[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69144-69161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28300]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 69144]]



CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1231

[Docket No. CPSC-2015-0031]


Safety Standard for High Chairs

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, 
section 104(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 
(``CPSIA''; Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016), requires the United 
States Consumer Product Safety Commission (``Commission'' or ``CPSC'') 
to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or 
toddler products. These standards must be substantially the same as 
applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary 
standard if the Commission determines that more stringent requirements 
would further reduce the risk of injury associated with a product. In 
response to the direction under section 104(b) of the CPSIA, the 
Commission is proposing a safety standard for high chairs. The proposed 
rule would incorporate by reference ASTM F404-15, Standard Consumer 
Safety Specification for High Chairs (``ASTM F404-15'') into our new 
regulation and impose more stringent requirements for rearward 
stability and warnings on labels and in instructional literature. In 
addition, the Commission proposes to amend our regulations to include 
the newly proposed high chair standard in the list of notice of 
requirements (``NORs'') issued by the Commission.

DATES: Submit comments by January 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of 
the labeling and instructional literature requirements of the proposed 
mandatory standard for high chairs should be directed to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Office of Management and 
Budget, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or emailed to 
[email protected].
    Other comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2015-0031, may be 
submitted electronically or in writing:
    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal at: 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 comments by mail/hand delivery/
courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 
telephone (301) 504-7923.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this proposed rulemaking. All comments received 
may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, 
contact information, or other personal information provided, to: 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 by mail/hand delivery/
courier.
    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-2015-0031, into the ``Search'' box, and follow the 
prompts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stefanie C. Marques, Project Manager, 
Directorate for Health Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 301-987-
2581; email: [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 Safety Notification Act, 
requires the Commission to: (1) examine and assess the effectiveness of 
voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or 
toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer 
groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product 
engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety 
standards for durable infant or toddler products. Any standard the 
Commission adopts under this directive must be substantially the same 
as the applicable voluntary standard or more stringent than the 
voluntary standard if the Commission determines that more stringent 
requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with 
the product.
    The term ``durable infant or toddler product'' is defined in 
section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as ``a durable product intended for use, 
or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the 
age of 5 years.'' Section 104(f)(2)(C) of the CPSIA specifically 
identifies high chairs as a durable infant or toddler product.
    Pursuant to section 104(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA, the Commission 
consulted with representatives of manufacturers, consumer groups, 
consultants, retailers, industry trade groups, and government agencies 
in reviewing and assessing the effectiveness of the existing voluntary 
standard for high chairs, ASTM F404-15, largely through ASTM 
International's (``ASTM''; formerly the American Society for Testing 
and Materials) standard-development process. The standard the 
Commission is proposing in this notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPR'') 
is based on ASTM F404-15 with more stringent requirements for rearward 
stability and warnings in labels and instructional literature.
    The testing and certification requirements of section 14(a) of the 
Consumer Product Safety Act (``CPSA''; 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089) apply to 
the standards promulgated under section 104 of the CPSIA. Section 
14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to publish an NOR for the 
accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (i.e., test 
laboratories) to assess whether a children's product conforms to 
applicable children's product safety rules. If adopted, the proposed 
rule for

[[Page 69145]]

high chairs would be a children's product safety rule that requires the 
issuance of an NOR. For this reason, this NPR also proposes to amend 16 
CFR part 1112 to include proposed 16 CFR part 1231, the section in 
which the high chair standard would be codified.

II. The Product

A. Definition

    ASTM F404-15 defines a ``high chair'' as ``a free standing chair 
for a child up to 3 years of age which has a seating surface more than 
15 in. above the floor and elevates the child normally for the purposes 
of feeding or eating.'' The ASTM standard further specifies that a high 
chair may be sold with or without a tray, have adjustable heights, and 
recline for infants.
    There are various designs and construction materials for high 
chairs. Typical high chairs consist of a plastic, wood, or metal frame, 
often with a padded fabric seat. Some models fold for storage and 
transport or convert for continued use as a child grows. Some high 
chairs include a removable snack tray or mounted toy accessories and 
some have no trays. High chairs may have a passive crotch restraint 
(i.e., two separate bounded openings for the occupant's legs), a rigid 
front torso support, a three-point restraint system, or a five-point 
restraint system with shoulder harnesses. High chair designs include 
restaurant-style chairs, four-legged A-frame styles, single-leg 
pedestals, and Z-frame styles. Restaurant-style high chairs are 
discussed further in section VII. of this preamble.

B. Market Description

    In 2013, the CPSC conducted a Durable Nursery Product Exposure 
Survey (``DNPES'') of U.S. households with children under the age of 6. 
Data from DNPES indicate that there are approximately 9.74 million high 
chairs in U.S. households with children under the age of 6 and about 
7.14 million high chairs actually in use in those households. High 
chairs range in price from $35 to $650.
    Staff identified 62 firms supplying high chairs to the U.S. market. 
Fifty-one of these are domestic, including 27 manufacturers, 19 
importers, and five wholesalers. The remaining 11 firms are foreign, 
including nine manufacturers, one importer, and one retailer. Of these 
62 firms, 48 market their high chairs to consumers. The remaining 14 
firms market their high chairs for use in commercial settings, 
primarily in restaurants, but these products generally also are 
available to consumers.

III. Incident Data

    The Commission receives data regarding product-related injuries 
from several sources. One such source is the National Electronic Injury 
Surveillance System (``NEISS''), from which CPSC can estimate the 
number of injuries associated with specific consumer products that are 
treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments (``EDs'') nationwide, 
based on a probability sample. Other sources include reports from 
consumers and others through the Consumer Product Safety Risk 
Management System (which also includes some NEISS data) and reports 
from retailers and manufacturers through CPSC's Retailer Reporting 
System (collectively referred to as Consumer Product Safety Risk 
Management System data (``CPSRMS'')).
    Through CPSRMS sources, the Commission has received 1,296 reports 
of incidents related to high chairs that occurred between January 1, 
2011 and December 31, 2014. Because several of these reports include 
more than one incident or issue, the total number of incidents is 
1,308. These reports include one fatality and 138 injuries; for the 
remaining incidents, no injury occurred, or no injury was reported. 
Table 1 provides the number of incidents, injuries, and fatalities by 
year for 2011 to 2014.

      Table 1--CPSRMS Incident Reports Involving High Chairs Between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Incident year                                Total         Injuries       Fatalities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................................................             276              44               0
2012 *..........................................................             360              51               0
2013 *..........................................................             491              28               0
2014 *..........................................................             169              15               1
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................           1,296             138               1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CPSC's Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System
* data collection is ongoing

    Of the 1,296 reports CPSC received from CPSRMS sources, 923 
provided the age of the child involved. For incidents in which age was 
reported, the majority involved children between 7 and 18 months old.
    EDs participating in NEISS reported 1,078 injuries and no deaths 
related to high chairs between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014. 
Extrapolating from this probability sample, there were approximately 
31,300 injuries and no fatalities related to high chairs treated in EDs 
between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014. Approximately 75 percent 
of injuries reported through NEISS involved children between 7 and 23 
months old.

A. Fatalities

    The Commission received a report in 2014 of one fatality associated 
with a high chair. Apart from indicating that the high chair involved 
had broken, the report provided little information about the decedent 
or the circumstances of the incident. The Commission has been unable to 
obtain additional information regarding this incident.

B. Nonfatal Injuries

    Of the 138 CPSRMS injuries related to high chairs that occurred 
between 2011 and 2014, three resulted in moderate injuries treated in 
EDs. These injuries included a puncture wound to the forehead, a broken 
collarbone, and a lacerated finger. There were no severe injuries, and 
the remaining injuries primarily resulted in contusions, abrasions, and 
lacerations. Many of the incident descriptions in the remaining 1,157 
reports that did not state that an injury had occurred, nevertheless, 
indicated the potential for injury.
    For injuries reported through NEISS, 94 percent were treated and 
released. The most commonly injured body parts were the head (65 
percent) and face (17 percent). The most common types of injuries were 
injuries to internal organs (48 percent), contusions and abrasions (22 
percent), and lacerations (11 percent). In 1,540 of the estimated 
31,300 injuries treated in U.S. EDs,

[[Page 69146]]

severe head injuries, such as fractured skulls and concussions, 
occurred.

