69144

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 216

Monday, November 9, 2015

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Information and Regulatory Affairs, the of the Danny Keysar Child Product contains notices to the public of the proposed Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Safety Notification Act, requires the issuance of rules and regulations. The CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–6974, Commission to: (1) examine and assess purpose of these notices is to give interested or emailed to oira_submission@ the effectiveness of voluntary consumer persons an opportunity to participate in the omb.eop.gov. product safety standards for durable rule making prior to the adoption of the final Other comments, identified by Docket rules. infant or toddler products, in No. CPSC–2015–0031, may be consultation with representatives of submitted electronically or in writing: consumer groups, juvenile product CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY Electronic Submissions: Submit manufacturers, and independent child COMMISSION electronic comments to the Federal product engineers and experts; and (2) eRulemaking Portal at: http:// promulgate consumer product safety 16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1231 www.regulations.gov. Follow the standards for durable infant or toddler instructions for submitting comments. [Docket No. CPSC–2015–0031] products. Any standard the Commission The Commission does not accept adopts under this directive must be Safety Standard for High Chairs comments submitted by electronic mail substantially the same as the applicable (email), except through voluntary standard or more stringent AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety www.regulations.gov. The Commission than the voluntary standard if the Commission. encourages you to submit electronic Commission determines that more ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. comments by using the Federal stringent requirements would further eRulemaking Portal, as described above. reduce the risk of injury associated with SUMMARY: The Danny Keysar Child Written Submissions: Submit written the product. Product Safety Notification Act, section comments by mail/hand delivery/ The term ‘‘durable infant or toddler 104(b) of the Consumer Product Safety courier to: Office of the Secretary, product’’ is defined in section 104(f)(1) Improvement Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’; Consumer Product Safety Commission, of the CPSIA as ‘‘a durable product Pub. L. 110–314, 122 Stat. 3016), Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, intended for use, or that may be requires the United States Consumer Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) reasonably expected to be used, by Product Safety Commission 504–7923. children under the age of 5 years.’’ (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘CPSC’’) to Instructions: All submissions received Section 104(f)(2)(C) of the CPSIA promulgate consumer product safety must include the agency name and specifically identifies high chairs as a standards for durable infant or toddler docket number for this proposed durable infant or toddler product. products. These standards must be rulemaking. All comments received may Pursuant to section 104(b)(1)(A) of the substantially the same as applicable be posted without change, including CPSIA, the Commission consulted with voluntary standards or more stringent any personal identifiers, contact representatives of manufacturers, than the voluntary standard if the information, or other personal consumer groups, consultants, retailers, Commission determines that more information provided, to: http:// industry trade groups, and government stringent requirements would further www.regulations.gov. Do not submit agencies in reviewing and assessing the reduce the risk of injury associated with confidential business information, trade effectiveness of the existing voluntary a product. In response to the direction secret information, or other sensitive or standard for high chairs, ASTM F404– under section 104(b) of the CPSIA, the protected information that you do not 15, largely through ASTM Commission is proposing a safety want to be available to the public. If International’s (‘‘ASTM’’; formerly the standard for high chairs. The proposed furnished at all, such information American Society for Testing and rule would incorporate by reference should be submitted by mail/hand Materials) standard-development ASTM F404–15, Standard Consumer delivery/courier. process. The standard the Commission Safety Specification for High Chairs Docket: For access to the docket to is proposing in this notice of proposed (‘‘ASTM F404–15’’) into our new read background documents or rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’) is based on ASTM regulation and impose more stringent comments received, go to: http:// F404–15 with more stringent requirements for rearward stability and www.regulations.gov, and insert the requirements for rearward stability and warnings on labels and in instructional docket number, CPSC–2015–0031, into warnings in labels and instructional literature. In addition, the Commission the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the literature. proposes to amend our regulations to prompts. The testing and certification include the newly proposed high chair FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: requirements of section 14(a) of the standard in the list of notice of Stefanie C. Marques, Project Manager, Consumer Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’; requirements (‘‘NORs’’) issued by the Directorate for Health Sciences, U.S. 15 U.S.C. 2051–2089) apply to the Commission. Consumer Product Safety Commission, standards promulgated under section DATES: Submit comments by January 25, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; 104 of the CPSIA. Section 14(a)(3) of the 2016. telephone: 301–987–2581; email: CPSA requires the Commission to ADDRESSES: Comments related to the [email protected]. publish an NOR for the accreditation of Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: third party conformity assessment labeling and instructional literature bodies (i.e., test laboratories) to assess requirements of the proposed I. Background and Statutory Authority whether a children’s product conforms mandatory standard for high chairs The CPSIA was enacted on August 14, to applicable children’s product safety should be directed to the Office of 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, part rules. If adopted, the proposed rule for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:17 Nov 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69145

high chairs would be a children’s shoulder harnesses. High chair designs III. Incident Data product safety rule that requires the include restaurant-style chairs, four- The Commission receives data issuance of an NOR. For this reason, this legged A-frame styles, single-leg regarding product-related injuries from NPR also proposes to amend 16 CFR pedestals, and Z-frame styles. several sources. One such source is the part 1112 to include proposed 16 CFR Restaurant-style high chairs are National Electronic Injury Surveillance part 1231, the section in which the high discussed further in section VII. of this System (‘‘NEISS’’), from which CPSC chair standard would be codified. preamble. can estimate the number of injuries II. The Product B. Market Description associated with specific consumer products that are treated in U.S. hospital A. Definition In 2013, the CPSC conducted a emergency departments (‘‘EDs’’) ASTM F404–15 defines a ‘‘high chair’’ Durable Nursery Product Exposure nationwide, based on a probability as ‘‘a free standing chair for a child up Survey (‘‘DNPES’’) of U.S. households sample. Other sources include reports to 3 years of age which has a seating with children under the age of 6. Data from consumers and others through the surface more than 15 in. above the floor from DNPES indicate that there are Consumer Product Safety Risk and elevates the child normally for the approximately 9.74 million high chairs Management System (which also purposes of feeding or eating.’’ The in U.S. households with children under includes some NEISS data) and reports ASTM standard further specifies that a the age of 6 and about 7.14 million high from retailers and manufacturers high chair may be sold with or without through CPSC’s Retailer Reporting chairs actually in use in those a tray, have adjustable heights, and System (collectively referred to as households. High chairs range in price recline for infants. Consumer Product Safety Risk from $35 to $650. There are various designs and Management System data (‘‘CPSRMS’’)). construction materials for high chairs. Staff identified 62 firms supplying Through CPSRMS sources, the Typical high chairs consist of a plastic, high chairs to the U.S. market. Fifty-one Commission has received 1,296 reports wood, or metal frame, often with a of these are domestic, including 27 of incidents related to high chairs that padded fabric seat. Some models fold manufacturers, 19 importers, and five occurred between January 1, 2011 and for storage and transport or convert for wholesalers. The remaining 11 firms are December 31, 2014. Because several of continued use as a child grows. Some foreign, including nine manufacturers, these reports include more than one high chairs include a removable snack one importer, and one retailer. Of these incident or issue, the total number of tray or mounted toy accessories and 62 firms, 48 market their high chairs to incidents is 1,308. These reports include some have no trays. High chairs may consumers. The remaining 14 firms one fatality and 138 injuries; for the have a passive crotch restraint (i.e., two market their high chairs for use in remaining incidents, no injury occurred, separate bounded openings for the commercial settings, primarily in or no injury was reported. Table 1 occupant’s legs), a rigid front torso restaurants, but these products generally provides the number of incidents, support, a three-point restraint system, also are available to consumers. injuries, and fatalities by year for 2011 or a five-point restraint system with to 2014.

TABLE 1—CPSRMS INCIDENT REPORTS INVOLVING HIGH CHAIRS BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 2011 AND DECEMBER 31, 2014

Incident year Total Injuries Fatalities

2011 ...... 276 44 0 2012 * ...... 360 51 0 2013 * ...... 491 28 0 2014 * ...... 169 15 1

Total ...... 1,296 138 1 Source: CPSC’s Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System * data collection is ongoing

Of the 1,296 reports CPSC received A. Fatalities lacerated finger. There were no severe from CPSRMS sources, 923 provided the injuries, and the remaining injuries age of the child involved. For incidents The Commission received a report in primarily resulted in contusions, in which age was reported, the majority 2014 of one fatality associated with a abrasions, and lacerations. Many of the high chair. Apart from indicating that involved children between 7 and 18 incident descriptions in the remaining the high chair involved had broken, the months old. 1,157 reports that did not state that an report provided little information about injury had occurred, nevertheless, EDs participating in NEISS reported the decedent or the circumstances of the 1,078 injuries and no deaths related to incident. The Commission has been indicated the potential for injury. high chairs between January 1, 2011 and unable to obtain additional information For injuries reported through NEISS, December 31, 2014. Extrapolating from regarding this incident. 94 percent were treated and released. this probability sample, there were The most commonly injured body parts B. Nonfatal Injuries approximately 31,300 injuries and no were the head (65 percent) and face (17 fatalities related to high chairs treated in Of the 138 CPSRMS injuries related to percent). The most common types of EDs between January 1, 2011 and high chairs that occurred between 2011 injuries were injuries to internal organs December 31, 2014. Approximately 75 and 2014, three resulted in moderate (48 percent), contusions and abrasions percent of injuries reported through injuries treated in EDs. These injuries (22 percent), and lacerations (11 NEISS involved children between 7 and included a puncture wound to the percent). In 1,540 of the estimated 23 months old. forehead, a broken collarbone, and a 31,300 injuries treated in U.S. EDs,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:17 Nov 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 69146 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules

severe head injuries, such as fractured several hazard patterns associated with and less than 1 percent fell into other skulls and concussions, occurred. high chairs in reviewing the 1,308 categories, including consumer C. Hazard Pattern Identification CPSRMS incidents. Approximately 96 observations and incidents in which percent of the 1,308 incidents involved reports provided insufficient CPSC staff reviewed NEISS and issues with specific components of the information to identify a hazard pattern CPSRMS data to identify hazard high chair, including the frame, seat, (i.e., undetermined). Staff was unable to patterns associated with high chairs. restraint system, armrest, tray, toy identify the hazard pattern for the one Because CPSRMS data sources generally accessories, wheels, footrest, and other fatality because there was insufficient provide greater detail about incidents, staff was able to identify more distinct features. Approximately 4 percent information in the report. Table 2 hazard patterns using this data than involved general problems with the high provides the frequency of each hazard NEISS data. CPSC staff identified chair, including the design and stability, pattern and category.

