[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 96 (Friday, May 19, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22925-22934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10044]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1237

[CPSC Docket No. 2017-0023]


Safety Standard for Booster Seats

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

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

DATES: Submit comments by August 2, 2017. Submit comments regarding 
information collection by June 19, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of 
the marking, labeling, and instructional literature requirements of the 
proposed mandatory standard for booster seats should be directed to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Office of Management 
and Budget, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or emailed to 
[email protected].
    Other comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2017-0023, 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 email, except through www.regulations.gov. The

[[Page 22926]]

Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.
    Written Submissions: Submit written submissions by mail/hand 
delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 
telephone (301) 504-7923.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this proposed rulemaking. All comments received 
may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, 
contact information, or other personal information provided, to: http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, 
trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information 
that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at 
all, such information should be submitted in writing.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the 
docket number, CPSC-2017-0023, into the ``Search'' box, and follow the 
prompts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Celestine T. Kish, Project Manager, 
Directorate for Engineering Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: (301) 
987-2547; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Statutory Authority

    The CPSIA was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the 
CPSIA 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. Standards issued under section 104 are to be ``substantially 
the same as'' the applicable voluntary standards, or more stringent 
than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that more 
stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury 
associated with the product.
    Section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA defines the term ``durable infant or 
toddler product'' 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 
``booster chairs'' as a durable infant or toddler product.
    Pursuant to section 104(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA, the Commission 
consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, 
laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and members of the 
public in the development of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), 
largely through the ASTM process.
    Based on a briefing package prepared by CPSC staff, the proposed 
rule would incorporate by reference the most recent booster seat 
voluntary standard developed by ASTM International, ASTM F2640-
17[egr]\1\, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats, 
without modification. [https://cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Notice%20of%20Proposed%20Rulemaking%20-%20Booster%20Seats%20-%20May%203%202017.pdf?97pmoM5UAGyQBBPFtTPyvFu_RjCZMAwL] If finalized, 
the ASTM standard would be a mandatory safety rule under the Consumer 
Product Safety Act (CPSA).
    The testing and certification requirements of section 14(a) of the 
CPSA apply to the standards promulgated under section 104 of the CPSIA. 
Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to publish an NOR 
for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (test 
laboratories) to assess conformity with a children's product safety 
rule to which a children's product is subject. The proposed rule for 
booster seats, if issued as a final rule, would be a children's product 
safety rule that requires the issuance of an NOR. To meet the 
requirement that the Commission issue an NOR for the booster seats 
standard, this NPR also proposes to amend 16 CFR part 1112 to include 
16 CFR part 1237, the CFR section where the booster seat standard will 
be codified if the standard becomes final.

II. Product Information

A. Definition of ``Booster Seat''

    ASTM F2640-17 [egr]\1\ defines a ``booster seat'' as ``a juvenile 
chair, which is placed on an adult chair to elevate a child to standard 
dining table height. The booster seat is made for the purpose of 
containing a child, up to 5 years of age, and normally for the purposes 
of feeding or eating. A booster seat may be height adjustable and 
include a reclined position.'' Booster seats may be constructed from a 
wide variety of materials, including wood, plastic, fabric, metal, and/
or foam. Most booster seats, notably those intended for home use, have 
removable trays, allowing a table to be used as an alternative eating 
surface. Some booster seats are intended to double as floor seats for 
toddlers, and others are high chair/booster seat combination products. 
The ASTM standard covers combination products when they are in their 
booster seat configuration.
    Several suppliers produce booster seats that are designed 
specifically for use in restaurants. These suppliers sell their ``food-
service'' booster seats directly to restaurants or through restaurant 
supply companies; however, consumers may purchase these products 
directly, for example online through third parties such as Amazon.com. 
Consequently, these food-service booster seats may also be found in 
homes. Furthermore, consumers use these food-service booster seats in 
establishments open to the public. ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\ broadly 
defines booster seats as ``a juvenile chair, which is placed on an 
adult chair to elevate a child to standard dining table height.'' There 
is no exclusion for food-service booster seats and ASTM subcommittee 
members have stated in several subcommittee meetings that food-service 
booster seats are included in the standard.
    The standard does not cover car booster seats, which are also 
sometimes referred to as ``booster seats.''