C. Hazard Pattern Identification

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

  Table 2--Hazard Patterns for CPSRMS Incidents Involving High Chairs Between January 1, 2011 and December 31,
                                                      2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total
                         Hazard pattern                              incidents       Injuries       Fatalities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frame...........................................................             650              20               0
Seat............................................................             205              41               0
Restraint System................................................             139              12               0
Armrest.........................................................              81               2               0
Tray............................................................              75              33               0
Toy Accessories.................................................              70               1               0
Wheels..........................................................              21               1               0
Footrest........................................................              14               0               0
Miscellaneous Issues............................................               8               1               0
Design..........................................................              22              13               0
Stability.......................................................              16              12               0
Consumer Observations...........................................               3               0               0
Undetermined....................................................               4               2               1
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................           1,308             138               1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

D. Product Recalls

    Since January 1, 2010, there have been 10 recalls of high chairs 
involving eight firms. The recalled high chairs were responsible for a 
total of 72 injuries, including 44 injuries involving bumps and 
bruises, 11 lacerations requiring medical closure (stitches, tape, or 
glue), one scratched cornea, and one hairline fracture to the arm. 
These injuries were primarily due to falls from the high chair.

IV. International Standards for High Chairs

    CPSC is aware of four international standards that apply to high 
chairs:

[[Page 69147]]

     ASTM F404-15;
     EN 14988: 2006, Children's High Chairs--Safety 
Requirements and Test Methods (``European standard'');
     AS 4684-2009, High Chairs--Safety Requirements 
(``Australian standard''); and
     ISO 9221: 1992, Furniture--Children's High Chairs (``ISO 
standard'').
    CPSC staff reviewed the provisions in these four standards and 
believes that ASTM F404-15 best addresses the hazard patterns indicated 
in the incident data CPSC has received. In most areas, ASTM F404-15 
includes more stringent requirements than the other three international 
standards. For example, to test forward stability, the European 
standard requires testing with an 11-pound load and 5.6 foot-pound 
force, while ASTM F404-15 requires testing with a 40-pound load and 14 
foot-pound force, making it the more stringent standard.
    In reviewing the provisions in which one of the other international 
standards includes more stringent requirements than ASTM F404-15, CPSC 
found that incident data do not indicate that the more stringent 
standard is necessary to reduce the risk of injury, and the 
requirements in ASTM F404-15 are sufficient. For example, the European 
standard has height requirements for the sides of high chairs, while 
ASTM F404-15 does not. However, incident data do not indicate that side 
height is a factor in fall hazard patterns. Similarly, the Australian 
standard requires castors or gliders to be in specific configurations, 
and the ISO standard only allows castors for convertible high chairs, 
while ASTM F404-15 has no requirements for castors. However, incident 
data do not indicate that castors are a common cause of injury.
    Based on these comparisons, CPSC believes that ASTM F404-15 is, in 
general, a more stringent standard than the other three international 
standards and is better tailored to address the hazard patterns shown 
in the incident data.

V. ASTM F404-15

A. History of ASTM F404-15

    ASTM first approved and published a standard for high chairs in 
1975, as ASTM F404-75, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for High 
Chairs. ASTM has revised the voluntary standard many times since then, 
adding and modifying requirements. Some of the more substantial 
additions over the past 5 years include requirements for tray-release 
mechanisms, visibility and permanency of labels, restraint system 
installation, and restraint anchor integrity. ASTM approved the current 
version, ASTM F404-15, on May 15, 2015.

B. Description of ASTM F404-15

    CPSC staff, together with stakeholders on the ASTM subcommittee 
task group for high chairs, developed modified and new requirements for 
ASTM F404-15 to address the hazards associated with high chairs. ASTM 
F404-15 includes the following key provisions: scope, terminology, 
calibration and standardization, general requirements, performance 
requirements, test methods, labeling and warnings, and instructional 
literature. The following provides an overview of these provisions; to 
view the complete standard, see the instructions in section X. of this 
preamble.
1. Scope
    This section states the scope and intent of the standard.
2. Terminology
    This section provides definitions of terms specific to the 
standard.
3. Calibration and Standardization
    This section provides general instructions for conducting tests.
4. General Requirements
    This section includes general requirements regarding various 
issues, such as components of a high chair, conversion kits, 
accessories, threaded fasteners, sharp edges and points, small parts, 
wood parts, latching or locking mechanisms, labels, openings, toy 
components, and lead in paint.
5. Performance Requirements and Test Methods
    These sections contain performance requirements and associated test 
methods for high chairs. The following summarizes key requirements in 
these sections.
    a. Protective Components: These requirements provide for testing 
protective components such as caps and plugs.
    b. Tray or Front Torso Support--Drop Test: Each removable tray and 
front torso support must be dropped from a specified height in multiple 
orientations. The purpose of this requirement is to test whether high 
chair components continue to function or exhibit mechanical hazards 
(e.g., sharp edges) after the drop test.
    c. Tray or Front Torso Support--Pull Tests: The tray or front torso 
support must be pulled multiple times from multiple sides and 
directions with a specified force. The purpose of this requirement is 
to test whether frontal support can withstand kicking or pulling.
    d. Static Load: A high chair must support specified weights on the 
seat, tray, step, and footrest. The purpose of this requirement is to 
test whether the high chair seat and step can support more than the 
weight of a child and whether the tray can withstand overloading.
    e. Stability: A high chair must not tip over when pulled forward, 
backward, or sideways by a specified force. The purpose of this 
requirement is to test the high chair's resistance to falling over if 
an occupant leans forward, pushes off a nearby surface, or the high 
chair is otherwise pushed.
    f. Exposed Coil Springs: Any exposed coil springs that reach a 
specified distance from each other during static load testing must be 
designed to prevent pinching or entrapment.
    g. Scissoring, Shearing, and Pinching: Each accessible point at 
which components move (e.g., fastening points, pivots) must admit a 
probe with a specified diameter. The purpose of this requirement is to 
prevent scissoring, shearing, and pinching of an occupant.
    h. Restraint System: The standard requires an active restraint 
system, such as a belt, to secure a child in the high chair. The 
restraint system must include waist and crotch restraints. In addition, 
the restraints must withstand upward and downward force tests as well 
as testing to pull on restraint system attachments. The purpose of 
these requirements is to ensure that the restraint system and its 
closing means remain anchored and functional under various forces.
    i. Completely-Bounded Openings: This section requires high chairs 
with completely-bounded openings in front of the occupant to have a 
passive crotch restraint with specified maximum sizes for gaps and 
openings. The crotch restraint must be installed or tethered in place 
to prevent consumers from mis-installing or not installing it and 
tethers must withstand specified forces. The purpose of these 
provisions is to reduce the likelihood of injury or death from an 
occupant sliding through and being entrapped in an opening.
    j. Structural Integrity: A high chair must withstand dynamic cycle 
testing, involving repeated drops of a weight on the seat, without any 
structural components breaking or the seat height or angle changing 
beyond a set limit. The purpose of this requirement is to test whether 
the high chair can

[[Page 69148]]

withstand the dynamic loads to which it will be subjected.
    k. Tray Latch Release Mechanisms: The standard includes 
requirements for tray latches to prevent unintentional or accidental 
release. These requirements include specific types and placements for 
latch release mechanisms and testing to ensure they can withstand a 
specified force. The purpose of these requirements is to address 
incidents in which occupants fell from high chairs that had passive 
restraints integrated into the tray.
    l. Side Containment: Any completely-bounded openings on the sides 
of the seat must meet specified maximum dimensions for gaps and 
openings. The purpose of this requirement is to reduce the likelihood 
of injury or death from an occupant sliding through and being entrapped 
in an opening.
    m. Protrusions: Projections must meet certain dimensional 
requirements if they are located on the outside of high chair legs at a 
height a toddler is susceptible to falling into. The purpose of this 
requirement is to address the incidents in which children outside of 
high chairs sustained injuries from falling into tray storage hooks or 
other protrusions.
    n. Locking Mechanisms: Locking mechanisms must be able to withstand 
a specified force.
    o. Permanency of Labels and Warnings: This section specifies 
testing and criteria for determining the permanency of labels.
6. Labeling and Warnings
    This section contains various requirements related to warnings and 
labels, including content, format, and prominence requirements.
7. Instructional Literature
    This section requires that instructions be provided with high 
chairs and be easy to read and understand. The instructions must comply 
with content, format, and prominence requirements.

VI. Assessment of ASTM F404-15

    CPSC considered the fatalities, injuries, and non-injury incidents 
associated with high chairs that occurred between January 1, 2011 and 
December 31, 2014, and staff evaluated ASTM F404-15 to determine 
whether the voluntary standard addresses these hazards or whether more 
stringent standards would reduce the risk of injury associated with 
high chairs. CPSC believes that ASTM F404-15 effectively addresses the 
hazards indicated in the incident data, with the exception of two 
areas. CPSC believes that more stringent requirements than those in 
ASTM F404-15 would further reduce the risk of injury associated with 
high chairs regarding rearward stability and warnings on labels and in 
instructional literature. Consequently, CPSC proposes additional 
requirements for those areas.
    This section provides CPSC's assessments of how ASTM F404-15 
addresses the hazard patterns in the incident data. In its analysis, 
CPSC identified broad categories into which the incidents fall. One 
category is components of high chairs, including issues with frames, 
seats, restraint systems, armrests, trays, toy accessories, wheels, 
footrests, and miscellaneous issues. Another category is general 
problems with high chairs, including design and stability issues. And 
the final category includes incidents that did not clearly fall within 
any of the above groupings--these are listed below as consumer 
observations and undetermined. This section discusses each of these 
hazard patterns, in descending order of frequency of incidents within 
each of the three categories (see Table 2, above). Section VIII. 
discusses the additional requirements that CPSC proposes for rearward 
stability and warnings.

