterns and recommend future
changes to the Commission, if
necessary.
V. Response to Comments
CPSC received eight comments on the
NPR. Four commenters generally
supported the NPR. Two commenters
requested that CPSC wait to finalize the
rule to include the next version of the
voluntary standard, which would
include two open ASTM ballot items,
including a new booster seat design that
attaches to an adult chair by hooking
over the top back of the chair. Two
commenters stated that booster seats
manufactured for food-service
establishments should be exempt from
the mandatory standard, or be subject to
a different standard. Below we
summarize and respond to each
significant issue raised by the
commenters.
Comment 1: Two commenters stated
that the Commission should not issue a
final rule until ASTM approves the next
version of ASTM F2640. The
commenters stated that the 2018 version
would clarify the intent of the
maximum booster seat dimension test
and would address the new hook on
booster seat design.
Response 1: The Commission agrees
with these commenters. The final rule
incorporates by reference the latest
version of the voluntary standard,
ASTM F2640–18.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 29, 2018
Jkt 244001
Comment 2: Two manufacturer
commenters contended that food-service
booster seats should not be covered
under ASTM F2640, with one
commenter proposing that a separate
commercial standard be developed.
These commenters stated that foodservice booster seats have simple
designs intended solely to be positioned
easily alongside a dining table, and
raised to a height for a child to eat.
Commenters noted several elements that
make food-service booster seats different
from home-use booster seats, including:
(1) Less-confined designs to
accommodate bulky outerwear; (2)
generally smaller size; (3) tray-less; (4)
not adjustable (no swiveling or
reclining); and (5) typically use
attachment methods like anti-skid pads
or raised rubber feet that can
accommodate restaurant seating, such as
booths and benches, which belts and
straps cannot.
One manufacturer-commenter noted
that the level of supervision over
children in restaurants is greater than in
homes, where children may be left
unattended while eating. The
commenter stated that this makes foodservice booster seat designs, which are
completely appropriate for restaurant
use, potentially risky in home settings.
Rather than addressing this under the
current regulation, however, the
commenter suggested a separate
regulation for food-service booster seats
that focuses on elements that ensure
proper use, such as more stringent
warnings and instructional literature (in
particular not using food-service booster
seats outside of commercial settings,
and not leaving children unsupervised
during use), as well as educating end
users and wait staff.
Consumer advocate-commenters
agreed with the NPR that food-service
booster seats should be included under
the mandatory standard because these
products are available for sale to
consumers and consumers use the
products in restaurants, and these
products should provide the same
measure of safety.
Response 2: The Commission
recognized in the NPR that food-service
booster seats vary in design and where
they will be used, and that the
attachment requirement in ASTM F2640
may require a design change for some
food-service booster seats. Accordingly,
the NPR invited commenters to provide
information on the effects of making
ASTM F2640–17ε1’s attachment
requirements mandatory on booster
seats that currently use grip feet/friction
bottoms to secure the booster to the
surface upon which it sits. Additionally,
the NPR solicited comments regarding
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30843
the capability of suction cups to comply
with performance requirements.
Although the Commission agrees that
some differences exist between foodservice booster seats and booster seats
intended for home-use, the commenters
did not provide sufficient, specific
information to support the assertion that
food-service booster seats should not be
covered under ASTM F2640; nor did
they provide cost estimates for varying
designs, other than generally stating that
the process of compliance would be
costly and time intensive. Accordingly,
despite CPSC staff’s interviews with
affected parties, and after careful review
of the comments, the Commission has
not identified any inherent differences
between the two products that would
prevent food-service booster seats from
meeting the mandatory standard and
remaining fundamentally the same
product. For example, although no foodservice booster seats have trays, trays
are not required to meet the booster seat
final rule. If a booster seat does not have
a tray, the requirements, tests, warnings,
and instructions related to trays are not
required. As another example, although
it is true that anti-skid pads and raised
rubber feet would not be considered
attachment methods under the
mandatory standard, they may still be
used in addition to an attachment
method like a belt, strap, or suction cup.
Food-service booster seats can likely
meet the new standard by adding a belt,
for example, while retaining the antislip mechanism they were using
already.
Section 6.5 of ASTM F2640 (2017ε1
and 2018 versions) requires a
mechanism of attaching a booster seat to
an adult chair, but it does not require
the attachment mechanism to be a strap.
Although a strap attachment would not
work on a bench or booth, non-strap
attachment methods, such as suction
cups, could be used to secure a booster
to a bench. Additionally, ASTM F2640
does not state any specific requirements
for booster seats used on a booth or
bench-type seating. Under the standard,
booster seats are tested on an adult
chair. The standard requires the
attachment method to withstand force
requirements. Although ‘‘grip feet’’ or
‘‘friction bottoms’’ are not a sufficient
means of fastening a booster seat to an
adult chair, some suction cups can be
sufficient to withstand the force
required in the standard.
Based on the foregoing, the
Commission rejects the assertion that
food-service booster seats should solely
rely on warnings to prevent falls in
food-service booster seats. In a foodservice environment, booster seats are
used on adult chairs and bench-style
E:\FR\FM\02JYR1.SGM
02JYR1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
30844
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
seating. Adhering to the mandatory
standard for booster seats will ensure
that food-service booster seats remain
attached to adult chairs under the
testing protocol, but not impede using
grip feet on bench seating, if that is how
manufacturers choose to address this
issue. Additionally, nothing in the final
rule would prevent food-service booster
seat suppliers from providing additional
warnings and instructions, if they
believe such information will improve
the safety their products.
Section 104 of the CPSIA requires the
Commission to promulgate a booster
seat standard that is either
‘‘substantially the same as’’ the
voluntary standard or ‘‘more stringent
than’’ the voluntary standard if the more
stringent requirements would further
reduce the risk of injury associated with
the product. Accordingly, CPSC’s
mandatory standard could only provide
requirements for food-service booster
seats that differ from the ASTM
standard, if those different requirements
strengthen the standard and further
reduce the risk of injury. The
commenters have not provided any
safety rationale for excluding foodservice booster seats from the final rule.
None of the suggestions presented by
commenters would result in a standard
that is ‘‘more stringent than’’ the
voluntary standard. Therefore, the
Commission is not modifying the
booster seat requirements for foodservice booster seats as part of the
mandatory standard. However, as
explained below, in response to
Comment 6, the final rule provides
additional time to comply with the new
standard.
Comment 3: One commenter stated
that to comply with the standard,
booster seats using suction as a means
of attachment should be required to pass
the attachment test in ASTM F2640–
17ε1.
Response 3: The Commission agrees
that regardless of the means of
attachment, all booster seats must meet
the requirements in section 6.5 of the
current voluntary standard, ASTM
F2640–18. These requirements include:
Not allowing the booster seat to fall off
the adult chair and break, and
remaining functional after applying a
45-pound force horizontally to the
center of the front of the booster seat
five times. The requirements do not
prescribe how the seat should be
attached to the adult chair.
Comment 4: One commenter
questioned the applicability of placing
warning labels on commercial booster
seats because of size constraints on
restaurant style-booster seats. The
commenter indicated that the distance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 29, 2018
Jkt 244001
from the seat surface to the top of the
side walls of the seat range from 3
inches to 5 inches, which restricts the
space for labeling, and requests
conspicuous labeling to include the seat
surface.
Response 4: The most recent version
of the voluntary standard applicable to
booster seats, ASTM F2640–18, requires
the warning label to be conspicuous. A
‘‘conspicuous label’’ is defined in the
standard as a ‘‘label which is visible,
when the product is in the
manufacturer’s recommended use
position, to a person standing at the
sides or front of the booster seat’’
(ASTM F2640–18, section 3.1.1).
Accordingly, the definition of
‘‘conspicuous’’ in the standard does not
preclude use of the seat surface for the
warning label placement, because the
seat surface is visible to a person
standing at the sides or front of the
booster seat.
Additionally, to address comments
that a side wall height range of 3 inches
to 5 inches would restrict warning
placement, staff generated mock
warning labels that meet the ASTM
F2640–18 requirement for signal word
and font size in section 8.4.5. Tab B of
Staff’s Final Rule Briefing Package
provides pictures of these mock warning
labels. Staff’s mock-ups show that the
label can be placed on products with
limited side wall space. Accordingly,
manufacturers have the flexibility to
place the warning label on seat surface
or on the seat vertical wall.
Comment 5: One commenter urged
CPSC to work with manufacturers to use
design and visual cues, such as
pictograms, to ensure warnings are
conveyed effectively to those with
limited or no English literacy.
Response 5: The Commission
acknowledges that well-designed
graphics, such as pictograms, can be
useful for consumers with limited or no
English literacy. However, the design of
effective graphics can be difficult. Some
seemingly obvious graphics are poorly
understood and can give rise to
interpretations that are the opposite of
the intended meaning (so-called
‘‘critical confusions’’). To avoid
confusion, a warning pictogram should
be developed with an empirical study
and should also be well-tested on the
target audience. Thus far, pictograms
have not been developed for boosterseat warning labels. In the future, if
CPSC staff advises that graphic symbols
are needed to reduce the risk of injury
associated with these products, the
Commission can consider updating the
mandatory standard to include
pictograms.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Comment 6: The Commission
received four comments on CPSC’s
proposed 12-month effective date for the
booster seats mandatory standard. One
comment, submitted by three consumer
advocacy groups, supported a 6-month
effective date (which they seem to
believe mistakenly was the
Commission’s proposal). Two
commenters, a juvenile product
manufacturers’ association and a private
citizen, supported the proposed 12month effective date, although the
private citizen said that they would also
support an even longer effective date to
reduce the economic impact on small
firms. A fourth commenter, a small
manufacturer of food-service booster
seats, suggested a 2-year effective date to
allow additional time for product
development. The commenter stated:
‘‘compliance may require the costly and
time intensive process of developing
and building new tooling to comply
with the Standard.’’
In a follow-up call with Commission
staff (a phone log is in regulations.gov),
the fourth commenter elaborated on the
request for a 2-year effective date,
stating that for their booster seats to
come into compliance with the revised
ASTM standard, they will need to
design and test new plastic molds.
Creating a new mold includes
researching and developing a new
design, initial tool-building to
implement the design, and then testing
the resulting product. The commenter
stated that the entire process takes
longer for firms like theirs because their
mold-maker is located overseas.
Consequently, if changes to the mold are
required after testing the new product,
the turnaround time is longer than if all
the work were conducted in the United
States. According to the commenter, if
the design process goes perfectly, with
no required changes, then their booster
seats could be redesigned in time to
meet the 12-month effective date. The
commenter stated that the request for a
2-year effective date was based on the
design process for plastic molds and the
potential need to create and test several
iterative designs.
Response 6: The Commission
recognizes that longer effective dates
minimize the impact on affected firms.
The initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA) found that a significant
economic impact could not be ruled out
for 69 percent of the small firms
operating in the U.S. market. Staff
advised that many of those firms might
not be aware of the ASTM voluntary
standard or the CPSC booster seats
rulemaking, particularly food-service
booster seat suppliers, which make up
one-third of the small suppliers for
E:\FR\FM\02JYR1.SGM
02JYR1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
which a significant impact could not be
ruled out. The information supplied by
the fourth commenter on the time and
cost involved in designing and
producing new plastic molds is
consistent with information supplied by
CPSC engineers, as is the longer time
frame required for firms conducting
some of their redesign overseas. Staff
engineers have also indicated that foam
products would require new molds as
well, which likely require similar cost
and time investments.
Based on this information, the
Commission concludes that a 12-month
effective date likely represents a ‘‘bestcase’’ scenario for many affected firms,
and that 2 years likely represents a
‘‘worst-case’’ scenario for firms required
to come into compliance. Firms
designing and/or testing their molds in
the United States should be able to meet
shorter timelines, both in ‘‘best-case’’
and ‘‘worst-case’’ scenarios. After
considering the information provided by
commenters, the Commission is
providing an 18-month effective date for
all firms to come into compliance with
the final rule. An 18-month effective
date balances the need for improved
consumer safety, with reducing the
impact of the final rule on small firms.
Although some firms using molds
may require iterative designs to meet the
standard, the 2-year time estimate for
product redesign using molds applies in
cases where a mold must be modified
several times, and the mold-redesign
work is conducted overseas. Not all
firms use molds, not all firms have
molds made overseas, and not all firms
will encounter sufficient difficulty with
their molds to require a full 2 years to
make their iterative changes.
