[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 201 (Monday, October 19, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63168-63185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26386]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1229

[Docket No. CPSC-2015-0028]


Safety Standard for Infant Bouncer Seats

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, 
section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 
(``CPSIA''), requires the United States Consumer Product Safety 
Commission (``Commission'' or ``CPSC'') to promulgate consumer product 
safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. These 
standards are to be ``substantially the same as'' applicable voluntary 
standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard, if the 
Commission determines that more stringent requirements would further 
reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. The Commission 
is proposing a safety standard for infant bouncer seats (``bouncer 
seats'') in response to the direction of section 104(b) of the CPSIA. 
In addition, the Commission is proposing an amendment to 16 CFR part 
1112 to include 16 CFR part 1229 in the list of notice of requirements 
(``NORs'') issued by the Commission.

DATES: Submit comments by January 4, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of 
the marking, labeling, and instructional literature requirements of the 
proposed mandatory standard for bouncer seats should be directed to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Office of Management 
and Budget, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or emailed to 
[email protected].
    Other comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2015-0028, may be 
submitted electronically or in writing:
    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept 
comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through 
www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic 
comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.
    Written Submissions: Submit written submissions by mail/hand 
delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 
telephone (301) 504-7923.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this proposed rulemaking. All comments received 
may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, 
contact information, or other personal information provided, to: http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, 
trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information 
that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at 
all, such information should be submitted in writing.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the 
docket number, CPSC-2015-0028, into the ``Search'' box, and follow the 
prompts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suad Wanna-Nakamura, Ph.D., Project 
Manager, Directorate for Health Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 301-987-
2550; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Statutory Authority

    The CPSIA was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the 
CPSIA, part of the Danny Keysar Child Product

[[Page 63169]]

Safety Notification Act, requires the Commission to: (1) Examine and 
assess the effectiveness of voluntary consumer product safety standards 
for durable infant or toddler products, in consultation with 
representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and 
independent child product engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate 
consumer product safety standards for durable infant and toddler 
products. Standards issued under section 104 are to be ``substantially 
the same as'' the applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than 
the voluntary standard, if the Commission determines that more 
stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury 
associated with the product.
    The term ``durable infant or toddler product'' is defined in 
section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as ``a durable product intended for use, 
or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the 
age of 5 years,'' and the statute specifies twelve categories of 
products that are included in the definition, including walkers, 
carriers and various types of children's chairs. In issuing regulations 
governing product registration under section 104, the Commission 
determined that an ``infant bouncer'' falls within the definition of a 
``durable infant or toddler product.'' 74 FR 68668 (Dec. 29, 2009); 16 
CFR 1130.2(a)(15).
    Pursuant to section 104(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA, the Commission 
consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, 
laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and members of the 
public in the development of this notice of proposed rulemaking 
(``NPR''), largely through the ASTM process. The NPR is based on the 
most recent voluntary standard developed by ASTM International 
(formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials), ASTM F2167-
15, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Infant Bouncer Seats 
(``ASTM F2167-15''), with specific modifications to improve and 
strengthen the requirements for on-product warnings and instructional 
materials provided with bouncer seats.
    The testing and certification requirements of section 14(a) of the 
Consumer Product Safety Act (``CPSA'') apply to the standards 
promulgated under section 104 of the CPSIA. Section 14(a)(3) of the 
CPSA requires the Commission to publish an NOR for the accreditation of 
third party conformity assessment bodies (``test laboratories'') to 
assess conformity with a children's product safety rule to which a 
children's product is subject. The proposed rule for bouncer seats, if 
issued as a final rule, would be a children's product safety rule that 
requires the issuance of an NOR. To meet the requirement that the 
Commission issue an NOR for the bouncer seat standard, this NPR also 
proposes to amend 16 CFR part 1112 to include 16 CFR part 1229, the CFR 
section where the bouncer seat standard will be codified, if the 
standard becomes final.

II. Product Description

A. Definition of ``Bouncer Seats''

    The scope section of ASTM F2167-15 defines an ``infant bouncer 
seat'' as: ``a freestanding product intended to support an occupant in 
a reclined position to facilitate bouncing by the occupant, with the 
aid of a caregiver or by other means.'' ASTM F2167-15 states that 
infant bouncer seats are intended for ``infants who have not developed 
the ability to sit up unassisted (approximately 0 to 6 months of 
age).''
    Bouncer seats vary widely in style and complexity, but typically, 
bouncer seats consist of a cloth cover stretched over a wire or tubular 
frame. Wire frame bouncers have two designs. The forward bend design is 
constructed with the seating area supported from the front side of the 
product. The second wire frame design is a rear bend design. In the 
rear bend design, the seat is supported from the rear side of the 
product. Other bouncer designs are also currently available, including, 
but not limited to, products with individual wire legs, solid bases, 
and spring designs. These infant bouncer designs use different methods 
to support the seat and are intended for ``bouncing,'' as defined in 
ASTM F2167.
    All bouncer seats support the child in an inclined position, and 
some brands have adjustable seat backs. Various bouncer seat models 
include a ``soothing unit'' that vibrates or bounces the chair, and may 
play music or other sounds. Most bouncer seats also feature an 
accessory bar with attached toys that are, or at some point will be, 
within the child's reach. Most of the bouncer seat models examined by 
Commission staff provide a 3-point restraint system consisting of wide 
cloth crotch restraints, and short adjustable waist straps with plastic 
buckles. Only two models of bouncer seats reviewed by CPSC employed 
upper body restraints. Many bouncer seat brands also include an 
``infant insert,'' intended for use to support smaller babies. See Tabs 
C and D, Staff Briefing Package: Infant Bouncer Seats Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, dated September 30, 2015 (``Staff NPR Briefing 
Package''), available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/Global/Newsroom/FOIA/CommissionBriefingPackages/2015/ProposedRuleSafetyStandardforInfantBouncerSeatSeptember302.pdf.

B. Market Description

    Although additional suppliers may exist, CPSC staff identified 22 
firms supplying infant bouncer seats to the U.S. market. The 22 
identified firms primarily specialize in the manufacture and/or 
distribution of children's products, including durable nursery 
products. The majority of the 22 known firms are domestic (including 8 
manufacturers and 10 importers). The remaining four firms are foreign 
manufacturers.\1\ In 2013, the CPSC conducted a Durable Nursery Product 
Exposure Survey (``DNPES'') of U.S. households with children under age 
6. Data from the DNPES indicate that an estimated 6.75 million infant 
bouncers are in U.S. households (with 95% probability that the actual 
value is between 5.78 million and 7.72 million). Data collected also 
indicate that about 31 percent of the infant bouncers in U.S. 
households are currently in use (an estimated 2.09 million infant 
bouncers, with 95 percent probability that the actual value is between 
about 1.5 million and 2.68 million). Tab F, Staff NPR Briefing Package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Determinations were made using information from Dun & 
Bradstreet and ReferenceUSAGov, as well as firm Web sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Incident Data

    CPSC's Directorate for Epidemiology, Division of Hazard Analysis is 
aware of 277 reported incidents involving bouncer seats, including 11 
fatalities and 51 injuries, occurring between January 1, 2006 and 
February 2, 2015. The incidents are based on reports involving victims 
12 months and younger in the Injury or Potential Injury Incident 
(``IPII''), In-Depth Investigation (``INDP''), and Death Certificates 
(``DTHS'') databases (collectively referred to as Consumer Product 
Safety Risk Management System data, or ``CPSRMS'' data). Additionally, 
CPSC staff found 672 bouncer-related incidents, including two 
fatalities, reported in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance 
System (``NEISS'') records retrieved for bouncer incidents from January 
1, 2006 to December 31, 2013, involving children 12 months old and 
younger. A detailed review of the incident data and analysis associated 
with bouncer seats can be found in Tabs A, B, and D of the Staff NPR 
Briefing Package.

[[Page 63170]]

A. Fatalities

    For the reporting periods described in the preceding paragraph, 
CPSC staff found 11 reported fatalities in the CPSRMS data, and two 
reported fatalities in the NEISS data. A brief description of each 
incident follows:
     120427HCC1640: A 6-month-old died of blunt force trauma to 
the head when the infant's father lifted him in the bouncer seat. The 
bouncer collapsed and the child fell out of the back onto carpeted 
floor. He suffered a linear skull fracture and died the following day.
     121001HCC2002: A 3-month-old was fed and left to sleep in 
her bouncer seat. The child's father reported that he found her face 
down, unrestrained, in the seat. The seat was on the floor, and the 
child's mother and 2-year-old sister had been asleep on a couch 
nearby.\2\ Cause of death was positional asphyxia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Both a car seat and an infant bouncer were present at the 
scene. CPSC Health Sciences staff found the information in the 
report insufficient to determine the hazard that contributed to the 
fatality in this incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     070214CCC1300: A 2-month-old who suffered from reflux and 
a respiratory infection was placed, unrestrained, to sleep in a bouncer 
that was lined with a blanket; the bouncer was on the floor next to the 
couch where his mother slept for the night. The child turned over in 
the seat, and was found unresponsive, face down against seat back. 
Cause of death was positional asphyxia.
     110726CAA3941: A 3-month-old was placed on an adult bed in 
an infant bouncer seat, unrestrained, for a nap. The mother reported 
that the child had fallen out of the seat and she found her face down 
on the bed. The child was diagnosed with an irreversible anoxic brain 
injury and died 19 days later.
     726037034: A 3-month-old was left in a ``bouncey (sic) 
seat on an adult bed.'' Cause of death was probable asphyxia due to 
suffocation. No further information is available.
     1051041332: A 4-month-old ``suffocated when face down in 
soft bedding on bouncey (sic) seat at home.'' No further information is 
available.
     101012HCC3049: A 6-month-old (born several weeks 
premature) was placed in a bouncer on the floor (in front of a 
television) as he was falling asleep while his mother showered. She 
placed a pillow under the rear legs of the bouncer to raise it. She 
found the child unresponsive, turned with his face against the side of 
the bouncer, one leg out of the restraints. Cause of death was 
positional asphyxia.
     080917HBB3900: A 2-month-old in a bouncer was placed in a 
crib to sleep. She was found suspended, partially upside down, over the 
side of the bouncer with one leg entwined in the restraints. A 
depression in the mattress suggests that the child's face was against 
it. Cause of death was mechanical asphyxia.
     X1490229A: A 4-month-old was swaddled and placed for a 
nap, unrestrained, in a bouncer, which was then placed on the floor; 
the child reportedly just started to roll over, but had not done so 
completely on her own. Her parents found her unresponsive ``with her 
face against the back of the infant seat and half way off the chair 
from the waist level down . . .''; she could not be resuscitated. Cause 
of death was positional asphyxia.
     140102HWE0001: A 6-month-old was sleeping, strapped into a 
bouncer and when she awoke, was moved in the bouncer to a bedroom and 
left briefly with two toddlers, and possibly a pet dog. When the 
caregiver returned, she found the chair overturned on the floor with 
the victim's neck lying over the chair's [toy bar]. The report is 
inconsistent regarding whether the bouncer was placed initially on the 
bed or on the floor. HS staff considers the injuries described in the 
ME's report to be consistent with a fall rather than a tip-over at 
floor level. The child died five days later. Cause of death was 
positional asphyxia.
     140422CAA1573: A 3-month-old was placed to sleep for the 
evening, unrestrained, in a bouncer on the floor in a room with several 
other children. Her mother found her five hours later face down in 
front of the bouncer on the floor and not breathing.
     NEISS: 120328281: The parents of a 5-month-old found him 
unresponsive, flipped over in the bouncer seat with his leg still 
through one leg hole. The cause listed was cardiac arrest.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CPSC staff found the information in this incident 
insufficient to determine the hazard that contributed to the 
fatality because the term ``leg hole'' was deemed inconsistent with 
the features of an infant bouncer and because of the lack of detail 
provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     NEISS: 130645295: A 2-month-old child had been asleep in a 
``bouncy''; his father awoke to find the child unresponsive on the 
floor. The cause of death was cardiac arrest.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CPSC staff found the information in this incident 
insufficient to determine the hazard that contributed to the 
fatality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of the infants' deaths involved the presence of excess bedding 
in or under the bouncer; placement of the bouncer on a soft surface 
such as an adult bed; placement of the bouncer in a crib; and carrying 
or placing the bouncer at an elevated height. Most of the bouncer seat 
deaths also involved the infant being placed in the bouncer to sleep 
unrestrained, which allowed the infant unsupervised time and movement 
within the hazardous environment which contributed to the death. Tab B, 
Staff NPR Briefing Package. In nine cases, the child was reported as 
napping or sleeping and without restraints in five of the nine 
incidents. In two cases, the child was partially out of the restraints 
when found; in the case when the bouncer was inside the crib, the child 
was partially suspended upside down over the side of the bouncer with 
one leg in the restraints. Moreover, in at least four cases, the 
child's emerging ability to turn over, resulted in the child's face 
resting against the conforming surface of the seat back, and this 
appears to have been a significant factor in causing the child's death. 
Tab D, Staff NPR Briefing Package.