TABLE 2—HAZARD PATTERNS FOR CPSRMS INCIDENTS INVOLVING HIGH CHAIRS BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 2011 AND DECEMBER 31, 2014

Hazard pattern Total incidents Injuries Fatalities

Frame ...... 650 20 0 Seat ...... 205 41 0 Restraint System ...... 139 12 0 Armrest ...... 81 2 0 Tray ...... 75 33 0 Toy Accessories ...... 70 1 0 Wheels ...... 21 1 0 Footrest ...... 14 0 0 Miscellaneous Issues ...... 8 1 0 Design ...... 22 13 0 Stability ...... 16 12 0 Consumer Observations ...... 3 0 0 Undetermined ...... 4 2 1

Total ...... 1,308 138 1

Issues with frames account for the toes becoming entrapped in spaces or from a high chair. Fall incidents are greatest number of incidents. Examples openings. In two separate incidents, particularly evident in the stability, of these incidents include broken children were entrapped by the neck in restraint system, tray, and frame hazard frames, legs, seat supports, and loose the seatback opening and leg opening of patterns. Falls often occurred when screws. Issues with seats are associated high chairs. Examples of incidents these features fail or the restraint system with the greatest number of injuries. involving stability issues include a high is not used properly. Fall incidents have Examples of these incidents include chair actually or nearly tipping over. the potential to result in serious torn, cracked, or peeling seat pads and CPSC identified two additional injuries, including severe head injuries, seat-reclining issues. Examples of categories that do not represent which can cause brain damage and restraint system incidents include particular hazard patterns. First, several impact a child’s development and broken buckles and prongs, jamming, incident reports included consumer cognitive skills. Of the 1,308 CPSRMS easy release, torn or fraying straps, observations that did not indicate an incidents, 79 fall incidents showed the pinching, and ineffective restraints. incident with a high chair had occurred. potential for serious injuries, and in Examples of issues with armrests Examples of these include perceived many of these incidents, the child include cracking or breaking. Examples safety hazards and unauthorized sales of sustained a head injury. Of the 31,300 of tray incidents include trays failing to recalled high chairs. Second, several estimated NEISS incidents, 1,540 lock or remain locked, trays releasing reports, including a fatality report, resulted in severe head injuries. too easily, difficulty releasing trays, and provided insufficient information for D. Product Recalls pinching. Examples of toy accessory CPSC to determine the circumstances or incidents include cracked or broken toy cause of the incident. Since January 1, 2010, there have accessories. Examples of incidents One issue that relates to several of been 10 recalls of high chairs involving involving wheels include broken or these hazard patterns is prevalent in eight firms. The recalled high chairs loose wheels or wheels not locking. both NEISS and CPSRMS incidents— were responsible for a total of 72 Examples of footrest incidents include namely, falls from high chairs. Many of injuries, including 44 injuries involving cracked or broken footrests. Examples of the incidents reported through NEISS bumps and bruises, 11 lacerations other miscellaneous issues include and CPSRMS sources involved children requiring medical closure (stitches, tape, unclear assembly instructions, excessive falling from high chairs. Within NEISS or glue), one scratched cornea, and one lead content in paint, finish coming off, data, 78 percent of incidents involved hairline fracture to the arm. These poor construction quality, and loose falls but did not specify the cause, and injuries were primarily due to falls from hardware. an additional 18 percent involved the high chair. General issues with the design and mainly falls that occurred when a IV. International Standards for High stability of high chairs also contributed component of a high chair failed, a high Chairs to incidents and injuries. Examples of chair tipped over, or a child climbed in incidents related to design issues or out of a high chair. Many of the CPSC is aware of four international include children’s limbs, fingers, and CPSRMS incidents also involved falls standards that apply to high chairs:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:17 Nov 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69147

• ASTM F404–15; installation, and restraint anchor specified force. The purpose of this • EN 14988: 2006, Children's High integrity. ASTM approved the current requirement is to test whether frontal ChairsÐSafety Requirements and Test version, ASTM F404–15, on May 15, support can withstand kicking or Methods (‘‘European standard’’); 2015. pulling. • AS 4684–2009, High ChairsÐSafety B. Description of ASTM F404–15 d. Static Load: A high chair must Requirements (‘‘Australian standard’’); support specified weights on the seat, and CPSC staff, together with stakeholders tray, step, and footrest. The purpose of • ISO 9221: 1992, FurnitureÐ on the ASTM subcommittee task group this requirement is to test whether the Children's High Chairs (‘‘ISO for high chairs, developed modified and high chair seat and step can support standard’’). new requirements for ASTM F404–15 to more than the weight of a child and CPSC staff reviewed the provisions in address the hazards associated with whether the tray can withstand these four standards and believes that high chairs. ASTM F404–15 includes overloading. ASTM F404–15 best addresses the the following key provisions: scope, e. Stability: A high chair must not tip hazard patterns indicated in the terminology, calibration and over when pulled forward, backward, or incident data CPSC has received. In standardization, general requirements, sideways by a specified force. The most areas, ASTM F404–15 includes performance requirements, test purpose of this requirement is to test the more stringent requirements than the methods, labeling and warnings, and high chair’s resistance to falling over if other three international standards. For instructional literature. The following an occupant leans forward, pushes off a example, to test forward stability, the provides an overview of these nearby surface, or the high chair is European standard requires testing with provisions; to view the complete otherwise pushed. an 11-pound load and 5.6 foot-pound standard, see the instructions in section f. Exposed Coil Springs: Any exposed force, while ASTM F404–15 requires X. of this preamble. coil springs that reach a specified testing with a 40-pound load and 14 1. Scope distance from each other during static foot-pound force, making it the more load testing must be designed to prevent This section states the scope and stringent standard. pinching or entrapment. intent of the standard. In reviewing the provisions in which g. Scissoring, Shearing, and Pinching: one of the other international standards 2. Terminology Each accessible point at which includes more stringent requirements components move (e.g., fastening than ASTM F404–15, CPSC found that This section provides definitions of terms specific to the standard. points, pivots) must admit a probe with incident data do not indicate that the a specified diameter. The purpose of more stringent standard is necessary to 3. Calibration and Standardization this requirement is to prevent reduce the risk of injury, and the scissoring, shearing, and pinching of an requirements in ASTM F404–15 are This section provides general instructions for conducting tests. occupant. sufficient. For example, the European h. Restraint System: The standard standard has height requirements for the 4. General Requirements requires an active restraint system, such sides of high chairs, while ASTM F404– This section includes general as a belt, to secure a child in the high 15 does not. However, incident data do requirements regarding various issues, chair. The restraint system must include not indicate that side height is a factor such as components of a high chair, waist and crotch restraints. In addition, in fall hazard patterns. Similarly, the conversion kits, accessories, threaded the restraints must withstand upward Australian standard requires castors or fasteners, sharp edges and points, small and downward force tests as well as gliders to be in specific configurations, parts, wood parts, latching or locking testing to pull on restraint system and the ISO standard only allows mechanisms, labels, openings, toy attachments. The purpose of these castors for convertible high chairs, components, and lead in paint. requirements is to ensure that the while ASTM F404–15 has no restraint system and its closing means requirements for castors. However, 5. Performance Requirements and Test remain anchored and functional under incident data do not indicate that Methods various forces. castors are a common cause of injury. These sections contain performance i. Completely-Bounded Openings: Based on these comparisons, CPSC requirements and associated test This section requires high chairs with believes that ASTM F404–15 is, in methods for high chairs. The following completely-bounded openings in front general, a more stringent standard than summarizes key requirements in these of the occupant to have a passive crotch the other three international standards sections. restraint with specified maximum sizes and is better tailored to address the a. Protective Components: These for gaps and openings. The crotch hazard patterns shown in the incident requirements provide for testing restraint must be installed or tethered in data. protective components such as caps and place to prevent consumers from mis- V. ASTM F404–15 plugs. installing or not installing it and tethers b. Tray or Front Torso Support—Drop must withstand specified forces. The A. History of ASTM F404–15 Test: Each removable tray and front purpose of these provisions is to reduce ASTM first approved and published a torso support must be dropped from a the likelihood of injury or death from an standard for high chairs in 1975, as specified height in multiple occupant sliding through and being ASTM F404–75, Standard Consumer orientations. The purpose of this entrapped in an opening. Safety Specification for High Chairs. requirement is to test whether high j. Structural Integrity: A high chair ASTM has revised the voluntary chair components continue to function must withstand dynamic cycle testing, standard many times since then, adding or exhibit mechanical hazards (e.g., involving repeated drops of a weight on and modifying requirements. Some of sharp edges) after the drop test. the seat, without any structural the more substantial additions over the c. Tray or Front Torso Support—Pull components breaking or the seat height past 5 years include requirements for Tests: The tray or front torso support or angle changing beyond a set limit. tray-release mechanisms, visibility and must be pulled multiple times from The purpose of this requirement is to permanency of labels, restraint system multiple sides and directions with a test whether the high chair can

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:04 Nov 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 69148 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules

withstand the dynamic loads to which F404–15 would further reduce the risk Nearly 60 percent of seat issues it will be subjected. of injury associated with high chairs involved a single manufacturer’s seat k. Tray Latch Release Mechanisms: regarding rearward stability and pads cracking or peeling after multiple The standard includes requirements for warnings on labels and in instructional washings. Eighty-three percent of seat- tray latches to prevent unintentional or literature. Consequently, CPSC proposes related injuries involved cracked or accidental release. These requirements additional requirements for those areas. peeling seat pads scratching occupants’ include specific types and placements This section provides CPSC’s legs. for latch release mechanisms and testing assessments of how ASTM F404–15 ASTM F404–15 contains two to ensure they can withstand a specified addresses the hazard patterns in the requirements that address the integrity force. The purpose of these incident data. In its analysis, CPSC of structural components of a high chair, requirements is to address incidents in identified broad categories into which including the seat. These are the static which occupants fell from high chairs the incidents fall. One category is load test and drop test. General that had passive restraints integrated components of high chairs, including requirements, such as those regarding into the tray. issues with frames, seats, restraint sharp points and small parts, also l. Side Containment: Any completely- systems, armrests, trays, toy accessories, address the risk of laceration or choking bounded openings on the sides of the wheels, footrests, and miscellaneous on pieces that detach from the seat. seat must meet specified maximum issues. Another category is general CPSC believes that ASTM F404–15 dimensions for gaps and openings. The problems with high chairs, including effectively addresses the hazards purpose of this requirement is to reduce design and stability issues. And the associated with high chair seats. final category includes incidents that the likelihood of injury or death from an C. Restraint System occupant sliding through and being did not clearly fall within any of the entrapped in an opening. above groupings—these are listed below There were 139 incidents involving m. Protrusions: Projections must meet as consumer observations and the restraint system of a high chair, certain dimensional requirements if undetermined. This section discusses resulting in 12 injuries. These issues they are located on the outside of high each of these hazard patterns, in generally fall into two categories— chair legs at a height a toddler is descending order of frequency of restraint systems that failed and unused susceptible to falling into. The purpose incidents within each of the three restraint systems. of this requirement is to address the categories (see Table 2, above). Section Within the first category, incidents incidents in which children outside of VIII. discusses the additional included buckles breaking or separating high chairs sustained injuries from requirements that CPSC proposes for from straps, straps tearing or pulling out falling into tray storage hooks or other rearward stability and warnings. of anchor points, and other issues. To address these issues, ASTM F404–15 protrusions. A. Frame n. Locking Mechanisms: Locking requires all high chairs to be shipped mechanisms must be able to withstand There were 650 CPSRMS incidents with two types of restraint systems—a a specified force. involving the frame of a high chair, pre-attached ‘‘active’’ crotch and waist o. Permanency of Labels and resulting in a total of 20 injuries. belt restraint system and a ‘‘passive’’ Warnings: This section specifies testing Common incidents included cracked crotch restraint—that have undergone and criteria for determining the frames or height adjustors, loose screws, testing to ensure they work as intended. permanency of labels. and buckling legs. More than 80 percent ASTM F404–15 also requires the of frame-related incidents involved restraint anchors to withstand a pull 6. Labeling and Warnings cracked components on two similar test. CPSC believes that ASTM F404–15 This section contains various high chair models from one effectively addresses the hazard pattern requirements related to warnings and manufacturer and resulted in only a few associated with restraint system failures. labels, including content, format, and minor injuries. As for the second category, unused prominence requirements. ASTM F404–15 contains two separate restraint systems, CPSC believes that a requirements intended to provide more stringent standard for labels and 7. Instructional Literature structural integrity to high chair instructional literature than ASTM This section requires that instructions frames—a static load test and a drop F404–15 would further reduce the risk be provided with high chairs and be test. Several general requirements also of injuries associated with this issue. easy to read and understand. The address the hazards associated with CPSRMS and NEISS data indicate that, instructions must comply with content, frame failures, such as the requirements in many incidents, caregivers did not format, and prominence requirements. regarding the use of certain screws for use the restraint system. CPSC believes key structural elements to provide for more effective warnings would increase VI. Assessment of ASTM F404–15 proper installation and durability over consumer use of restraint systems and CPSC considered the fatalities, time. Since frame-related incidents are reduce these incidents. injuries, and non-injury incidents not an industry-wide problem, CPSC CPSC’s review of CPSRMS data associated with high chairs that believes that the ASTM F404–15 revealed that of the 1,308 incidents occurred between January 1, 2011 and requirements for structural integrity, involving high chairs, there were December 31, 2014, and staff evaluated load tests, and fasteners effectively numerous cases in which the caregiver ASTM F404–15 to determine whether address the safety hazards related to did not use the high chair restraints, the voluntary standard addresses these high chair frames. resulting in the child falling or nearly hazards or whether more stringent falling from the high chair. Although standards would reduce the risk of B. Seat many incident reports have limited injury associated with high chairs. CPSC There were a total of 205 incidents detail, CPSC noted that several believes that ASTM F404–15 effectively involving the seat of a high chair, incidents involved a child falling from addresses the hazards indicated in the resulting in 41 injuries. Seat-related a high chair when the tray disengaged, incident data, with the exception of two issues include cracked or peeling seat suggesting the tray was used as the sole areas. CPSC believes that more stringent pads, broken seat reclining hardware, restraint. Several reports also indicated requirements than those in ASTM seat backs detaching, and loose screws. that a caregiver’s attention was