Additionally, not all products will
require a full redesign. Some products
already meet the ASTM voluntary
standard and the anticipated product
modifications (straps and/or more
secure means of attachment) in those
cases are not complex and should not
fall within the ‘‘worst-case’’ scenario of
a 2-year design process.
Moreover, providing additional time
for firms to come into compliance
reduces burden by allowing firms the
time: (1) To spread out design and
testing costs over a longer period; (2) to
come into compliance if they are
currently unaware of the voluntary
standard or the rulemaking; and (3) to
redesign a plastic or foam product to
accommodate the design, tooling, and
testing adjustments that may be required
during the product redesign process.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:54 Jun 29, 2018
Jkt 244001
VI. Mandatory Standard for Booster
Seats
As discussed in the previous section,
the Commission concludes that ASTM
F2640–18 adequately addresses the
hazards associated with booster seats.
Thus, the final rule incorporates by
reference ASTM F2640–18, without
modification, as the mandatory safety
standard for booster seats.
VII. Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112 to
Include NOR for Booster Seats
Standard
The CPSA establishes certain
requirements for product certification
and testing. Products subject to a
consumer product safety rule under the
CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard
or regulation under any other act
enforced by the Commission, must be
certified as complying with all
applicable CPSC-enforced requirements.
15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Certification of
children’s products subject to a
children’s product safety rule must be
based on testing conducted by a CPSCaccepted third party conformity
assessment body. 15 U.S.C. 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 to which a children’s product
is subject. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(3). The
Safety Standard for Booster Seats, to be
codified at 16 CFR part 1237, is a
children’s product safety rule that
requires the issuance of an NOR.
The Commission published a final
rule, Requirements Pertaining to Third
Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78
FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), which is
codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (referred to
here as part 1112). Part 1112 became
effective on June 10, 2013 and
establishes requirements for
accreditation of third party conformity
assessment bodies (or laboratories) to
test for conformance with a children’s
product safety rule, in accordance with
section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA. Part 1112
also codifies a list of all of the NORs
that the CPSC had published at the time
part 1112 was issued. All NORs issued
after the Commission published part
1112, such as the safety standard for
booster seats, require the Commission to
amend part 1112. Accordingly, the
Commission is now amending part 1112
to include the safety standard for
booster seats in the list of other
children’s product safety rules for
which the CPSC has issued NORs.
Laboratories applying for acceptance
as a CPSC-accepted third party
conformity assessment body to test to
the new standard for booster seats are
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30845
required to meet the third party
conformity assessment body
accreditation requirements in part 1112.
When a laboratory meets the
requirements as a CPSC-accepted thirdparty conformity assessment body, the
laboratory can apply to the CPSC to
have 16 CFR part 1237, Safety Standard
for Booster Seats, included in its scope
of accreditation of CPSC safety rules
listed for the laboratory on the CPSC
website at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
Section 1237.2 of the final rule
provides that booster seats must comply
with applicable sections of ASTM
F2640–18. The OFR has regulations
concerning incorporation by reference. 1
CFR part 51. These regulations require
that, for a final rule, agencies must
discuss in the preamble to the rule the
way in which materials that the agency
incorporates by reference are reasonably
available to interested persons, and how
interested parties can obtain the
materials. Additionally, the preamble to
the rule must summarize the material. 1
CFR 51.5(b).
In accordance with the OFR’s
requirements, the discussion in section
IV of this preamble summarizes the
required provisions of ASTM F2640–18.
Interested persons may purchase a copy
of ASTM F2640–18 from ASTM, either
through ASTM’s website, or by mail at
the address provided in the rule. A copy
of the standard may also be inspected at
the CPSC’s Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Note that the Commission and ASTM
arranged for commenters to have ‘‘readonly’’ access to ASTM F2640–17ε1
during the NPR’s comment period.
IX. Effective Date
The Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) 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). Typically, the
Commission provides a 6-month
effective date for final rules issued for
durable infant or toddler products under
section 104 of the CPSIA. However, in
the NPR, the Commission proposed that
the booster seat rule be effective 12
months after publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register, to allow
booster seat manufacturers additional
time to bring their products into
compliance.
CPSC received several comments on
the effective date of the final rule, which
are summarized in section V of this
preamble, comment 6. As explained
there, the remolding process for plastic
and foam booster seats could take in
‘‘best-case scenarios’’ 12 months, but in
E:\FR\FM\02JYR1.SGM
02JYR1
30846
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘worst-case scenarios’’ the process
could take up to 2 years. Recognizing
that worst-case scenarios are likely to be
rare, the Commission is providing an
18-month effective date for the final
rule. Moreover, as explained in the next
section of the preamble, the additional
time reduces the impact of the rule on
small businesses.
X. Regulatory Flexibility Act 9
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires that agencies
review a proposed rule and a final rule
for the rule’s potential economic impact
on small entities, including small
businesses. Section 604 of the RFA
generally requires that agencies prepare
a final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA) when promulgating final rules,
unless the head of the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. For booster
seats, staff cannot rule out a significant
economic impact for 19 of the 29 (66
percent) known small domestic
suppliers of booster seats to the U.S.
market. Accordingly, staff prepared a
FRFA that is available at Tab D of the
Staff’s Final Rule Briefing Package. We
provide a summary of the FRFA below.
The Commission is aware of 29 small
firms, including 19 domestic
manufacturers, nine domestic importers,
and one firm of unknown type,
currently marketing booster seats in the
United States. The Commission
concludes that it is unlikely that there
would be a significant economic impact
on the eight small manufacturers and
two small importers of booster seats that
comply with the current voluntary
standard for Juvenile Products
Manufacturer’s Association-(JPMA)
testing purposes, ASTM F2640–17ε1.10
However, the Commission cannot rule
out a significant economic impact for 19
of the suppliers of noncompliant booster
seats (11 manufacturers, seven
importers, and one unknown type).
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
A. The Product
Section II.A of this preamble defines
‘‘booster seats’’ and discussed booster
seat combination products. The final
rule would cover these products when
9 Tab D of Staff’s Final Rule Briefing Package
contains the complete Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis for this final rule.
10 The Juvenile Products Manufacturers
Association (JPMA) has certification programs for
several durable infant products with voluntary
ASTM standards. Typically, JPMA’s certification
program has a 6-month delay between the
publication of a new ASTM voluntary standard and
its adoption for compliance testing under their
program. Published in March 2017, ASTM F2640–
17ε1 went into effect for JPMA-testing purposes in
September 2017.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:54 Jun 29, 2018
Jkt 244001
they are in their booster seat
configuration. Some suppliers produce
booster seats intended predominately
for restaurant use. As discussed in
sections II.A and V (comment 2), the
Commission will include food-service
booster seats in the final rule with the
same requirements as home-use booster
seats. The prices for food-service and
home-use booster seats are similar,
averaging $44 to $60. Not surprisingly,
combination high chair/booster seat
products tend to be more expensive,
ranging in price from $50 to $250.
B. Final Rule Requirements and Third
Party Testing
All booster seats manufactured after
the final rule’s effective date must meet
the requirements of the final rule
(ASTM F2640–18 with no
modification). They will also need to be
third party tested, as described below.
Under section 14 of the CPSA, once
the new booster seat requirements
become effective as a consumer product
safety standard, all suppliers will be
subject to the third party testing and
certification requirements under the
CPSA and the Testing and Labeling
Pertaining to Product Certification rule
(16 CFR part 1107) (1107 rule), which
require manufacturers and importers to
certify that their products comply with
the applicable children’s product safety
standards, based on third party testing,
and subject their products to third party
testing periodically. Third party testing
costs are in addition to the costs of
modifying the booster seats to meet the
standard. For booster seats, the third
party testing costs are expected to be
$500 to $1,000 per sample tested, with
the higher cost being more applicable to
the smallest suppliers.11 As the
component part testing rule allows (16
CFR part 1109), importers may rely
upon third party tests obtained by their
suppliers, which could reduce the
impact on importers. The incremental
costs would also be lower for suppliers
of compliant booster seats if they are
already obtaining third party tests to
assure conformance with the voluntary
standard.
C. IRFA Issues Raised in the Public
Comments
The IRFA requested public feedback
on three questions:
1. What actions might firms take to
bring their booster seats into compliance
with the proposed rule? What costs
might be associated with those actions?
11 These cost estimates are for testing compliance
with the physical or mechanical requirements in
the standard only. Manufacturers and importers of
booster seats are already subject to third party
testing requirements with respect to lead content.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2. What are the differences between
food-service and home-use booster seats
and their typical use environments
(restaurants and homes)? How might the
safety risks vary between the two use
environments? Are there any alternative
requirements that might address these
risk variations and make booster seats
safer in both use environments?
3. What is the appropriate effective
date for the proposed rule?
CPSC did not receive public comment
in response to question one. CPSC did
receive comments on questions 2 and 3.
Comment summaries and the
Commission’s responses appear in
section V of this preamble.
D. The Market for Booster Seats
The market for booster seats was
outlined in section II.B. Under U.S.
Small Business Administration (SBA)
guidelines, a manufacturer of booster
seats is considered small if it has 500 or
fewer employees; and importers are
considered small if they have 100 or
fewer employees. CPSC limited its
regulatory flexibility analysis to
domestic firms because SBA guidelines
and definitions pertain to U.S.-based
entities. Based on these guidelines, 29 of
44 domestic firms are small—19
domestic manufacturers, 9 domestic
importers, and 1 domestic firm whose
supply source could not be categorized.
Additional small domestic booster seat
suppliers may be operating in the U.S.
market, possibly including some of the
firms operating online storefronts. As
discussed in the FRFA, staff expects
impacts of the final rule to be small for
online suppliers that staff could not
readily identify as domestic; therefore,
they are not included in the analysis.
E. Impact on Small Businesses
1. Small Manufacturers
a. Small Manufacturers With Compliant
Booster Seats
Of the 19 small manufacturers, eight
produce booster seats that comply with
the ASTM voluntary standard currently
in effect for testing purposes (ASTM
F2640–17ε1).12 13 ASTM F2640–
12 The Juvenile Products Manufacturers
Association (JPMA) has certification programs for
several durable infant products with voluntary
ASTM standards. Typically, JPMA’s certification
program has a 6-month delay between publication
of a new ASTM voluntary standard and its adoption
for compliance testing under their program.
Published in March 2017, ASTM F2640–17ε1 went
into effect, for JPMA testing purposes, in September
2017. ASTM F2640–18 will be in effect for JPMA
testing before the mandatory booster seat standard
goes into effect. Therefore, compliant firms are
expected to remain compliant.
13 In this case, four of the firms with compliant
booster seats are part of JPMA’s certification
program, while the other four firms claim
E:\FR\FM\02JYR1.SGM
02JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
18, the version of the voluntary standard
upon which the final rule is based, for
JPMA certification testing purposes, will
be in effect in November 2018. The new
version of the standard (ASTM F2640–
18) addresses booster seats that hang
from the back of the adult chair and
ensures that the maximum booster seat
dimensions test is performed while in
the manufacturer’s recommended
installation configuration. In general,
the Commission expects that small
manufacturers whose booster seats
already comply with the voluntary
standard currently in effect for testing
purposes will remain compliant with
the voluntary standard as it evolves,
because they follow, and in five cases,
actively participate in, the development
of the ASTM voluntary standard.
Therefore, for these small
manufacturers, compliance with the
voluntary standard is part of an
established business practice. As such,
the Commission does not expect the
final rule to have a significant impact on
any of the eight small manufacturers
with booster seats expected to meet the
requirements of the voluntary standard.
Additionally, because these firms
already test to the ASTM standard, the
Commission expects that any third party
testing costs will be minimal.
b. Small Manufacturers With
Noncompliant Booster Seats
Eleven small manufacturers produce
booster seats that do not comply with
the voluntary standard, five of which
produce food-service booster seats, and
six that produce booster seats for home
use. CPSC staff cannot determine the
extent of the changes and the cost of the
changes required for the booster seats of
these 11 firms to come into compliance
with the final rule. For all 11 small
manufacturing firms producing booster
seats that do not meet the voluntary
standard, the cost of redesigning the
products could exceed 1 percent of the
firm’s revenue. Overall, staff cannot rule
out a significant economic impact on
any of the 11 small manufacturers
producing noncompliant booster seats.