B. Non-Fatalities

    Of the 277 CPSRMS bouncer-related incidents involving children 12 
months old and younger, 266 incidents were nonfatal. Fifty-one (51) of 
these nonfatal incidents reported injuries. Four of the 51 reported 
injuries involved serious head injuries related to falls from a bouncer 
placed on an elevated surface. Other reported injuries included skull 
fractures, leg fractures, head contusions, eye bruises, facial bruises 
and scratches, a split lip and torn upper frenulum, a finger bruise, 
leg cuts, leg bruises, heel lacerations, and a blood blister. Because 
reporting is ongoing, the number of injuries and fatalities associated 
with bouncer seats are subject to change. See Tab A, Staff NPR Briefing 
Package.
    Incidents involving the infant occupant falling from the bouncer 
are of most concern to CPSC because falls have the greatest potential 
for a serious injury. According to Health Sciences staff's analysis, 77 
of the 266 nonfatal incidents involved the infant occupant falling from 
the bouncer. In five of these incidents, the infant occupant fell from 
a bouncer placed at an elevated height, such as on a kitchen countertop 
or dining table, or the bouncer was being carried by the caregiver; in 
four (80%) of these elevated-height incidents, the infant fell from the 
bouncer and sustained a severe head injury. Severe head injuries, such 
as concussions and fractured skulls, could cause extensive brain damage 
and affect the infant's motor development, emotional development, 
speech, ability to think and learn, and overall quality of life, long 
after the incident has occurred. The majority of the remaining 189 
nonfatal incidents that did not involve a fall

[[Page 63171]]

resulted in no injuries or minor injuries. Only one incident resulted 
in a moderate injury; in that incident a 3-month-old infant shifted in 
the bouncer and sustained a fractured leg. See Tab B, Staff NPR 
Briefing Package.

C. Hazard Pattern Identification for CPSRMS Incidents

    To identify hazard patterns associated with infant bouncer seats, 
CPSC staff considered all 277 reported incidents in CPSRMS involving 
product-related issues. Tab A, Staff NPR Briefing Package. Product-
related issues associated with these incidents include:
    Product Design--Seventy-five (75) incident reports describe issues 
related to bouncer product design. Design issues described in these 
incident reports consist of sharp plastic rods, uncushioned side metal 
bars, overhead attachments not clipping properly, sharp pieces of 
fabric, lack of padding in the footing area, bouncer frames that easily 
entrap arms/legs/fingers, easily movable feet cushion flaps, sharp 
plastic grooves from a musical component, sagging seat belts, and 
lopsided or low-riding bouncer frames. Sixteen of the 75 incidents 
resulted in injuries, all of which were minor.
    Structural Integrity--Seventy (70) incident reports describe issues 
related to the structural integrity of bouncer components, such as 
bouncer seats collapsing when picked up, collapsing during use, and 
releasing fabric from the plastic frame, plus various other structural 
issues involving broken sides, recline adjustment pieces, wire bases, 
front tube retainers, and rubber feet. Twelve of the 70 incidents 
resulted in minor injuries.
    Toy Bar-Related--Thirty-six (36) incident reports involve problems 
with the toy bar or toys attached to the toy bar. These reports 
describe the following types of issues: Toy bars that fail to snap into 
place, toy bars breaking after being used as a handle, toys breaking 
off the bar, toys on the bar swinging back to hit the victim, toys 
scratching and pinching fingers or toes, and children getting hands or 
feet caught on the toy attachments. Ten of the 36 incidents resulted in 
minor injuries.
    Stability--Stability issues comprise thirty-three (33) tip-over 
incidents involving a bouncer seat placed on the floor. While 26 
bouncer tip-over incidents resulted in no reported injuries, seven 
incident reports include injuries such as a split lip, head contusions, 
and facial bruises.
    Chemical/Electric Hazards--Thirty (30) incident reports describe 
issues related to chemical or electrical hazards, including two 
reported injuries (a thigh welt and a rash). One incident involved a 
bouncer seat emanating a toxic smell; another incident involved a 
victim who developed a rash after directly touching the bouncer; and 28 
incidents involved batteries or the vibration motors. Twenty-four of 
the battery/motor incidents included reports of leaking, cracking, or 
exploding batteries. Four of the battery/motor incident reports 
specifically described motor-related issues, which include overheating 
motors, motors making strange noises, and motors catching on fire, 
resulting in burning plastic and structural burn marks.
    Restraints--Twenty (20) incidents, including two reported minor 
injuries, involve issues with bouncer restraints, including falling out 
of bouncer seats despite being strapped in, tearing/fraying straps, 
non-latching seat belts, and breaking seat buckles.
    Hazardous Placement--Eleven (11) incidents involved a hazardous 
placement of the bouncer where victims in bouncer seats fell from 
elevated surfaces, fell face down onto soft bedding, or suffocated 
while attempting to slip out of a bouncer seat placed on an unstable 
surface. One incident included a reported skull fracture injury; 
another incident involved a fatality resulting from blunt force head 
trauma; and nine incidents involved fatalities due to asphyxia.
    Unknown--Two (2) incidents involved an unknown hazard, including 
one that involved a reported injury, and one that resulted in a death 
from positional asphyxia.

D. NEISS Data Analysis

    CPSC staff retrieved 672 NEISS records (estimated total of 17,200 
injuries) describing infant bouncer seat incidents between January 1, 
2006 and December 31, 2013. See Tab A, Staff NPR Briefing Package. 
Injury estimates are derived from NEISS data, where sampling weights 
are used to project the number of cases reported by NEISS hospitals to 
national estimates. A statistically significant upward trend exists in 
the estimated emergency department-treated injuries involving bouncer 
seats for victims under 1-year-old from 2006 to 2013.
    An estimated 15,500 patients were treated and released for bouncer 
injuries, and an estimated 1,300 patients were treated and admitted, 
treated and transferred to another hospital, or held for observation. 
An estimated 15,100 (92%) bouncer injuries involved the head and face, 
while 1,300 estimated injuries involved an unknown area, or the rest of 
the body (appendages, torso, internal). Two cases involved a victim who 
died from cardiac arrest. One victim died after flipping over in an 
infant bouncer seat with his leg still through one leg opening, and the 
other victim was found on the floor unresponsive after being asleep in 
the bouncer. These two fatalities are in addition to the 11 fatalities 
reported in CPSRMS.
    Of the 672 NEISS records describing bouncer injuries, 287 incidents 
took place on the floor or an unknown location. The remaining 385 
incidents, or an estimated 9,200 injuries, involved hazardous 
placements: 342 of these incidents, or an estimated 8,100 injuries, 
resulted from falls. Hazardous placements included counters, tables, 
and other elevated surfaces (e.g., beds, carried or lifted positions, 
chairs, couches, dressers, stairs, and appliances). An estimated 6,800 
injuries, or 74 percent of all estimated bouncer injuries associated 
with a hazardous placement, involved the bouncer being placed on a 
counter or table. Health Sciences staff analysis determined that 50 of 
these hazardous placement incidents resulted in a severe head injury, 
such as a concussion or fractured skull. Twelve severe head injuries 
were the result of the caregiver carrying the infant in the bouncer. 
See Tab B, Staff's NPR Briefing Package. CPSC staff noted two other 
factors in the fall-related NEISS data. In 54 of the reports, the 
incident occurred when someone was carrying or picking up the child in 
the infant bouncer. In 33 of the cases, the child was reported to be 
unrestrained at the time of the incident; the number of cases of 
children falling while unrestrained is likely to be underreported.
    Eighty-one percent of the incidents resulted in injuries (n=532; 
estimate=13,900). CPSC staff reviewed the NEISS cases and determined 
the severity of the reported injuries. Based on that analysis, 11 
percent of the injuries were severe, such as skull fractures and 
intracranial hemorrhages; and 41 percent were moderate, such as less 
serious head injuries and fractures involving other body parts. CPSC 
staff concluded that infants were more likely to sustain a severe head 
injury when they fell from elevated heights, and that the potential for 
severe head injury increases if the child is being carried in the 
bouncer, and/or if they are unrestrained in the bouncer.

E. Product Recalls

    Since January 1, 2006, Compliance staff conducted two bouncer seat 
recalls involving two different firms. The first recall, in April 2007, 
involved 1,400

[[Page 63172]]

units of Oeuf, LLC, infant bouncer seats.\5\ The bouncer seat was 
recalled after six reports of tubular steel frame breakage. The second 
recall of bouncer seats, in July of 2009, involved 6,500 units of 
BabySwede LLC BabyBj[ouml]rn[supreg] Babysitter Balance and Babysitter 
Balance Air bouncer seats.\6\ Bouncer seats were recalled because 
small, sharp metal objects found in the padded area of the bouncer 
chair could protrude through the fabric, posing a laceration hazard to 
children. No injuries were associated with either product at the time 
of the recall. See Tab E, Staff NPR Briefing Package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ CPSC link to recalled product: http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2007/Infant-Bouncer-Seats-Recalled-Due-to-Frame-Failure/.
    \6\ CPSC link to recalled product: http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2009/BabySwede-LLC-Recalls-Bouncer-Chairs-Due-to-Laceration-Hazard/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. International Standards for Bouncer Seats

    CPSC staff found no other standard for infant bouncer seats. See 
Tab C, Staff NPR Briefing Package. However, CPSC staff identified two 
closely related international standards, BS EN 14036:2003, Child Use 
and Care Articles--Baby Bouncers--Safety requirements (``BS EN 14036'') 
and BS EN 12790:2002, Test Methods and Child Care Articles--Reclined 
cradles (``BS EN 12790''), which pertain to products with some 
characteristics similar to infant bouncer seats. The scope of BS EN 
14036 does not include bouncers intended for inclined seating; rather, 
the standard involves products designed to suspend a child, from above, 
in an essentially vertical, semi-seated position. These products, sold 
as baby jumpers in the United States, enable the child's toes/balls of 
the feet to have contact with the floor to activate and maintain the 
bouncing action. General requirements in BS EN 14036 are similar to 
ASTM F2167, but are less stringent. Remaining requirements in BS EN 
14036 are not applicable to infant bouncer seats.
    BS EN 12790 specifies safety requirements and the corresponding 
test methods for fixed or folding reclined cradles intended for 
children up to 6 months and/or up to a weight of 9 kg. Unlike infant 
bouncer seats, BS EN 12790 is intended to cover non-bouncing products 
designed to be a safe sleeping environment. BS EN 12790 contains the 
same general requirements as BS EN 14036. Additional testing in BS EN 
12790 includes stability, static strength, dynamic strength, slip 
resistance, unintentional folding, and restraints. ASTM F2167 contains 
more stringent stability, static strength, and dynamic testing than BS 
EN 12790. Slip-resistance tests are substantially similar in both 
standards. BS EN 12790 contains an unintentional folding test that is 
not applicable to infant bouncer seats. Finally, although ASTM F2167 
does not have a restraint slip test, the restraint strength test 
requires an additional pull test at 45lb (200 N) to the normal use 
direction. Accordingly, overall, ASTM F2167-15 is more stringent in 
most areas than BS EN 12790 and addresses the hazard patterns 
identified in CPSC's incident data.