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:17 Nov 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69149

elsewhere when the incident occurred. D. Armrest G. Wheels And several other reports suggested that Eighty-one high chair incidents Wheels were involved in 21 high the restraint system was ineffective at involved armrests and resulted in two chair incidents, resulting in one injury. restraining the child or was used injuries. Many of the reports indicate Common incidents involved wheels improperly. armrests broke as users removed the becoming loose, breaking, or not CPSC’s review of NEISS data revealed tray. All but one of the armrest incidents locking. All but two of these incident a similar pattern. The vast majority of involved a single high chair model. reports cited cracked or broken NEISS incidents involved falls, which ASTM F404–15 includes several components of high chairs from one suggests that restraints were unused or performance tests that address this manufacturer and almost all of these ineffective. Although NEISS data hazard. For example, the static load and were the same model. In the single provide limited details, many reports pull tests for trays also evaluate the incident that resulted in an injury, the state that the child was not restrained or durability of armrests because trays are wheel was only a minor contributing that the restraint had just been removed typically attached to armrests. CPSC factor. when the incident occurred. In some believes that ASTM F404–15 effectively ASTM F404–15 evaluates wheel durability through a static load test and cases, the incident happened when a addresses the armrest hazard pattern. drop test. CPSC believes that ASTM caregiver turned away from the child, The incident reports indicate this is not F404–15 effectively addresses this and some reports stated the child was an industry-wide problem; there were hazard pattern, as wheel issues do not strapped in before the fall, suggesting only a small number of minor injuries associated with armrests, and ASTM appear to be an industry-wide hazard the restraint fit poorly or was not pattern, do not contribute to a adjusted properly. F404–15 includes tests for armrest durability. substantial number of injuries, and CPSC believes that the requirements ASTM F404–15 contains provisions that in ASTM F404–15 do not adequately E. Tray evaluate wheel integrity. address the risk of injury associated A total of 75 high chair incidents H. Footrests with unused or improperly used involved trays and resulted in 33 Fourteen high chair incidents restraint systems. ASTM F404–15 injuries. Common tray incidents involved footrests and resulted in no includes three types of requirements included pinching, and in addition, falls injuries. All of the incident reports cited relevant to this hazard. First, the that occurred when trays unexpectedly footrests cracking on a single high chair standard requires the passive crotch detached or released too easily. restraint to arrive attached or tethered to model. ASTM F404–15 contains several ASTM F404–15 includes a static load its manufacturer’s recommended use performance requirements that address test to evaluate the durability of position to reduce the chances that the tray incidents, including pull tests, a footrests. CPSC believes that ASTM restraint is not installed before use. static load test, and specific tray- F404–15 effectively addresses this Second, section 8 of ASTM F404–15 latching requirements. Provisions on hazard pattern, as this is not an requires warnings about the risk of tray latch accessibility and latch industry-wide issue, and ASTM F404– serious injury or death from falling or actuation that ASTM adopted in 2007 15 includes requirements for footrest sliding out of a high chair, instructions and 2010 have been effective at durability. to use the restraint system, and a reducing tray-related incidents, as data warning never to leave a child show a decline in incidents for models I. Miscellaneous Issues unattended. Some of these warnings manufactured after those revisions. High chair incident reports included must be visible to a person standing General requirements, such as those for various additional issues, such as paint near the high chair at any one position sharp edges and scissoring, shearing, with excessive lead content, cracked when a child is in the high chair, but and pinching, also address these wood finish, loose screws, and assembly not necessarily visible from all hazards. CPSC believes that ASTM problems. Eight high chair incident positions. Other warnings must be F404–15 effectively addresses the tray reports cited these miscellaneous issues visible to a caregiver while placing a hazard pattern. and resulted in one injury. child in the high chair, but not F. Toy Accessories ASTM F404–15 contains several necessarily visible when the child is in requirements that address these various the high chair. Third, section 9 of ASTM Toy accessories were involved in 70 issues, such as issues with screws on F404–15 specifies that instructional high chair incidents, resulting in one consumer-assembled structural literature provided with a high chair injury. These reports indicate toy components, sharp edges, small parts, must include the same warning accessories cracked or broke. exposed wood, and compliance with 16 statements that are on the high chair; ASTM F404–15 includes CFR part 1303 (banning lead-containing state that only children capable of requirements for toy accessory paint). ASTM F404–15 also includes durability, requiring manufacturers to sitting upright unassisted should use a requirements for instructional literature, attach toy accessories to the high chair high chair; advise consumers to use the intended to provide clear assembly for testing, including tray drop testing restraint system; and inform consumers instructions. CPSC believes that ASTM and load cycle testing. CPSC believes that the tray is not a restraint system. F404–15 effectively addresses these ASTM F404–15 effectively addresses issues. CPSC believes that more stringent the toy accessory hazard pattern. CPSC content, form, and placement expects the toy durability requirements J. Design requirements for warnings than ASTM in ASTM F404–15, as well as the Design issues were involved in 22 F404–15’s would further reduce the risk general requirement in ASTM F404–15 high chair incidents, resulting in 13 of injury associated with unused calling for compliance with ASTM’s toy injuries. Incident reports relating to the restraint systems. Section VIII. discusses standard, ASTM F963, Standard design of a high chair primarily cited CPSC’s proposed labeling and Consumer Safety Specification for Toy designs that create entrapment hazards. instructional literature requirements in Safety, to reduce hazards related to These hazards commonly resulted in greater detail. cracked or broken toy accessories. children’s arms being entrapped

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:17 Nov 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 69150 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules

between the back of a high chair and the of the incidents resulted in injuries. to the environment and be versatile and tray or children’s legs catching in the These reports did not provide enough compact. However, these features also gap between the bottom of the tray and information for CPSC to assess the make it difficult for these high chairs to the top of the passive crotch restraint. In adequacy of ASTM F404–15 regarding comply with the requirements in ASTM the most severe cases, children slid into the reported concerns. F404–15 and the additional leg hole openings under the tray and requirements proposed in this NPR. M. Undetermined hung by their necks. There are several requirements that To address these ‘‘submarining’’ Four high chair incident reports did restaurant-style high chairs frequently cases, ASTM F404–15 contains several not provide sufficient information for do not follow. Contrary to ASTM F404– performance tests that specifically CPSC to determine how the incidents, 15, wedge blocks can generally pass address openings, including a probe test including the one reported death and through the leg openings of restaurant- for gaps and completely-bounded two injuries, occurred. The lack of style high chairs. The large side and openings in front of occupants, around information available in these incident back openings also do not meet ASTM the passive crotch restraint, and reports made it impossible for CPSC to F404–15. The belt used as a passive between horizontal portions and the assess the effectiveness of ASTM F404– restraint often fits loosely over the top tray. The standard also includes a test 15 in addressing these issues. rail of the high chair and does not meet for leg openings and openings around VII. Restaurant-Style High Chairs the passive restraint requirements of the sides of the high chair seat to ensure ASTM F404–15. The lower and that occupants cannot slide through and ASTM F404–15 applies to high chairs narrower stance of these high chairs also become entrapped. ASTM F404–15 without distinguishing where may impact the chairs’ compliance with requires manufacturers to attach passive consumers use them. However, many the stability requirements in ASTM crotch restraints to the high chair to high chairs are designed to be used in F404–15. Moreover, there is little space increase the likelihood that consumers commercial settings, primarily on these high chairs to accommodate will use restraints and reduce restaurants (‘‘restaurant-style high the label requirements in ASTM F404– submarining incidents. ASTM F404– chairs’’). These high chairs generally 15 or the additional requirements CPSC 15’s requirements on openings and include features that are particularly proposes. scissoring, shearing, and pinching useful in commercial or restaurant There are several reasons it may be address less serious entrapment settings and may not present the same appropriate to apply different hazards. CPSC believes that ASTM hazards as high chairs used in the home. requirements to restaurant-style high F404–15 effectively addresses the Based on CPSC’s review of incident data chairs. First, the environment in which design hazard pattern. and the potential economic impact of restaurant-style high chairs are used the requirements proposed in this NPR, may not present the same hazards that K. Stability it is possible that, due to the unique are common in the home. In a restaurant Stability issues played a role in 16 environmental factors in restaurant environment, caregivers sit next to the high chair incidents, resulting in 12 settings, high chairs used in these child seated in the high chair, are injuries. This hazard pattern includes settings may present lesser hazards and unlikely to leave a child unattended in forward tip-overs, side tip-overs, and warrant fewer requirements to reduce the high chair, and are not distracted by rearward tip-overs. Tip-overs generally the risk of injury associated with high the tasks that may divert the caregiver’s occur when a child leans out of the high chairs. The following describes the attention in a home environment. For chair or pushes off a nearby surface. In factors that weigh in favor of and against these reasons, a caregiver would likely NEISS reports that included enough distinguishing restaurant-style high be able to prevent an incident from detail to identify the cause of the chairs from other high chairs and occurring, or correct any issue quickly, incident, the vast majority of the possible options for distinguishing before serious injury or death could incidents were falls resulting from tip- them. occur. None of the three incidents overs, mostly rearward tip-overs. Of the 1,296 CPSRMS incident involving restaurant-style high chairs CPSRMS data also included reports of reports, three explicitly state that the reported to CPSC involved children who many injuries resulting from high chairs incidents occurred in restaurants while were unattended and entrapped in the tipping over, also frequently rearward consumers used the establishments’ openings of the high chair. Because tip-overs. high chairs. Restaurant-style high chairs caregivers are likely to be nearby and ASTM F404–15 requires forward, have several distinct features. This style attentive, it is likely to be less necessary sideways, and rearward tip-over testing. of chair is generally constructed from for warnings regarding attending the The standard also contains a stability robust materials, such as wood or child to be visible when the child is in requirement to simulate the load plastic and do not have trays. Therefore, the high chair. Second, modifying applied by a child climbing into the restaurant-style high chairs can be restaurant-style high chairs to comply chair. CPSC believes that ASTM F404– pulled up to a table. In addition, with ASTM F404–15 would likely 15 effectively addresses forward and restaurant-style high chairs are designed reduce their utility because these high sideways tip-overs. However, based on to be compact and stackable for easy chairs would no longer accommodate the frequency of rearward tip-over storage and have little space available larger children or bulky clothes, and incidents, CPSC believes that ASTM for labels. Restaurant-style high chairs would be less compact and not F404–15 does not adequately address are also generally designed to be lower stackable. Finally, given the possible rearward tip-over hazards and a more to the ground and narrower than high lesser safety issues, the proposed stringent standard is necessary. Section chairs intended for home use. requirements in this NPR impose VIII. discusses CPSC’s proposed Additionally, restaurant-style high proportionately high costs on rearward stability standard. chairs are designed not only to restaurant-style high chair suppliers accommodate a wide range of ages, from because these products require more L. Consumer Observations infants to toddlers, but also changes to come into compliance. Three incident reports involved accommodate bulky outerwear and There are also several reasons to consumers’ perceived safety hazards or shoes. These design attributes are apply the same requirements to complaints about high chairs, but none desirable in a restaurant setting to adapt restaurant-style high chairs and other