A. Frame

    There were 650 CPSRMS incidents involving the frame of a high 
chair, resulting in a total of 20 injuries. Common incidents included 
cracked frames or height adjustors, loose screws, and buckling legs. 
More than 80 percent of frame-related incidents involved cracked 
components on two similar high chair models from one manufacturer and 
resulted in only a few minor injuries.
    ASTM F404-15 contains two separate requirements intended to provide 
structural integrity to high chair frames--a static load test and a 
drop test. Several general requirements also address the hazards 
associated with frame failures, such as the requirements regarding the 
use of certain screws for key structural elements to provide for proper 
installation and durability over time. Since frame-related incidents 
are not an industry-wide problem, CPSC believes that the ASTM F404-15 
requirements for structural integrity, load tests, and fasteners 
effectively address the safety hazards related to high chair frames.

B. Seat

    There were a total of 205 incidents involving the seat of a high 
chair, resulting in 41 injuries. Seat-related issues include cracked or 
peeling seat pads, broken seat reclining hardware, seat backs 
detaching, and loose screws. Nearly 60 percent of seat issues involved 
a single manufacturer's seat pads cracking or peeling after multiple 
washings. Eighty-three percent of seat-related injuries involved 
cracked or peeling seat pads scratching occupants' legs.
    ASTM F404-15 contains two requirements that address the integrity 
of structural components of a high chair, including the seat. These are 
the static load test and drop test. General requirements, such as those 
regarding sharp points and small parts, also address the risk of 
laceration or choking on pieces that detach from the seat. CPSC 
believes that ASTM F404-15 effectively addresses the hazards associated 
with high chair seats.

C. Restraint System

    There were 139 incidents involving the restraint system of a high 
chair, resulting in 12 injuries. These issues generally fall into two 
categories--restraint systems that failed and unused restraint systems.
    Within the first category, incidents included buckles breaking or 
separating from straps, straps tearing or pulling out of anchor points, 
and other issues. To address these issues, ASTM F404-15 requires all 
high chairs to be shipped with two types of restraint systems--a pre-
attached ``active'' crotch and waist belt restraint system and a 
``passive'' crotch restraint--that have undergone testing to ensure 
they work as intended. ASTM F404-15 also requires the restraint anchors 
to withstand a pull test. CPSC believes that ASTM F404-15 effectively 
addresses the hazard pattern associated with restraint system failures.
    As for the second category, unused restraint systems, CPSC believes 
that a more stringent standard for labels and instructional literature 
than ASTM F404-15 would further reduce the risk of injuries associated 
with this issue. CPSRMS and NEISS data indicate that, in many 
incidents, caregivers did not use the restraint system. CPSC believes 
more effective warnings would increase consumer use of restraint 
systems and reduce these incidents.
    CPSC's review of CPSRMS data revealed that of the 1,308 incidents 
involving high chairs, there were numerous cases in which the caregiver 
did not use the high chair restraints, resulting in the child falling 
or nearly falling from the high chair. Although many incident reports 
have limited detail, CPSC noted that several incidents involved a child 
falling from a high chair when the tray disengaged, suggesting the tray 
was used as the sole restraint. Several reports also indicated that a 
caregiver's attention was

[[Page 69149]]

elsewhere when the incident occurred. And several other reports 
suggested that the restraint system was ineffective at restraining the 
child or was used improperly.
    CPSC's review of NEISS data revealed a similar pattern. The vast 
majority of NEISS incidents involved falls, which suggests that 
restraints were unused or ineffective. Although NEISS data provide 
limited details, many reports state that the child was not restrained 
or that the restraint had just been removed when the incident occurred. 
In some cases, the incident happened when a caregiver turned away from 
the child, and some reports stated the child was strapped in before the 
fall, suggesting the restraint fit poorly or was not adjusted properly.
    CPSC believes that the requirements in ASTM F404-15 do not 
adequately address the risk of injury associated with unused or 
improperly used restraint systems. ASTM F404-15 includes three types of 
requirements relevant to this hazard. First, the standard requires the 
passive crotch restraint to arrive attached or tethered to its 
manufacturer's recommended use position to reduce the chances that the 
restraint is not installed before use. Second, section 8 of ASTM F404-
15 requires warnings about the risk of serious injury or death from 
falling or sliding out of a high chair, instructions to use the 
restraint system, and a warning never to leave a child unattended. Some 
of these warnings must be visible to a person standing near the high 
chair at any one position when a child is in the high chair, but not 
necessarily visible from all positions. Other warnings must be visible 
to a caregiver while placing a child in the high chair, but not 
necessarily visible when the child is in the high chair. Third, section 
9 of ASTM F404-15 specifies that instructional literature provided with 
a high chair must include the same warning statements that are on the 
high chair; state that only children capable of sitting upright 
unassisted should use a high chair; advise consumers to use the 
restraint system; and inform consumers that the tray is not a restraint 
system.
    CPSC believes that more stringent content, form, and placement 
requirements for warnings than ASTM F404-15's would further reduce the 
risk of injury associated with unused restraint systems. Section VIII. 
discusses CPSC's proposed labeling and instructional literature 
requirements in greater detail.

D. Armrest

    Eighty-one high chair incidents involved armrests and resulted in 
two injuries. Many of the reports indicate armrests broke as users 
removed the tray. All but one of the armrest incidents involved a 
single high chair model.
    ASTM F404-15 includes several performance tests that address this 
hazard. For example, the static load and pull tests for trays also 
evaluate the durability of armrests because trays are typically 
attached to armrests. CPSC believes that ASTM F404-15 effectively 
addresses the armrest hazard pattern. The incident reports indicate 
this is not an industry-wide problem; there were only a small number of 
minor injuries associated with armrests, and ASTM F404-15 includes 
tests for armrest durability.

E. Tray

    A total of 75 high chair incidents involved trays and resulted in 
33 injuries. Common tray incidents included pinching, and in addition, 
falls that occurred when trays unexpectedly detached or released too 
easily.
    ASTM F404-15 contains several performance requirements that address 
tray incidents, including pull tests, a static load test, and specific 
tray-latching requirements. Provisions on tray latch accessibility and 
latch actuation that ASTM adopted in 2007 and 2010 have been effective 
at reducing tray-related incidents, as data show a decline in incidents 
for models manufactured after those revisions. General requirements, 
such as those for sharp edges and scissoring, shearing, and pinching, 
also address these hazards. CPSC believes that ASTM F404-15 effectively 
addresses the tray hazard pattern.

F. Toy Accessories

    Toy accessories were involved in 70 high chair incidents, resulting 
in one injury. These reports indicate toy accessories cracked or broke.
    ASTM F404-15 includes requirements for toy accessory durability, 
requiring manufacturers to attach toy accessories to the high chair for 
testing, including tray drop testing and load cycle testing. CPSC 
believes ASTM F404-15 effectively addresses the toy accessory hazard 
pattern. CPSC expects the toy durability requirements in ASTM F404-15, 
as well as the general requirement in ASTM F404-15 calling for 
compliance with ASTM's toy standard, ASTM F963, Standard Consumer 
Safety Specification for Toy Safety, to reduce hazards related to 
cracked or broken toy accessories.

G. Wheels

    Wheels were involved in 21 high chair incidents, resulting in one 
injury. Common incidents involved wheels becoming loose, breaking, or 
not locking. All but two of these incident reports cited cracked or 
broken components of high chairs from one manufacturer and almost all 
of these were the same model. In the single incident that resulted in 
an injury, the wheel was only a minor contributing factor.
    ASTM F404-15 evaluates wheel durability through a static load test 
and drop test. CPSC believes that ASTM F404-15 effectively addresses 
this hazard pattern, as wheel issues do not appear to be an industry-
wide hazard pattern, do not contribute to a substantial number of 
injuries, and ASTM F404-15 contains provisions that evaluate wheel 
integrity.

H. Footrests

    Fourteen high chair incidents involved footrests and resulted in no 
injuries. All of the incident reports cited footrests cracking on a 
single high chair model.
    ASTM F404-15 includes a static load test to evaluate the durability 
of footrests. CPSC believes that ASTM F404-15 effectively addresses 
this hazard pattern, as this is not an industry-wide issue, and ASTM 
F404-15 includes requirements for footrest durability.