V. Voluntary Standard--ASTM F2167

A. History of ASTM F2167

    A voluntary standard for infant bouncer seats was first approved in 
December 2001 and published in January 2002, as ASTM F2167-01, Standard 
Consumer Safety Specification for Infant Bouncer Seats. Since then, 
ASTM has revised the standard nine times. Tab C of the Staff NPR 
Briefing Package includes a description of each revision. The current 
version, ASTM F2167-15, was approved on May 1, 2015, and published in 
June 2015. ASTM F2167-15 includes modified and new performance and 
labeling requirements developed by CPSC staff, in conjunction with 
stakeholders on the ASTM subcommittee task group, to address the 
hazards associated with bouncer seats. A description of the current 
voluntary standard for bouncer seats follows.

B. Description of the Current Voluntary Standard--ASTM F2167-15

    ASTM F2167-15 includes the following key provisions: Scope, 
terminology, general requirements, performance requirements, test 
methods, marking and labeling, and instructional literature.
    Scope. Section 1 of ASTM F2167-15 states the scope of the standard, 
detailing what constitutes an ``infant bouncer seat.'' As stated in 
section II.A of this preamble, the Scope section defines an ``infant 
bouncer seat'' as ``a freestanding product intended to support an 
occupant in a reclined position to facilitate bouncing by the occupant, 
with the aid of a caregiver or by other means.'' ASTM F2167-15 states 
that infant bouncer seats are intended for ``infants who have not 
developed the ability to sit up unassisted (approximately 0 to 6 months 
of age).''
    Terminology. Section 3 of ASTM F2167-15 provides definitions of 
terms specific to this standard. For example, section 3.1.1 of the ASTM 
standard defines ``conspicuous'' to mean a ``label that is visible, 
when the infant bouncer seat is in a manufacturer's recommended use 
position, to a person sitting near the infant bouncer seat at any one 
position around the infant bouncer seat but is not necessarily visible 
from all positions.''
    General Requirements. Section 5 of ASTM F2167-15 addresses numerous 
hazards with several general requirements, most of which are also found 
in the other ASTM juvenile product standards. Several requirements 
reference an existing CPSC standard. The following general requirements 
apply to bouncer seats. Where the ASTM standard relies on a CPSC 
mandatory standard, the mandatory standard is cited in parentheses next 
to the requirement:
     Hazardous sharp points and edges (16 CFR 1500.48 and 
1500.49);
     Small parts (16 CFR 1501);
     Lead in paint (16 CFR 1303);
     Banned articles (16 CFR 1500.18(a)(6) and 1500.86(a)(4));
     Wood parts;
     Latching and locking mechanisms;
     Scissoring, shearing, and pinching;
     Openings;
     Exposed coil springs;
     Protective components;
     Permanency of labels and warnings; and
     Toys (ASTM F963).
    Performance Requirements and Test Methods. Sections 6 and 7 of ASTM 
F2167-15 contain performance requirements specific to bouncer seats, as 
well as test methods that must be used to assess conformity with such 
requirements. Below is a discussion of each performance requirement and 
the related test method.
     Restraints. ASTM F2167-15 requires that restraints be 
provided with a bouncer seat that are capable of securing a child when 
the bouncer is placed in any use position recommended by the 
manufacturer. ASTM F 2167-15 requires both a waist and a crotch 
restraint, and the restraint must be designed in such a way that the 
crotch restraint must be used when the waist restraint is in use. The 
standard specifies that the restraint's anchorages shall not separate 
from the attachment points to the bouncer when tested. Testing to this 
requirement is performed by securing the bouncer seat and applying a 
45lb (200N) force for a period of 10 seconds to a single attachment 
point of the restraint in the normal use direction. Although no 
provisions in the performance requirements address the actual use of 
the restraint, ASTM F2167-15 contains a warning label requirement 
regarding proper use of the restraint.

[[Page 63173]]

     Stability. ASTM F2167-15 includes a test for bouncer 
stability in each direction, forward, sideward, and rearward. In the 
forward stability test, an infant CAMI dummy is placed in the infant 
bouncer and the restraints are adjusted to fit in accordance with the 
manufacturer's instructions. The dummy is then removed and the 
stability test fixture is placed in the seat. A vertical static force 
of 21lb (93N) or three times the manufacturer's recommended weight, 
whichever is greater, is applied for 60 seconds to the fixture at a 
distance of 6in (152.4mm) in front of the crotch post. To pass the 
test, the bouncer must not tip over or the front edge must not touch 
the test surface.
    Repeatable stability testing in the sideward and rearward 
directions is more difficult to accomplish based on a bouncer's 
potential shifts in the center of gravity. Because of these potential 
shifts, sideward and rearward testing for bouncers is done differently 
than in the forward direction. The current sideward and rearward 
stability tests are performed with the infant CAMI dummy placed in the 
seat and the bouncer placed on a 20-degree incline in the most unstable 
orientation other than forward. To pass the test, the bouncer must not 
tip over in this position.
     Slip Resistance. The slip resistance test is designed to 
keep bouncers from traveling across a surface while being used by a 
child. Bouncers placed on smooth, hard surfaces, such as a kitchen 
counter, are less likely to creep along the surface while a child is in 
the seat, if the product is designed to meet the slip resistance 
requirement. The slip resistance requirement in ASTM F2167-15 includes 
both static and dynamic components. The static slip resistance test is 
performed on a smooth laminate surface with a matte finish and a 10-
degree incline. A 7.5lb (3.4kg) CAMI dummy is placed in the bouncer 
with the front of the bouncer facing down the incline. The bouncer must 
not move down the incline more than 1/8 in. (3mm) in 1 minute. The test 
is repeated with the bouncer seat oriented with the left, right, and 
rear sides pointed down the incline.
    In the dynamic slip resistance test, a test fixture is placed in 
the bouncer seat with a 7.5lb (93.4kg) weight, and the bouncer is 
placed on the 10-degree inclined surface. Additionally, if the bouncer 
has a feature, such as a vibration unit, the unit is to be turned on 
during the test. An additional 2.5lb (1.13kg) weight is dropped onto 
the test fixture from a height of 6 in. (152.4mm) a total of 10 times. 
To pass, the bouncer seat is not allowed to move more than 1/2in (13mm) 
during the test. This test is repeated with the bouncer in the 
remaining sideways and rear orientations.
     Structural Integrity and Disassembly/Collapse. ASTM F2167-
15 requires that bouncer seats pass a series of three tests to evaluate 
structural integrity: (1) A static load test; (2) a dynamic load test; 
and (3) a disassembly/collapse test.
    To pass the first two tests, at the conclusion of the tests, the 
bouncer seat shall have no failure of seams, breakage of materials, or 
changes of adjustments that could cause the product not to fully 
support the child or that creates a hazardous condition outlined in the 
general requirements of the standard. The static load test requires 
that a 6'' x 6'' x 3/4'' (152.4 x 152.4 x 1.91mm) wood block be placed 
in the bouncer seat and loaded with the greater of 60lb (27.3kg), or 3 
times the manufacturer's recommended maximum weight, whichever is 
greater. The test is intended to ensure that the bouncer design is 
sufficient to hold the weight of any child that is likely to use the 
product.
    The dynamic load test requires that a 6'' (152.4mm) weld cap be 
dropped from a distance of 1'' (25mm) with the convex surface face down 
onto the bouncer seat. Extra weight is added to the weld cap to provide 
a total weight of 33lb (15kg). The drop for the dynamic load test is 
repeated a total of 100 times. This test simulates the child being 
placed in the seat and removed, as well as the forces applied to the 
bouncer while the child is in the seat. This test provides a reasonable 
factor of safety to ensure that the bouncer seat does not fail when 
used in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
    The disassembly/collapse test simulates lifting the bouncer by the 
ends with a child seated in the product to see whether the bouncer 
collapses or folds up into a position that might result in injury. To 
conduct the test, a newborn CAMI dummy is placed in the bouncer seat 
and a 15lb (67N) force is applied to the bouncer at the location most 
likely to cause disassembly. In situations where multiple locations are 
present that could result in disassembly, the test is repeated for each 
location. If a hazardous condition results from the test, the bouncer 
fails the requirement. A hazardous condition is anything that would 
result in the bouncer not meeting the general requirements, or any 
visual indications of disassembly or collapse of the bouncer.
     Drop Test. The drop test is intended to evaluate the 
durability of bouncer seats in instances of misuse, and to assess 
compliance with the general safety requirements, such as small parts, 
sharp points, and sharp edges. The drop test applies dynamic forces to 
the bouncer in directions not associated with normal use by a child. 
The bouncer must be dropped from a height of 36'' (914.4mm), once in 
each of six different planes (top, bottom, front, rear, left side, and 
right side). If the bouncer is of a folding design, the six drops must 
be done in both the folded and unfolded configurations (for a total of 
12 drops). At the end of the test, the bouncer must meet the general 
requirements outlined in Section 5.0 of the standard.
     Toy Bar Attachment Integrity. ASTM F2167-15 includes 
general performance requirements to test toy bars on bouncer seats. A 
static test is performed with a 6''x6''x3/4'' (152.4x152.4x1.91mm) wood 
block placed in the bouncer seat and loaded with the greater of 40lb 
(18.2kg) or two times the manufacturer's recommended maximum weight. 
The bouncer is then gradually lifted. In the dynamic test, an infant 
CAMI is placed in the seat and a cable is attached to the center 
grasping point of the handle. The bouncer is raised and allowed to drop 
2'' (5.1cm). The toy bar must completely release from the bouncer or 
move less than 2'' (5.1cm) from the resting position if the bar has a 
single attachment point. Additionally, individual toys included with 
the bouncer are required to meet the general requirements in the 
standard.
     Battery Compartments. ASTM recently added battery and 
containment requirements to F2167. The new requirements include 
permanently marking the correct battery polarity adjacent to the 
battery compartment, providing a means to contain the electrolytic 
material in the event of battery leakage, protection against the 
possibility of charging non-rechargeable batteries, and defining a 
maximum surface temperature for any accessible component. The battery 
polarity requirement requires a visual inspection of the battery 
compartment. Surface temperature and charging protection are 
accomplished through the performance of an operational test. The 
bouncer is operated using new batteries of the type recommended by the 
manufacturer. Testing is performed by operating the bouncer at the 
highest setting for 60 minutes. Upon conclusion, no battery leakage, 
explosion, or fire can occur, and no accessible component shall exceed 
160[emsp14][deg]F degrees (71[deg]C). The performance requirement 
includes a provision for testing using a/c power; but staff is unaware 
of bouncers