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:17 Nov 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69151

high chairs. First, restaurant-style high models passed the requirements of positioning of the high chair for chairs are readily available to ASTM F404–15. To develop a rearward stability testing. These consumers and are also used in homes. performance test to measure and requirements are based on CPSC staff’s Two of the firms that market their improve the rearward stability of high testing initiative and aim to reduce products to consumers produce high chairs, CPSC worked with an ASTM variation in test results. First, CPSC chairs identical to the wooden high task group to develop an alternative proposes to require the high chair seat chairs used in restaurants. This negates rearward stability test, based on CPSC back, tray, seat, and wheels to be in the environmental factors that support staff’s and manufacturers’ testing. specific positions for rearward stability distinguishing high chairs used in Although this test is not included in testing. This will decrease variability in restaurants. Second, there is minimal ASTM F404–15, ASTM may adopt the test methods and results, and based on incident data to indicate whether high test in future revisions. CPSC proposes testing, CPSC believes that these chairs actually pose lesser safety risks in to adopt this test, in lieu of the rearward positions are the most effective for restaurant settings. It is also possible stability test in ASTM F404–15. assessing high chair stability. that, although caregivers in restaurants The proposed standard is based on a Second, CPSC proposes to require a are near the child, caregivers may be rearward stability index (‘‘SI’’) rating specific test surface, including 60-grit less likely to attend to the child or use that evaluates the factors that contribute sandpaper to prevent sliding and the restraint system because caregivers to rearward tip-overs and sets a maximum parameters for the stop block assume they are near enough to the minimum SI score for high chairs. The placed behind a high chair with wheels child to prevent an incident. As the task group developed the SI based on a to instigate tipping. Without these incident data indicate, this may not be review of various stability requirements, requirements, test results vary because correct, as incidents can happen the incident data, and testing numerous test surfaces differ and the height of a quickly. Finally, because high chairs are high chair models, including those stop block affects the amount of force readily available to consumers, it may involved in rearward tip-over incidents necessary to tip over a high chair. be difficult, practically, to apply and those not reported to be involved in The proposed rearward stability different requirements to these high such incidents. The SI measures the requirement and test procedure are chairs. elements associated with high chair effective at identifying high chairs that Some options for treating restaurant occupants pushing back from a surface. have been involved in rearward tip-over style-high chairs differently than other The SI rates high chairs based on two incidents. As such, CPSC believes this high chairs include excluding characteristics associated with rearward more stringent standard would further restaurant-style high chairs from the tip-overs—the force (‘‘F’’) required to tip reduce the risk of injury associated with proposed standard or modifying the chair over in the rearward direction rearward high chair tip-overs, and individual requirements, such as label and the distance (‘‘D’’) that a reference proposes requiring this modification to placement and bounded-openings, to point on the seat travels as the chair tilts ASTM F404–15. reflect the features and lesser safety from the manufacturer’s recommended issues associated with restaurant-style use position to the point of instability B. Warnings in Labels high chairs. just before tipping over. A chair design Based on incident data discussed CPSC requests comments on the will score well if it requires a large above and research on effective following factors: whether it is push-off force and/or a long distance to warnings, CPSC believes that the on- appropriate to distinguish these high reach its tipping point. CPSC’s and product warning requirements in ASTM chairs, which requirements should manufacturers’ tests determined that the F404–15 do not adequately address the differ, and how CPSC could apply those tip force is a more critical factor in safety risks associated with high chairs; distinctions. identifying unstable chairs. As such, the therefore, CPSC proposes more stringent requirements that would further reduce VIII. Description of Proposed Changes SI weights F twice as heavily as D: SI the risk of injury associated with falls to ASTM Standard = 2F + D. The test method CPSC developed from high chairs. Specifically, CPSC The proposed rule would create part through this testing and proposes in this proposes additional content, form, and 1231, titled, Safety Standard for High NPR includes the following elements: placement provisions for on-product Chairs. As explained above, the • Attach a force gauge to the center warnings labels. Tab E of CPSC staff’s Commission believes that ASTM F404– line of the back of the seat, 7.25″ above briefing package for this proposed rule 15 effectively addresses the safety the seating surface and preload it with includes additional details about these hazards associated with high chairs, 3 pounds of force (to eliminate any slack proposed requirements and the rationale with the exception of rearward stability in fabric or loose seats); behind them. The briefing package is and warnings in labels and instructional • Establish an initial reference point available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/ literature. For this reason, the along the plane of the force gauge; Newsroom/FOIA/Commission-Briefing- Commission proposes to incorporate by • Gradually apply a rearward, Packages/. reference ASTM F404–15, with horizontal force until the point at which modified requirements for rearward the chair becomes unstable and begins 1. Content stability and warnings. This section to tip over backward; CPSC proposes to require high chairs discusses the proposed changes to • Record the maximum force applied to bear labels that address the following ASTM F404–15. during the tip test, along with the total statements: distance the reference point moved from Children have suffered skull fractures A. Rearward Stability its predetermined position; and after falling from high chairs. Falls can Based on the incident data discussed • Calculate the SI by multiplying the happen quickly if child is not restrained above, CPSC believes that a more force by a factor of two and adding the properly. stringent standard than ASTM F404–15 distance. Based on the product testing • Always use restraints, and adjust to for rearward stability would further conducted, CPSC proposes requiring fit snugly. Tray is not designed to hold reduce the risk of injury. CPSC staff has high chairs to have an SI of 50 or more. child in chair. tested the high chair models involved in CPSC also proposes to include • Stay near and watch your child incidents and found that the tested requirements for the test surface and during use.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:17 Nov 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 69152 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules

CPSC believes this language would be • a detailed description of what information than continuous paragraph more effective than ASTM F404–15’s ‘‘attending’’ means, including staying text. language at reducing the risk of injury near and watching a child; ASTM F404–15 does not include • associated with falls from high chairs. an instruction to use the restraint specific requirements for many of these CPSC developed the proposed warning system and a statement that the tray is factors. To increase the effectiveness of language from information developed not part of the restraint system; • warnings and further reduce the risk of through research on the content of an instruction to adjust the injury, based on this research, CPSC warnings. The proposed rule refers to restraints to fit the child snugly; and • proposes the following for high chair ANSI Z535.4, Product Safety Signs and a warning statement regarding the warnings: Labels (‘‘ANSI Z535.4’’), for guidance on hazard, consequences, and appropriate • Red, orange, or yellow on-product warning label designs. ANSI Z535.4 is actions to appear together on a label. warnings; the primary U.S. voluntary consensus Similarly to ASTM F404–15, CPSC standard for product safety signs and proposes that for high chairs that have • highly contrasting colors, such as labels. The standard is available at: a seating component that is also used as black and white; http://www.ansi.org/. ANSI Z535.4 a seating component for a stroller, the • sentence capitalization, with key addresses the design, application, use, content of the labels must comply with phrases emphasized in boldface; and placement of on-product warning ASTM F833, Standard Consumer Safety • Performance Specification for Carriages left-justified text; labels. CPSC’s Division of Human • Factors regularly uses ANSI Z535.4. and Strollers (‘‘ASTM F833’’). However, non-condensed typeface; and As the staff briefing package although ASTM F404–15 only requires • outline format. compliance with section 8.2.2.2 of discusses, literature and guidelines 3. Placement about warnings consistently recommend ASTM F833, CPSC also proposes to that on-product warnings include: require the additional warning provided As discussed above, the warning • A description of the hazard; in section 8.2.2.1. CPSC incorporated placement and visibility requirements • information about the consequences the most recent revision of this standard in ASTM F404–15 permit different of exposure to the hazard; and (ASTM F833–13b) into 16 CFR part portions of warning information to • instructions about appropriate 1227 as the safety standard for carriages appear on separate labels. CPSC believes hazard-avoidance behaviors. and strollers, with some modifications, that to be most effective, all of the The warning statements in ASTM effective September 10, 2015. 79 FR warning information should appear F404–15 lack important details 13,208 (Mar. 10, 2014). together because the hazard description regarding the hazard and its 2. Form and potential injuries help motivate consequences, providing only a vague caregivers to take the recommended Research indicates that the form of a description of the types of injuries that actions. Similarly, CPSC believes that it warning can affect the extent to which may occur. As staff’s briefing package is important for caregivers to be able to consumers notice and read the warning. for this proposed rule indicates, see the warnings when putting a child The form of a warning can also providing more detailed and vivid into a high chair and when the child is communicate the seriousness of a information in a warning increases its in it. This will remind users to use the hazard, which can affect compliance effectiveness. Accordingly, CPSC restraint system when putting the child with recommended behavior. CPSC developed the proposed language, into the high chair and to stay near and considered research on effective forms describing the specific hazard, watch the child once the high chair is for warnings, including the consequent injuries, and precise actions in use. ASTM F404–15 only requires requirements in ANSI Z535.4, in that can help reduce the likelihood of certain warning information to be developing the proposed form the hazard. visible when a caretaker is placing a requirements. ASTM F404–15 does not As Tab E of CPSC staff’s briefing child in the high chair, not once the include several of the features that have package for this proposed rule chair is occupied; and the standard been found to be effective, including discusses, incident data and other requires other warning information to be colors, contrast, typeface, and layout. visible when the child is in the chair. research reveals the following: As discussed in Tab E of CPSC staff’s • Based on the incident data, CPSC Falls can happen quickly; briefing package for this proposed rule, • believes it would more effectively falls occur when caregivers are not research indicates the following points close by or watching a child; reduce the risk of injury associated with • about the format of warnings: falls occur when caregivers do not • Certain colors, particularly red, falls from high chairs if users could see use the restraint system; orange, and yellow, attract attention and the warning after putting a child in the • falls occur when caregivers do not help convey the presence of a hazard; high chair and before leaving the child use the restraint system properly; and • the degree of contrast contributes to unattended. As such, CPSC proposes • receiving information about a readability; requiring warning labels to be visible hazard, its consequences, and mitigating • certain typeface styles, such as when placing the occupant in the high actions, motivates appropriate behavior. sentence capitalization (i.e., mixed chair and once the child is in the high As discussed in further detail in Tab upper and lowercase) and boldface, are chair. E of CPSC staff’s briefing package, CPSC easier to read and more effective at 4. Additional Guidance does not believe that ASTM F404–15 highlighting information than extensive includes adequately detailed capitalization; CPSC also proposes to include a note requirements to address many of these • left-justified text is easier to read in the regulatory text referencing ANSI factors. To increase the effectiveness of than fully-justified text; Z535.4 for optional additional guidance. warnings and further reduce the risk of • condensed or narrow typeface is CPSC would not require compliance injury, CPSC proposes the following for less effective at conveying information; with ANSI Z535.4, but the standard may high chair warnings: and offer regulated entities additional useful • A statement describing the speed • lists and outline formats provide for information for developing effective with which incidents can occur; better absorption and retention of labels.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:17 Nov 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69153