Additionally, of 11 firms, staff estimates
that the impact of third party testing
could result in significant costs for six
firms.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
2. Small Importers
a. Small Importers With Compliant
Booster Seats
Staff identified two booster seat
importers currently in compliance with
the voluntary standard. Staff expects
compliance based on testing performed to the
ASTM standard performed outside of the JPMA
certification program.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 29, 2018
Jkt 244001
that small importers, like manufacturers
whose booster seats already comply
with the voluntary standard currently in
effect for testing purposes, will remain
compliant with the voluntary standard
as it evolves, because these small
importers follow the standard
development process. Therefore, these
firms are likely already to be in
compliance, and the final rule should
not have a significant impact on either
of the small importers with compliant
booster seats. Any third party testing
costs for importers of compliant booster
seats would be limited to the
incremental costs associated with third
party testing beyond their current
testing regime. Staff does not expect
significant impacts to result from
incremental testing costs.
b. Small Importers With Noncompliant
Booster Seats
Staff does not have sufficient
information to rule out a significant
impact from the final rule for any of the
seven importers with noncompliant
booster seats. The economic impact on
importers depends on the extent of the
changes required to come into
compliance and the responses of their
supplying firms, which staff cannot
generally determine for noncompliant
importers. Third party testing and
certification to the final rule could
impose significant costs for three of the
seven firms with booster seats believed
not to comply with the ASTM standard.
However, third party testing costs are
unlikely to be greater than 1 percent of
the firms’ gross revenues for the
remaining four firms.
3. Small Unknown Firm Type With
Noncompliant Booster Seats
For one firm identified as a supplier
of noncompliant booster seats in the
U.S. market, staff is unable to determine
whether the firm is a manufacturer or an
importer, and thus, staff does not have
sufficient information to rule out the
possibility that modifications required
to come into compliance with the rule
could result in a significant impact (i.e.,
greater than 1 percent of revenues) on
this small noncompliant firm.
4. Summary of Impacts
The Commission is aware of 29 small
firms, including 19 domestic
manufacturers, nine domestic importers,
and one firm of unknown type,
currently marketing booster seats in the
United States. Based on the foregoing,
the Commission concludes that it is
unlikely that there would be a
significant economic impact on the
eight small manufacturers and two
small importers of compliant booster
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30847
seats. However, the Commission cannot
rule out a significant economic impact
for any of the 19 suppliers of
noncompliant booster seats (11
manufacturers, seven importers, and
one unknown type).
F. Efforts To Minimize the Impact on
Small Entities
The NPR proposed an effective date
12 months after the publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register. CPSC
received two comments requesting a
later effective date, including one from
a food-service booster seat manufacturer
who requested a 2-year effective date,
stating they needed more time to
develop and build the new tooling that
would be required to meet the
mandatory standard. As discussed in
sections V (comment 6) and IX of this
preamble, the Commission agrees that a
later effective date would reduce the
economic impact of the final rule on
firms. Firms would have more time to
adjust their designs and tooling and
thus, less likely to experience a lapse in
production/importation, which could
result if they were unable to produce or
locate suppliers within the required
timeframe. Additionally, firms could
spread these costs of compliance over a
longer time period, thereby reducing
their annual costs, as well as the present
value of their total costs. To help reduce
the impact on all small firms, as well as
specifically reduce the potential burden
on firms using molds that may require
iterative designs to meet the standard,
particularly where some work is
conducted overseas, the final rule
provides an 18-month effective date.
G. Small Business Impacts of the
Accreditation Requirements for Testing
Laboratories
In accordance with section 14 of the
CPSA, all children’s products that are
subject to a children’s product safety
rule must be tested by a CPSC-accepted
third party conformity assessment body
(i.e., testing laboratory) for compliance
with applicable children’s product
safety rules. Testing laboratories that
want to conduct this testing must meet
the notice of requirements (NOR)
pertaining to third party conformity
testing. NORs have been codified for
existing rules at 16 CFR part 1112 (1112
rule). Consequently, the Commission
will amend the 1112 rule to establish
the NOR for testing laboratories that
want accreditation to test for
compliance with the booster seats final
rule. This section assesses the impact of
the amendment on small laboratories.
The Commission certified in the NPR
that the proposed NOR would not have
E:\FR\FM\02JYR1.SGM
02JYR1
30848
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
a significant 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;
• Only firms that anticipated
receiving sufficient revenue from the
mandated testing to justify accepting the
requirements would provide testing
services; and
• Most of these laboratories will
already be accredited to test for
conformance to other juvenile product
standards, and the only costs to them
would be the cost of adding the
children’s booster seats standard to their
scope of accreditation.
No substantive changes in these facts
have occurred since the NPR was
published, and CPSC did not receive
any comments regarding the NOR.
Therefore, for the final rule, the
Commission continues to certify that
amending part 1112 to include the NOR
for the booster seats final rule will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small
laboratories.
XI. Environmental Considerations
The Commission’s regulations address
whether the agency is required to
prepare an environmental assessment or
an environmental impact statement.
Under these regulations, certain
categories of CPSC actions normally
have ‘‘little or no potential for affecting
the human environment,’’ and therefore,
they do not require an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact
statement. Safety standards providing
requirements for products come under
this categorical exclusion. 16 CFR
1021.5(c)(1). The final rule for booster
seats falls within the categorical
exclusion.
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act
The final rule for booster seats
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
(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The preamble to
the proposed rule (82 FR 22932–33)
discussed the information collection
burden of the proposed rule and
specifically requested comments on the
accuracy of our estimates. OMB has not
yet assigned a control number for this
information collection. We did not
receive any comment regarding the
information collection burden of the
proposal. However, the final rule makes
modifications regarding the information
collection burden because the number
of estimated manufacturers subject to
the information collection burden is
now estimated at 46 manufacturers,
rather than the 49 manufacturers
initially estimated in the proposed rule,
and the number of models tested has
increased from two models in the NPR,
to three models for the final rule.
Accordingly, the estimated burden of
this collection of information is
modified as follows:
TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN
Number of
respondents
Frequency of
responses
Total annual
responses
Hours per
response
Total burden
Hours
1237 .....................................................................................
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
16 CFR section
46
3
138
1
138
Our estimate is based on the
following:
Section 8.1 of ASTM F640–18
requires that all booster seats and their
retail packaging be permanently marked
or labeled as follows: The manufacturer,
distributor, or seller name, place of
business (city, state, mailing address,
including zip code), and telephone
number; and a code mark or other
means that identifies the date (month
and year as a minimum) of manufacture.
CPSC is aware of 46 firms that supply
booster seats in the U.S. market. For
PRA purposes, we assume that all 46
firms use labels on their products and
on their packaging already. All firms
will need to make some modifications to
their existing labels. We estimate that
the time required to make these
modifications is about 1 hour per
model. Each of the 46 firms supplies, on
average, test slightly more than 2.5
different models of booster seats per
year. Accordingly, for this estimate we
round the number of models to three.
Therefore, we estimate the burden hours
associated with labels to be 138 hours
annually (1 hour × 46 firms × 3 models
per firm = 138 hours annually).
We estimate the hourly compensation
for the time required to create and
update labels is $32.47 (U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, ‘‘Employer Costs for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 29, 2018
Jkt 244001
Employee Compensation,’’ December
2017, Table 9, total compensation for all
sales and office workers in goodsproducing private industries: https://
www.bls.gov/ncs/). Therefore, we
estimate the annual cost to industry
associated with the labeling
requirements in the final rule to be
approximately $4,481 ($32.47 per hour
× 138 hours = $4,480.86). This
collection of information does not
require operating, maintenance, or
capital costs.
Section 9.1 of ASTM F2640–18
requires instructions to be supplied
with the product. Under the OMB’s
regulations (5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)), the
time, effort, and financial resources
necessary to comply with a collection of
information that would be incurred by
persons in the ‘‘normal course of their
activities’’ are excluded from a burden
estimate, where an agency demonstrates
that the disclosure activities required to
comply are ‘‘usual and customary.’’ We
are unaware of booster seats that
generally require use instructions but
lack such instructions. Therefore, we
estimate that no burden hours are
associated with section 9.1 of ASTM
F2640–18, because any burden
associated with supplying instructions
with booster seats would be ‘‘usual and
customary’’ and not within the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
definition of ‘‘burden’’ under the OMB’s
regulations.
In compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we have submitted the
information collection requirements of
this final rule to the OMB.
XIII. Preemption
Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2075(a), provides that when a consumer
product safety standard is in effect and
applies to a product, no state or political
subdivision of a state may either
establish or continue in effect a
requirement dealing with the same risk
of injury unless the state requirement is
identical to the federal standard. Section
26(c) of the CPSA also provides that
states or political subdivisions of states
may apply to the Commission for an
exemption from this preemption under
certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of
the CPSIA refers to the rules to be
issued under that section as ‘‘consumer
product safety rules.’’ Therefore, the
preemption provision of section 26(a) of
the CPSA applies to this final rule
issued under section 104.
E:\FR\FM\02JYR1.SGM
02JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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 1237
Consumer protection, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Infants and
children, Labeling, Law enforcement,
and Toys.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Commission amends 16
CFR parts 1112 and 1237 as follows:
PART 1112—REQUIREMENTS
PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY
CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT BODIES
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: www.archives.gov/
federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018–14133 Filed 6–29–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
20 CFR Parts 404 and 416
[Docket No. SSA–2013–0044]
■
1. The authority citation for part 1112
continues to read as follows:
RIN 0960–AH63
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2063; Pub. L. 110–
314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008).
Rules of Conduct and Standards of
Responsibility for Appointed
Representatives
2. Amend § 1112.15 by adding
paragraph (b)(47) to read as follows:
■
§ 1112.15 When can a third party
conformity assessment body apply for
CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule
and/or test method?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(47) 16 CFR part 1237, Safety
Standard for Booster Seats.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Add part 1237 to read as follows:
PART 1237—SAFETY STANDARD FOR
BOOSTER SEATS
Sec.
1237.1
1237.2
Scope.
Requirements for booster seats.
Authority: Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110–314, 122
Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Sec. 3, Pub. L.
112–28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).
§ 1237.1
Scope.
This part establishes a consumer
product safety standard for booster
seats.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
§ 1237.2
Requirements for booster seats.
Each booster seat must comply with
all applicable provisions of ASTM
F2640–18, Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Booster Seats
(approved on April 1, 2018). 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. You may inspect a copy
at the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 29, 2018
Jkt 244001
Social Security Administration.
Final rules.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
We are revising our rules of
conduct and standards of responsibility
for representatives. We are also
updating and clarifying the procedures
we use when we bring charges against
a representative for violating these rules
and standards. These changes are
necessary to better protect the integrity
of our administrative process and to
further clarify representatives’ existing
responsibilities in their conduct with
us. The revisions should not be
interpreted to suggest that any specific
conduct was permissible under our
rules prior to these changes; instead, we
seek to ensure that our rules of conduct
and standards of responsibility are
clearer as a whole and directly address
a broader range of inappropriate
conduct.
DATES: These final rules will be effective
August 1, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah Taheri, Office of Appellate
Operations, Social Security
Administration, 5107 Leesburg Pike,
Falls Church, VA 22041, (703) 605–
7100. For information on eligibility or
filing for benefits, call our national tollfree number, 1–800–772–1213 or TTY
1–800–325–0778, or visit our internet
site, Social Security Online, at https://
www.socialsecurity.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
Although the vast majority of
representatives conducting business
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30849
before us on behalf of Social Security
beneficiaries and claimants ethically
and conscientiously assist their clients,
we are concerned that some
representatives are using our processes
in a way that undermines the integrity
of our programs and harms claimants.
Accordingly, we are clarifying that
certain actions are prohibited, and we
are providing additional means to
address representative actions that do
not serve the best interests of claimants.
On August 16, 2016,1 we published a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
in the Federal Register in which we
proposed clarifications and revisions to
our rules of conduct for representatives.
To the extent that we adopt a proposed
change as final without revision, and we
already discussed at length the reason
for and details of the proposal, we will
not repeat that information here.
In response to the NPRM, we received
154 timely submitted comments that
addressed issues within the scope of our
proposed rules. Based on those
comments, we are modifying some of
our proposed changes to address
concerns that commenters raised. We
have also made editorial changes
consistent with plain language writing
requirements. We made conforming
changes in other sections not originally
edited in the NPRM. Finally, we made
changes to ensure correct paragraph
punctuation in §§ 404.1740 and
416.1540; a nomenclature change to
reflect the organization of our agency in
§§ 404.1765(b)(1) and 416.1565(b)(1);
and updated a cross-reference in
§§ 404.1755 and 416.1555 that refers to
§§ 404.1745 and 416.1545, sections
reorganized and rewritten in the NPRM
and codified in the final rule.
Public Comments and Discussion
Comment: Some commenters
suggested that our proposed rules would
deter potential representatives from
representing claimants in Social
Security matters.