[[Page 63174]]

currently on the market that are a/c powered.
    Marking and Labeling. Section 8 of ASTM F2167-15 requires products 
to be marked or labeled with manufacturing information and relevant 
product warnings.
     Manufacturing Information. Section 8.1 requires that each 
product and its retail packaging be marked or labeled, clearly, 
legibly, and permanently, to include the name and address of the 
manufacturer, distributor, or seller, and a code or other means to 
identify the date of manufacture. Section 8.2 states that a 
manufacturer should change the model number when the product undergoes 
a significant structural or design change that affects conformance to 
the standard.
     Product Warnings. CPSC staff and the ASTM task group and 
subcommittee worked to improve the warning label requirements for 
bouncer seats in section 8.3 of ASTM F2167 to address the hazard of 
falls from elevated surfaces. ASTM F2167-15 includes several changes to 
the warnings requirements intended to address this hazard, as well as 
suffocation. Bouncer seats must be labeled with two groups of warning 
statements, a fall hazard warning and a suffocation warning. ASTM 
F2167-15 includes new content on color in the warning labels, placement 
of the fall hazard warning on the front of the product, and changes to 
the suggested warning language for both falls and suffocation. As set 
forth in more detail in section VI of the preamble, CPSC is proposing 
to include additional changes to the warning label requirements to 
address the deaths and injuries associated with infants falling from 
bouncer seats, and associated with infants falling while remaining in 
the seat, that occur when caregivers place bouncer seats on an elevated 
surface.
    Instructional Literature. Section 9 of ASTM F2167-15 requires that 
instructions be provided with bouncer seats and be easy to read and 
understand. Additionally, the section contains requirements relating to 
instructional literature contents, including warnings.

VI. Assessment of the Voluntary Standard ASTM F2167-15

    CPSC staff examined the relationship between the performance 
requirements in ASTM F2167-15 and each of the hazard patterns 
identified in section III.C of this preamble. Tab C, Staff NPR Briefing 
Package. Based on staff's assessment, CPSC finds that the current 
voluntary standard, ASTM F2167-15, adequately addresses the mechanical 
hazard patterns identified in the incident data associated with bouncer 
seats. However, CPSC finds that the warning label requirements in ASTM 
F2167-15 can be improved to address infant falls from bouncers placed 
on an elevated surface. At this time, such falls cannot be addressed by 
a performance requirement for bouncer seats. Addressing incidents when 
infants fall from bouncer seats, as well as incidents when infants fall 
while remaining in the seat, will require a change in caregiver 
behavior. Accordingly, CPSC is proposing to strengthen the requirements 
for the warning label to increase compliance by caregivers and reduce 
the risk of injury to infants. Tab D, Staff NPR Briefing Package.
    The following section discusses how each of the product-related 
hazard patterns identified in section III.C of this preamble is 
addressed by the current voluntary standard, ASTM F2167-15. Where CPSC 
is proposing additional requirements, the rationale for these changes 
is also explained.
    A. Product Design--CPSC staff evaluated the current requirements in 
ASTM F2167 and tested bouncer samples to the tests for product design. 
The performance requirements to test for hazards related to product 
design are the same as those used to test for structural integrity. 
Additionally, the drop test and the general requirements in Section 5.0 
are used to address this hazard pattern. CPSC staff found that each 
type of failure identified in the incidents is addressed in the 
standard with performance requirements and associated tests. CPSC staff 
opined that many of the incidents may be the result of manufacturing, 
shipping, or consumer assembly-related issues. Accordingly, at this 
time, the Commission does not believe that adding or strengthening 
requirements is likely to reduce the occurrence of these incidents, and 
the current performance requirements are adequate to address this 
hazard pattern.
    B. Structural Integrity--As reviewed in section V.B of this 
preamble, ASTM F2167-15 subjects infant bouncers to a series of three 
tests to evaluate structural integrity including: (1) A static load 
test; (2) a dynamic load test; and (3) a disassembly/collapse test. 
After reviewing the available incident information, CPSC staff 
concluded that it is likely that many of the incidents included in the 
structural integrity category are the result of product misassembly, 
and may not be the result of product design. CPSC staff opined that the 
three structural tests subject infant bouncers to the reasonable forces 
that could be applied during the normal life of the product and 
adequately test the structural strength of a bouncer. Based on staff's 
assessment, the Commission is not proposing to add more stringent 
performance requirements at this time.
    C. Toy Bar-Related--Based on staff's assessment of the standard, 
the toy bar requirements in ASTM F 2167-15 are adequate to address the 
identified hazards. Staff evaluated many bouncers that included a bar 
designed with small toys attached that hang over the body of a child 
seated in the bouncer. Individual toys included with the bouncer are 
required to meet the general requirements in the standard, including 
ASTM F 963. Additionally, the toy bar is required to meet the toy bar 
integrity test requirement. The toy bar integrity requirement uses two 
different tests, a static integrity test and a dynamic integrity test, 
to address incidents in which the toy bars are used as handles. CPSC is 
unaware of any injuries involving toy bars releasing when being used as 
a handle that have occurred since 2012, when the toy bar integrity 
tests were added to ASTM F2167. Although many of the recent toy bar 
incident reports describe consumer complaints about the toy bar 
releasing or bending, CPSC does not consider these reports to be safety 
related, because the toy bars are specifically designed to perform in a 
manner that does not allow a consumer to use the toy bar as a handle, 
and no reported injuries resulted from these incidents.
    D. Stability--ASTM F2167-15 adequately addresses stability-related 
incidents. CPSC staff worked with the ASTM subcommittee on bouncers to 
modify and enhance all the stability performance requirements. 
Beginning with ASTM F2167-14, the rear and side stability tests were 
strengthened by ASTM when the angle of incline was from 12 to 20 
degrees. Additional changes in ASTM F2167-15 include a longer distance 
between the crotch post of the test fixture and the application of 
force for the forward stability test. Changes to the stability 
requirements will require the design of increasingly stable bouncer 
designs similar to ones currently available. CPSC believes that these 
additional requirements will reduce the likelihood of bouncer tip overs 
and associated injuries.
    E. Chemical/Electrical Hazards--To address reported chemical and 
electrical incidents, ASTM recently added battery and containment 
requirements to the 2015 version of ASTM F2167. These additional 
requirements were developed with support from CPSC staff and based on 
the incidents reported to CPSC. New requirements include permanently 
marking the correct battery polarity

[[Page 63175]]

adjacent to the battery compartment, providing a means to contain the 
electrolytic material in the event of battery leakage, protection 
against the possibility of charging non-rechargeable batteries, and 
defining a maximum surface temperature for any accessible component. 
Based on CPSC staff's assessment, CPSC believes that the new battery 
requirements adequately address reported electrical incidents by 
reducing the likelihood of overheating and battery leakage incidents.
    F. Restraints--ASTM F2167-15 adequately addresses mechanical 
incidents involving restraints. ASTM F2167-15 requires that restraints 
be provided with a bouncer seat. Restraints must be capable of securing 
a child when the bouncer is placed in any use position recommended by 
the manufacturer. ASTM F 2167 requires both a waist and a crotch 
restraint, and the restraint must be designed in such a way that the 
crotch restraint must be used when the waist restraint is in use. 
Additionally, on-product warning information regarding use of 
restraints is required. See Tab D, Staff NPR Briefing Package. As 
described below in section VI.G.1, CPSC is proposing additional 
language for the product warning label to address incidents involving 
children who fell from bouncers when placed, unrestrained, to sleep.
    G. Hazardous Placement--Hazardous placement of bouncer seats occurs 
when caregivers place bouncers in a hazardous environment, resulting in 
suffocation or head injuries. Factors that contribute most to these 
hazards include the presence of excess bedding in or under the bouncer; 
placement of the bouncer on a soft surface, such as an adult bed; 
placement of the bouncer in a crib; the infant being placed in the 
bouncer to sleep unrestrained, which allows the infant unsupervised 
time and movement within the hazardous environment; and carrying or 
placing the bouncer at an elevated height. ASTM F2167 addresses 
hazardous placement of bouncer seats with tests for stability and slip 
resistance, designed to keep bouncers from traveling across a surface 
while being used by a child. These performance requirements may help 
reduce the risk of injury in hazardous placement.
    Although the standard includes performance testing for better 
stability and slip resistance, addressing hazardous placement incidents 
with performance requirements is difficult because the hazard scenario 
involves consumer behavior, a foreseeable misuse of the bouncer seat, 
which should be used only on the floor. Accordingly, CPSC is proposing 
modifications to the text, placement, and formatting of warnings 
requirements and instructional literature requirements of ASTM F2167-15 
to help further reduce injuries related to this hazard pattern. A 
detailed description of staff's assessment, rationale, and citations to 
the relevant literature for the recommended changes appear in Tab D of 
the Staff's NPR Briefing Package.
1. Modifications to the Warning Label Content
    The Commission proposes to add two components to the warning 
statements for bouncer seats that are absent in ASTM F2167-15: (1) The 
phrase ``even if baby is sleeping'' to the warning to use restraints; 
and (2) developmental guidance on when to stop using the product to 
help avoid suffocation and fall risks. In general, guidelines for 
warning statements agree that warnings should identify the hazards, the 
consequences, and the means to avoid them (e.g., Madden, 2006; Singer, 
Balliro, & Lerner, 2003, October). The content of the proposed modified 
warnings meets these requirements by calling attention to each of the 
behaviors that are related to the specific hazards identified, and 
advising caregivers how to avoid those hazards.
(a) Use of Restraints
    ``Always use restraints'' is a part of the warnings and 
instructions in the current version of ASTM F2167, and has been so over 
many editions of the standard. Based on the incident data relating 
deaths to suffocation among unrestrained infants while they slept, and 
serious head injuries to unrestrained infants in falls from bouncer 
seats that are placed on elevated surfaces and falls from bouncer seats 
that are being carried, CPSC believes that the current requirement is 
inadequate to address the risk of injury to infants from falls out of 
bouncer seats, or the risk of suffocation among unrestrained infants 
who are sleeping.
    The Commission's proposed warning language includes the statement, 
``Adjust to fit snugly, even if baby is sleeping.'' ASTM F2167-15 lacks 
the phrase that addresses sleeping. CPSC staff reports that while 
working with ASTM, some ASTM members expressed the opinion that 
``Always use restraints'' is adequate because it allows for no 
exceptions to the use of restraints, and contended that the staff's 
recommended language communicates that the product is intended for use 
as a place for the child to sleep, and may encourage such use. One 
member was concerned that including language regarding sleep may 
suggest that manufacturers should bring bouncers into compliance with 
requirements for products that are designed for sleep.
    Although the Commission understands the marketing concerns of some 
manufacturers, the proposed rule addresses how caregivers use bouncer 
seats, the sleeping activity of infants that are intended to use the 
product, and the deaths and injuries reflected in the data when 
caregivers fail to use restraints. Accordingly, to address caregiver 
behavior, it is essential to include language that conveys the hazard 
associated with allowing a child to sleep in a bouncer seat while 
unrestrained. The Commission's concern is that young infants, such as 
those intended to use bouncer seats, spend more time asleep than 
awake.\7\ Infants that spend more than brief periods in a bouncer seat 
will fall asleep on occasion (and caregivers will place infants to 
sleep for the night in bouncer seats under some circumstances), just as 
infants fall asleep in strollers, swings, and car-seat carriers. It may 
be counterintuitive, and therefore unlikely to occur to consumers, that 
products made for infants' use, especially those that have features 
intended to soothe and comfort them, would be unsafe places for infants 
to sleep. In fact, despite claims that bouncer seats are not intended 
for children to sleep in, CPSC staff found that some manufacturers' 
marketing suggests that bouncers are intended for sleep as well as 
play.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, see the American Academy of Pediatrics Web 
site, http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/baby/sleep/Pages/default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Caregivers may remove or loosen restraints while a child is 
sleeping in a bouncer seat. Removing or loosening product restraints 
while a child naps or sleeps is a known hazard pattern across infant 
products that use restraints. It is foreseeable that some caregivers 
will perceive the restraints as uncomfortable and unnecessary (Lerner, 
Huey, & Kotwal; 2001), particularly for younger users, who may be seen 
as not yet mobile enough to be at risk of falling out of the bouncer, 
and even less at risk of falling if the infant is asleep. CPSC's 
proposed warning statement addresses the fact that a child will sleep 
in the bouncer, and addresses caregivers' known inclination to loosen 
or remove the restraints by specifying that they should do the opposite 
to avoid the risk of injury or death from the child falling from the 
bouncer seat or turning in the seat.