I. Miscellaneous Issues

    High chair incident reports included various additional issues, 
such as paint with excessive lead content, cracked wood finish, loose 
screws, and assembly problems. Eight high chair incident reports cited 
these miscellaneous issues and resulted in one injury.
    ASTM F404-15 contains several requirements that address these 
various issues, such as issues with screws on consumer-assembled 
structural components, sharp edges, small parts, exposed wood, and 
compliance with 16 CFR part 1303 (banning lead-containing paint). ASTM 
F404-15 also includes requirements for instructional literature, 
intended to provide clear assembly instructions. CPSC believes that 
ASTM F404-15 effectively addresses these issues.

J. Design

    Design issues were involved in 22 high chair incidents, resulting 
in 13 injuries. Incident reports relating to the design of a high chair 
primarily cited designs that create entrapment hazards. These hazards 
commonly resulted in children's arms being entrapped

[[Page 69150]]

between the back of a high chair and the tray or children's legs 
catching in the gap between the bottom of the tray and the top of the 
passive crotch restraint. In the most severe cases, children slid into 
leg hole openings under the tray and hung by their necks.
    To address these ``submarining'' cases, ASTM F404-15 contains 
several performance tests that specifically address openings, including 
a probe test for gaps and completely-bounded openings in front of 
occupants, around the passive crotch restraint, and between horizontal 
portions and the tray. The standard also includes a test for leg 
openings and openings around the sides of the high chair seat to ensure 
that occupants cannot slide through and become entrapped. ASTM F404-15 
requires manufacturers to attach passive crotch restraints to the high 
chair to increase the likelihood that consumers will use restraints and 
reduce submarining incidents. ASTM F404-15's requirements on openings 
and scissoring, shearing, and pinching address less serious entrapment 
hazards. CPSC believes that ASTM F404-15 effectively addresses the 
design hazard pattern.

K. Stability

    Stability issues played a role in 16 high chair incidents, 
resulting in 12 injuries. This hazard pattern includes forward tip-
overs, side tip-overs, and rearward tip-overs. Tip-overs generally 
occur when a child leans out of the high chair or pushes off a nearby 
surface. In NEISS reports that included enough detail to identify the 
cause of the incident, the vast majority of the incidents were falls 
resulting from tip-overs, mostly rearward tip-overs. CPSRMS data also 
included reports of many injuries resulting from high chairs tipping 
over, also frequently rearward tip-overs.
    ASTM F404-15 requires forward, sideways, and rearward tip-over 
testing. The standard also contains a stability requirement to simulate 
the load applied by a child climbing into the chair. CPSC believes that 
ASTM F404-15 effectively addresses forward and sideways tip-overs. 
However, based on the frequency of rearward tip-over incidents, CPSC 
believes that ASTM F404-15 does not adequately address rearward tip-
over hazards and a more stringent standard is necessary. Section VIII. 
discusses CPSC's proposed rearward stability standard.

L. Consumer Observations

    Three incident reports involved consumers' perceived safety hazards 
or complaints about high chairs, but none of the incidents resulted in 
injuries. These reports did not provide enough information for CPSC to 
assess the adequacy of ASTM F404-15 regarding the reported concerns.

M. Undetermined

    Four high chair incident reports did not provide sufficient 
information for CPSC to determine how the incidents, including the one 
reported death and two injuries, occurred. The lack of information 
available in these incident reports made it impossible for CPSC to 
assess the effectiveness of ASTM F404-15 in addressing these issues.

VII. Restaurant-Style High Chairs

    ASTM F404-15 applies to high chairs without distinguishing where 
consumers use them. However, many high chairs are designed to be used 
in commercial settings, primarily restaurants (``restaurant-style high 
chairs''). These high chairs generally include features that are 
particularly useful in commercial or restaurant settings and may not 
present the same hazards as high chairs used in the home. Based on 
CPSC's review of incident data and the potential economic impact of the 
requirements proposed in this NPR, it is possible that, due to the 
unique environmental factors in restaurant settings, high chairs used 
in these settings may present lesser hazards and warrant fewer 
requirements to reduce the risk of injury associated with high chairs. 
The following describes the factors that weigh in favor of and against 
distinguishing restaurant-style high chairs from other high chairs and 
possible options for distinguishing them.
    Of the 1,296 CPSRMS incident reports, three explicitly state that 
the incidents occurred in restaurants while consumers used the 
establishments' high chairs. Restaurant-style high chairs have several 
distinct features. This style of chair is generally constructed from 
robust materials, such as wood or plastic and do not have trays. 
Therefore, restaurant-style high chairs can be pulled up to a table. In 
addition, restaurant-style high chairs are designed to be compact and 
stackable for easy storage and have little space available for labels. 
Restaurant-style high chairs are also generally designed to be lower to 
the ground and narrower than high chairs intended for home use. 
Additionally, restaurant-style high chairs are designed not only to 
accommodate a wide range of ages, from infants to toddlers, but also 
accommodate bulky outerwear and shoes. These design attributes are 
desirable in a restaurant setting to adapt to the environment and be 
versatile and compact. However, these features also make it difficult 
for these high chairs to comply with the requirements in ASTM F404-15 
and the additional requirements proposed in this NPR.
    There are several requirements that restaurant-style high chairs 
frequently do not follow. Contrary to ASTM F404-15, wedge blocks can 
generally pass through the leg openings of restaurant-style high 
chairs. The large side and back openings also do not meet ASTM F404-15. 
The belt used as a passive restraint often fits loosely over the top 
rail of the high chair and does not meet the passive restraint 
requirements of ASTM F404-15. The lower and narrower stance of these 
high chairs also may impact the chairs' compliance with the stability 
requirements in ASTM F404-15. Moreover, there is little space on these 
high chairs to accommodate the label requirements in ASTM F404-15 or 
the additional requirements CPSC proposes.
    There are several reasons it may be appropriate to apply different 
requirements to restaurant-style high chairs. First, the environment in 
which restaurant-style high chairs are used may not present the same 
hazards that are common in the home. In a restaurant environment, 
caregivers sit next to the child seated in the high chair, are unlikely 
to leave a child unattended in the high chair, and are not distracted 
by the tasks that may divert the caregiver's attention in a home 
environment. For these reasons, a caregiver would likely be able to 
prevent an incident from occurring, or correct any issue quickly, 
before serious injury or death could occur. None of the three incidents 
involving restaurant-style high chairs reported to CPSC involved 
children who were unattended and entrapped in the openings of the high 
chair. Because caregivers are likely to be nearby and attentive, it is 
likely to be less necessary for warnings regarding attending the child 
to be visible when the child is in the high chair. Second, modifying 
restaurant-style high chairs to comply with ASTM F404-15 would likely 
reduce their utility because these high chairs would no longer 
accommodate larger children or bulky clothes, and would be less compact 
and not stackable. Finally, given the possible lesser safety issues, 
the proposed requirements in this NPR impose proportionately high costs 
on restaurant-style high chair suppliers because these products require 
more changes to come into compliance.
    There are also several reasons to apply the same requirements to 
restaurant-style high chairs and other

[[Page 69151]]

high chairs. First, restaurant-style high chairs are readily available 
to consumers and are also used in homes. Two of the firms that market 
their products to consumers produce high chairs identical to the wooden 
high chairs used in restaurants. This negates the environmental factors 
that support distinguishing high chairs used in restaurants. Second, 
there is minimal incident data to indicate whether high chairs actually 
pose lesser safety risks in restaurant settings. It is also possible 
that, although caregivers in restaurants are near the child, caregivers 
may be less likely to attend to the child or use the restraint system 
because caregivers assume they are near enough to the child to prevent 
an incident. As the incident data indicate, this may not be correct, as 
incidents can happen quickly. Finally, because high chairs are readily 
available to consumers, it may be difficult, practically, to apply 
different requirements to these high chairs.
    Some options for treating restaurant style-high chairs differently 
than other high chairs include excluding restaurant-style high chairs 
from the proposed standard or modifying individual requirements, such 
as label placement and bounded-openings, to reflect the features and 
lesser safety issues associated with restaurant-style high chairs.
    CPSC requests comments on the following factors: whether it is 
appropriate to distinguish these high chairs, which requirements should 
differ, and how CPSC could apply those distinctions.

VIII. Description of Proposed Changes to ASTM Standard

    The proposed rule would create part 1231, titled, Safety Standard 
for High Chairs. As explained above, the Commission believes that ASTM 
F404-15 effectively addresses the safety hazards associated with high 
chairs, with the exception of rearward stability and warnings in labels 
and instructional literature. For this reason, the Commission proposes 
to incorporate by reference ASTM F404-15, with modified requirements 
for rearward stability and warnings. This section discusses the 
proposed changes to ASTM F404-15.