Response: These rules reflect our
interest in protecting claimants and
ensuring the integrity of our
administrative process, and they do not
impose unreasonable standards of
conduct. These additional rules of
conduct should not deter competent,
knowledgeable, and principled
representatives.
Comment: Some commenters objected
to the provision in proposed
§ 404.1705(b)(4) and 416.1505(b)(4),
which includes ‘‘persons convicted of a
1 81 FR 54520. https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2016/08/16/2016-19384/revisions-torules-of-conduct-and-standards-of-responsibilityfor-appointed-representatives.
E:\FR\FM\02JYR1.SGM
02JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30837-30849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14133]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1237
[CPSC Docket No. 2017-0023]
Safety Standard for Booster Seats
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of
2008 (CPSIA), the U.S. Consumer
[[Page 30838]]
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is issuing this final rule
establishing a safety standard for booster seats. The Commission is
also amending its regulations regarding third party conformity
assessment bodies to include the safety standard for booster seats in
the list of notices of requirements (NORs).
DATES: This rule will become effective January 2, 2020. The
incorporation by reference of the publication listed in this rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as January 2, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keysha Walker, Lead Compliance
Officer, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: 301-504-6820; email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Statutory Authority
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 and toddler
products. Standards issued under section 104 of the CPSIA are to be
``substantially the same as'' the 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 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,'' and the statute specifies 12 categories of products
that are included in the definition, including various types of
children's chairs. Section 104(f)(2)(C) of the CPSIA specifically
identifies ``booster chairs'' as a durable infant or toddler product.
Additionally, the Commission's regulation requiring product
registration cards defines ``booster seats'' as a durable infant or
toddler product subject to the registration card rule. 74 FR 68668
(Dec. 29, 2009); 16 CFR 1130.2(a)(3).
As required by section 104(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA, the Commission
consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations,
laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and the public to
develop this rule, largely through the ASTM process. On May 19, 2017,
the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for booster
seats.\1\ 82 FR 22925. The NPR proposed to incorporate by reference the
voluntary standard, without modification, developed by ASTM
International, ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\, Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Booster Seats (ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Staff's May 3, 2017 Briefing Package for the NPR (Staff's
NPR Briefing Package) is available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Notice%20of%20Proposed%20Rulemaking%20-%20Booster%20Seats%20-%20May%203%202017.pdf?97pmoM5UAGyQBBPFtTPyvFu_RjCZMAwL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this document, the Commission is issuing a final mandatory
consumer product safety standard for booster seats. Since the NPR
published, ASTM approved (April 1, 2018) and published (April, 2018)
the current version of the voluntary standard for booster seats, ASTM
F2640-18, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats
(ASTM F2640-18), with three changes from the previous version:
New performance and testing requirements for a new type of
booster seat that hangs from the back of an adult chair;
Clarification of the installation position for measuring a
booster seat on an adult chair; and
New warning statement in the instructional literature to
address booster seats that do not have a reclined position.
As set forth in section IV.C.2 of this preamble, the Commission finds
that each of these changes enhances the safety of booster seats.\2\
Accordingly, after the Commission's review and consideration of the
revised ASTM standard and the comments on the NPR, the final rule
incorporates by reference, without modification, the most recent
voluntary standard for booster seats, ASTM F2640-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Tabs B and C of the June 20, 2018 Staff's Draft Final Rule
for Booster Seats Under the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety
Notification Act (Staff's Final Rule Briefing Package) explain and
assess the new warning statement and the performance and testing
requirements in the standard. The Staff's Final Rule Briefing
Package is available at https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Final%20Rule%20-%20Safety%20Standard%20for%20Booster%20Seats%20-%20June%2020%202018.pdf?cCIgKaAyOt3nn.yeNTa5f8rpH7DsJB0v.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the final rule amends the list of notices of
requirements (NORs) issued by the Commission in 16 CFR part 1112 to
include the standard for booster seats. Under section 14 of the CPSA,
the Commission promulgated 16 CFR part 1112 to establish requirements
for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or
testing laboratories) to test for conformity with a children's product
safety rule. Amending part 1112 adds an NOR for the booster seat
standard to the list of children's product safety rules.
II. Product Information
A. Definition of ``Booster Seat''
ASTM F2640-18 defines a ``booster seat'' as:
a juvenile chair, which is placed on an adult chair to elevate a
child to standard dining table height. The booster seat is made for
the purpose of containing a child, up to 5 years of age, and
normally for the purposes of feeding or eating. A booster seat may
be height adjustable and include a reclined position.
Booster seats may be constructed from a wide variety of materials,
including wood, plastic, fabric, metal, and/or foam. Most booster
seats, notably those intended for home use, have removable trays,
allowing a table to be used as an alternative eating surface. Some
booster seats are intended to double as floor seats for toddlers, and
others are high chair/booster seat combination products. The ASTM
standard covers combination products when the product is in a booster
seat configuration.
The definition of ``booster seat'' in ASTM F2640-18 is broad and
includes within the scope of the standard booster seats that are
designed specifically for use in restaurants. Several suppliers sell
these ``food-service'' booster seats directly to restaurants or through
restaurant supply companies. Consumers also may purchase some of these
products directly, for example, through online third parties that act
as brokers between buyers and sellers. Consequently, consumers use
food-service booster seats in homes and in restaurant establishments
open to the public. The Commission agrees with the scope of ASTM F2640-
18, and is not excluding food-service booster seats from the final
rule.
The final rule for booster seats does not cover children's seats
intended for use in motor vehicles, which are also sometimes referred
to as ``booster seats.''
B. Market Description
CPSC staff identified 44 domestic firms supplying booster seats to
the U.S. market. Thirty-four (34) domestic firms market their booster
seats exclusively to consumers, while ten (10) domestic firms sell
booster seats exclusively to restaurant or restaurant supply stores
(usually through regional distributors or an internal portal). Sixteen
of the 34 domestic firms that sell exclusively to
[[Page 30839]]
consumers are compliant with the current voluntary standard for booster
seats. Of the 10 domestic firms selling food-service booster seats,
none are compliant with the ASTM voluntary standard. Of the 44 known
domestic suppliers, 29 are domestic manufacturers (10 large and 19
small), 14 are domestic importers (five large and nine small), and one
is a small domestic firm whose supply source staff could not
determine.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Staff made determinations using information from Dun &
Bradstreet and ReferenceUSAGov, as well as firm websites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff identified two foreign manufacturers selling directly to the
United States. Other foreign booster seats are entering the U.S. market
in a variety of ways as well. Staff found that online storefronts and
online retailers, acting as brokers between buyers and sellers, are the
source of a large number of booster seat products, particularly from
Asia and Europe. Products purchased through these websites are
sometimes shipped by the individual sellers. Often, staff cannot
determine whether an online seller is located in the United States, or
overseas, or whether the seller is a manufacturer, retailer, or
importer, which makes it difficult for staff to categorize these
companies for analysis. Staff found that European booster seats are
also entering the U.S. market through foreign retailers who are willing
to ship directly to the United States. Booster seats available online
from foreign suppliers are less likely to be compliant with the ASTM
voluntary standard.
III. Incident Data
A. CPSRMS Data
The data discussed in this section come from CPSC's Consumer
Product Safety Risk Management System (CPSRMS), which collects data
from consumer reports, medical examiners, other state and local
authorities, retailer reports, newspaper clippings, death certificates,
and follow-up CPSC In-Depth Investigations of reported incidents.\4\
From the CPSRMS, CPSC is aware of a total of 912 incidents (2 fatal and
152 nonfatal injuries) related to booster seats reported to have
occurred from January 1, 2008 through October 31, 2017.\5\ The 912
booster seat incidents include 45 new booster seat-related incidents
reported since publication of the NPR (collected between October 1,
2016 and October 31, 2017). None of the 45 newly reported incidents is
a fatality. All of the newly reported incidents fall within the same
hazard patterns identified in the NPR. Retailers and manufacturers
reporting through the CPSC's ``Retailer Reporting Program'' account for
93 percent of the newly reported incidents (42 out of 45 incidents).
CPSC received the remaining three incident reports from consumers using
SaferProducts.gov. CPSC Field staff conducted an In-Depth Investigation
on one of the newly reported incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These reported deaths and incidents do not provide a
complete count of all that occurred during this time period.
However, they do provide a minimum number of incidents occurring
during this period and illustrate the circumstances involved in the
incidents related to booster seats.
\5\ The NPR described incidents reported to have occurred from
January 1, 2008 through September 30, 2016. A detailed description
of these data can be found in Tab A of the Staff's NPR Briefing
Package.
Tab A of the Staff's Final Rule Briefing Package provides a
detailed description of the 45 newly reported incidents (collected
between October 1, 2016 and October 31, 2017). Fifty-three percent
of the 45 newly reported incidents were reported to have occurred
between October 2016 and October, 2017 (i.e., post-NPR timeframe).
The remaining 47 percent of newly reported incidents occurred during
the timeframe covered in the NPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Fatalities
CPSC received reports of two fatalities associated with the use of
a booster seat. Both incidents occurred in 2013 and were described in
the NPR:
[ssquf] In one incident, a 22-month-old female, sitting on a
booster seat attached to an adult chair, pushed off from the table and
tipped the adult chair backwards into a glass panel of a china cabinet
behind her. The cause of death was listed as ``exsanguination due to
hemorrhage from incised wound.''
[ssquf] In the other incident, a 4-year-old male fell from a
booster seat to the floor; he seemed uninjured at the time, but later
that evening while riding his bike, the child fell, became
unresponsive, and later died. The cause of death was multiple blunt
force trauma.
2. Nonfatalities
CPSC is aware of 152 booster seat nonfatal injury incidents
occurring between January 1, 2008 and October 31, 2017 (146 incidents
reported in the NPR and 6 newly reported incidents). A majority of
these incidents involved children 18 months and younger. The severity
of the injury types among the 152 reported injuries are described
below:
[ssquf] Five children required a hospital admission. The injuries
were skull fractures, concussions, and other head injuries.
[ssquf] Another 22 children were treated and released from a
hospital emergency department (ED) for injuries resulting mostly from
falls.
[ssquf] The remaining incidents primarily involved contusions,
abrasions, and lacerations, due to falls or entrapment of limbs/
extremities.
No injury occurred, or the report did not mention an injury
occurring, for the remaining 758 incident reports (719 incidents
reported in the NPR and 39 newly reported incidents). However, CPSC
staff's review of these incident report descriptions indicates the
potential for a serious injury or even death.
B. Hazard Pattern Identification
CPSC considered all 912 reported incidents to identify the
following hazard patterns associated with booster seats:
1. Restraint/Attachment Problems (37%): 339 incidents (317
incidents reported in the NPR and 22 newly reported incidents) involved
the mechanism for attaching a booster seat to an adult chair, or the
restraint system that contains the child within the booster seat.
Issues with the attachment mechanism included anchor buckles/clasps/
straps breaking, tearing, fraying, detaching or releasing. Restraint-
system problems included: buckles/prongs breaking, jamming, releasing
too easily, or separating from straps; straps tearing or fraying,
pinching, or coming undone; and general inadequacy or ineffectiveness
of restraints in containing the child in place. In 21 incident reports,
staff could not determine from the report if the buckle or strap
referred to in the report meant the restraint or the attachment system.
In eight of the incident reports, both systems were reported to have
failed. Thirty-seven injuries (all reported in the NPR) are included in
this category, of which seven were treated at a hospital ED.
2. Seat-Related Issues (28%): 255 incidents (254 incidents reported
in the NPR and 1 newly reported incident) involved seat-related issues.
These incidents included failure of the lock/latch that controls the
seat-recline function; tearing, cracking, and/or peeling seat pads;
detaching seat backs; failure of seat height adjustment lock/latches;
and seats detaching from the base of certain models. Twenty-two
injuries are included in this category: Three resulting in
hospitalization and five ED-treated injuries. The newly reported
incident involved the booster seatback detaching altogether, allowing
the child to fall and sustain multiple skull fractures, requiring
hospitalization.
3. Tray-Related Issues (21%): 189 incidents (171 incidents reported
in the NPR and 18 newly reported incidents) involved issues related to
booster seat trays. These incidents included tray
[[Page 30840]]
paint finish peeling off, trays failing to lock/stay locked, trays with
sharp protrusions on the underside, trays too tight/difficult to
release, and trays pinching fingers. These incidents also included
complaints about broken toy accessories, which are usually attached to
the tray (or tray insert). Thirty-eight injuries are included in this
category, including one that required ED treatment.