[[Page 63176]]

(b) Developmental Guidance
    The second modification to ASTM F2167-15 in CPSC's proposed warning 
content is in the developmental guidance given in the suffocation 
warning and in the product instructions. The warning in the current 
ASTM standard includes the developmental statement: ``never use for a 
child able to sit up unassisted,'' a milestone which, on average, a 
child will accomplish at about 6 months of age. Some packaging and 
instructions that CPSC staff reviewed also stated that the product is 
for use from birth until the child is able to sit up unassisted, and 
use a weight limit (25 lb) that reflects a 50th percentile 18-month-
old. The Commission is concerned that this combination of guidance 
leads caregivers to use the product beyond the point that it is safe. 
Before infants can sit steadily by themselves, they lack upper body and 
torso control, but actively try to sit, turn, and reach for objects. 
Infants in bouncer seats are supported in an inclined position with 
their upper body unconstrained. The infant's actions may cause them to 
hang over the side or front, fall out or tip over the bouncer, or turn 
into the surface of the seat where the flexible, conforming design of 
the seat can compromise the external airways.
    CPSC proposes that the bouncer seat warning label and product 
instructions advise caregivers to stop using the product when children 
start trying to sit up. On average, children reach this milestone at 
4.8 months.\8\ CPSC staff recommended this milestone based on the data 
indicating that most witnessed instances in which the child's 
activities reportedly preceded tip-overs or resulted in the child 
hanging out of the bouncer involved children 5 months of age or 
younger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Range, 3-8 months. Bayley, N. (1969). Manual for the Bayley 
Scales of Infant Development. New York, NY: The Psychological 
Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Modifications to Warning Label Placement
    Language in ASTM F2167-15 requires the fall hazard warning to 
appear anywhere on the front surface of the product's seat back. To 
address hazards, warning labels must be conspicuous, formatted to help 
attract and maintain attention, and include appropriate instructional 
content. Accordingly, CPSC proposes that the fall hazard warning label 
be required to be on the front of the product near the infant's head to 
increase the likelihood that caregivers will notice it, and comply with 
its recommendations, at decision points affecting the child's safety. 
This location near the infant's head was adopted for warnings on hand-
held infant carriers in 16 CFR part 1225, Safety Standard for Hand-Held 
Infant Carriers (``HHIC''; FR 78, No. 235; 73415, December 6, 2013) and 
the National Highway Transportation Administration's (``NHTSA'') car 
seat standard, 49 CFR 571.213 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(``FMVSS'') No, 213.
    CPSC's research indicates that placement of the warning label near 
the child's face on the bouncer seat is essential in the effort to 
influence caregivers' behavior. Research indicates that the location of 
a warning label plays a vital role in its salience, a crucial factor in 
effectiveness (cf. topic reviews by Lesch, 2006; Silver & Braun, 1999). 
ASTM F2167-15 requires only that the label be visible on the front 
surface of the seat back with the Newborn CAMI manikin placed in the 
seat. The Commission is concerned that, because of its artificial and 
static nature, the test procedure in ASTM F2167-15 for visibility of 
the fall hazard warning label is unlikely to replicate visibility of 
the label under normal conditions of product use. In addition to 
allowing considerable variability in the conspicuity of the label 
location, a basic flaw in this method is the assumption that what is 
visible under static test conditions will be visible during routine 
use. A label below the shoulder level or along the torso down to the 
seat bight may be covered by parts of the child's body or clothing, and 
the area may be covered by a blanket, including an accessory cover that 
comes with at least one product.
    Because a label must be seen to have an effect, visibility is a 
prerequisite to effectiveness. Visibility, in itself, however, is an 
insufficient requirement. Given the number, type, and severity of the 
incidents that prompted the revisions to the warnings, the appropriate 
criterion is that the label be likely to draw the caregiver's attention 
at any decision point that may affect safe use. As with the required 
labeling for hand-held infant carriers, the warning label should be 
near the child's face because that is where the caregiver's attention 
is most likely to be focused. This is the most conspicuous location on 
the product and offers the best opportunity to influence the 
caregiver's behavior.
    During the ASTM process, when CPSC staff suggested locating the 
fall hazard warning next to the infants' head, ASTM subcommittee 
members expressed concerns that (1) common label materials present 
potential abrasion and cut hazards if adjacent to an infant's face; (2) 
the location is design-restrictive for smaller models because of the 
size of the label; and (3) due to space restrictions, the location is 
challenging for those firms that use labels in multiple languages.
    Based on staff's review of bouncer seats and the identified issues, 
the Commission believes these issues can be resolved. As noted above, 
CPSC's proposed location for the fall hazard warning is the same as 
that recently adopted for warnings on infant car seats that are also 
hand-held carriers. NHTSA adopted this location for its air bag warning 
in these products in the late 1990's, based on its own research. CPSC 
staff examined car seats and found that both heat transfer and sewn-on 
labels, the latter of which was identified by industry as a concern, 
are used on car seats. CPSC's project manager for the hand-held carrier 
standard reported that neither injuries nor space requirements due to 
the need to produce labels in multiple languages were raised as 
concerns for hand-held carriers. Firms that produce infant car seat 
carriers have managed these issues successfully. CPSC staff contacted 
NHTSA staff responsible for routine data review, who confirmed that 
there have been no complaints of injury of any type resulting from car 
seat labels near a child's face. Finally, CPSC's proposed label is 
approximately 2.25 inches long and 2.0 inches wide. Review of hand-held 
infant carriers that are also infant car seats, which require a larger 
\9\ label for both the CPSC mandated strangulation warning and the 
NHTSA-mandated air bag warning, suggests that there is at least as much 
space, and perhaps more, on many infant bouncer models, as on car seat 
carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The message panel of the air bag warning alone must be no 
smaller than 30 cm2 (11 in.2); the pictogram 
must be at least 30 mm in diameter (1.18 in.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although no voluntary or mandatory requirement exists for multiple 
languages on products sold in the U.S., given the relatively small size 
of the proposed warning label, multiple options appear available to 
firms for placement of the fall hazard warning in multiples languages. 
For example, the warning label could appear in a different language on 
either side of the child's head, as suggested by the Canadian 
representative to the task group; different labels could be made for 
different markets; or the label length could be extended to accommodate 
additional languages, as some firms have done with infant car seat 
labels.

[[Page 63177]]

3. Modifications to Warning Label Format
    ASTM F2167-15 (1) allows the text and the background of the warning 
label, except for the area behind the word ``WARNING,'' to be any color 
as long as it is contrasting, and (2) provides no format guidance. 
Although example labels with CPSC's recommended format are presented in 
the voluntary standard, the standard includes the permissive statements 
that the figures `` . . . are presented as EXAMPLES ONLY . . . 
[emphasis in original]'' and that the format and ``wording content,'' 
as well as the use of highlighting, ``are at the discretion of the 
manufacturer.''
    The Commission proposes that the formatting requirements for 
bouncer seats reflect the format shown in the label in Figure 1. Good 
formatting helps attract and maintain attention, and aids reading and 
comprehension. Information is processed more quickly and easily when it 
is organized by content into brief chunks. CPSC is concerned that the 
quoted statements make it likely that some firms will continue to use 
poor quality labels that present warning information in a cluttered 
paragraph style that is difficult to read, rather than a label that is 
conspicuous, easy to read, and easy to comprehend, as is the 
recommended warning label.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC15.002

VII. Proposed CPSC Standard for Bouncer Seats

    The Commission concludes that ASTM F2167-15 adequately addresses 
most of the hazards associated with bouncer seats, but proposes to 
modify the warning label requirements to increase effectiveness aimed 
at changing caregiver behavior to further reduce the risk of injury to 
infants from falls. Thus, the Commission proposes to incorporate by 
reference ASTM F2167-15 with the following modifications to the warning 
label requirements:
     Revise the content of the warnings, markings, and 
instructions to:
     Add text to the warnings that states to use the restraints 
``. . . even if baby is sleeping . . .'';
     change the text in the warnings to read, ``stop using when 
baby starts trying to sit up''; and
     change the developmental guidance in the instructions, if 
stated, to read, ``from birth (or ``0'') until baby starts trying to 
sit up.''
     Require that the fall hazard label be located on the front 
surface of the bouncer adjacent to the area where the child's head 
would rest, and modify the current visibility test to reflect this 
requirement.
     Specify a standard format (including black text on a white 
background, table design, bullet points, and black border) for the 
warnings on the product and in the instructions.

VIII. Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112 To Include NOR for Bouncer Seat 
Standard

    The CPSA establishes certain requirements for product certification 
and testing. Products subject to a consumer product safety rule under 
the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard or regulation under any 
other act enforced by the Commission, must be certified as complying 
with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). 
Certification of children's products subject to a children's product 
safety rule must be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third 
party conformity assessment body. Id. 2063(a)(2). The Commission must 
publish an NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity 
assessment bodies to assess conformity with a children's product safety 
rule to which a children's product is subject. Id. 2063(a)(3). Thus, 
the proposed rule for 16 CFR part 1229, Safety Standard for Infant 
Bouncer Seats, if issued as a final rule, would be a children's product 
safety rule that requires the issuance of an NOR.
    The Commission published a final rule, Requirements Pertaining to 
Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), 
codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (``part 1112'') and effective on June 10, 
2013, which establishes requirements for accreditation of third party 
conformity assessment bodies to test for conformity with a children's 
product safety rule in accordance with section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA. 
Part 1112 also codifies all of the NORs issued previously by the 
Commission.
    All new NORs for new children's product safety rules, such as the 
infant bouncer seat standard, require an amendment to part 1112. To 
meet the requirement that the Commission issue an NOR for the proposed 
bouncer seat standard, as part of this NPR, the Commission proposes to 
amend the existing rule that codifies the list of all NORs issued by 
the Commission to add bouncer seats to the list of children's product 
safety rules for which the CPSC has issued an NOR.
    Test laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third 
party conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for 
bouncer seats would be required to meet the third party conformity 
assessment body accreditation requirements in part 1112. When a 
laboratory meets the requirements as a CPSC-accepted third party 
conformity assessment body, the laboratory can apply to the CPSC to 
have 16 CFR part 1229, Safety Standard for Infant Bouncer Seats, 
included in the laboratory's scope of accreditation of CPSC safety 
rules listed for the laboratory on the CPSC Web site at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.