C. Warnings in Instructional Literature yellow) for warnings in instructional Test laboratories applying for For reasons similar to using warnings literature unless a manufacturer opts to acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third in on-product labels, CPSC proposes use color, in which case the same color party conformity assessment body to more stringent requirements for requirements as on-product labels test for compliance with the proposed standard for high chairs would be warnings in instructional literature than would apply. required to meet the third party ASTM F404–15 provides. CPSC believes 3. Additional Guidance conformity assessment body that more stringent requirements will accreditation requirements in part 1112. further reduce the risk of injury Similar to ANSI Z535.4, CPSC also When a laboratory meets the associated with high chairs by providing proposes to include a note in the requirements of a CPSC-accepted third more effective warnings regarding the regulatory text referencing ANSI Z535.6 party conformity assessment body, the hazard, potential injuries, and for optional additional guidance. CPSC laboratory can apply to CPSC to have 16 recommended behavior. This includes would not require compliance with CFR part 1231, Safety Standard for High requirements about the content and ANSI Z535.6, but the standard may offer Chairs, included in the laboratory’s form of warnings in instructional regulated entities additional useful scope of accreditation of CPSC safety literature. The discussion below information for developing effective warnings in instructional literature. rules listed for the laboratory on the provides the rationale for these more- CPSC Web site at: www.cpsc.gov/ stringent requirements, and the IX. Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112 To labsearch. requirements are discussed in Include NOR for High Chair Standard additional detail in Tab E of CPSC staff’s X. Incorporation by Reference briefing package for this proposed rule. Section 14 of the CPSA establishes requirements for product testing and Section 1231.2(a) of the proposed rule 1. Content certification. Manufacturers of products incorporates by reference ASTM F404– 15. The Office of the Federal Register Section 9.2 of ASTM F404–15 that are subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA or another (‘‘OFR’’) has regulations concerning requires that instructional literature incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part contain the same warnings as the rule the Commission enforces must certify, based on product testing, that 51. Under these regulations, in the warnings required on the high chair. preamble of the NPR, an agency must CPSC believes that this requirement is their product complies with all such rules. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1). summarize the incorporated material appropriate. However, because CPSC and discuss the ways the material is Additionally, manufacturers of proposes to require different on-product reasonably available to interested children’s products that are subject to a warning label content than ASTM parties or how the agency worked to children’s product safety rule must have F404–15, the more-stringent warning make the materials reasonably available. these products tested by a third party requirements also would apply to 1 CFR 51.5(a). instructional literature. The conformity assessment body that CPSC In accordance with the OFR’s Commission agrees with the additional has accredited, and manufacturers must requirements, section V.B. of this content requirement listed in section certify that their products comply with preamble summarizes the provisions of 9.2.1 of ASTM F404–15. Therefore, all applicable children’s product safety ASTM F404–15 that the Commission CPSC does not propose to modify that rules. Id. at 2063(a)(2). The Commission proposes to incorporate by reference. requirement. must publish an NOR for the ASTM F404–15 is copyrighted. By accreditation of third party conformity 2. Form permission of ASTM, interested parties assessment bodies to assess conformity may view the standard as a read-only Unlike on-product warning labels, with a children’s product safety rule. Id. document during the comment period of ASTM F404–15 does not specify the at 2063(a)(3). Because the proposed rule this NPR at: http://www.astm.org/ form in which warning statements in is a children’s product safety rule, if the cpsc.htm. Interested parties may also instructional literature must appear. Commission issues 16 CFR part 1231, purchase a copy of ASTM F404–15 from Similarly to on-product warning labels, Safety Standard for High Chairs, as a ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor research and guidance indicate that final rule, the CPSC must also issue an Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West specific forms are more effective at NOR. Conshohocken, PA 19428; http:// conveying information. The proposed The Commission published a final www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may also rule refers to ANSI Z535.6, Product rule, codified at 16 CFR part 1112, inspect a copy at CPSC’s Office of the Safety Information in Product Manuals, titled, Requirements Pertaining to Third Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Instructions, and Other Collateral Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 Materials (‘‘ANSI Z535.6’’) for guidance which established requirements for East West Highway, Bethesda, MD on the design and location of product accreditation of third party conformity 20814, telephone 301–504–7923. safety messages in instructional assessment bodies to test for conformity literature. The standard is available at: with children’s product safety rules in XI. Effective Date http://www.ansi.org/. accordance with the CPSA. 78 FR 15836 The Administrative Procedure Act (5 CPSC proposes to require the same (Mar. 12, 2013). Part 1112 also codifies U.S.C. 551–559) generally requires that form requirements for warnings in all of the NORs the Commission the effective date of a rule be at least 30 instructional literature as the previously issued. days after publication of the final rule. requirements proposed for on-product NORs for new children’s product 5 U.S.C. 553(d). To allow time for high warning labels, with one exception. safety rules, such as the high chair chairs to come into compliance with the CPSC believes that these form standard, require the Commission to standard, the Commission proposes that requirements will further reduce the amend part 1112. To accomplish this, as the standard become effective 6 months risk of injury associated with high part of this NPR, the Commission after publication of the final rule in the chairs for the same reasons discussed proposes to amend part 1112 to add Federal Register. Without evidence to for on-product warning labels. However, high chairs to the list of children’s the contrary, CPSC generally considers CPSC does not propose to require the product safety rules for which CPSC has 6 months to be sufficient time for use of specific colors (i.e., red, orange, issued an NOR. suppliers to come into compliance with

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:17 Nov 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 69154 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules

a new standard, and 6 months is typical while 14 firms market their products for The Commission is also proposing for other CPSIA section 104 rules. Six use in commercial settings, such as more stringent requirements for months is also the period that the restaurants, hotels, and day care centers. warnings in labels and instructional Juvenile Products Manufacturers However, consumers are able to literature. All firms would be affected Association (‘‘JPMA’’) typically allows purchase high chairs that are generally by the proposed requirements for for products in the JPMA certification designed and marketed for use in warnings in labels and instructional program to transition to a new standard commercial settings; two of the firms literature. Each firm would need to once that standard is published. We also that market their products to consumers modify the text and formatting of the propose that the amendment to part also produce high chairs identical to the warnings for both the product and the 1112 become effective 6 months after wooden high chairs used in restaurants. instructional literature. Firms would publication of the final rule. We ask for C. Reason for Agency Action, Objectives, need to move warning labels to the comments on this proposed effective and Legal Basis for Proposed Rule specified location, ensuring that the date. warnings are visible when the child is Section 104 of the CPSIA requires the placed in the high chair and when the XII. Regulatory Flexibility Act CPSC to promulgate a mandatory child is in the high chair. If the high A. Introduction standard for high chairs that is chair can be used with and without substantially the same as the voluntary The Regulatory Flexibility Act padding, this would require placing the standard or more stringent than the warning on both the high chair and the (‘‘RFA’’; 5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires voluntary standard if the Commission agencies to consider the impact of padding. Section XII.F. of this preamble determines that more stringent discusses staff’s assessment of the proposed rules on small entities, requirements would further reduce the including small businesses. Section 603 impact of these proposed requirements risk of injury associated with the on small entities. of the RFA requires the Commission to product. prepare an initial regulatory flexibility E. Other Relevant Federal Rules analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) and make it available D. Description of the Proposed Rule to the public for comment when the CPSC proposes to adopt ASTM F404– CPSC staff has not identified any NPR is published. The IRFA must 15 with modifications to the rearward federal or state rules that duplicate, describe the impact of the proposed rule stability test and requirements for overlap or conflict with the proposed on small entities and identify significant warnings on labels and instructional rule. alternatives that accomplish the literature. Section V. of this preamble F. Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small statutory objectives and minimize any discusses key provisions of ASTM Businesses significant economic impact of the F404–15. proposed rule on small entities. CPSC believes that the high chairs of CPSC is aware of approximately 62 Specifically, the IRFA must discuss: 37 firms comply with ASTM F404. This firms currently marketing high chairs in • The reasons the agency is is because JPMA has certified the high the United States, 51 of which are considering the action; chairs supplied by 12 firms, and the domestic firms. Under U.S. Small • the objectives and legal basis of the remaining 25 firms state that they Business Administration (‘‘SBA’’) proposed rule; comply with the voluntary standard. As guidelines, a high chair manufacturer is • the small entities that would be such, these firms will not incur ‘‘small’’ if it has 500 or fewer subject to the proposed rule and, when additional costs to comply with the employees, and importers and possible, an estimate of the number of provisions of ASTM F404–15, which wholesalers are small if they have 100 small entities that would be impacted; CPSC proposes to adopt. or fewer employees. CPSC limited its • the projected reporting, In addition to incorporating ASTM analysis to domestic firms because SBA recordkeeping, and other compliance F404–15 by reference, CPSC proposes to guidelines and definitions pertain to requirements of the proposed rule, adopt modified requirements for U.S. entities. Based on these guidelines including the classes of small entities rearward stability and warnings in and available information about the subject to it and the professional skills labels and instructional literature firms, staff has identified 38 of the 51 necessary to prepare the reports or because CPSC believes that more domestic suppliers as small (21 records; and stringent standards in these areas would manufacturers, 13 importers, and 4 • the relevant federal rules that may further reduce the risk of injury. Section wholesalers). There may be additional duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the VIII. of this preamble discusses these small domestic high chair suppliers that proposed rule. 5 U.S.C. 603. proposed provisions. CPSC is not aware of who are operating This section summarizes the IRFA for Preliminary testing by CPSC staff and in the U.S. market. Table 3 lists the this proposed rule. Based on CPSC’s other members of the ASTM task group number of firms by category: analysis, staff cannot rule out a indicates that most high chairs would significant economic impact for 20 of pass the proposed rearward stability TABLE 3—FIRMS THAT MARKET HIGH the 38 firms (53 percent) operating in test, and therefore, would not require CHAIRS IN THE U.S. the U.S. market for high chairs. any modifications to meet the proposed standard. Through testing high chairs Number of B. Market Description and other market research, staff Category firms CPSC identified 62 firms that supply identified only three high chairs that high chairs to the U.S. market. The might not pass the modified rearward Domestic ...... 51 majority of these firms are domestic stability test, based on their design. Small ...... 38 (including 27 manufacturers, 19 However, CPSC expects that the cost of Manufacturers ...... 21 Compliant with ASTM importers, and 5 wholesalers). The modifying the design to increase F404 ...... 12 remaining 11 firms are foreign rearward stability would be low, and Not Compliant with (including 9 manufacturers, 1 importer, that this could likely be accomplished ASTM F404 ...... 9 and 1 retailer). Forty-eight of these firms by adding flat supports to the bottom of Importers and Whole- market their products to consumers, each back leg. salers ...... 17