A. Rearward Stability

    Based on the incident data discussed above, CPSC believes that a 
more stringent standard than ASTM F404-15 for rearward stability would 
further reduce the risk of injury. CPSC staff has tested the high chair 
models involved in incidents and found that the tested models passed 
the requirements of ASTM F404-15. To develop a performance test to 
measure and improve the rearward stability of high chairs, CPSC worked 
with an ASTM task group to develop an alternative rearward stability 
test, based on CPSC staff's and manufacturers' testing. Although this 
test is not included in ASTM F404-15, ASTM may adopt the test in future 
revisions. CPSC proposes to adopt this test, in lieu of the rearward 
stability test in ASTM F404-15.
    The proposed standard is based on a rearward stability index 
(``SI'') rating that evaluates the factors that contribute to rearward 
tip-overs and sets a minimum SI score for high chairs. The task group 
developed the SI based on a review of various stability requirements, 
the incident data, and testing numerous high chair models, including 
those involved in rearward tip-over incidents and those not reported to 
be involved in such incidents. The SI measures the elements associated 
with high chair occupants pushing back from a surface. The SI rates 
high chairs based on two characteristics associated with rearward tip-
overs--the force (``F'') required to tip the chair over in the rearward 
direction and the distance (``D'') that a reference point on the seat 
travels as the chair tilts from the manufacturer's recommended use 
position to the point of instability just before tipping over. A chair 
design will score well if it requires a large push-off force and/or a 
long distance to reach its tipping point. CPSC's and manufacturers' 
tests determined that the tip force is a more critical factor in 
identifying unstable chairs. As such, the SI weights F twice as heavily 
as D: SI = 2F + D.
    The test method CPSC developed through this testing and proposes in 
this NPR includes the following elements:
     Attach a force gauge to the center line of the back of the 
seat, 7.25'' above the seating surface and preload it with 3 pounds of 
force (to eliminate any slack in fabric or loose seats);
     Establish an initial reference point along the plane of 
the force gauge;
     Gradually apply a rearward, horizontal force until the 
point at which the chair becomes unstable and begins to tip over 
backward;
     Record the maximum force applied during the tip test, 
along with the total distance the reference point moved from its 
predetermined position; and
     Calculate the SI by multiplying the force by a factor of 
two and adding the distance. Based on the product testing conducted, 
CPSC proposes requiring high chairs to have an SI of 50 or more.
    CPSC also proposes to include requirements for the test surface and 
positioning of the high chair for rearward stability testing. These 
requirements are based on CPSC staff's testing initiative and aim to 
reduce variation in test results. First, CPSC proposes to require the 
high chair seat back, tray, seat, and wheels to be in specific 
positions for rearward stability testing. This will decrease 
variability in test methods and results, and based on testing, CPSC 
believes that these positions are the most effective for assessing high 
chair stability.
    Second, CPSC proposes to require a specific test surface, including 
60-grit sandpaper to prevent sliding and maximum parameters for the 
stop block placed behind a high chair with wheels to instigate tipping. 
Without these requirements, test results vary because test surfaces 
differ and the height of a stop block affects the amount of force 
necessary to tip over a high chair.
    The proposed rearward stability requirement and test procedure are 
effective at identifying high chairs that have been involved in 
rearward tip-over incidents. As such, CPSC believes this more stringent 
standard would further reduce the risk of injury associated with 
rearward high chair tip-overs, and proposes requiring this modification 
to ASTM F404-15.

B. Warnings in Labels

    Based on incident data discussed above and research on effective 
warnings, CPSC believes that the on-product warning requirements in 
ASTM F404-15 do not adequately address the safety risks associated with 
high chairs; therefore, CPSC proposes more stringent requirements that 
would further reduce the risk of injury associated with falls from high 
chairs. Specifically, CPSC proposes additional content, form, and 
placement provisions for on-product warnings labels. Tab E of CPSC 
staff's briefing package for this proposed rule includes additional 
details about these proposed requirements and the rationale behind 
them. The briefing package is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/FOIA/Commission-Briefing-Packages/.
1. Content
    CPSC proposes to require high chairs to bear labels that address 
the following statements:
    Children have suffered skull fractures after falling from high 
chairs. Falls can happen quickly if child is not restrained properly.
     Always use restraints, and adjust to fit snugly. Tray is 
not designed to hold child in chair.
     Stay near and watch your child during use.

[[Page 69152]]

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

[[Page 69153]]

C. Warnings in Instructional Literature

    For reasons similar to using warnings in on-product labels, CPSC 
proposes more stringent requirements for warnings in instructional 
literature than ASTM F404-15 provides. CPSC believes that more 
stringent requirements will further reduce the risk of injury 
associated with high chairs by providing more effective warnings 
regarding the hazard, potential injuries, and recommended behavior. 
This includes requirements about the content and form of warnings in 
instructional literature. The discussion below provides the rationale 
for these more-stringent requirements, and the requirements are 
discussed in additional detail in Tab E of CPSC staff's briefing 
package for this proposed rule.
1. Content
    Section 9.2 of ASTM F404-15 requires that instructional literature 
contain the same warnings as the warnings required on the high chair. 
CPSC believes that this requirement is appropriate. However, because 
CPSC proposes to require different on-product warning label content 
than ASTM F404-15, the more-stringent warning requirements also would 
apply to instructional literature. The Commission agrees with the 
additional content requirement listed in section 9.2.1 of ASTM F404-15. 
Therefore, CPSC does not propose to modify that requirement.
2. Form
    Unlike on-product warning labels, ASTM F404-15 does not specify the 
form in which warning statements in instructional literature must 
appear. Similarly to on-product warning labels, research and guidance 
indicate that specific forms are more effective at conveying 
information. The proposed rule refers to ANSI Z535.6, Product Safety 
Information in Product Manuals, Instructions, and Other Collateral 
Materials (``ANSI Z535.6'') for guidance on the design and location of 
product safety messages in instructional literature. The standard is 
available at: http://www.ansi.org/.
    CPSC proposes to require the same form requirements for warnings in 
instructional literature as the requirements proposed for on-product 
warning labels, with one exception. CPSC believes that these form 
requirements will further reduce the risk of injury associated with 
high chairs for the same reasons discussed for on-product warning 
labels. However, CPSC does not propose to require the use of specific 
colors (i.e., red, orange, yellow) for warnings in instructional 
literature unless a manufacturer opts to use color, in which case the 
same color requirements as on-product labels would apply.
3. Additional Guidance
    Similar to ANSI Z535.4, CPSC also proposes to include a note in the 
regulatory text referencing ANSI Z535.6 for optional additional 
guidance. CPSC would not require compliance with ANSI Z535.6, but the 
standard may offer regulated entities additional useful information for 
developing effective warnings in instructional literature.

IX. Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112 To Include NOR for High Chair 
Standard

    Section 14 of the CPSA establishes requirements for product testing 
and certification. Manufacturers of products that are subject to a 
consumer product safety rule under the CPSA or another rule the 
Commission enforces must certify, based on product testing, that their 
product complies with all such rules. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1). 
Additionally, manufacturers of children's products that are subject to 
a children's product safety rule must have these products tested by a 
third party conformity assessment body that CPSC has accredited, and 
manufacturers must certify that their products comply with all 
applicable children's product safety rules. Id. at 2063(a)(2). The 
Commission must publish an NOR for the accreditation of third party 
conformity assessment bodies to assess conformity with a children's 
product safety rule. Id. at 2063(a)(3). Because the proposed rule is a 
children's product safety rule, if the Commission issues 16 CFR part 
1231, Safety Standard for High Chairs, as a final rule, the CPSC must 
also issue an NOR.
    The Commission published a final rule, codified at 16 CFR part 
1112, titled, Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity 
Assessment Bodies, which established requirements for accreditation of 
third party conformity assessment bodies to test for conformity with 
children's product safety rules in accordance with the CPSA. 78 FR 
15836 (Mar. 12, 2013). Part 1112 also codifies all of the NORs the 
Commission previously issued.
    NORs for new children's product safety rules, such as the high 
chair standard, require the Commission to amend part 1112. To 
accomplish this, as part of this NPR, the Commission proposes to amend 
part 1112 to add high chairs to the list of children's product safety 
rules for which CPSC has issued an NOR.
    Test laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third 
party conformity assessment body to test for compliance with the 
proposed standard for high chairs would be required to meet the third 
party conformity assessment body accreditation requirements in part 
1112. When a laboratory meets the requirements of a CPSC-accepted third 
party conformity assessment body, the laboratory can apply to CPSC to 
have 16 CFR part 1231, Safety Standard for High Chairs, included in the 
laboratory's scope of accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed for the 
laboratory on the CPSC Web site at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.