IX. Incorporation by Reference

    Section 1229.2(a) of the proposed rule would incorporate by 
reference ASTM F2167-15. The Office of the Federal Register (``OFR'') 
has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. 
The regulations require that, for a proposed rule, agencies discuss in 
the preamble of the NPR ways that the materials the agency proposes to 
incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested persons 
or how the agency worked to make the materials reasonably available. In 
addition, the preamble of the proposed rule must summarize the 
material. 1 CFR 51.5(a).
    In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section V.B. of this 
preamble summarizes the provisions of ASTM F2167-15 that the Commission 
proposes to incorporate by reference. ASTM F2167-15 is copyrighted. By 
permission of ASTM, the standard can be viewed as a read-only document 
during the comment period on this NPR, at: http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. Interested persons may also purchase a copy of ASTM F2167-15 
from ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West 
Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. One may also 
inspect a copy at CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 
Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 
20814, telephone 301-504-7923.

[[Page 63178]]

X. Effective Date

    The Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'') generally requires that 
the effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of 
the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The Commission is proposing an 
effective date of 6 months after publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register. Without evidence to the contrary, CPSC generally 
considers 6 months to be sufficient time for suppliers to come into 
compliance with a new standard, and a 6-month effective date is typical 
for other CPSIA section 104 rules. Six months is also the period that 
the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (``JPMA'') typically 
allows for products in the JPMA certification program to transition to 
a new standard once that standard is published. We also propose a 6-
month effective date for the amendment to part 1112. We ask for 
comments on the proposed 6-month effective date.

XI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

A. Introduction

    The Commission is issuing a proposed rule under the requirements of 
section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (``CPSIA'') 
that would incorporate by reference the most recent ASTM standard for 
infant bouncer seats, ASTM F2167-15, with several modifications to the 
requirements for product warnings and instructional literature. In this 
section, we summarize staff's evaluation of the potential economic 
impact of the proposed rule on infant bouncer seats on small entities, 
including small businesses, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (``RFA''). Section 603 of the RFA requires that agencies prepare an 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'') and make it 
available to the public for comment when the general notice of proposed 
rulemaking (``NPR'') is published, unless the head of the agency 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. The IRFA must describe the 
impact of the proposed rule on small entities and identify any 
alternatives that may reduce the impact. See Tab F, Staff NPR Briefing 
Package.

B. The Product

    An infant bouncer seat is defined in ASTM F2167-15, Standard 
Consumer Safety Specification for Infant Bouncer Seats, as ``a 
freestanding product intended to support an occupant in a reclined 
position to facilitate bouncing by the occupant, with the aid of a 
caregiver or by other means.'' It is intended for ``infants who have 
not developed the ability to sit up unassisted (approximately 0 to 6 
months of age).'' These products vary widely in price; they can be 
purchased for as little as $20, but can also easily cost more than 
$200.

C. The Market for Infant Bouncer Seats

    Staff identified 22 firms (including large and small) supplying 
infant bouncer seats to the U.S. market, although there may be 
additional firms as well. These firms specialize primarily in the 
manufacture and/or distribution of children's products, including 
durable nursery products. The majority of the 22 known firms are 
domestic (including 8 manufacturers and 10 importers). The remaining 
four firms are foreign manufacturers.\10\ Staff expects that the infant 
bouncer seats of 17 of these firms are already compliant with ASTM 
F2167 because the firms either: (1) Have their bouncers certified by 
the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (``JPMA'') (six firms); 
(2) claim compliance with the voluntary standard (ten firms); or (3) 
have been tested to the ASTM standard by CPSC staff (one firm).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Determinations were made using information from Dun & 
Bradstreet and ReferenceUSAGov, as well as firm Web sites.
    \11\ JPMA typically allows 6 months for products in their 
certification program to shift to a new standard once it is 
published. The version of the standard that firms are likely testing 
to currently is ASTM F2167-14. Two newer versions of the standard 
have been published since then, but neither will become effective 
for JPMA certification purposes before September 2015. Additionally, 
many infant bouncer seats are expected to be compliant with ASTM 
F2167-14a without modification, and firms compliant with earlier 
versions of the standard are likely to remain compliant as the 
standard evolves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Reason for Agency Action and Legal Basis for the Proposed Rule

    Section 104 of the CPSIA requires the CPSC to promulgate a 
mandatory standard for infant bouncer seats that is substantially the 
same as, or more stringent than, the voluntary standard if the 
Commission determines that a more stringent standard would further 
reduce the risk of injury associated with such products.
    CPSC staff worked closely with ASTM to develop the revised 
requirements, test procedures, and warning labels that have been 
incorporated into ASTM F2167 since the rulemaking process started in 
January 2013 in an effort to reduce this risk. However, not all of 
staff's warning label recommendations were adopted into the most recent 
version of the voluntary standard, ASTM F2167-15. Therefore, the 
Commission proposes to incorporate by reference ASTM F2167-15, with the 
remaining modifications staff recommended to ASTM.

E. Requirements of the Proposed Rule

    The Commission proposes adopting the voluntary ASTM standard for 
infant bouncer seats (ASTM F2167-15) with additional changes to the 
warning labels (in particular, the location of the fall hazard warning 
label) and a test to ensure the visibility of those labels on the 
product. A description of the current voluntary standard appears in 
section V of this preamble, and a description of the proposed 
modifications to the warning requirements appears in section VII of 
this preamble.
    All firms would need to modify the text of their warnings for both 
the product and the instruction manual. The fall hazard warning would 
need to be re-located next to the child's head \12\ and be visible when 
accessories are in use (such as a toy bar or an infant insert used for 
supporting a smaller child's upper body).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The warning was only recently moved to the front of the 
bouncer (ASTM F2167-15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Staff discussed these changes with several ASTM members and 
supplier representatives. The possible economic impact of these changes 
on small business is discussed in Tab F of Staff's NPR Briefing Package 
and in section XI.G of this preamble.

F. Other Federal or State Rules

    No federal rules duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed 
rule.

G. Impact on Small Businesses

    CPSC is aware of approximately 22 firms (large and small) currently 
marketing infant bouncer seats in the United States, 18 of which are 
domestic. Under U.S. Small Business Administration (``SBA'') 
guidelines, a manufacturer of infant bouncer seats is categorized as 
small if it has 500 or fewer employees, and importers and wholesalers 
are considered small if they have 100 or fewer employees. Our analysis 
is limited to domestic firms because SBA guidelines and definitions 
pertain to U.S.-based entities. Based on these guidelines, about 12 of 
the 22 firms are small--five domestic manufacturers and seven domestic 
importers. Additional unknown small domestic infant bouncer seats 
suppliers may be operating in the U.S. market.
1. Small Manufacturers
    The economic impact of the proposed bouncer standard should be 
small for the five small domestic manufacturers, apart from third party 
testing costs. The

[[Page 63179]]

bouncers of all of these firms already comply with the ASTM voluntary 
standard currently in effect for testing purposes (F2167-14). These 
firms are expected to remain compliant with the voluntary standard as 
it evolves, because they follow and, in at least three cases, actively 
participate in the standard development process. Therefore, compliance 
with the voluntary standard is part of an established business 
practice. ASTM F2167-15, the version the Commission proposes to 
incorporate, will be in effect by the time the mandatory standard 
becomes final and these firms are likely to be in compliance based on 
their history.
    None of the small manufacturers typically includes more than four 
languages in their warnings (two firms use two languages; two firms use 
three languages; and one firm uses four languages). Based upon 
inspection of their products and the space available for the warnings, 
redesign should not be required for any of the bouncers supplied by the 
known small manufacturers. The firm using four languages might opt to 
redesign to give their product(s) a less cluttered appearance. However, 
discussions with a firm representative contacted by staff indicated 
that the firm was not concerned about the location of the warning 
labels.
    Under section 14 of the CPSA, once the new infant bouncer seat 
requirements become effective, all manufacturers will be subject to the 
third party testing and certification requirements of the CPSA and the 
Commission's rule Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product 
Certification at 16 CFR part 1107 (``the 1107 rule''). Third party 
testing will include any physical and mechanical test requirements 
specified in the final infant bouncer seats rule. Manufacturers and 
importers should already be conducting required lead testing for 
bouncers. Third party testing costs are in addition to the direct costs 
of meeting the infant bouncer seats standard.
    All infant bouncer seats sold by U.S. manufacturers are currently 
tested to verify compliance with the ASTM standard, though not 
necessarily via third party. Thus, the impact to testing costs will be 
limited to the difference between the cost of third party tests and the 
cost of current testing regimes. As a frame of reference, suppliers 
have estimated that testing to the ASTM voluntary standard typically 
costs about $560-$800 per model sample. Based on an examination of firm 
revenues from recent Dun & Bradstreet or ReferenceUSAGov reports, the 
impact of third party testing to ASTM F2167-15 is unlikely to be 
economically significant for most small manufacturers (i.e., testing 
costs will be less than 1 percent of gross revenue). Although the 
Commission does not know how many samples will be needed to meet the 
``high degree of assurance'' criterion required in the 1107 rule, over 
24 units per model would be required to make testing costs to exceed 
one percent of gross revenue for the small manufacturer with the lowest 
gross revenue. One firm has a much larger number of infant bouncer 
models than the other small manufacturers, however, and its testing 
costs could exceed 1 percent of gross revenue if as few as seven units 
per model were required for testing. Note that this calculation assumes 
the rule would generate additional testing costs in the $560-$800 per 
model sample range. Given that all firms are conducting some testing 
already, this likely overestimates the impact of the rule with respect 
to testing costs. However, we do not know specifically how much the 
third party requirement adds to testing costs or precisely how many 
models are needed to meet the ``high degree of assurance'' criterion 
and cannot rule out a significant economic impact. We welcome comments 
regarding incremental costs due to third party testing (i.e., how much 
does moving from a voluntary to a mandatory third party testing regime 
add to testing costs, in total and on a per test basis). In addition, 
we seek comments regarding the accuracy of assuming that a ``high 
degree of assurance'' can be achieved with fewer than seven samples.
2. Small Importers
a. Small Importers With Compliant Infant Bouncer Seats
    Five small importers of infant bouncer seats are currently in 
compliance with the voluntary standard and, based on prior compliance 
with the voluntary standard, would likely continue compliance as new 
versions of the voluntary standard are published. The bouncers supplied 
by these firms would, for the most part, only require modifications to 
meet the warning label changes.
    The placement of the new warnings could potentially require 
significant changes to existing models of imported bouncers. Imported 
bouncers tend to be produced to broadly meet the current requirements 
for several trading partners simultaneously, including the labeling 
requirements for multiple countries. Producers for international 
markets typically address labeling requirements for their various 
trading partners by simply providing a warning that covers all required 
safety issues in multiple languages. However, the proposed rule's 
specificity regarding warning label location could make simple 
replication of the warning label in multiple languages impractical due 
to space constraints on the front surface of the back of the bouncer. 
While only the English-language warning would be required for products 
sold in the United States, this could mean that foreign producers will 
need to design a product for the U.S. market. One solution could be as 
straightforward as reducing the number of languages used for warnings 
on U.S.-bound bouncer seats. Regardless, having a differing product for 
the U.S market could create logistical problems or costs, which could 
be passed on to importers.
    We have no information regarding the degree to which foreign 
producers tend to pass on increases in regulatory costs to importers 
and are seeking comment on this topic. Because we lack information on 
the costs to importers associated with complying with the proposed 
rule, we are unable to rule out a significant impact for three of the 
five importers of compliant bouncers. We begin our discussion of 
potential impacts by assuming, when possible, firms would prefer to 
develop a U.S.-specific product with fewer warning labels rather than 
exit the bouncer market or develop a bouncer with sufficient room to 
accommodate warnings in languages for both their U.S. and foreign 
markets. Developing such a bouncer would address the requirements in 
the proposed rule, while ensuring that the appearance of their bouncers 
remains comparable to their competition's products (for which one to 
three languages is typical). The Commission requests feedback from the 
public, particularly from small importers, on the portion of regulatory 
compliance costs typically borne by importers, as well as information 
on the costs of developing a compliant bouncer for the U.S. market.
    CPSC staff believes that one importer would not likely experience a 
significant economic impact based on comparing redesign cost estimates 
provided by suppliers (around $200,000 to $300,000) to its annual 
revenue, even if its supplier passed on 100 percent of the costs of 
redesign.
    The Commission requests feedback on the cost estimate for product 
redesign, as well as how that cost level might differ if the redesign 
focused exclusively on warning label changes and the logistical 
problems it might create. Based upon examination of this firm's