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:17 Nov 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69155

TABLE 3—FIRMS THAT MARKET HIGH and the costs of developing a compliant 3. Third Party Testing Costs for Small CHAIRS IN THE U.S.—Continued product. Manufacturers 2. Small Manufacturers with Number of Under section 14 of the CPSA, if Category firms NonCompliant High Chairs CPSC adopts the proposed high chair Nine small manufacturers produce requirements, all manufacturers will be Compliant with ASTM high chairs that do not comply with the subject to the third party testing and F404 ...... 9 certification requirements under 16 CFR Not Compliant with voluntary standard, five who market ASTM F404 ...... 8 their products for use in commercial part 1107. Third party testing would Large ...... 13 settings, primarily in restaurants. CPSC include any physical and mechanical Foreign ...... 11 believes it is possible that there would test requirements specified in a final be a significant economic impact on high chair rule. Manufacturers and Total ...... 62 some of these manufacturers. The five importers should already be conducting producers of restaurant-style high chairs required lead testing for high chairs. 1. Small Manufacturers With Compliant would need to make several changes to Third party testing costs would be in High Chairs meet the base requirements of ASTM addition to the direct costs of meeting F404–15. As discussed previously, the high chair standard. Of the 21 small manufacturers, 12 different circumstances and needs exist More than half of small high chair produce high chairs that comply with for restaurant-style high chairs. manufacturers (11 out of 21) are already ASTM F404–14. In general, CPSC Complying with the proposed rule may testing their products to verify expects small manufacturers that undermine some of the characteristics already comply with the voluntary that make certain high chair features compliance with the ASTM standard, standard will continue to comply with desirable in restaurant settings. For although not necessarily by a third party the standard as the standard evolves example, leg holes tend to be larger for laboratory. For these manufacturers, the because they follow, and in three cases, restaurant-style high chairs to impact on testing costs would be limited actively participate in ASTM’s standard- accommodate children clothed in to the difference between the cost of development process. As such, outerwear and children of varied ages third party tests and the cost of current compliance with the voluntary standard and sizes. The proposed standard would testing regimes. The suppliers that CPSC is part of these firms’ established preclude some features. staff contacted estimate that obtaining business practice. Because ASTM Manufacturers of restaurant-style high third party testing for high chairs would approved ASTM F404–15 on May 15, chairs may also need to make changes cost about $600 to $900 per model 2015, these firms would likely be in to meet the proposed warning label sample. For manufacturers that are compliance with the standard before the requirements. For example, two firms already testing, the incremental costs proposed rule would take effect. manufacture plastic high chairs that will be lower than that. For this reason, the economic impact may need to be redesigned to comply Based on CPSC staff’s examination of of the proposed rule should be small for with the proposed warning label firm revenues from recent Dun & 10 of the 12 small domestic requirements. Bradstreet or ReferenceUSAGov reports, manufacturers. These 10 firms include Four firms that do not currently the impact of third party testing, alone one firm that may need to modify its comply with the ASTM standard is unlikely to be economically high chair to meet the proposed produce high chairs for home use. One significant for small manufacturers of rearward stability test; as discussed of these four firms likely would need to noncompliant high chairs. Even without above, the cost associated with this make significant changes to its product modification is likely small. knowing how many samples would be to meet the proposed warning label needed to meet the ‘‘high degree of However, the proposed warning label requirements, given the compact design assurance’’ criterion in part 1107, more requirements may create a significant of its product. The three remaining than 12 units per model would be economic impact for two small firms appear to have sufficient room on required before testing costs exceed 1 their high chairs to accommodate the manufacturers. Both firms produce high percent of gross revenue for the small chairs with compact designs, with one proposed warning labels without manufacturer with the lowest gross serving the commercial restaurant redesign, and any modifications to the revenue. CPSC could not obtain revenue market. Redesigning the seat back high chairs would be due to the information for one small manufacturer, would provide additional space for requirements of ASTM F404–15. and therefore, could not evaluate the warning labels, but may reduce the However, CPSC staff could not chairs’ compactness, which may be an determine the extent or cost of the impact on that firm. CPSC requests important feature for marketability. For changes that may be necessary, so we comments on testing costs and one firm, high chairs represent a small cannot rule out a significant economic incremental costs of third party testing part of its product line, but it is unclear impact. (i.e., how much does moving from a whether the firm could stop producing CPSC requests comments on the voluntary to a mandatory third party high chairs because CPSC was unable to differences between restaurant-style testing regime add to testing costs, in obtain sales revenue information. For high chairs and high chairs produced total, and on a per-test basis). In the second firm, high chairs represent for home use, as well as the desirability particular, CPSC requests comments on an integral part of its commercial of particular features in these respective the preliminary determination that third product line, so discontinuing that environments. CPSC also requests party testing is unlikely to lead to product line could create a significant information about the changes that significant economic impacts for small economic burden. CPSC requests input would be necessary to meet the high chair manufacturers. In addition, on consumer preferences for compact proposed requirement, including CPSC would like comments about the high chairs, how compact high chair whether redesign or retrofitting would number of high chair units that typically manufacturers would respond to the be necessary and whether there would need to be tested to provide a ‘‘high proposed warning label requirements, be any associated costs. degree of assurance.’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:17 Nov 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 69156 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules

4. Small Importers and Wholesalers 5. Small Importers and Wholesalers 6. Third Party Testing Costs for Small With Compliant High Chairs With Noncompliant High Chairs Importers and Wholesalers There is insufficient information to CPSC considered the economic As with manufacturers, all importers rule out a significant impact for any of impact to importers and wholesalers and wholesalers would be subject to the eight importers and wholesalers of third party testing and certification together, because both rely on outside noncompliant high chairs. Whether requirements, if CPSC adopts a final firms to supply the products they there would be a significant economic high chair standard. Consequently, distribute to the U.S. market. Importers impact would depend upon the extent importers and wholesalers would be distribute products made by foreign of the changes required for these firms subject to costs similar to firms and are often closely related to the to come into compliance and the manufacturers’ costs if the foreign firms producing their products. CPSC response of their suppliers. Their suppliers of importers and wholesalers was unable to determine the source of suppliers may pass on to the importers do not obtain third party testing. Just wholesalers’ high chairs, but the sources and wholesalers any increase in over half of high chair importers and are likely from other suppliers that may production costs that result from the wholesalers (9 out of 17) already test be foreign or domestic. proposed changes. their products to verify compliance with In the absence of a mandatory Six of the eight importers and the ASTM standard. Any additional regulation, the nine firms (seven small wholesalers with noncompliant high costs associated with a final high chair importers and two small wholesalers) chairs do not appear to have direct ties rule thus would be limited to the currently in compliance with the to their product suppliers. Therefore, incremental costs of third party testing voluntary standard likely would remain these firms may choose to switch to over the current testing regime. in compliance with new versions. alternative suppliers or manufacture There may be significant costs for two However, the high chairs these firms other products, rather than bear the or three firms that do not comply with supply would require modifications to costs of complying with the proposed the ASTM standard to obtain third party meet the proposed requirements. There standard. It is unclear whether the costs certification. Specifically, for two firms, are two firms that may require of complying with the proposed the cost of testing as few as three units requirements would be significant for modifications to meet the rearward per model could exceed 1 percent of these firms. Three firms supply stability requirement (one importer and their gross revenue. A third firm would restaurant-style high chairs, including one wholesaler) but, as discussed above, need to test about six units per model one plastic high chair. As such, these costs are likely to be low. The cost before testing costs would exceed 1 although the three firms may find percent of its gross revenue. CPSC was of modifying the wording and format of compliant high chairs from alternative unable to obtain revenue data for one the warnings should be small, as well, supply sources, these firms would share small, noncompliant importer, and given that such changes typically add the same concerns as restaurant-style therefore, could not examine the size of only a few cents per unit to production high chair manufacturers regarding the the impact on that firm. costs. desirability of their product to their The proposed placement customers. Two of the six firms supply 7. Summary of Impacts requirements for warnings, however, high chairs to the consumer market that CPSC staff is aware of 38 small firms could be more costly, possibly requiring are identical to several supplied to the that currently market high chairs in the firms to retrofit or redesign their high commercial market. Although the costs United States, of which 21 are domestic chairs. Four of the nine firms likely of complying with the proposed manufacturers and 17 are domestic would have to modify the design of standard could be significant for these importers or wholesalers. Of the 21 their high chairs to meet the proposed two firms, high chairs make up only a small manufacturers, 10 are unlikely to warnings label visibility requirement. small part of their product lines. experience significant economic The high chairs of two firms have Therefore, the two firms may eliminate impacts as a result of the proposed rule. compact designs, making the display of high chairs from their product lines or However, CPSC cannot rule out a warning labels difficult. The remaining select compliant high chairs from significant economic impact for the two firms provide information in a another supplier. However, CPSC was remaining 11 manufacturers. For eight number of languages that would exceed unable to obtain sales revenue for high of the small importers and wholesalers, the space available on their high chairs. chairs and could not determine whether it is unlikely the proposed rule would Finding an alternative supply source exiting the high chair market would have a significant economic impact, generate significant economic impacts. would not be a viable alternative for based on a review of firm revenues and The remaining two firms are directly the options available to each firm. three of the four firms, due to close tied to their foreign suppliers. However, it is possible that the relationships with their suppliers; Therefore, finding an alternative supply proposed rule would have a significant however, all three firms supply a source would not be a viable alternative. economic impact on the remaining nine sufficient number of other products that However, these foreign suppliers may small importers and wholesalers. could probably allow these firms to wish to comply with the proposed Therefore, in total, based on current eliminate high chairs from their product requirements to continue to market their information, CPSC cannot rule out a line entirely. The fourth firm is a products in the United States. Although significant economic impact for 20 of commercial supplier, and high chairs it is possible that these firms could stop the 38 firms (53 percent) operating in are an integral part of this firm’s product selling high chairs, it is unlikely for two the U.S. high chair market. line; therefore, exiting the high chair of these firms because high chairs market would likely cause this firm to represent one of only a few products in 8. Impacts of Test Laboratory go out of business. CPSC requests their lines. Again, CPSC could not Accreditation Requirements on Small comments on how importers would determine whether exiting the high Laboratories respond to the proposed rule and what chair market would generate significant In accordance with section 14 of the are the costs of developing a compliant economic impacts, given the lack of CPSA, all children’s products that are product. sales revenue for high chairs. subject to a children’s product safety