4. Design Problems (3.8%): 35 incidents (33 discussed in the NPR
and 2 newly reported) involved a potential entrapment hazard due to the
design of the booster seat. Most of these incidents involved limbs,
fingers, and toes entrapped in spaces/openings between the armrest and
seat back/tray, between the passive crotch-restraint bar and the seat/
tray, between the tray inserts, or in toy accessories. Sixteen injuries
were included in this category, two requiring ED treatment.
5. Stability-Related Issues (3.4%): 31 incidents, discussed in the
NPR, involved booster seat stability. Most of these incidents (27 of
31) concerned the adult chair to which the booster seat was attached
tipping back or tipping over. Some of these incidents resulted from the
child pushing back from the table or counter. Twenty-two injuries
(including two hospitalizations and five ED-treated injuries) and one
fatality are included in this category.
6. Armrest Problems (2.6%): 24 incidents, discussed in the NPR,
involved booster seat armrests cracking or breaking. In a few cases,
the armrest reportedly arrived broken inside the booster seat
packaging. One injury is included in this category.
7. Miscellaneous Product Issues (1.9%): 17 miscellaneous incidents
(16 incidents reported in the NPR and 1 newly reported incidents)
involved a variety of product-related issues, including unclear
assembly instructions, poor quality construction, odor, rough surface,
rough edges, breakage, or loose hardware at unspecified sites. One
incident report alleged that the poor design of the booster seat failed
to contain/support the child and led to a fall injury. Ten injuries
were included in this category, including two ED-treated injuries.
8. Combination of Multiple Issues (1.9%): 17 incidents, discussed
in the NPR, involved a combination of the product hazards listed above.
Four injuries were included in this category.
9. Unknown Issues (0.5%): Five incidents involved unknown issues (4
incidents reported in the NPR and 1 newly reported incident). In these
incidents, CPSC staff had insufficient information to determine how the
incidents occurred. One incident in this category, a fatality, reported
confounding factors that likely contributed to the death. Two other
injuries were reported in this category, including a fall injury.
C. NEISS Data
The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), a
statistically valid injury surveillance system,\6\ is the source of the
injury estimates discussed in this section. Since the NPR, new ED-
treated injury data have become available for 2016. However, the
estimates for 2016 are not reportable per NEISS publication
criteria.\7\ As such, the Commission presents the injury estimates and
injury characteristics for the aggregate data from 2008 through 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ NEISS injury data are gathered from EDs of hospitals
selected as a probability sample of all the U.S. hospitals with EDs
open 24 hours a day that have at least six beds. The surveillance
data gathered from the sample hospitals enable the CPSC staff to
make timely national estimates of the number of injuries associated
with specific consumer products.
Staff extracted all data coded under product code 1556
(Attachable high chairs including booster seats) for patients aged
under 5 years. Staff considered certain records out-of-scope for the
purposes of this memorandum. For example, staff excluded hook-on
chair-related incidents that are also covered under product code
1556 or car booster seats incorrectly coded as 1556; and also
considered out-of-scope a sibling or a pet knocking over the adult
chair holding the booster seat containing the child. Staff excluded
these records prior to deriving the statistical injury estimates.
\7\ According to the NEISS publication criteria, an estimate
must be 1,200 or greater, the sample size must be 20 or greater, and
the coefficient of variation must be 33 percent or smaller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPSC staff estimates a total of 12,000 injuries (sample size = 455,
coefficient of variation = 0.10) related to booster seats were treated
in U.S. hospital EDs over the 9-year period from 2008 through 2016.
NEISS data for 2017 is not complete at this point in time. Similar to
2016, staff cannot report injury estimates for some of the other
individual years because of the NEISS publication criteria. Note,
however, that staff did not observe any trend over the 9-year period
regarding injuries increasing or decreasing.
No deaths were reported through the NEISS. About 64 percent of the
injured were younger than 2 years of age; among the remaining, 24
percent, 8 percent, and 4 percent were 2-year-olds, 3-year-olds, and 4-
year-olds, respectively. For the ED-treated injuries related to booster
seats reported in the 9-year period, the following characteristics
occurred most frequently:
Hazard--falls out of the booster seat (97 percent). Most
of the falls were due to:
[cir] Unspecified circumstances (55 percent).
[cir] Unspecified tip overs (18 percent); tip overs due to child
pushing back or rocking in seat (6 percent).
[cir] Booster seat attachment or child-restraint mechanism failure/
defeat/non-use (8 percent).
Injured body part--head (58 percent), face (22 percent),
and mouth (7 percent).
Injury type--internal organ injury (40 percent),
lacerations (24 percent), and contusions/abrasions (19 percent).
Disposition--treated and released (about 98 percent).
Incidents in a Restaurant Setting. For the NPR, CPSC staff noted
that although most of the incidents occurred in home settings, one
incident report explicitly mentioned a restaurant where an infant was
using a booster seat provided by the establishment. Among the new
incidents that staff analyzed, none occurred at a restaurant.
Among the NEISS ED-treated injury data, from 2008 to 2016, 31
injury reports explicitly mentioned that the injury occurred in a
restaurant setting. Although these 31 reports are included in the
larger sample that yielded the total estimated number of injuries of
12,000, a national injury estimate for restaurant injuries only does
not meet the NEISS publication criteria and is not presented here.
Staff reviewed the injury characteristics in these reports, which
indicated that all of the injuries resulted from falls, but the
circumstances were unspecified for the most part. Staff cannot discern
from the injury reports whether the booster seats involved were
provided by the establishment.
D. Product Recalls
Compliance staff reviewed recalls of booster seats that occurred
from January 1, 2008 to May 30, 2018. During that time, two consumer-
level recalls involved booster seats. Both recalls involved a fall
hazard. One recalled product was associated with a fall hazard when the
stitching on the booster seat's restraint straps loosened, allowing the
straps to separate from the seat and the child to fall out of the seat.
Another recall involved the booster seat restraint buckle, which opened
unexpectedly, allowing a child to fall from the chair and be injured.
IV. Overview and Assessment of ASTM F2640
A. Overview of ASTM F2640
The voluntary standard for booster seats, ASTM F2640, Standard
Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats, is
[[Page 30841]]
intended to minimize the risk of injury or death to infants in booster
seats associated with falls from booster seats, tipping over or out of
booster seats, restraint disengagement or lack of a restraint system,
tray disengagement, booster seats stability while attached to an adult
chair, entrapments in booster seats, and other hazards such as cuts,
bruises, and lacerations. ASTM F2640 was first approved and published
in 2007, as ASTM F2640-07, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for
Booster Seats. ASTM has since revised the voluntary standard 11 times.
Tab C of Staff's Final Rule Briefing Package includes a description of
each revision through 2018.
The current version of the standard, ASTM F2640-18, was approved on
April 1, 2018, and published in April 2018. ASTM F2640-18 includes
three changes from the version of the standard proposed in the NPR,
ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\:
New performance and testing requirements for a new type of
booster seat that hangs from the back of an adult chair;
Clarification of the installation position for measuring a
booster seat on an adult chair; and
New warning statement in Instructional Literature to
address booster seats that do not have a recline position.
In section IV.C below, we describe and assess each change.
B. Description of ASTM F2640-18
ASTM F2640-18 includes these key provisions: Scope, terminology,
general requirements, performance requirements, test methods, marking
and labeling, and instructional literature.
Scope. This section describes what constitutes a ``booster seat.''
As stated in section II.A. of this preamble, the Scope section
describes a booster seat as ``a juvenile chair, which is placed on an
adult chair to elevate a child to standard dining table height.'' The
description further specifies appropriate ages for children using a
booster seat, stating, a ``booster seat is made for the purpose of
containing a child, up to 5 years of age, and normally for the purposes
of feeding or eating.''
Terminology. This section defines terms specific to this standard.
General Requirements. This section addresses numerous hazards with
several general requirements; most of these general requirements are
also found in the other ASTM juvenile product standards. The general
requirements included in this section are:
[ssquf] Sharp points or edges;
[ssquf] Small parts;
[ssquf] Wood parts;
[ssquf] Lead in paint;
[ssquf] Scissoring, shearing, and pinching;
[ssquf] Openings;
[ssquf] Exposed coil springs;
[ssquf] Protective components;
[ssquf] Labeling; and
[ssquf] Toys.
Performance Requirements and Test Methods. These sections contain
performance requirements specific to booster seats (discussed here) and
the required test methods to assess conformity with such requirements.
[ssquf] Tray impact test: This test assesses the tray's resistance
to breaking into small pieces or creating sharp points/edges when
dropped from a specified height.
[ssquf] Tray engagement test: This test assesses the tray's ability
to remain engaged to the booster seat when subjected to a specified
force horizontally and vertically.
[ssquf] Static load test: This test assesses whether the booster
seat can support its maximum recommended weight, by gradually applying
a static load on the center of the seating surface for a specified
amount of time.
[ssquf] Restraint system test: This test assesses whether the
restraint system can secure a child in the manufacturer's recommended-
use positions.
[ssquf] Seat attachment test: This test specifies that a booster
seat must have a means of attaching a booster seat to an adult chair
and assesses the booster seat's ability to remain fastened to the adult
chair when force is applied.
[ssquf] Structural integrity (dynamic load): This requirement
assesses the durability of the booster seat, including locking/latching
devices which prevent folding or adjustment of the booster seat.
[ssquf] Maximum booster seat dimensions: This requirement assesses
how large a booster seat can be in relation to the adult chair
dimensions specified on the booster seat's packaging.
Marking and Labeling. This section contains various requirements
related to warnings, labeling, and required markings for booster seats,
and it prescribes various substance, format, and prominence
requirements for this information.
Instructional Literature. This section requires that easily
readable and understandable instructions be provided with booster
seats. Additionally, the section contains requirements related to
instructional literature contents and format.
C. Assessment of ASTM F2640-18
CPSC staff identified 912 incidents (including two fatalities)
related to the use of booster seats. CPSC staff examined the incident
data, identified hazard patterns in the data, and worked with ASTM to
develop and update the performance requirements in ASTM F2640. The
incident data and identified hazard patterns formed the basis for ASTM
to develop ASTM F2640-18 with CPSC staff's support throughout the
process.\8\ The following section discusses how each of the identified
product-related issues or hazard patterns listed in section III.C. of
this preamble is addressed by the current voluntary standard, and it
also describes and assesses each of the three changes included in ASTM
F2640-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Assessment of ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\ in the NPR is at 82 FR
22928-29, and in Tab B of Staff's NPR Briefing Package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Adequacy of ASM F2640-18 To Address Hazard Patterns
a. Restraint/Attachment Problems
Restraint system and attachment problems included buckles/prongs
breaking, jamming, releasing too easily, or separating from straps;
straps tearing or fraying, pinching, or coming undone; and inadequacy
or ineffectiveness of restraints in containing the child in place,
Similarly, complaints about the seat attachment system involved anchor
buckles/clasps/straps breaking, tearing, fraying, detaching, or
releasing. The Commission has reviewed CPSC staff's evaluation of the
attachment and restraint system tests in ASTM F2640-18, and concludes
that these tests adequately address the identified hazards.