X. Incorporation by Reference

    Section 1231.2(a) of the proposed rule incorporates by reference 
ASTM F404-15. The Office of the Federal Register (``OFR'') has 
regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. Under 
these regulations, in the preamble of the NPR, an agency must summarize 
the incorporated material and discuss the ways the material is 
reasonably available to interested parties or how the agency worked to 
make the materials reasonably available. 1 CFR 51.5(a).
    In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section V.B. of this 
preamble summarizes the provisions of ASTM F404-15 that the Commission 
proposes to incorporate by reference. ASTM F404-15 is copyrighted. By 
permission of ASTM, interested parties may view the standard as a read-
only document during the comment period of this NPR at: http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. Interested parties may also purchase a copy of 
ASTM F404-15 from ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 
0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You 
may also inspect a copy at CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923.

XI. Effective Date

    The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally 
requires that the effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after 
publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). To allow time for high 
chairs to come into compliance with the standard, the Commission 
proposes that the standard become effective 6 months after publication 
of the final rule in the Federal Register. Without evidence to the 
contrary, CPSC generally considers 6 months to be sufficient time for 
suppliers to come into compliance with

[[Page 69154]]

a new standard, and 6 months is typical for other CPSIA section 104 
rules. Six months is also the period that the Juvenile Products 
Manufacturers Association (``JPMA'') typically allows for products in 
the JPMA certification program to transition to a new standard once 
that standard is published. We also propose that the amendment to part 
1112 become effective 6 months after publication of the final rule. We 
ask for comments on this proposed effective date.

XII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

A. Introduction

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''; 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires 
agencies to consider the impact of proposed rules on small entities, 
including small businesses. Section 603 of the RFA requires the 
Commission to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 
(``IRFA'') and make it available to the public for comment when the NPR 
is published. The IRFA must describe the impact of the proposed rule on 
small entities and identify significant alternatives that accomplish 
the statutory objectives and minimize any significant economic impact 
of the proposed rule on small entities. Specifically, the IRFA must 
discuss:
     The reasons the agency is considering the action;
     the objectives and legal basis of the proposed rule;
     the small entities that would be subject to the proposed 
rule and, when possible, an estimate of the number of small entities 
that would be impacted;
     the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other 
compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including the classes of 
small entities subject to it and the professional skills necessary to 
prepare the reports or records; and
     the relevant federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with the proposed rule. 5 U.S.C. 603.
    This section summarizes the IRFA for this proposed rule. Based on 
CPSC's analysis, staff cannot rule out a significant economic impact 
for 20 of the 38 firms (53 percent) operating in the U.S. market for 
high chairs.

B. Market Description

    CPSC identified 62 firms that supply high chairs to the U.S. 
market. The majority of these firms are domestic (including 27 
manufacturers, 19 importers, and 5 wholesalers). The remaining 11 firms 
are foreign (including 9 manufacturers, 1 importer, and 1 retailer). 
Forty-eight of these firms market their products to consumers, while 14 
firms market their products for use in commercial settings, such as 
restaurants, hotels, and day care centers. However, consumers are able 
to purchase high chairs that are generally designed and marketed for 
use in commercial settings; two of the firms that market their products 
to consumers also produce high chairs identical to the wooden high 
chairs used in restaurants.

C. Reason for Agency Action, Objectives, and Legal Basis for Proposed 
Rule

    Section 104 of the CPSIA requires the CPSC to promulgate a 
mandatory standard for high chairs that is substantially the same as 
the voluntary standard or more stringent than the voluntary standard if 
the Commission determines that more stringent requirements would 
further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.

D. Description of the Proposed Rule

    CPSC proposes to adopt ASTM F404-15 with modifications to the 
rearward stability test and requirements for warnings on labels and 
instructional literature. Section V. of this preamble discusses key 
provisions of ASTM F404-15.
    CPSC believes that the high chairs of 37 firms comply with ASTM 
F404. This is because JPMA has certified the high chairs supplied by 12 
firms, and the remaining 25 firms state that they comply with the 
voluntary standard. As such, these firms will not incur additional 
costs to comply with the provisions of ASTM F404-15, which CPSC 
proposes to adopt.
    In addition to incorporating ASTM F404-15 by reference, CPSC 
proposes to adopt modified requirements for rearward stability and 
warnings in labels and instructional literature because CPSC believes 
that more stringent standards in these areas would further reduce the 
risk of injury. Section VIII. of this preamble discusses these proposed 
provisions.
    Preliminary testing by CPSC staff and other members of the ASTM 
task group indicates that most high chairs would pass the proposed 
rearward stability test, and therefore, would not require any 
modifications to meet the proposed standard. Through testing high 
chairs and other market research, staff identified only three high 
chairs that might not pass the modified rearward stability test, based 
on their design. However, CPSC expects that the cost of modifying the 
design to increase rearward stability would be low, and that this could 
likely be accomplished by adding flat supports to the bottom of each 
back leg.
    The Commission is also proposing more stringent requirements for 
warnings in labels and instructional literature. All firms would be 
affected by the proposed requirements for warnings in labels and 
instructional literature. Each firm would need to modify the text and 
formatting of the warnings for both the product and the instructional 
literature. Firms would need to move warning labels to the specified 
location, ensuring that the warnings are visible when the child is 
placed in the high chair and when the child is in the high chair. If 
the high chair can be used with and without padding, this would require 
placing the warning on both the high chair and the padding. Section 
XII.F. of this preamble discusses staff's assessment of the impact of 
these proposed requirements on small entities.

E. Other Relevant Federal Rules

    CPSC staff has not identified any federal or state rules that 
duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule.

F. Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small Businesses

    CPSC is aware of approximately 62 firms currently marketing high 
chairs in the United States, 51 of which are domestic firms. Under U.S. 
Small Business Administration (``SBA'') guidelines, a high chair 
manufacturer is ``small'' if it has 500 or fewer employees, and 
importers and wholesalers are small if they have 100 or fewer 
employees. CPSC limited its analysis to domestic firms because SBA 
guidelines and definitions pertain to U.S. entities. Based on these 
guidelines and available information about the firms, staff has 
identified 38 of the 51 domestic suppliers as small (21 manufacturers, 
13 importers, and 4 wholesalers). There may be additional small 
domestic high chair suppliers that CPSC is not aware of who are 
operating in the U.S. market. Table 3 lists the number of firms by 
category:

           Table 3--Firms That Market High Chairs in the U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
                        Category                               firms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic................................................              51
  Small.................................................              38
    Manufacturers.......................................              21
      Compliant with ASTM F404..........................              12
      Not Compliant with ASTM F404......................               9
    Importers and Wholesalers...........................              17

[[Page 69155]]

 
      Compliant with ASTM F404..........................               9
      Not Compliant with ASTM F404......................               8
  Large.................................................              13
Foreign.................................................              11
                                                         ---------------
        Total...........................................              62
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 69156]]

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

[[Page 69157]]

rule must be tested by a third party conformity assessment body that 
has been accredited by CPSC. These third party conformity assessment 
bodies test products for compliance with applicable children's product 
safety rules. Testing laboratories that want to conduct this testing 
must meet the NOR for third party conformity testing. CPSC has codified 
NORs in 16 CFR part 1112. CPSC proposes to amend 16 CFR part 1112 to 
establish an NOR for testing laboratories to test for compliance with 
the proposed high chair standard. This section assesses the impact of 
this proposed amendment on small laboratories.
    CPSC conducted a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``FRFA'') 
when it adopted part 1112. 78 FR 15836 (Mar. 12, 2013). The FRFA 
concluded that the accreditation requirements would not have a 
significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small 
laboratories because no requirements were imposed on laboratories that 
did not intend to provide third party testing services. The only 
laboratories that were expected to provide such services were 
laboratories that anticipated receiving sufficient revenue from the 
mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a business 
decision.
    For the same reasons, including the NOR for high chairs in part 
1112 would not have a significant adverse impact on small laboratories. 
Moreover, CPSC expects that only a small number of laboratories would 
request accreditation to test high chairs, based on the number of 
laboratories that have applied for CPSC accreditation to test for 
conformance to other juvenile product standards. Most laboratories 
would already have accreditation to test for conformance to other 
juvenile product standards, and then the only costs would be to add the 
high chair standard to their scope of accreditation. Test laboratories 
have indicated that this cost is extremely low when they are already 
accredited for other CPSIA section 104 rules. Therefore, the Commission 
certifies that the NOR for the high chair standard will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