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:17 Nov 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69157

rule must be tested by a third party 15 with the proposed modifications, but Third, because a substantial portion of conformity assessment body that has exclude restaurant-style high chairs the economic impact of the proposed been accredited by CPSC. These third from the scope of the rule; and (4) rule would fall on small, restaurant- party conformity assessment bodies test provide a later effective date for some or style high chair suppliers, CPSC could products for compliance with applicable all high chairs. exclude restaurant-style high chairs children’s product safety rules. Testing First, section 104 of the CPSIA directs from this rule. Restaurant settings have laboratories that want to conduct this the Commission to promulgate a unique requirements, including a need testing must meet the NOR for third standard that is either substantially the for smaller high chairs and to party conformity testing. CPSC has same as the voluntary standard or more accommodate children of various sizes. codified NORs in 16 CFR part 1112. stringent if the Commission determines It would be difficult to retain these CPSC proposes to amend 16 CFR part that would further reduce the risk of features and comply with the proposed 1112 to establish an NOR for testing injury associated with the product. requirements. Moreover, CPSC has laboratories to test for compliance with Therefore, adopting ASTM F404–15 identified only a few injuries that the proposed high chair standard. This with no modifications is the least involved high chairs in restaurant section assesses the impact of this stringent rule CPSC could adopt. This settings. Therefore, the reduction in proposed amendment on small alternative would reduce the economic safety benefits associated with limiting laboratories. impact on all of the small businesses the rule’s scope likely would be CPSC conducted a Final Regulatory supplying high chairs to the U.S. minimal. Flexibility Analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) when it market. Although, choosing this If restaurants could no longer provide adopted part 1112. 78 FR 15836 (Mar. alternative would not reduce the testing high chairs with the desirable attributes, 12, 2013). The FRFA concluded that the costs associated with the rule, this restaurants may stop providing high accreditation requirements would not option would eliminate the economic chairs for customers, which could result have a significant adverse impact on a impact of complying with the in customers using less safe options, substantial number of small laboratories requirements that CPSC proposes in such as placing infant carriers on tables because no requirements were imposed addition to ASTM F404–15 for many or chairs, or using booster seats for on laboratories that did not intend to firms. Specifically, this option would children under the appropriate age. provide third party testing services. The eliminate the cost of complying with the CPSC requests comments on the only laboratories that were expected to additional requirements for the 10 small potential impact of excluding restaurant-style high chairs from the provide such services were laboratories domestic manufacturers and 9 small that anticipated receiving sufficient proposed rule, including cost and safety importers and wholesalers with revenue from the mandated testing to impacts. compliant high chairs, all of whom justify accepting the requirements as a Because restaurant-style high chairs would likely comply with ASTM F404– business decision. are also available to consumers for home For the same reasons, including the 15 by the time a CPSC final rule for high use, CPSC could take steps to reduce the NOR for high chairs in part 1112 would chairs would take effect. However, the potential safety risks of these high not have a significant adverse impact on requirements that CPSC proposes in chairs through other means. For small laboratories. Moreover, CPSC addition to ASTM F404–15 would example, CPSC could require restaurant- expects that only a small number of reduce the risk of injuries associated style high chair suppliers to label their laboratories would request accreditation with backward tip-over incidents and products: ‘‘not intended for home use.’’ to test high chairs, based on the number fall incidents where caregivers did not Additionally, CPSC could develop of laboratories that have applied for use restraints or used the restraints separate warning label requirements for CPSC accreditation to test for improperly. Adopting ASTM F404–15 these products to inform users of the conformance to other juvenile product with no modifications would not meet specific hazard patterns related to standards. Most laboratories would these objectives. restaurant-style high chairs. ASTM already have accreditation to test for Second, the Commission could reduce could also develop requirements conformance to other juvenile product impacts to small businesses by adopting specific to restaurant-style high chairs. standards, and then the only costs ASTM F404–15 with the proposed CPSC requests comments on the would be to add the high chair standard modifications, except for the possibility of excluding restaurant-style to their scope of accreditation. Test requirement regarding the placement high chairs from the proposed laboratories have indicated that this cost and visibility requirements for warning requirements, including the is extremely low when they are already labels. One option is to require warning implications for safety and costs. accredited for other CPSIA section 104 labels to be visible only as a child is Fourth, the Commission could reduce rules. Therefore, the Commission being placed into the high chair. This the economic impact of the proposed certifies that the NOR for the high chair would reduce the proportion of high rule on small businesses by setting a standard will not have a significant chair models with backs that would later effective date for some or all high impact on a substantial number of small need to be redesigned and expanded to chairs. A later effective date would entities. accommodate labels that are visible reduce the economic impact on firms in when the high chair is occupied. two ways. First, firms would be less G. Alternatives Another option would be to allow likely to experience a lapse in At least four alternatives are available duplicate labels. Manufacturers could production or imports that could result to minimize the economic impact on place one label on the front seat back, if they are unable to come into small entities supplying high chairs which would be visible when the child compliance and secure third party while also complying with the direction is placed in the seat, and manufacturers testing within the required timeframe. of section 104 of the CPSIA: (1) Adopt could place a second label in a location Second, firms could spread costs over a ASTM F404–15 with no modifications; that is visible when the child is in the longer period, thereby reducing annual (2) adopt ASTM F404–15 with the high chair. This alternative would costs, as well as the present value of proposed modifications, except for reduce the economic impact on compact total costs. CPSC requests comments on requirements on the placement of high chairs or high chairs with smaller the 6-month effective date, as well as warning labels; (3) adopt ASTM F404– backs. feedback on how firms likely would

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:17 Nov 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 69158 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules

address the proposed rule. CPSC could that provide design or performance response to the collection of also consider a longer effective date for requirements for products fall within information; firms that supply restaurant-style high that categorical exclusion. Because this • an estimate of the burden that shall chairs. However, this may not reduce proposed rule would create design and result from the collection of the economic impact on these firms performance requirements for high information; and because the primary cost issue for them chairs, the proposed rule falls within • notice that comments may be is the utility of their high chairs, not the the categorical exclusion, and thus, no submitted to OMB. time needed to comply with the EA or EIS is required. In accordance with this requirement, standard. Nevertheless, CPSC requests the Commission provides the following XIV. Paperwork Reduction Act comments, particularly from restaurants information: and other commercial establishments, This proposed rule contains Title: Safety Standard for High Chairs on the validity of this conclusion. information collection requirements that Description: The proposed rule would are subject to public comment and require each high chair to comply with XIII. Environmental Considerations review by the Office of Management and ASTM F404–15, with additional The Commission’s regulations outline Budget (‘‘OMB’’) under the Paperwork requirements regarding rearward the types of agency actions that require Reduction Act of 1995 (‘‘PRA’’; 44 stability and warnings in labels and an environmental assessment (‘‘EA’’) or U.S.C. 3501–3521). Under 44 U.S.C. instructional literature. Sections 8 and 9 environmental impact statement 3507(a)(1)(D), an agency must publish of ASTM F404–15 contain requirements (‘‘EIS’’). Rules that have ‘‘little or no the following information: for labels and instructional literature. potential for affecting the human • a title for the collection of These requirements fall within the environment’’ fall within a ‘‘categorical information; definition of ‘‘collection of information’’ exclusion’’ under the National • a summary of the collection of provided in the PRA at 44 U.S.C. Environmental Policy Act (‘‘NEPA’’; 42 information; 3502(3). U.S.C. 4231–4370h) and the regulations • a brief description of the need for Description of Respondents: Persons implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts the information and the proposed use of who manufacture or import high chairs. 1500–1508) and do not normally require the information; Estimated Burden: CPSC estimates the an EA or EIS. As stated in 16 CFR • a description of the likely burden of this collection of information 1021.5(c)(1), rules or safety standards respondents and proposed frequency of as follows:

TABLE 4—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN

Number of Frequency of Total annual Hours per Total burden 16 CFR section respondents responses responses response hours

1231.2 ...... 62 2 124 1 124

CPSC’s estimate is based on the private industries: http://www.bls.gov/ with supplying instructions with high following: ncs/). Therefore, the estimated annual chairs would be ‘‘usual and customary,’’ Section 8.1 of ASTM F404–15 cost associated with the proposed and thus, excluded from ‘‘burden’’ requires that the name and address (city, labeling requirements is $3,743.56 estimates under OMB’s regulations. state, and zip code) of the manufacturer, ($30.19 per hour × 124 hours = Based on this analysis, the proposed distributor, or seller be marked on each $3,743.56). No operating, maintenance, standard for high chairs would impose high chair. Section 8.2 of ASTM F404– or capital costs are associated with the a burden to industry of 124 hours at a 15 requires a code mark or other collection. cost of $3,743.56 annually. product identification on each high Section 9.1 of ASTM F404–15 CPSC has submitted the information chair and the high chair’s package that requires instructions to be supplied collection requirements of this rule to indicates the date (month and year) of with a high chair. High chairs are OMB for review in accordance with manufacture. products that generally require use and PRA requirements. 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). Sixty-two known entities supply high assembly instructions. As such, high CPSC requests interested parties submit chairs to the U.S. market and may need chairs sold without use and assembly comments regarding information to modify their existing labels to comply instructions would not be able to collection to the Office of Information with ASTM F404–15. CPSC estimates compete successfully with high chairs and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see the that the time required to make these that supply this information. Under ADDRESSES section at the beginning of modifications is about 1 hour per OMB’s regulations, the time, effort, and this notice). Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. model. Based on an evaluation of financial resources necessary to comply 3506(c)(2)(A), the Commission invites supplier product lines, each entity with a collection of information comments on: supplies an average of two models of incurred by parties in the ‘‘normal • whether the proposed collection of high chairs. Therefore, the estimated course of their activities’’ are excluded information is necessary for the proper burden associated with labels is 1 hour from a burden estimate when an agency performance of CPSC’s functions, per model × 62 entities × 2 models per demonstrates that the disclosure including whether the information will entity = 124 hours. CPSC estimates the activities required are ‘‘usual and have practical utility; hourly compensation for the time customary.’’ 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). CPSC is • the accuracy of CPSC’s estimate of required to create and update labels is unaware of high chairs that generally the burden of the proposed collection of $30.19 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, require use or assembly instructions but information, including the validity of ‘‘Employer Costs for Employee lack such instructions. Therefore, CPSC the methodology and assumptions used; Compensation,’’ Mar. 2015, Table 9, estimates that no burden hours are • ways to enhance the quality, utility, total compensation for all sales and associated with section 9.1 of ASTM and clarity of the information the office workers in goods-producing F404–15, because any burden associated Commission proposes to collect;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:17 Nov 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69159