Section 6.5 of ASTM F2640-18 requires that a booster seat must have
a means of ``attaching'' to an adult chair, and be able to withstand a
specified force without becoming detached from the adult chair. Booster
seats may employ several methods to secure to an adult chair, including
straps, suction, and anti-skid bottoms or grip feet that minimize
slippage on the chair by means of friction. However, because ``grip
feet'' and ``friction bottoms'' do not actually attach (i.e., fasten)
the booster seat to an adult chair, the ASTM standard does not consider
these to be a means of securing or attaching booster seats to an adult
chair. The Commission agrees. Conversely, because suction physically
fastens the booster seat to an adult chair, the ASTM standard considers
suction to be a means of attachment under Section 6.5 of the current
ASTM standard. The Commission agrees with this as well. Accordingly,
the final rule requires any booster seat using suction as a means of
[[Page 30842]]
attachment to pass the attachment test to be compliant.
b. Seat-Related Issues
Seat-related issues included failure of the lock/latch that
controls the seat-recline function; seat pads tearing, cracking, and/or
peeling; seat backs detaching altogether; seat height adjustment lock/
latch failures; and seat detachment from the base that is available for
certain models. The Commission has reviewed CPSC staff's evaluation of
the static load and dynamic booster seat tests in ASTM F2640-18, and
concludes that these tests adequately address these hazards.
c. Tray-Related Issues
Tray-related issues included trays with paint finish peeling off,
trays failing to lock/stay locked, trays with sharp protrusions on the
underside, trays that were too tight/difficult to release, and trays
pinching fingers. The Commission has reviewed CPSC staff's evaluation
of the standard, and concludes that the general requirements section of
F2640-18 adequately addresses peeling paint, sharp protrusions, and
pinching hazards, and the standard's tray engagement test adequately
address the tray locking failures.
d. Design Problems
Booster seat design problems resulted in limbs, fingers, and toes
entrapped in spaces/openings between the armrest and seat back/tray,
between a passive crotch restraint bar and seat/tray, between tray
inserts, or in toy accessories. The Commission has reviewed CPSC
staff's evaluation of the general requirements of ASTM 2640-18 (namely
requirements relating to scissoring, shearing, and pinching, openings,
and toys) and concludes that the ASTM standard adequately addresses the
identified hazards.
e. Stability-Related Issues
Stability-related incidents included instances where the adult
chair, to which the booster seat was attached, tipped back or tipped
over. Addressing the stability of the booster seat while attached to an
adult chair is difficult in a standard for booster seats because
stability depends on the adult chair. The ASTM booster seat
subcommittee and CPSC staff worked diligently to find an effective
requirement to adequately address stability without specifying
requirements for the adult chair. Although ASTM F2640-18 does not
contain a performance requirement to address this hazard, it does
contain a labeling provision, requiring that booster seats must contain
a cautionary statement: ``Never allow a child to push away from
table.'' Moreover, ASTM F2640-18 requires a booster seat to identify on
the booster seat packaging the size of adult chair on which the booster
seat can fit, thereby allowing consumers to make a more informed
purchasing choice.
f. Armrest Problems
Armrest problems included booster seat armrests cracking, and in a
few cases, the armrest arriving to the consumer broken in the
packaging. The Commission has reviewed CPSC staff's evaluation of the
static and dynamic load tests contained in ASTM F2640-18, and concludes
that those tests adequately address armrest-related hazards.
g. Miscellaneous Product-Related Issues
Miscellaneous product-related issues included unclear assembly
instructions, poor quality construction, odor, rough surfaces,
breakage, or loose hardware at unspecified sites. The Commission has
reviewed CPSC staff's evaluation of the general requirements section,
as well as the instructional literature requirements of ASTM F2640-18,
and concludes that those requirements adequately address this hazard.
2. Description and Assessment of Changes in ASTM F2640-18
Below we describe each of the three changes in the voluntary
standard since publication of the NPR, as reflected in ASTM F2640-18.
The Commission finds that each of these requirements enhances the
safety of booster seats and strengthens the standard incorporated as
the final rule for booster seats.
a. New Performance and Testing Requirements for a New Type of Booster
Seat That Hangs From the Back of an Adult Chair
The new style of booster seat attaches to the adult chair
fundamentally differently than typical booster seats. This new design
can fold and is marketed as a travel booster seat. Typical booster
seats are placed on the seat of the chair and usually attached to the
seat and back with straps. Thus, the typical booster seat rests on the
chair seat and the adult chair seat bears all of the booster seat's
weight. The new style of booster seat has a frame that hangs over the
top of the adult chair seat back, usually with umbrella style hooks,
and has feet that rest on the seat of the adult chair. The child's
seating area is attached to the frame. Tab C of Staff's Final Rule
Briefing Package contains a picture of this design.
Section 6.7 of ASTM F2640-18 addresses this style of booster seat
and has two requirements. The first requirement states that, when in
all manufacturer's recommended use positions, the booster seat must not
tilt forward more than 10 degrees from the horizontal. This requirement
was added because a seat that is tilted forward too far may result in a
child falling out of the seat. The second requirement states that the
backrest support contact must contact the top of the adult chair
backrest and extend over and below the top rear edge of the adult chair
backrest. This requirement was added to ensure that the booster seat is
reasonably secure to the adult chair backrest so that the booster seat
does not fall off the adult chair.
Section 6.8 of ASTM F2640-18 addresses the maximum booster seat
dimensions. The previous version, ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\, also had a
section addressing maximum dimensions, but it did not include
requirements for the new, over-the-backrest-style booster seats. The
latest version incorporates the previous requirements, but it also
includes the requirements specific to this new style of booster seat.
b. Clarification of the Installation Position for Measuring a Booster
Seat on an Adult Chair
Section 7.10.1.1 of ASTM F2640-18 explains how to measure the
maximum booster seat dimension for both traditional and over-the-
backrest style booster seats and includes a diagram of a test fixture
to be used for over-the-backrest seats and a diagram of their proper
installation. This test protocol was added to provide clarity and
ensure that testing labs are performing the tests consistently.
c. New Warning Statement in Instructional Literature To Address Booster
Seats That Do Not Have a Recline Position
Section 9 (Instructional Literature) of F2640-18 contains a new
requirement, Section 9.5, stating that if the booster seat has no
recline feature, the instructions shall contain a statement addressing
that the product is only for children capable of sitting upright
unassisted.
D. International Standards for Booster Seats
The Commission is aware of one international voluntary standard
pertaining to booster seats, BS EN16120 Child Use and Care Articles--
Chair Mounted Seat. CPSC staff compared the performance requirements of
ASTM F2640-18 to the performance
[[Page 30843]]
requirements of BS EN16120, which is intended for a similar product
category, and identified several differences. Primarily, the scope of
ASTM F2640-18 includes products intended for children up to 5 years of
age, while EN 16120 is intended for products up to an age of 36 months,
or a maximum weight of 15 kg (33 lbs.).
Staff found that some individual requirements in the BS EN16120
standard are more stringent than ASTM F2640-18. For example, BS EN16120
includes requirements for head entrapment, lateral protection, surface
chemicals, cords/ribbons, material shrinkage, packaging film, and
monofilament threads. Staff did not identify any hazard patterns in
CPSC's incident data that such provisions could address. Conversely,
some individual requirements in ASTM F2640-18 are more stringent than
those found in EN 16120. For example, ASTM F2640-18 includes
requirements for tray performance and toy accessories. Currently, CPSC
is not aware of any technically feasible method to test for the most
prevalent and dangerous hazard pattern, falls resulting from tipping
over in an adult chair. However, CPSC staff will continue to monitor
hazard patterns and recommend future changes to the Commission, if
necessary.
V. Response to Comments
CPSC received eight comments on the NPR. Four commenters generally
supported the NPR. Two commenters requested that CPSC wait to finalize
the rule to include the next version of the voluntary standard, which
would include two open ASTM ballot items, including a new booster seat
design that attaches to an adult chair by hooking over the top back of
the chair. Two commenters stated that booster seats manufactured for
food-service establishments should be exempt from the mandatory
standard, or be subject to a different standard. Below we summarize and
respond to each significant issue raised by the commenters.
Comment 1: Two commenters stated that the Commission should not
issue a final rule until ASTM approves the next version of ASTM F2640.
The commenters stated that the 2018 version would clarify the intent of
the maximum booster seat dimension test and would address the new hook
on booster seat design.
Response 1: The Commission agrees with these commenters. The final
rule incorporates by reference the latest version of the voluntary
standard, ASTM F2640-18.
Comment 2: Two manufacturer commenters contended that food-service
booster seats should not be covered under ASTM F2640, with one
commenter proposing that a separate commercial standard be developed.
These commenters stated that food-service booster seats have simple
designs intended solely to be positioned easily alongside a dining
table, and raised to a height for a child to eat. Commenters noted
several elements that make food-service booster seats different from
home-use booster seats, including: (1) Less-confined designs to
accommodate bulky outerwear; (2) generally smaller size; (3) tray-less;
(4) not adjustable (no swiveling or reclining); and (5) typically use
attachment methods like anti-skid pads or raised rubber feet that can
accommodate restaurant seating, such as booths and benches, which belts
and straps cannot.
One manufacturer-commenter noted that the level of supervision over
children in restaurants is greater than in homes, where children may be
left unattended while eating. The commenter stated that this makes
food-service booster seat designs, which are completely appropriate for
restaurant use, potentially risky in home settings. Rather than
addressing this under the current regulation, however, the commenter
suggested a separate regulation for food-service booster seats that
focuses on elements that ensure proper use, such as more stringent
warnings and instructional literature (in particular not using food-
service booster seats outside of commercial settings, and not leaving
children unsupervised during use), as well as educating end users and
wait staff.
Consumer advocate-commenters agreed with the NPR that food-service
booster seats should be included under the mandatory standard because
these products are available for sale to consumers and consumers use
the products in restaurants, and these products should provide the same
measure of safety.
Response 2: The Commission recognized in the NPR that food-service
booster seats vary in design and where they will be used, and that the
attachment requirement in ASTM F2640 may require a design change for
some food-service booster seats. Accordingly, the NPR invited
commenters to provide information on the effects of making ASTM F2640-
17[epsiv]\1\'s attachment requirements mandatory on booster seats that
currently use grip feet/friction bottoms to secure the booster to the
surface upon which it sits. Additionally, the NPR solicited comments
regarding the capability of suction cups to comply with performance
requirements.
Although the Commission agrees that some differences exist between
food-service booster seats and booster seats intended for home-use, the
commenters did not provide sufficient, specific information to support
the assertion that food-service booster seats should not be covered
under ASTM F2640; nor did they provide cost estimates for varying
designs, other than generally stating that the process of compliance
would be costly and time intensive. Accordingly, despite CPSC staff's
interviews with affected parties, and after careful review of the
comments, the Commission has not identified any inherent differences
between the two products that would prevent food-service booster seats
from meeting the mandatory standard and remaining fundamentally the
same product. For example, although no food-service booster seats have
trays, trays are not required to meet the booster seat final rule. If a
booster seat does not have a tray, the requirements, tests, warnings,
and instructions related to trays are not required. As another example,
although it is true that anti-skid pads and raised rubber feet would
not be considered attachment methods under the mandatory standard, they
may still be used in addition to an attachment method like a belt,
strap, or suction cup. Food-service booster seats can likely meet the
new standard by adding a belt, for example, while retaining the anti-
slip mechanism they were using already.
Section 6.5 of ASTM F2640 (2017[epsiv]\1\ and 2018 versions)
requires a mechanism of attaching a booster seat to an adult chair, but
it does not require the attachment mechanism to be a strap. Although a
strap attachment would not work on a bench or booth, non-strap
attachment methods, such as suction cups, could be used to secure a
booster to a bench. Additionally, ASTM F2640 does not state any
specific requirements for booster seats used on a booth or bench-type
seating. Under the standard, booster seats are tested on an adult
chair. The standard requires the attachment method to withstand force
requirements. Although ``grip feet'' or ``friction bottoms'' are not a
sufficient means of fastening a booster seat to an adult chair, some
suction cups can be sufficient to withstand the force required in the
standard.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission rejects the assertion that
food-service booster seats should solely rely on warnings to prevent
falls in food-service booster seats. In a food-service environment,
booster seats are used on adult chairs and bench-style
[[Page 30844]]
seating. Adhering to the mandatory standard for booster seats will
ensure that food-service booster seats remain attached to adult chairs
under the testing protocol, but not impede using grip feet on bench
seating, if that is how manufacturers choose to address this issue.
Additionally, nothing in the final rule would prevent food-service
booster seat suppliers from providing additional warnings and
instructions, if they believe such information will improve the safety
their products.
Section 104 of the CPSIA requires the Commission to promulgate a
booster seat standard that is either ``substantially the same as'' the
voluntary standard or ``more stringent than'' the voluntary standard if
the more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury
associated with the product. Accordingly, CPSC's mandatory standard
could only provide requirements for food-service booster seats that
differ from the ASTM standard, if those different requirements
strengthen the standard and further reduce the risk of injury. The
commenters have not provided any safety rationale for excluding food-
service booster seats from the final rule. None of the suggestions
presented by commenters would result in a standard that is ``more
stringent than'' the voluntary standard. Therefore, the Commission is
not modifying the booster seat requirements for food-service booster
seats as part of the mandatory standard. However, as explained below,
in response to Comment 6, the final rule provides additional time to
comply with the new standard.
Comment 3: One commenter stated that to comply with the standard,
booster seats using suction as a means of attachment should be required
to pass the attachment test in ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\.
Response 3: The Commission agrees that regardless of the means of
attachment, all booster seats must meet the requirements in section 6.5
of the current voluntary standard, ASTM F2640-18. These requirements
include: Not allowing the booster seat to fall off the adult chair and
break, and remaining functional after applying a 45-pound force
horizontally to the center of the front of the booster seat five times.
The requirements do not prescribe how the seat should be attached to
the adult chair.