G. Alternatives

    At least four alternatives are available to minimize the economic 
impact on small entities supplying high chairs while also complying 
with the direction of section 104 of the CPSIA: (1) Adopt ASTM F404-15 
with no modifications; (2) adopt ASTM F404-15 with the proposed 
modifications, except for requirements on the placement of warning 
labels; (3) adopt ASTM F404-15 with the proposed modifications, but 
exclude restaurant-style high chairs from the scope of the rule; and 
(4) provide a later effective date for some or all high chairs.
    First, section 104 of the CPSIA directs the Commission to 
promulgate a standard that is either substantially the same as the 
voluntary standard or more stringent if the Commission determines that 
would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. 
Therefore, adopting ASTM F404-15 with no modifications is the least 
stringent rule CPSC could adopt. This alternative would reduce the 
economic impact on all of the small businesses supplying high chairs to 
the U.S. market. Although, choosing this alternative would not reduce 
the testing costs associated with the rule, this option would eliminate 
the economic impact of complying with the requirements that CPSC 
proposes in addition to ASTM F404-15 for many firms. Specifically, this 
option would eliminate the cost of complying with the additional 
requirements for the 10 small domestic manufacturers and 9 small 
importers and wholesalers with compliant high chairs, all of whom would 
likely comply with ASTM F404-15 by the time a CPSC final rule for high 
chairs would take effect. However, the requirements that CPSC proposes 
in addition to ASTM F404-15 would reduce the risk of injuries 
associated with backward tip-over incidents and fall incidents where 
caregivers did not use restraints or used the restraints improperly. 
Adopting ASTM F404-15 with no modifications would not meet these 
objectives.
    Second, the Commission could reduce impacts to small businesses by 
adopting ASTM F404-15 with the proposed modifications, except for the 
requirement regarding the placement and visibility requirements for 
warning labels. One option is to require warning labels to be visible 
only as a child is being placed into the high chair. This would reduce 
the proportion of high chair models with backs that would need to be 
redesigned and expanded to accommodate labels that are visible when the 
high chair is occupied. Another option would be to allow duplicate 
labels. Manufacturers could place one label on the front seat back, 
which would be visible when the child is placed in the seat, and 
manufacturers could place a second label in a location that is visible 
when the child is in the high chair. This alternative would reduce the 
economic impact on compact high chairs or high chairs with smaller 
backs.
    Third, because a substantial portion of the economic impact of the 
proposed rule would fall on small, restaurant-style high chair 
suppliers, CPSC could exclude restaurant-style high chairs from this 
rule. Restaurant settings have unique requirements, including a need 
for smaller high chairs and to accommodate children of various sizes. 
It would be difficult to retain these features and comply with the 
proposed requirements. Moreover, CPSC has identified only a few 
injuries that involved high chairs in restaurant settings. Therefore, 
the reduction in safety benefits associated with limiting the rule's 
scope likely would be minimal.
    If restaurants could no longer provide high chairs with the 
desirable attributes, restaurants may stop providing high chairs for 
customers, which could result in customers using less safe options, 
such as placing infant carriers on tables or chairs, or using booster 
seats for children under the appropriate age. CPSC requests comments on 
the potential impact of excluding restaurant-style high chairs from the 
proposed rule, including cost and safety impacts.
    Because restaurant-style high chairs are also available to 
consumers for home use, CPSC could take steps to reduce the potential 
safety risks of these high chairs through other means. For example, 
CPSC could require restaurant-style high chair suppliers to label their 
products: ``not intended for home use.'' Additionally, CPSC could 
develop separate warning label requirements for these products to 
inform users of the specific hazard patterns related to restaurant-
style high chairs. ASTM could also develop requirements specific to 
restaurant-style high chairs. CPSC requests comments on the possibility 
of excluding restaurant-style high chairs from the proposed 
requirements, including the implications for safety and costs.
    Fourth, the Commission could reduce the economic impact of the 
proposed rule on small businesses by setting a later effective date for 
some or all high chairs. A later effective date would reduce the 
economic impact on firms in two ways. First, firms would be less likely 
to experience a lapse in production or imports that could result if 
they are unable to come into compliance and secure third party testing 
within the required timeframe. Second, firms could spread costs over a 
longer period, thereby reducing annual costs, as well as the present 
value of total costs. CPSC requests comments on the 6-month effective 
date, as well as feedback on how firms likely would

[[Page 69158]]

address the proposed rule. CPSC could also consider a longer effective 
date for firms that supply restaurant-style high chairs. However, this 
may not reduce the economic impact on these firms because the primary 
cost issue for them is the utility of their high chairs, not the time 
needed to comply with the standard. Nevertheless, CPSC requests 
comments, particularly from restaurants and other commercial 
establishments, on the validity of this conclusion.

XIII. Environmental Considerations

    The Commission's regulations outline the types of agency actions 
that require an environmental assessment (``EA'') or environmental 
impact statement (``EIS''). Rules that have ``little or no potential 
for affecting the human environment'' fall within a ``categorical 
exclusion'' under the National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA''; 42 
U.S.C. 4231-4370h) and the regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 
1500-1508) and do not normally require an EA or EIS. As stated in 16 
CFR 1021.5(c)(1), rules or safety standards that provide design or 
performance requirements for products fall within that categorical 
exclusion. Because this proposed rule would create design and 
performance requirements for high chairs, the proposed rule falls 
within the categorical exclusion, and thus, no EA or EIS is required.

XIV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains information collection requirements 
that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of 
Management and Budget (``OMB'') under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (``PRA''; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), an 
agency must publish the following information:
     a title for the collection of information;
     a summary of the collection of information;
     a brief description of the need for the information and 
the proposed use of the information;
     a description of the likely respondents and proposed 
frequency of response to the collection of information;
     an estimate of the burden that shall result from the 
collection of information; and
     notice that comments may be submitted to OMB.
    In accordance with this requirement, the Commission provides the 
following information:
    Title: Safety Standard for High Chairs
    Description: The proposed rule would require each high chair to 
comply with ASTM F404-15, with additional requirements regarding 
rearward stability and warnings in labels and instructional literature. 
Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F404-15 contain requirements for labels and 
instructional literature. These requirements fall within the definition 
of ``collection of information'' provided in the PRA at 44 U.S.C. 
3502(3).
    Description of Respondents: Persons who manufacture or import high 
chairs.
    Estimated Burden: CPSC estimates the burden of this collection of 
information as follows:

                                                       Table 4--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Number of       Frequency of     Total annual      Hours per       Total burden
                           16 CFR section                              respondents       responses        responses         response          hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1231.2.............................................................              62                2              124                1              124
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 69159]]

     ways to reduce the burden of the collection of information 
on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques, 
when appropriate, and other forms of information technology; and
     the estimated burden hours associated with modifying 
labels and instructional literature, including any alternative 
estimates.

XV. Preemption

    Under section 26(a) of the CPSA, no state or political subdivision 
of a state may establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing 
with the same risk of injury as a federal consumer product safety 
standard under the CPSA unless the state requirement is identical to 
the federal standard. 15 U.S.C. 2075(a). States or political 
subdivisions of states may, however, apply to the Commission for an 
exemption, allowing them to establish or continue such a requirement if 
the state requirement provides a significantly high degree of 
protection from the risk of injury and does not unduly burden 
interstate commerce. Id. at 2075(c).
    One of the functions of the CPSIA was to amend the CPSA, adding 
several provisions to CPSA, including CPSIA section 104 in 15 U.S.C. 
2056a. As such, consumer product safety standards that the Commission 
creates under CPSIA section 104 are covered by the preemption provision 
in the CPSA. Consequently, the rule proposed in this NPR would be a 
federal consumer product safety standard, and the preemption provision 
in section 26 of the CPSA would apply.

XVI. Request for Comments

    This NPR begins a rulemaking proceeding under section 104(b) of the 
CPSIA to issue a consumer product safety standard for high chairs and 
to amend part 1112 to add high chairs to the list of children's product 
safety rules for which CPSC has issued an NOR. We invite all interested 
persons to submit comments on any aspect of the proposed mandatory 
safety standard for high chairs and on the proposed amendment to part 
1112. Specifically, the Commission requests comments on the following:
     the requirements in ASTM F404-15, including their 
effectiveness in addressing the risk of injury associated with high 
chairs and the costs of complying with these requirements;
     the additional requirements proposed for rearward 
stability, including its effectiveness in addressing the risk of injury 
associated with rearward tip-overs and the costs of complying with 
these requirements;
     the additional requirements proposed for warnings in 
labels and instructional literature, including their effectiveness at 
addressing the risk of injury associated with falls from high chairs 
and the costs of complying with these requirements;
     whether application of different requirements to 
restaurant-style high chairs is appropriate, relevant safety 
implications, and options for applying distinct standards;
     the costs to small businesses associated with the 
requirements proposed in this NPR, including the costs to comply with 
the proposed rearward stability requirements, content and form 
requirements for labels and instructional literature, and placement 
requirements for labels;
     alternatives to the proposed standard that would reduce 
impacts on small businesses;
     the proposed effective date and whether an extended 
effective date would further mitigate the impact on small businesses 
and to what extent; and
     any additional information relevant to the issues 
discussed in this NPR and the proposed requirements.
    During the comment period, ASTM F404-15 is available for review. 
Please see section X. for instructions on viewing it.
    Please submit comments in accordance with the instructions in the 
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this NPR.