• ways to reduce the burden of the • the additional requirements § 1112.15 When can a third party collection of information on proposed for warnings in labels and conformity assessment body apply for respondents, including the use of instructional literature, including their CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule automated collection techniques, when effectiveness at addressing the risk of or test method? appropriate, and other forms of injury associated with falls from high * * * * * information technology; and chairs and the costs of complying with (b) * * * • the estimated burden hours these requirements; (44) 16 CFR part 1231, Safety associated with modifying labels and • whether application of different Standard for High Chairs. instructional literature, including any requirements to restaurant-style high * * * * * alternative estimates. chairs is appropriate, relevant safety ■ 3. Add part 1231 to read as follows: XV. Preemption implications, and options for applying distinct standards; PART 1231–SAFETY STANDARD FOR Under section 26(a) of the CPSA, no • the costs to small businesses HIGH CHAIRS state or political subdivision of a state associated with the requirements may establish or continue in effect a proposed in this NPR, including the Sec. requirement dealing with the same risk 1231.1 Scope. costs to comply with the proposed 1231.2 Requirements for high chairs. of injury as a federal consumer product rearward stability requirements, content safety standard under the CPSA unless and form requirements for labels and Authority: The Consumer Product Safety the state requirement is identical to the instructional literature, and placement Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110–314, federal standard. 15 U.S.C. 2075(a). § 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Pub. requirements for labels; L. 112–28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011). States or political subdivisions of states • alternatives to the proposed may, however, apply to the Commission standard that would reduce impacts on § 1231.1 Scope. for an exemption, allowing them to small businesses; This part establishes a consumer establish or continue such a • the proposed effective date and product safety standard for high chairs. requirement if the state requirement whether an extended effective date provides a significantly high degree of would further mitigate the impact on § 1231.2 Requirements for high chairs. protection from the risk of injury and small businesses and to what extent; (a) Except as provided in paragraphs does not unduly burden interstate and (b) through (e) of this section, each high commerce. Id. at 2075(c). • any additional information relevant chair must comply with all applicable One of the functions of the CPSIA was to the issues discussed in this NPR and provisions of ASTM F404–15, Standard to amend the CPSA, adding several the proposed requirements. Consumer Safety Specification for High provisions to CPSA, including CPSIA During the comment period, ASTM Chairs, approved on May 15, 2015. The section 104 in 15 U.S.C. 2056a. As such, F404–15 is available for review. Please Director of the Federal Register consumer product safety standards that see section X. for instructions on approves this incorporation by reference the Commission creates under CPSIA viewing it. in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and section 104 are covered by the Please submit comments in 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy preemption provision in the CPSA. accordance with the instructions in the from ASTM International, 100 Bar Consequently, the rule proposed in this ADDRESSES section at the beginning of Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West NPR would be a federal consumer this NPR. Conshohocken, PA 19428; http:// product safety standard, and the www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may preemption provision in section 26 of List of Subjects inspect a copy at the Office of the the CPSA would apply. 16 CFR Part 1112 Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product XVI. Request for Comments Administrative practice and Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 This NPR begins a rulemaking procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, East West Highway, Bethesda, MD proceeding under section 104(b) of the Reporting and recordkeeping 20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at CPSIA to issue a consumer product requirements, Third party conformity the National Archives and Records safety standard for high chairs and to assessment body. Administration (NARA). For amend part 1112 to add high chairs to information on the availability of this 16 CFR Part 1231 the list of children’s product safety rules material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, for which CPSC has issued an NOR. We Consumer protection, Imports, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ _ _ _ invite all interested persons to submit Incorporation by reference, Infants and federal register/code of federal _ _ comments on any aspect of the children, Labeling, Law enforcement, regulations/ibr locations.html. proposed mandatory safety standard for and Toys. (b) Instead of complying with section high chairs and on the proposed For the reasons discussed in the 6.5 of ASTM F404–15, comply with the amendment to part 1112. Specifically, preamble, the Commission proposes to following: the Commission requests comments on amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal (1) 6.5.1 Forward and sideways the following: Regulations as follows: stability—A chair shall not tip over • the requirements in ASTM F404– when forces are applied in accordance 15, including their effectiveness in PART 1112—REQUIREMENTS with 7.7.2.4 and 7.7.2.5. addressing the risk of injury associated PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY (2) 6.5.2 Rearward stability—When with high chairs and the costs of CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT BODIES tested in accordance with 7.7.2.6 complying with these requirements; (paragraph (c)(3) of this section), a high • the additional requirements ■ 1. The authority citation for part 1112 chair shall not have a Rearward Stability proposed for rearward stability, continues to read as follows: Index of 50 or more. including its effectiveness in addressing Authority: Pub. L. 110–314, section 3, 122 (c) For rearward stability testing, the risk of injury associated with Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008); 15 U.S.C. 2063. instead of complying with sections rearward tip-overs and the costs of ■ 2. Amend § 1112.15 by adding 7.7.2.1, 7.7.2.2, and 7.7.2.6 of ASTM complying with these requirements; paragraph (b)(44) to read as follows: F404–15, comply with the following:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:17 Nov 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 69160 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules

(1) 7.7.2.1 Place the high chair in a wheels shall be locked during stability not inhibit the tipping of the high chair manufacturer’s recommended use testing. or affect the test results. position with all legs on a level floor (2) 7.7.2.2 Place the high chair on a (3) 7.7.2.6 Rearward stability— and with the seat back adjusted into the rigid, horizontal test surface covered (i) 7.7.2.6.1 Attach a force gauge to most upright position. Attach the tray in with 60 grit sandpaper or equivalent to the rear surface of the seat back at the the rear position, closest to the high prevent the chair from sliding on the lateral centerline and 7 1⁄4 in. (184 mm) chair seat back. For high chairs with test surface during the test. If a high above the occupant seating surface as height-adjustable seats, adjust the seat chair slides on the test surface during shown in Figure 1. For high chairs with into the highest manufacturer’s the test or has wheels that do not lock, place a stop on the test surface to a seat back 7 1⁄4 in. (184 mm) high or recommended use position or the prevent sliding during the test. The stop less, attach the force gauge at the lateral position deemed most likely to fail. If a shall be low profile, minimum height centerline and top surface of the seat high chair has lockable wheels, those required to prevent sliding, and shall back.

(ii) 7.7.2.6.2 With the high chair in (iv) 7.7.2.6.4 Calculate the Rearward (iv) 8.4.4 Each warning statement or the at rest position, gradually apply a Stability Index using the formula shown group of warning statements shall be preload force ‘‘F’’ of 3 lbf (13 N) to the below. preceded by the Safety Alert Symbol seat back surface of the high chair and Rearward Stability Index = 2F + D while maintaining the force, establish Force ‘‘F’’ is measured in pounds (lbs.). the initial location of a reference point Distance ‘‘D’’ in measured in inches (in.) (d) Instead of complying with section some distance away from the force and the signal word ‘‘WARNING’’ in 8.4 of ASTM F404–15, comply with the gauge as shown in Figure 1. bold uppercase letters. If warnings are following: (iii) 7.7.2.6.3 Gradually increase the (1) 8.4 Warning Statements—Each placed directly under or adjacent to one horizontal force over a period of at least Product Shall Have Warning another, then the safety alert symbol 5 seconds and continue to pull the high Statements: and the signal word WARNING need to chair rearward until the high chair (i) 8.4.1 The warnings shall be easy be displayed only once. The Safety Alert reaches the point that it becomes to read and understand and be in the Symbol unstable and is on the verge of tipping English language at a minimum. over. Record the maximum force ‘‘F’’ in (ii) 8.4.2 Any labels or written pounds (lbs.) applied during the test instructions provided in addition to those required by this section shall not and the horizontal distance ‘‘D’’ in and the signal word ‘‘WARNING’’ shall contradict or confuse the meaning of the inches (in.) from the initial location of not be less than 0.2 in. (5 mm) high and required information, or be otherwise the reference point to the location of the the remainder of the text shall be in reference point where the high chair misleading to the consumer. (iii) 8.4.3 The warning statements characters whose uppercase shall not be becomes unstable and is on the verge of shall be conspicuous, in highly less than 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) high. The tipping over. Force ‘‘F’’ shall be contrasting color(s) (e.g., black text on a height of the safety alert symbol shall maintained in a horizontal direction white background), permanent, and in equal or exceed the signal word height. throughout the test. non-condensed sans serif style type. (v) 8.4.5 The safety alert symbol

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:37 Nov 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS EP09NO15.319 EP09NO15.320 EP09NO15.320 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 69161

product background. The signal word shall be black, with key words ‘‘WARNING’’ and the solid triangle highlighted using boldface, on a white and the signal word ‘‘WARNING’’ shall portion of the safety alert symbol background surrounded by a solid black be in contrasting color to the line border. This text also shall be left- background and delineated with solid justified, in upper and lowercase letters black line borders. The background (i.e., sentence capitalization), and in list color behind the safety alert symbol shall be black. The exclamation mark of or outline format, with precautionary the safety alert symbol statements indented from hazard statements and preceded with bullet points. An example label in the format and the signal word ‘‘WARNING’’ shall described in this section is shown in be orange, red, or yellow, whichever shall be the same color as the Figure 2. provides the best contrast against the background. The remainder of the text

Note: For optional additional guidance on warning statements in 8.4.7 (paragraph Product Manuals, Instructions, and Other the design of warnings, see the most-recent (d)(vii) of this section). Collateral Materials, American National edition of ANSI Z535.4, Product Safety Signs (e) Instead of complying with section Standards Institute, Inc., available at http:// and Labels, American National Standards 9.2 of ASTM F404–15, comply with the www.ansi.org/. Institute, Inc., available at http:// www.ansi.org/. following: Dated: November 2, 2015. (1) 9.2 The instructions shall contain Todd A. Stevenson, (vi) 8.4.6 The warning statements the warnings as specified in section 8.4 shall be in a location that is visible by Secretary, Consumer Product Safety (paragraph (d)(1) of this section). Commission. the caregiver while placing the occupant Additional warnings similar to the [FR Doc. 2015–28300 Filed 11–6–15; 8:45 am] into the high chair in each of the statements included in this section shall BILLING CODE 6355–01–P manufacturer’s recommended use also be included. These required positions. warning statements shall meet the (vii) 8.4.7 High chairs that do not requirements described in section 8.4 have a seating component that is also (paragraph (d)(1) of this section), except DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR used as a seating component of a for the color requirements (i.e., the Bureau of Indian Affairs stroller, shall, in the same label, address background of the signal word panel the following warning statements: need not be orange, red, or yellow). 25 CFR Part 30 Children have suffered skull fractures However, the warning statements still after falling from high chairs. Falls can must be in highly contrasting color(s) [167 A2100DD/AAKC001030/ happen quickly if child is not restrained (e.g., black text on a white background), A0A501010.999900] properly. and if color is used, those colors must Notice of Intent To Establish a • Always use restraints, and adjust to meet the color requirements specified in Negotiated Rulemaking Committee fit snugly. Tray is not designed to hold section 8.4 (paragraph (d)(1) of this child in chair. section). AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Education, • Stay near and watch your child (2) Reference to section 9.2 of ASTM Interior. during use. F404–15 in paragraph (e) of this section ACTION: Notice of intent; request for (viii) 8.4.8 High chairs that have a includes only the introductory nominations for tribal representatives; seating component that is also used as paragraph of section 9.2 and does not and comments. a seating component of a stroller shall include subsections 9.2.1 or 9.2.2 of use the warning statements as specified ASTM F404–15. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian in subsections 8.2.2.1 and 8.2.2.2 of the Note: For optional additional guidance on Education (BIE) is announcing its intent version of the standard that is the design of warnings for instructional to establish an Accountability incorporated by reference in part 1227 literature, see the most-recent addition of Negotiated Rulemaking Committee of this subchapter, in place of the ANSI Z535.6, Product Safety Information in (Committee). The Committee will

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:17 Nov 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS EP09NO15.320 EP09NO15.320 EP09NO15.320 EP09NO15.320 EP09NO15.321