Comment 4: One commenter questioned the applicability of placing
warning labels on commercial booster seats because of size constraints
on restaurant style-booster seats. The commenter indicated that the
distance from the seat surface to the top of the side walls of the seat
range from 3 inches to 5 inches, which restricts the space for
labeling, and requests conspicuous labeling to include the seat
surface.
Response 4: The most recent version of the voluntary standard
applicable to booster seats, ASTM F2640-18, requires the warning label
to be conspicuous. A ``conspicuous label'' is defined in the standard
as a ``label which is visible, when the product is in the
manufacturer's recommended use position, to a person standing at the
sides or front of the booster seat'' (ASTM F2640-18, section 3.1.1).
Accordingly, the definition of ``conspicuous'' in the standard does not
preclude use of the seat surface for the warning label placement,
because the seat surface is visible to a person standing at the sides
or front of the booster seat.
Additionally, to address comments that a side wall height range of
3 inches to 5 inches would restrict warning placement, staff generated
mock warning labels that meet the ASTM F2640-18 requirement for signal
word and font size in section 8.4.5. Tab B of Staff's Final Rule
Briefing Package provides pictures of these mock warning labels.
Staff's mock-ups show that the label can be placed on products with
limited side wall space. Accordingly, manufacturers have the
flexibility to place the warning label on seat surface or on the seat
vertical wall.
Comment 5: One commenter urged CPSC to work with manufacturers to
use design and visual cues, such as pictograms, to ensure warnings are
conveyed effectively to those with limited or no English literacy.
Response 5: The Commission acknowledges that well-designed
graphics, such as pictograms, can be useful for consumers with limited
or no English literacy. However, the design of effective graphics can
be difficult. Some seemingly obvious graphics are poorly understood and
can give rise to interpretations that are the opposite of the intended
meaning (so-called ``critical confusions''). To avoid confusion, a
warning pictogram should be developed with an empirical study and
should also be well-tested on the target audience. Thus far, pictograms
have not been developed for booster-seat warning labels. In the future,
if CPSC staff advises that graphic symbols are needed to reduce the
risk of injury associated with these products, the Commission can
consider updating the mandatory standard to include pictograms.
Comment 6: The Commission received four comments on CPSC's proposed
12-month effective date for the booster seats mandatory standard. One
comment, submitted by three consumer advocacy groups, supported a 6-
month effective date (which they seem to believe mistakenly was the
Commission's proposal). Two commenters, a juvenile product
manufacturers' association and a private citizen, supported the
proposed 12-month effective date, although the private citizen said
that they would also support an even longer effective date to reduce
the economic impact on small firms. A fourth commenter, a small
manufacturer of food-service booster seats, suggested a 2-year
effective date to allow additional time for product development. The
commenter stated: ``compliance may require the costly and time
intensive process of developing and building new tooling to comply with
the Standard.''
In a follow-up call with Commission staff (a phone log is in
regulations.gov), the fourth commenter elaborated on the request for a
2-year effective date, stating that for their booster seats to come
into compliance with the revised ASTM standard, they will need to
design and test new plastic molds. Creating a new mold includes
researching and developing a new design, initial tool-building to
implement the design, and then testing the resulting product. The
commenter stated that the entire process takes longer for firms like
theirs because their mold-maker is located overseas. Consequently, if
changes to the mold are required after testing the new product, the
turnaround time is longer than if all the work were conducted in the
United States. According to the commenter, if the design process goes
perfectly, with no required changes, then their booster seats could be
redesigned in time to meet the 12-month effective date. The commenter
stated that the request for a 2-year effective date was based on the
design process for plastic molds and the potential need to create and
test several iterative designs.
Response 6: The Commission recognizes that longer effective dates
minimize the impact on affected firms. The initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) found that a significant economic impact
could not be ruled out for 69 percent of the small firms operating in
the U.S. market. Staff advised that many of those firms might not be
aware of the ASTM voluntary standard or the CPSC booster seats
rulemaking, particularly food-service booster seat suppliers, which
make up one-third of the small suppliers for
[[Page 30845]]
which a significant impact could not be ruled out. The information
supplied by the fourth commenter on the time and cost involved in
designing and producing new plastic molds is consistent with
information supplied by CPSC engineers, as is the longer time frame
required for firms conducting some of their redesign overseas. Staff
engineers have also indicated that foam products would require new
molds as well, which likely require similar cost and time investments.
Based on this information, the Commission concludes that a 12-month
effective date likely represents a ``best-case'' scenario for many
affected firms, and that 2 years likely represents a ``worst-case''
scenario for firms required to come into compliance. Firms designing
and/or testing their molds in the United States should be able to meet
shorter timelines, both in ``best-case'' and ``worst-case'' scenarios.
After considering the information provided by commenters, the
Commission is providing an 18-month effective date for all firms to
come into compliance with the final rule. An 18-month effective date
balances the need for improved consumer safety, with reducing the
impact of the final rule on small firms.
Although some firms using molds may require iterative designs to
meet the standard, the 2-year time estimate for product redesign using
molds applies in cases where a mold must be modified several times, and
the mold-redesign work is conducted overseas. Not all firms use molds,
not all firms have molds made overseas, and not all firms will
encounter sufficient difficulty with their molds to require a full 2
years to make their iterative changes. Additionally, not all products
will require a full redesign. Some products already meet the ASTM
voluntary standard and the anticipated product modifications (straps
and/or more secure means of attachment) in those cases are not complex
and should not fall within the ``worst-case'' scenario of a 2-year
design process.
Moreover, providing additional time for firms to come into
compliance reduces burden by allowing firms the time: (1) To spread out
design and testing costs over a longer period; (2) to come into
compliance if they are currently unaware of the voluntary standard or
the rulemaking; and (3) to redesign a plastic or foam product to
accommodate the design, tooling, and testing adjustments that may be
required during the product redesign process.
VI. Mandatory Standard for Booster Seats
As discussed in the previous section, the Commission concludes that
ASTM F2640-18 adequately addresses the hazards associated with booster
seats. Thus, the final rule incorporates by reference ASTM F2640-18,
without modification, as the mandatory safety standard for booster
seats.
VII. Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112 to Include NOR for Booster Seats
Standard
The CPSA establishes certain requirements for product certification
and testing. Products subject to a consumer product safety rule under
the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard or regulation under any
other act enforced by the Commission, must be certified as complying
with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a).
Certification of children's products subject to a children's product
safety rule must be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third
party conformity assessment body. 15 U.S.C. 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 to which a children's product is subject. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(3).
The Safety Standard for Booster Seats, to be codified at 16 CFR part
1237, is a children's product safety rule that requires the issuance of
an NOR.
The Commission published a final rule, Requirements Pertaining to
Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013),
which is codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (referred to here as part 1112).
Part 1112 became effective on June 10, 2013 and establishes
requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment
bodies (or laboratories) to test for conformance with a children's
product safety rule, in accordance with section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA.
Part 1112 also codifies a list of all of the NORs that the CPSC had
published at the time part 1112 was issued. All NORs issued after the
Commission published part 1112, such as the safety standard for booster
seats, require the Commission to amend part 1112. Accordingly, the
Commission is now amending part 1112 to include the safety standard for
booster seats in the list of other children's product safety rules for
which the CPSC has issued NORs.
Laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third party
conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for booster
seats are required to meet the third party conformity assessment body
accreditation requirements in part 1112. When a laboratory meets the
requirements as a CPSC-accepted third-party conformity assessment body,
the laboratory can apply to the CPSC to have 16 CFR part 1237, Safety
Standard for Booster Seats, included in its scope of accreditation of
CPSC safety rules listed for the laboratory on the CPSC website at:
www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
Section 1237.2 of the final rule provides that booster seats must
comply with applicable sections of ASTM F2640-18. The OFR has
regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. These
regulations require that, for a final rule, agencies must discuss in
the preamble to the rule the way in which materials that the agency
incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested
persons, and how interested parties can obtain the materials.
Additionally, the preamble to the rule must summarize the material. 1
CFR 51.5(b).
In accordance with the OFR's requirements, the discussion in
section IV of this preamble summarizes the required provisions of ASTM
F2640-18. Interested persons may purchase a copy of ASTM F2640-18 from
ASTM, either through ASTM's website, or by mail at the address provided
in the rule. A copy of the standard may also be inspected at the CPSC's
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Note
that the Commission and ASTM arranged for commenters to have ``read-
only'' access to ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\ during the NPR's comment
period.
IX. Effective Date
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 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). Typically, the Commission provides a 6-
month effective date for final rules issued for durable infant or
toddler products under section 104 of the CPSIA. However, in the NPR,
the Commission proposed that the booster seat rule be effective 12
months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, to
allow booster seat manufacturers additional time to bring their
products into compliance.
CPSC received several comments on the effective date of the final
rule, which are summarized in section V of this preamble, comment 6. As
explained there, the remolding process for plastic and foam booster
seats could take in ``best-case scenarios'' 12 months, but in
[[Page 30846]]
``worst-case scenarios'' the process could take up to 2 years.
Recognizing that worst-case scenarios are likely to be rare, the
Commission is providing an 18-month effective date for the final rule.
Moreover, as explained in the next section of the preamble, the
additional time reduces the impact of the rule on small businesses.
X. Regulatory Flexibility Act \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Tab D of Staff's Final Rule Briefing Package contains the
complete Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires
that agencies review a proposed rule and a final rule for the rule's
potential economic impact on small entities, including small
businesses. Section 604 of the RFA generally requires that agencies
prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) when
promulgating final rules, unless the head of the agency certifies that
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. For booster seats, staff cannot rule out a
significant economic impact for 19 of the 29 (66 percent) known small
domestic suppliers of booster seats to the U.S. market. Accordingly,
staff prepared a FRFA that is available at Tab D of the Staff's Final
Rule Briefing Package. We provide a summary of the FRFA below.
The Commission is aware of 29 small firms, including 19 domestic
manufacturers, nine domestic importers, and one firm of unknown type,
currently marketing booster seats in the United States. The Commission
concludes that it is unlikely that there would be a significant
economic impact on the eight small manufacturers and two small
importers of booster seats that comply with the current voluntary
standard for Juvenile Products Manufacturer's Association-(JPMA)
testing purposes, ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\.\10\ However, the Commission
cannot rule out a significant economic impact for 19 of the suppliers
of noncompliant booster seats (11 manufacturers, seven importers, and
one unknown type).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) has
certification programs for several durable infant products with
voluntary ASTM standards. Typically, JPMA's certification program
has a 6-month delay between the publication of a new ASTM voluntary
standard and its adoption for compliance testing under their
program. Published in March 2017, ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\ went into
effect for JPMA-testing purposes in September 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. The Product
Section II.A of this preamble defines ``booster seats'' and
discussed booster seat combination products. The final rule would cover
these products when they are in their booster seat configuration. Some
suppliers produce booster seats intended predominately for restaurant
use. As discussed in sections II.A and V (comment 2), the Commission
will include food-service booster seats in the final rule with the same
requirements as home-use booster seats. The prices for food-service and
home-use booster seats are similar, averaging $44 to $60. Not
surprisingly, combination high chair/booster seat products tend to be
more expensive, ranging in price from $50 to $250.
B. Final Rule Requirements and Third Party Testing
All booster seats manufactured after the final rule's effective
date must meet the requirements of the final rule (ASTM F2640-18 with
no modification). They will also need to be third party tested, as
described below.
Under section 14 of the CPSA, once the new booster seat
requirements become effective as a consumer product safety standard,
all suppliers will be subject to the third party testing and
certification requirements under the CPSA and the Testing and Labeling
Pertaining to Product Certification rule (16 CFR part 1107) (1107
rule), which require manufacturers and importers to certify that their
products comply with the applicable children's product safety
standards, based on third party testing, and subject their products to
third party testing periodically. Third party testing costs are in
addition to the costs of modifying the booster seats to meet the
standard. For booster seats, the third party testing costs are expected
to be $500 to $1,000 per sample tested, with the higher cost being more
applicable to the smallest suppliers.\11\ As the component part testing
rule allows (16 CFR part 1109), importers may rely upon third party
tests obtained by their suppliers, which could reduce the impact on
importers. The incremental costs would also be lower for suppliers of
compliant booster seats if they are already obtaining third party tests
to assure conformance with the voluntary standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ These cost estimates are for testing compliance with the
physical or mechanical requirements in the standard only.
Manufacturers and importers of booster seats are already subject to
third party testing requirements with respect to lead content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. IRFA Issues Raised in the Public Comments
The IRFA requested public feedback on three questions:
1. What actions might firms take to bring their booster seats into
compliance with the proposed rule? What costs might be associated with
those actions?