[[Page 63180]]

revenues and the revenues associated with the sale of bouncers, this 
firm also could likely exit the market without experiencing a 
significant economic impact.
    If product redesign costs $200,000 and the supplying firm only 
passed on roughly 50 percent of the expected redesign costs, then two 
of the remaining four importers would not likely experience significant 
economic impact. The Commission requests input on whether it is 
reasonable to assume, in the absence of alternative information, 
foreign suppliers will share up to 50 percent of the costs of redesign, 
as well as information supporting any alternative estimates of the 
relative portions of cost sharing that is typical for an importer and 
its supplying firm. If the supplying firm were unwilling or unable to 
limit cost passed through, then one of these firms could probably exit 
the market without significant economic impact as sales of bouncers are 
likely to contribute less than one percent to its overall revenue.
    The fourth importer would likely only avoid significant economic 
impact if their supplier absorbed 100 percent of the cost of a 
redesign. Dropping bouncers from their product line could be an option. 
However, it is likely that the sales revenue generated by bouncer sales 
exceeds one percent of their overall revenue. This importer is an 
exclusive distributor for their supplier's products in the U.S., so an 
alternative supplier is not an option.
    We request information on the relationship between exclusive 
distributors and their suppliers, particularly as it pertains to 
willingness to shoulder redevelopment costs to maintain a U.S. market 
presence.
    Neither annual revenue nor bouncer sales revenue was available for 
the final small importer of compliant bouncers; therefore, no 
assessment of impact could be made.
b. Small Importers With Noncompliant Infant Bouncer Seats
    Two firms import bouncers that do not comply with the voluntary 
standard. The bouncers for these firms will require changes to come 
into compliance with the voluntary standard as well as modifications to 
meet the proposed warning label requirements. Similar to the case of 
importers of compliant bouncers, the proposed location of the warning 
labels on the front of the bouncer adjacent to the head could present a 
problem, because one firm typically uses nine languages while the other 
uses six. These importers may need to tailor a product for the U.S, 
which could be logistically difficult or costly, especially for a small 
firm with low sales volume.
    The size of the economic impact on the two firms with noncompliant 
infant bouncer seats will depend upon the cost of the changes required 
and the degree to which their supplying firms pass on any increases in 
production costs associated with changes in the product needed to meet 
the mandatory standard. Again, we do not have any information on the 
proportion of compliance costs passed on and are seeking public comment 
on this topic. It is possible that these two importers could 
discontinue the sale of infant bouncer seats altogether, as the product 
does not appear to represent a substantial portion of either firms' 
product lines. However, one of the two firms would likely only avoid a 
significant economic impact if its supplier absorbed 100 percent of the 
cost of a redesign and it seems likely that its bouncer sales might 
exceed 1 percent of its annual sales revenue as well. Again, we do not 
have specific information on bouncer sales revenues, and cannot rule 
out a significant economic impact for either firm.
    Both of the small importers with noncompliant bouncers are directly 
tied to their foreign suppliers and finding an alternate supply source 
would not be a viable alternative for these firms. However, given this 
close relationship, the foreign suppliers likely would have an 
incentive to work with their U.S. subsidiaries to maintain an American 
market presence.
    The Commission is interested in information regarding the 
relationship between foreign producers and their U.S. subsidiaries and 
whether such relationships decrease the likelihood that the subsidiary 
experiences a significant economic impact due to a rule.
3. Third Party Testing Costs for Small Importers
    As with manufacturers, all importers will be subject to third-party 
testing and certification requirements, and consequently, will be 
subject to costs similar to those for manufacturers if their supplying 
foreign firm(s) does not perform third party testing. The majority of 
bouncer importers are already testing their products to verify 
compliance with the ASTM standard, and any costs would be limited to 
the incremental costs associated with third party testing over the 
current testing regime.
    We were able to obtain revenue data for one of the small importers 
with noncompliant bouncers. For that importer, third party testing 
costs, considered alone and apart from any additional performance 
requirements due to the proposed rule, would not exceed one percent of 
gross revenue unless around 12 units per model required testing to 
provide a ``high degree of assurance.'' Although staff believes that it 
is unlikely that any importer would need to test more than 12 samples, 
we are seeking information regarding the validity of that assumption. 
We had no basis for examining the size of the impact for the remaining 
importer of noncompliant bouncers.
    It is important to note that our analysis of the impact of the 
draft proposed rule have evaluated the impacts of complying with 
performance requirements and third party testing requirements 
independently. Firms will, in fact, experience the costs jointly. It is 
possible for testing costs, when evaluated independently, to not create 
significant economic impact (and vice versa).
    The Commission seeks information on the extent to which performance 
requirements and testing costs evaluated jointly generate significant 
economic impact even when each component evaluated independently is not 
expected to lead to significant impact.

H. Alternatives

    Three alternatives are available to the Commission that may 
minimize the economic impact on small entities: (1) Adopt ASTM F2167-15 
with no modifications; \13\ (2) adopt ASTM F2167-15 with the proposed 
modifications, except for the warning label location specificity; and 
(3) allow a later effective date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As discussed in the briefing memo, adopting the voluntary 
standard with no modifications is an option if the Commission 
determines that a more stringent standard would not further reduce 
the risk of injury associated with infant bouncers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 104 of the CPSIA requires that the Commission promulgate a 
standard that is either substantially the same as the voluntary 
standard or more stringent. Therefore, adopting ASTM F2167-15 with no 
modifications is the least stringent rule allowed by law. This 
alternative would reduce the impact on all of the known small 
businesses supplying infant bouncers to the U.S. market because this 
alternative would eliminate any economic impact related directly to 
complying with the proposed rule for all five of the known small 
domestic manufacturers and the five small importers with compliant 
infant bouncers, all of whom are expected to comply with ASTM F2167-15 
by the time the final rule becomes effective. Firms with compliant 
products, however, would continue to be affected by third party testing 
requirements.

[[Page 63181]]

    Alternatively, the Commission could adopt a more stringent 
alternative that is still less stringent than the proposed rule by 
adopting ASTM F2167-15 with the proposed modifications, except for the 
requirement that the warning labels on the product be located next to 
the occupant's head. With the exception of impacts due to third party 
testing, this would eliminate most of the impact on small manufacturers 
(all of which sell compliant bouncer seats), leaving them with only 
minor costs associated with changing the wording and format of their 
warning labels. The impact on the five small importers of compliant 
bouncers would be similarly reduced.
    Finally, the Commission could reduce the proposed rule's impact on 
small businesses by setting a later effective date. A later effective 
date would reduce the economic impact on firms in two ways. One, firms 
would be less likely to experience a lapse in production/importation, 
which could result if they are unable to comply and third party test 
within the required timeframe. Two, firms could spread costs over a 
longer time period, thereby reducing their annual costs, as well as the 
present value of their total costs. We request comment on the 6-month 
effective date, as well as feedback on how firms (particularly small 
importers) would likely address the proposed rule.

I. Small Business Impacts of the Accreditation Requirements for Testing 
Laboratories

    In accordance with section 14 of the CPSA, all children's products 
that are subject to a children's product safety rule must be tested by 
a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body (i.e., testing 
laboratory) for compliance with applicable children's product safety 
rules. Testing laboratories that want to conduct this testing must meet 
the NOR pertaining to third party conformity testing. NORs have been 
codified for existing rules at 16 CFR part 1112. Consequently, the 
Commission proposes an amendment to 16 CFR part 1112 that would 
establish the NOR for those testing laboratories that want to test for 
compliance with the bouncers final rule. This section assesses the 
impact of the amendment on small laboratories.
    A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``FRFA'') was conducted as 
part of the promulgation of the original 1112 rule (78 FR 15836, 15855-
58) as required by the RFA. Briefly, the FRFA concluded that the 
accreditation requirements would not have a significant adverse impact 
on a substantial number of small laboratories because no requirements 
were imposed on laboratories that did not intend to provide third party 
testing services. The only laboratories that were expected to provide 
such services were those that anticipated receiving sufficient revenue 
from the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a 
business decision.
    Based on similar reasoning, amending the rule to include the NOR 
for the bouncer seat standard will not have a significant adverse 
impact on small laboratories. Moreover, based upon the number of 
laboratories in the U.S. that have applied for CPSC acceptance of the 
accreditation to test for conformance to other juvenile product 
standards, we expect that only a few laboratories will seek CPSC 
acceptance of their accreditation to test for conformance with the 
infant bouncer seat standard. Most of these laboratories will have 
already been accredited to test for conformance to other juvenile 
product standards, and the only costs to them would be the cost of 
adding the bouncer seat standard to their scope of accreditation, a 
cost that test laboratories have indicated is extremely low when they 
are already accredited for other section 104 rules. As a consequence, 
the Commission certifies that the NOR for the infant bouncer seat 
standard will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

XII. Environmental Considerations

    The Commission's regulations address whether the agency is required 
to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact 
statement. Under these regulations, a rule that has ``little or no 
potential for affecting the human environment,'' is categorically 
exempt from this requirement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The proposed rule 
falls within the categorical exemption.

XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains information collection requirements 
that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of 
Management and Budget (``OMB'') under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In this document, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 
3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth:
     A title for the collection of information;
     a summary of the collection of information;
     a brief description of the need for the information and 
the proposed use of the information;
     a description of the likely respondents and proposed 
frequency of response to the collection of information;
     an estimate of the burden that shall result from the 
collection of information; and
     notice that comments may be submitted to the OMB.
    Title: Safety Standard for Infant Bouncer Seats.
    Description: The proposed rule would require each infant bouncer 
seat to comply with ASTM F2167-15, Standard Consumer Safety 
Specification for Infant Bouncer Seats. Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F2167-
15 contain requirements for marking, labeling, and instructional 
literature. These requirements fall within the definition of 
``collection of information,'' as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).
    Description of Respondents: Persons who manufacture or import 
bouncer seats.
    Estimated Burden: We estimate the burden of this collection of 
information as follows:

                                                       Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Number of      Frequency  of    Total  annual      Hours per       Total burden
                           16 CFR section                              respondents       responses        responses         response          hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1229.2(a)..........................................................              22                4               88                1               88
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our estimate is based on the following:
    Section 8.1.1 of ASTM F2167-15 requires that the name and the place 
of business (city, state, and mailing address, including zip code) or 
telephone number of the manufacturer, distributor, or seller be marked 
clearly and legibly on each product and its retail package. Section 
8.1.2 of ASTM F2167-15 requires a code mark or other means that 
identifies the date (month

[[Page 63182]]

and year, as a minimum) of manufacture.
    Twenty-two known entities supply bouncer seats to the U.S. market 
may need to make some modifications to their existing labels. We 
estimate that the time required to make these modifications is about 1 
hour per model. Based on an evaluation of supplier product lines, each 
entity supplies an average of four models of bouncer seats; \14\ 
therefore, the estimated burden associated with labels is 1 hour per 
model x 22 entities x 4 models per entity = 88 hours. We estimate the 
hourly compensation for the time required to create and update labels 
is $30.19 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for 
Employee Compensation,'' March 2015, Table 9, total compensation for 
all sales and office workers in goods-producing private industries: 
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/). Therefore, the estimated annual cost to 
industry associated with the labeling requirements is $2,656.72 ($30.19 
per hour x 88 hours = $2,656.72). No operating, maintenance, or capital 
costs are associated with the collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This number was derived during the market research phase of 
the initial regulatory flexibility analysis by dividing the total 
number of bouncer seats supplied by all bouncer seat suppliers by 
the total number of bouncer seat suppliers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 9.1 of ASTM F2167-15 requires instructions to be supplied 
with the infant bouncer. Bouncer seats are complicated products that 
generally require use and assembly instructions. Under the OMB's 
regulations (5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)), the time, effort, and financial 
resources necessary to comply with a collection of information that 
would be incurred by persons in the ``normal course of their 
activities'' are excluded from a burden estimate, where an agency 
demonstrates that the disclosure activities required to comply are 
``usual and customary.'' We are unaware of bouncer seats that generally 
require use instructions but lack such instructions. Therefore, we 
tentatively estimate that no burden hours are associated with section 
9.1 of ASTM F2167-15, because any burden associated with supplying 
instructions with bouncer seats would be ``usual and customary'' and 
not within the definition of ``burden'' under the OMB's regulations.
    Based on this analysis, the proposed standard for bouncer seats 
would impose a burden to industry of 88 hours at a cost of $2,656.72 
annually.
    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), we have submitted the information collection requirements of 
this rule to the OMB for review. Interested persons are requested to 
submit comments regarding information collection by November 18, 2015, 
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see the 
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice).
    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), we invite comments on:
     Whether the collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the CPSC's functions, including whether the 
information will have practical utility;
     the accuracy of the CPSC's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
     ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected;
     ways to reduce the burden of the collection of information 
on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques, 
when appropriate, and other forms of information technology; and
     the estimated burden hours associated with label 
modification, including any alternative estimates.

XIV. Preemption

    Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that when a 
consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, 
no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or 
continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury 
unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. 
Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political 
subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption 
from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of the 
CPSIA refers to the rules to be issued under that section as ``consumer 
product safety rules.'' Therefore, the preemption provision of section 
26(a) of the CPSA would apply to a rule issued under section 104.

XV. Request for Comments

    This NPR begins a rulemaking proceeding under section 104(b) of the 
CPSIA to issue a consumer product safety standard for bouncer seats, 
and to amend part 1112 to add bouncer seats to the list of children's 
product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued an NOR. We invite 
all interested persons to submit comments on any aspect of the proposed 
mandatory safety standard for bouncer seats and on the proposed 
amendment to part 1112. Specifically, the Commission requests comments 
on the costs of compliance with, and testing to, the proposed bouncer 
seats safety standard; the impact of the proposed rule on small 
businesses; the proposed 6-month effective date for the new mandatory 
bouncer seats safety standard; and the proposed amendment to part 1112. 
During the comment period, the ASTM F2167-15, Standard Consumer Safety 
Specification for Infant Bouncer Seats, is available as a read-only 
document at: http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm.
    Comments should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in 
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.

List of Subjects

16 CFR Part 1112

    Administrative practice and procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, 
Incorporation by Reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Third party conformity assessment body.

16 CFR Part 1229

    Bouncer seats, Chairs, Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation 
by reference, Infants and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, Seats, 
and Toys.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes 
to amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 1112--REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY CONFORMITY 
ASSESSMENT BODIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 1112 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Pub. L. 110-314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 
(2008); 15 U.S.C. 2063.

0
2. Amend Sec.  1112.15 by adding paragraph (b)(42) to read as follows:


Sec.  1112.15  When can a third party conformity assessment body apply 
for CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule and/or test method?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (42) 16 CFR part 1229, Safety Standard for Infant Bouncer Seats.
* * * * *
0
3. Add part 1229 to read as follows:

PART 1229--SAFETY STANDARD FOR INFANT BOUNCER SEATS

Sec.
1229.1 Scope.
1229.2 Requirements for infant bouncer seats.

    Authority:  Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016.

[[Page 63183]]

Sec.  1229.1  Scope.

    This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for infant 
bouncer seats.


Sec.  1229.2  Requirements for infant bouncer seats.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each 
infant bouncer seat must comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM 
F2167-15, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Infant Bouncer 
Seats, approved on May 1, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register 
approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from ASTM 
International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, 
PA 19428; http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may inspect a copy at the 
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 
820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-
7923, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). 
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (b) Comply with ASTM F2167-15 with the following additions or 
exclusions:
    (1) Instead of complying with sections 7.11.1 through 7.11.3.3 of 
ASTM F2167-15, comply with the following:
    (i) 7 .11.1 Visibility with Accessories Excluding Toy Bar. Identify 
and install each accessory unrelated to the toy bar that could obscure 
the warning label during a caregiver's interaction with the occupant. 
Place the bouncer on the floor.
    (ii) 7.11.1.1 Face the front of the bouncer from a distance of 1.0 
ft (0.3 m and verify that all warning text is visible and not obscured 
by the accessory(ies).
    (iii) 7.11.1.2 A label on the bouncer seat back surface that is 
obscured by an accessory such as an infant insert would meet the 
visibility requirement if the label is plainly visible and easily 
readable on the accessory.
    (A) 7.11.2 Visibility with Toy Bar and Related Accessories. 
Identify and install the toy bar and related accessory(ies) that could 
obscure the warning label during a caregiver's interaction with the 
occupant. Place the bouncer on the floor.
    (B) 7.11.2.1 Face the front of the bouncer from a distance of 1.0 
ft (0.3 m and verify that all warning text is visible and not obscured 
by the toy bar and related accessory(ies).
    (C) 7.11.2.2 A fall hazard label that is partly obscured by a toy 
bar or its related accessories, but is visible with a shift of the 
observer's head position would meet the visibility requirement.
    (2) Instead of complying with sections 8.3.1 through 8.3.3.1 of 
ASTM F2167-15, comply with the following:
    (i) 8.3.1 Warning Groups and Header--Each infant bouncer seat shall 
be labeled with two groups of warning statements: a fall hazard warning 
and a suffocation warning. Each warning statement group shall be 
preceded by a header consisting of the safety alert symbol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC15.003


and the signal word ``WARNING.''
    (ii) 8.3.2 Warning Format--The background color for the safety 
alert symbol and the signal word shall be orange, red or yellow, 
whichever provides best contrast against the product material. The 
safety alert symbol and the signal word shall be in bold capital 
letters not less than 0.2 in. (5 mm) high. The remainder of the text 
shall be characters whose upper case shall be at least 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) 
high. All elements of these warnings shall be permanent, and in sans 
serif, non-condensed style font. Precautionary statements shall be 
indented from hazard statements and preceded with bullet points. The 
warning label and the panel containing the signal word ``WARNING'' 
shall be surrounded by a heavy black line. Message panels within the 
labels shall be delineated with solid lines between sections of 
differing content. The background color in the message panel shall be 
white and the text shall be black. If an outside border is used to 
surround the heavy black lines of the label, the border shall be white 
and the corners may be radiused.
    (iii) 8.3.3 Warning Locations:
    (A) 8.3.3.1 The fall hazard warnings label in 8.3.4.1 shall be on 
the front surface of the infant bouncer seat back adjacent to the area 
where a child's head would rest, so that the label is plainly visible 
and easily readable. If one or more accessories are provided with the 
bouncer that could obscure the warning label during use, the visibility 
of the label shall be verified in accordance with 7.11.
    (B) [Reserved].
    (3) Instead of complying with sections 8.3.4.1 through 8.3.5 of 
ASTM F2167-15, comply with the following:
    (i) 8.3.4.1 Fall Hazard:
    Fall Hazard: Babies have suffered skull fractures falling while in 
and from bouncers.
     Use bouncer ONLY on floor.
     Always use restraints. Adjust to fit snugly, even if baby 
is sleeping.
     Never lift or carry baby in bouncer. [NOTE: Bouncer seats 
with a handle(s) intended for use to lift and carry a child are exempt 
from including this warning statement.]
    (ii) 8.3.4.2 Suffocation Hazard:
    Suffocation Hazard: Babies have suffocated when bouncers tipped 
over on soft surfaces.
     Never use on a bed, sofa, cushion, or other soft surface.
     Never leave baby unattended. To prevent falls and 
suffocation:
     Always use restraints. Adjust to fit snugly, even if baby 
is sleeping.
     Stop using bouncer when baby starts trying to sit up.
    (iii) 8.3.5 Figs. 10-12 The safety alert symbol
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC15.013
    

and the signal word ``WARNING'' shall be as specified above, but with 
the option of background colors as described above. The warning 
statements' wording content, as well as the use of any underlining, 
capital lettering, or bold typeface, or a combination thereof, are at 
the discretion of the manufacturer.
    (4) In section 9 of ASTM F2167-15, replace Figure 10 with the 
following:

[[Page 63184]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC15.004

    (5) Instead of complying with section 9.1.1.5 of ASTM F2167-15, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 9.1.1.5 Instructions must indicate the manufacturer's 
recommended maximum weight, height, age, developmental level, 
consistent with the warning statement in 8.3.4.2, or combination 
thereof of the occupant for which the infant bouncer seat is intended. 
If the infant bouncer seat is not intended for use by a child for a 
specific reason (insert reason), the instructions shall so state this 
limitation.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (6) In section 10 of ASTM F2167-15, replace Figures 11 and 12 with 
the following:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC15.005


[[Page 63185]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC15.006


    Dated: October 13, 2015.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-26386 Filed 10-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6355-01-P