List of Subjects

16 CFR Part 1112

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

16 CFR Part 1231

    Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants 
and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, and Toys.

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

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

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

    Authority: Pub. L. 110-314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 
(2008); 15 U.S.C. 2063.
0
2. Amend Sec.  1112.15 by adding paragraph (b)(44) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (44) 16 CFR part 1231, Safety Standard for High Chairs.
* * * * *
0
3. Add part 1231 to read as follows:

PART 1231-SAFETY STANDARD FOR HIGH CHAIRS

Sec.
1231.1 Scope.
1231.2 Requirements for high chairs.

    Authority: The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, 
Pub. L. 110-314, Sec.  104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Pub. 
L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).


Sec.  1231.1  Scope.

    This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for high 
chairs.


Sec.  1231.2  Requirements for high chairs.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this 
section, each high chair must comply with all applicable provisions of 
ASTM F404-15, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for High Chairs, 
approved on May 15, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves 
this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 
1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from ASTM International, 100 Bar 
Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; 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_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (b) Instead of complying with section 6.5 of ASTM F404-15, comply 
with the following:
    (1) 6.5.1 Forward and sideways stability--A chair shall not tip 
over when forces are applied in accordance with 7.7.2.4 and 7.7.2.5.
    (2) 6.5.2 Rearward stability--When tested in accordance with 
7.7.2.6 (paragraph (c)(3) of this section), a high chair shall not have 
a Rearward Stability Index of 50 or more.
    (c) For rearward stability testing, instead of complying with 
sections 7.7.2.1, 7.7.2.2, and 7.7.2.6 of ASTM F404-15, comply with the 
following:

[[Page 69160]]

    (1) 7.7.2.1 Place the high chair in a manufacturer's recommended 
use position with all legs on a level floor and with the seat back 
adjusted into the most upright position. Attach the tray in the rear 
position, closest to the high chair seat back. For high chairs with 
height-adjustable seats, adjust the seat into the highest 
manufacturer's recommended use position or the position deemed most 
likely to fail. If a high chair has lockable wheels, those wheels shall 
be locked during stability testing.
    (2) 7.7.2.2 Place the high chair on a rigid, horizontal test 
surface covered with 60 grit sandpaper or equivalent to prevent the 
chair from sliding on the test surface during the test. If a high chair 
slides on the test surface during the test or has wheels that do not 
lock, place a stop on the test surface to prevent sliding during the 
test. The stop shall be low profile, minimum height required to prevent 
sliding, and shall not inhibit the tipping of the high chair or affect 
the test results.
    (3) 7.7.2.6 Rearward stability--
    (i) 7.7.2.6.1 Attach a force gauge to the rear surface of the seat 
back at the lateral centerline and 7 \1/4\ in. (184 mm) above the 
occupant seating surface as shown in Figure 1. For high chairs with a 
seat back 7 \1/4\ in. (184 mm) high or less, attach the force gauge at 
the lateral centerline and top surface of the seat back.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.319

    (ii) 7.7.2.6.2 With the high chair in the at rest position, 
gradually apply a preload force ``F'' of 3 lbf (13 N) to the seat back 
surface of the high chair and while maintaining the force, establish 
the initial location of a reference point some distance away from the 
force gauge as shown in Figure 1.
    (iii) 7.7.2.6.3 Gradually increase the horizontal force over a 
period of at least 5 seconds and continue to pull the high chair 
rearward until the high chair reaches the point that it becomes 
unstable and is on the verge of tipping over. Record the maximum force 
``F'' in pounds (lbs.) applied during the test and the horizontal 
distance ``D'' in inches (in.) from the initial location of the 
reference point to the location of the reference point where the high 
chair becomes unstable and is on the verge of tipping over. Force ``F'' 
shall be maintained in a horizontal direction throughout the test.
    (iv) 7.7.2.6.4 Calculate the Rearward Stability Index using the 
formula shown below.

Rearward Stability Index = 2F + D
Force ``F'' is measured in pounds (lbs.).
Distance ``D'' in measured in inches (in.)

    (d) Instead of complying with section 8.4 of ASTM F404-15, comply 
with the following:
    (1) 8.4 Warning Statements--Each Product Shall Have Warning 
Statements:
    (i) 8.4.1 The warnings shall be easy to read and understand and be 
in the English language at a minimum.
    (ii) 8.4.2 Any labels or written instructions provided in addition 
to those required by this section shall not contradict or confuse the 
meaning of the required information, or be otherwise misleading to the 
consumer.
    (iii) 8.4.3 The warning statements shall be conspicuous, in highly 
contrasting color(s) (e.g., black text on a white background), 
permanent, and in non-condensed sans serif style type.
    (iv) 8.4.4 Each warning statement or group of warning statements 
shall be preceded by the Safety Alert Symbol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.320


and the signal word ``WARNING'' in bold uppercase letters. If warnings 
are placed directly under or adjacent to one another, then the safety 
alert symbol and the signal word WARNING need to be displayed only 
once. The Safety Alert Symbol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.320


and the signal word ``WARNING'' shall not be less than 0.2 in. (5 mm) 
high and the remainder of the text shall be in characters whose 
uppercase shall not be less than 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) high. The height of 
the safety alert symbol shall equal or exceed the signal word height.
    (v) 8.4.5 The safety alert symbol

[[Page 69161]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.320


and the signal word ``WARNING'' shall be in contrasting color to the 
background and delineated with solid black line borders. The background 
color behind the safety alert symbol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.320


and the signal word ``WARNING'' shall be orange, red, or yellow, 
whichever provides the best contrast against the product background. 
The signal word ``WARNING'' and the solid triangle portion of the 
safety alert symbol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.320


shall be black. The exclamation mark of the safety alert symbol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.320


shall be the same color as the background. The remainder of the text 
shall be black, with key words highlighted using boldface, on a white 
background surrounded by a solid black line border. This text also 
shall be left-justified, in upper and lowercase letters (i.e., sentence 
capitalization), and in list or outline format, with precautionary 
statements indented from hazard statements and preceded with bullet 
points. An example label in the format described in this section is 
shown in Figure 2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09NO15.321


    Note:  For optional additional guidance on the design of 
warnings, see the most-recent edition of ANSI Z535.4, Product Safety 
Signs and Labels, American National Standards Institute, Inc., 
available at http://www.ansi.org/.

    (vi) 8.4.6 The warning statements shall be in a location that is 
visible by the caregiver while placing the occupant into the high chair 
in each of the manufacturer's recommended use positions.
    (vii) 8.4.7 High chairs that do not have a seating component that 
is also used as a seating component of a stroller, shall, in the same 
label, address the following warning statements:
    Children have suffered skull fractures after falling from high 
chairs. Falls can happen quickly if child is not restrained properly.
     Always use restraints, and adjust to fit snugly. Tray is 
not designed to hold child in chair.
     Stay near and watch your child during use.
    (viii) 8.4.8 High chairs that have a seating component that is also 
used as a seating component of a stroller shall use the warning 
statements as specified in subsections 8.2.2.1 and 8.2.2.2 of the 
version of the standard that is incorporated by reference in part 1227 
of this subchapter, in place of the warning statements in 8.4.7 
(paragraph (d)(vii) of this section).
    (e) Instead of complying with section 9.2 of ASTM F404-15, comply 
with the following:
    (1) 9.2 The instructions shall contain the warnings as specified in 
section 8.4 (paragraph (d)(1) of this section). Additional warnings 
similar to the statements included in this section shall also be 
included. These required warning statements shall meet the requirements 
described in section 8.4 (paragraph (d)(1) of this section), except for 
the color requirements (i.e., the background of the signal word panel 
need not be orange, red, or yellow). However, the warning statements 
still must be in highly contrasting color(s) (e.g., black text on a 
white background), and if color is used, those colors must meet the 
color requirements specified in section 8.4 (paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section).
    (2) Reference to section 9.2 of ASTM F404-15 in paragraph (e) of 
this section includes only the introductory paragraph of section 9.2 
and does not include subsections 9.2.1 or 9.2.2 of ASTM F404-15.

    Note: For optional additional guidance on the design of warnings 
for instructional literature, see the most-recent addition of ANSI 
Z535.6, Product Safety Information in Product Manuals, Instructions, 
and Other Collateral Materials, American National Standards 
Institute, Inc., available at http://www.ansi.org/.


    Dated: November 2, 2015.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-28300 Filed 11-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P