2. What are the differences between food-service and home-use
booster seats and their typical use environments (restaurants and
homes)? How might the safety risks vary between the two use
environments? Are there any alternative requirements that might address
these risk variations and make booster seats safer in both use
environments?
3. What is the appropriate effective date for the proposed rule?
CPSC did not receive public comment in response to question one.
CPSC did receive comments on questions 2 and 3. Comment summaries and
the Commission's responses appear in section V of this preamble.
D. The Market for Booster Seats
The market for booster seats was outlined in section II.B. Under
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines, a manufacturer of
booster seats is considered small if it has 500 or fewer employees; and
importers are considered small if they have 100 or fewer employees.
CPSC limited its regulatory flexibility analysis to domestic firms
because SBA guidelines and definitions pertain to U.S.-based entities.
Based on these guidelines, 29 of 44 domestic firms are small--19
domestic manufacturers, 9 domestic importers, and 1 domestic firm whose
supply source could not be categorized. Additional small domestic
booster seat suppliers may be operating in the U.S. market, possibly
including some of the firms operating online storefronts. As discussed
in the FRFA, staff expects impacts of the final rule to be small for
online suppliers that staff could not readily identify as domestic;
therefore, they are not included in the analysis.
E. Impact on Small Businesses
1. Small Manufacturers
a. Small Manufacturers With Compliant Booster Seats
Of the 19 small manufacturers, eight produce booster seats that
comply with the ASTM voluntary standard currently in effect for testing
purposes (ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\).12 13 ASTM F2640-
[[Page 30847]]
18, the version of the voluntary standard upon which the final rule is
based, for JPMA certification testing purposes, will be in effect in
November 2018. The new version of the standard (ASTM F2640-18)
addresses booster seats that hang from the back of the adult chair and
ensures that the maximum booster seat dimensions test is performed
while in the manufacturer's recommended installation configuration. In
general, the Commission expects that small manufacturers whose booster
seats already comply with the voluntary standard currently in effect
for testing purposes will remain compliant with the voluntary standard
as it evolves, because they follow, and in five cases, actively
participate in, the development of the ASTM voluntary standard.
Therefore, for these small manufacturers, compliance with the voluntary
standard is part of an established business practice. As such, the
Commission does not expect the final rule to have a significant impact
on any of the eight small manufacturers with booster seats expected to
meet the requirements of the voluntary standard. Additionally, because
these firms already test to the ASTM standard, the Commission expects
that any third party testing costs will be minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) has
certification programs for several durable infant products with
voluntary ASTM standards. Typically, JPMA's certification program
has a 6-month delay between publication of a new ASTM voluntary
standard and its adoption for compliance testing under their
program. Published in March 2017, ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\ went into
effect, for JPMA testing purposes, in September 2017. ASTM F2640-18
will be in effect for JPMA testing before the mandatory booster seat
standard goes into effect. Therefore, compliant firms are expected
to remain compliant.
\13\ In this case, four of the firms with compliant booster
seats are part of JPMA's certification program, while the other four
firms claim compliance based on testing performed to the ASTM
standard performed outside of the JPMA certification program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Small Manufacturers With Noncompliant Booster Seats
Eleven small manufacturers produce booster seats that do not comply
with the voluntary standard, five of which produce food-service booster
seats, and six that produce booster seats for home use. CPSC staff
cannot determine the extent of the changes and the cost of the changes
required for the booster seats of these 11 firms to come into
compliance with the final rule. For all 11 small manufacturing firms
producing booster seats that do not meet the voluntary standard, the
cost of redesigning the products could exceed 1 percent of the firm's
revenue. Overall, staff cannot rule out a significant economic impact
on any of the 11 small manufacturers producing noncompliant booster
seats. Additionally, of 11 firms, staff estimates that the impact of
third party testing could result in significant costs for six firms.
2. Small Importers
a. Small Importers With Compliant Booster Seats
Staff identified two booster seat importers currently in compliance
with the voluntary standard. Staff expects that small importers, like
manufacturers whose booster seats already comply with the voluntary
standard currently in effect for testing purposes, will remain
compliant with the voluntary standard as it evolves, because these
small importers follow the standard development process. Therefore,
these firms are likely already to be in compliance, and the final rule
should not have a significant impact on either of the small importers
with compliant booster seats. Any third party testing costs for
importers of compliant booster seats would be limited to the
incremental costs associated with third party testing beyond their
current testing regime. Staff does not expect significant impacts to
result from incremental testing costs.
b. Small Importers With Noncompliant Booster Seats
Staff does not have sufficient information to rule out a
significant impact from the final rule for any of the seven importers
with noncompliant booster seats. The economic impact on importers
depends on the extent of the changes required to come into compliance
and the responses of their supplying firms, which staff cannot
generally determine for noncompliant importers. Third party testing and
certification to the final rule could impose significant costs for
three of the seven firms with booster seats believed not to comply with
the ASTM standard. However, third party testing costs are unlikely to
be greater than 1 percent of the firms' gross revenues for the
remaining four firms.
3. Small Unknown Firm Type With Noncompliant Booster Seats
For one firm identified as a supplier of noncompliant booster seats
in the U.S. market, staff is unable to determine whether the firm is a
manufacturer or an importer, and thus, staff does not have sufficient
information to rule out the possibility that modifications required to
come into compliance with the rule could result in a significant impact
(i.e., greater than 1 percent of revenues) on this small noncompliant
firm.
4. Summary of Impacts
The Commission is aware of 29 small firms, including 19 domestic
manufacturers, nine domestic importers, and one firm of unknown type,
currently marketing booster seats in the United States. Based on the
foregoing, the Commission concludes that it is unlikely that there
would be a significant economic impact on the eight small manufacturers
and two small importers of compliant booster seats. However, the
Commission cannot rule out a significant economic impact for any of the
19 suppliers of noncompliant booster seats (11 manufacturers, seven
importers, and one unknown type).
F. Efforts To Minimize the Impact on Small Entities
The NPR proposed an effective date 12 months after the publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register. CPSC received two comments
requesting a later effective date, including one from a food-service
booster seat manufacturer who requested a 2-year effective date,
stating they needed more time to develop and build the new tooling that
would be required to meet the mandatory standard. As discussed in
sections V (comment 6) and IX of this preamble, the Commission agrees
that a later effective date would reduce the economic impact of the
final rule on firms. Firms would have more time to adjust their designs
and tooling and thus, less likely to experience a lapse in production/
importation, which could result if they were unable to produce or
locate suppliers within the required timeframe. Additionally, firms
could spread these costs of compliance over a longer time period,
thereby reducing their annual costs, as well as the present value of
their total costs. To help reduce the impact on all small firms, as
well as specifically reduce the potential burden on firms using molds
that may require iterative designs to meet the standard, particularly
where some work is conducted overseas, the final rule provides an 18-
month effective date.
G. Small Business Impacts of the Accreditation Requirements for Testing
Laboratories
In accordance with section 14 of the CPSA, all children's products
that are subject to a children's product safety rule must be tested by
a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body (i.e., testing
laboratory) for compliance with applicable children's product safety
rules. Testing laboratories that want to conduct this testing must meet
the notice of requirements (NOR) pertaining to third party conformity
testing. NORs have been codified for existing rules at 16 CFR part 1112
(1112 rule). Consequently, the Commission will amend the 1112 rule to
establish the NOR for testing laboratories that want accreditation to
test for compliance with the booster seats final rule. This section
assesses the impact of the amendment on small laboratories.
The Commission certified in the NPR that the proposed NOR would not
have
[[Page 30848]]
a significant 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;
Only firms that anticipated receiving sufficient revenue
from the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements would
provide testing services; and
Most of these laboratories will already be accredited to
test for conformance to other juvenile product standards, and the only
costs to them would be the cost of adding the children's booster seats
standard to their scope of accreditation.
No substantive changes in these facts have occurred since the NPR
was published, and CPSC did not receive any comments regarding the NOR.
Therefore, for the final rule, the Commission continues to certify that
amending part 1112 to include the NOR for the booster seats final rule
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
laboratories.
XI. Environmental Considerations
The Commission's regulations address whether the agency is required
to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact
statement. Under these regulations, certain categories of CPSC actions
normally have ``little or no potential for affecting the human
environment,'' and therefore, they do not require an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact statement. Safety standards
providing requirements for products come under this categorical
exclusion. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The final rule for booster seats falls
within the categorical exclusion.
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act
The final rule for booster seats 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 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The preamble to the proposed rule (82 FR
22932-33) discussed the information collection burden of the proposed
rule and specifically requested comments on the accuracy of our
estimates. OMB has not yet assigned a control number for this
information collection. We did not receive any comment regarding the
information collection burden of the proposal. However, the final rule
makes modifications regarding the information collection burden because
the number of estimated manufacturers subject to the information
collection burden is now estimated at 46 manufacturers, rather than the
49 manufacturers initially estimated in the proposed rule, and the
number of models tested has increased from two models in the NPR, to
three models for the final rule.
Accordingly, the estimated burden of this collection of information
is modified as follows:
Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Frequency of Total annual Hours per Total burden
16 CFR section respondents responses responses response Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1237............................................................... 46 3 138 1 138
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our estimate is based on the following:
Section 8.1 of ASTM F640-18 requires that all booster seats and
their retail packaging be permanently marked or labeled as follows: The
manufacturer, distributor, or seller name, place of business (city,
state, mailing address, including zip code), and telephone number; and
a code mark or other means that identifies the date (month and year as
a minimum) of manufacture.
CPSC is aware of 46 firms that supply booster seats in the U.S.
market. For PRA purposes, we assume that all 46 firms use labels on
their products and on their packaging already. All firms will need to
make some modifications to their existing labels. We estimate that the
time required to make these modifications is about 1 hour per model.
Each of the 46 firms supplies, on average, test slightly more than 2.5
different models of booster seats per year. Accordingly, for this
estimate we round the number of models to three. Therefore, we estimate
the burden hours associated with labels to be 138 hours annually (1
hour x 46 firms x 3 models per firm = 138 hours annually).
We estimate the hourly compensation for the time required to create
and update labels is $32.47 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,'' December 2017, Table 9,
total compensation for all sales and office workers in goods-producing
private industries: https://www.bls.gov/ncs/). Therefore, we estimate
the annual cost to industry associated with the labeling requirements
in the final rule to be approximately $4,481 ($32.47 per hour x 138
hours = $4,480.86). This collection of information does not require
operating, maintenance, or capital costs.
Section 9.1 of ASTM F2640-18 requires instructions to be supplied
with the product. Under the OMB's regulations (5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)), the
time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a
collection of information that would be incurred by persons in the
``normal course of their activities'' are excluded from a burden
estimate, where an agency demonstrates that the disclosure activities
required to comply are ``usual and customary.'' We are unaware of
booster seats that generally require use instructions but lack such
instructions. Therefore, we estimate that no burden hours are
associated with section 9.1 of ASTM F2640-18, because any burden
associated with supplying instructions with booster seats would be
``usual and customary'' and not within the definition of ``burden''
under the OMB's regulations.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we have submitted the information collection requirements of
this final rule to the OMB.
XIII. Preemption
Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that when a
consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product,
no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or
continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury
unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard.
Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political
subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption
from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of the
CPSIA refers to the rules to be issued under that section as ``consumer
product safety rules.'' Therefore, the preemption provision of section
26(a) of the CPSA applies to this final rule issued under section 104.
[[Page 30849]]
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 1237
Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants
and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, and Toys.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends 16
CFR parts 1112 and 1237 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: 15 U.S.C. 2063; Pub. L. 110-314, section 3, 122
Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008).
0
2. Amend Sec. 1112.15 by adding paragraph (b)(47) to read as follows:
Sec. 1112.15 When can a third party conformity assessment body apply
for CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule and/or test method?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(47) 16 CFR part 1237, Safety Standard for Booster Seats.
* * * * *
0
3. Add part 1237 to read as follows:
PART 1237--SAFETY STANDARD FOR BOOSTER SEATS
Sec.
1237.1 Scope.
1237.2 Requirements for booster seats.
Authority: Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August
14, 2008); Sec. 3, Pub. L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).
Sec. 1237.1 Scope.
This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for
booster seats.
Sec. 1237.2 Requirements for booster seats.
Each booster seat must comply with all applicable provisions of
ASTM F2640-18, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats
(approved on April 1, 2018). 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. 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: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-14133 Filed 6-29-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P