B. Booster Seat Means of Attachment to Adult Chairs

    Currently, booster seats use a variety of methods to secure the 
booster on an adult chair; most employ a method of attachment, such as 
straps or suction, to attach to an adult chair. However, a few booster 
seats rely on the occupant's weight (along with anti-skid bottoms or 
grip feet to minimize slippage by means of friction) to secure the 
booster seat onto an adult chair. As discussed below in section VI.A., 
not all methods of securing a booster seat to an adult chair comply 
with the attachment requirements in ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\.

III. Incident Data

    The Commission is aware of a total of 867 incidents (2 fatal, 865 
nonfatal) related to booster seats, reported to have occurred between 
January 1, 2008 and September 30, 2016. Information on 83 percent of 
these incidents was based on retailer and manufacturer reports 
submitted through the CPSC's ``Retailer Reporting Program.'' Various 
sources, such as hotlines, Internet reports, newspaper clippings, 
medical examiners, and other state and local authorities provided the 
CPSC with the

[[Page 22927]]

remaining incident reports. Because reporting is ongoing, the number of 
reported fatalities, nonfatal injuries, and non-injury incidents may 
change in the future.

A. Fatalities

    CPSC has reports of two fatalities associated with the use of a 
booster seat:
    [ssquf] In one incident, a 22-month-old female, sitting on a 
booster seat attached to an adult chair, pushed off from the table and 
tipped the adult chair backwards into a glass panel of a china cabinet 
behind her. The cause of death was listed as ``exsanguination due to 
hemorrhage from incised wound.''
    [ssquf] In the other incident, a 4-year-old male fell from a 
booster seat to the floor; he seemed uninjured at the time, but later 
that evening when riding his bike, the child fell, became unresponsive, 
and later died. The cause of death was multiple blunt force trauma.

B. Nonfatalities

    CPSC has reports of 146 booster seat nonfatal injury incidents 
occurring between January 1, 2008 and September 30, 2016. Among the 
incidents with age information available, a majority of the incidents 
involved children 18 months and under. The severity of the injury types 
among the 146 reported injuries were as follows:
    [ssquf] Four children required a hospital admission. The injuries 
were skull fractures, concussions, and other head injuries.
    [ssquf] Another 22 children were treated and released from a 
hospital emergency department (ED) for injuries resulting mostly from 
falls.
    [ssquf] The remaining incidents primarily involved contusions, 
abrasions, and lacerations, due to falls or entrapment of limbs/
extremities.
    The remaining 719 non-injury incident reports specified that no 
injury had occurred or provided no information about any injury. 
However, many of the descriptions indicated the potential for a serious 
injury or even death.

C. Hazard Pattern Identification

    CPSC staff considered all 867 reported incidents to identify hazard 
patterns associated with booster seats; subsequently, staff considered 
the hazard patterns when reviewing the adequacy of ASTM F2640-
17[egr]\1\. CPSC staff identified the following hazard patterns 
associated with booster seats:
    1. Restraint/Attachment Problems (37%): 317 incidents involved the 
mechanism for attaching a booster seat to an adult chair, or the 
restraint system that contains the child within the booster seat. 
Issues with the attachment mechanism included anchor Buckles/clasps/
straps breaking, tearing, fraying, detaching or releasing. Restraint-
system problems included: Buckles/prongs breaking, jamming, releasing 
too easily, or separating from straps; straps tearing or fraying, 
pinching, or coming undone; and general inadequacy or ineffectiveness 
of restraints in containing the child in place. In 18 incident reports, 
it was not clear from the report if the buckle or strap referred to in 
the report meant the restraint or the attachment system. In eight of 
the incident reports, both systems were reported to have failed. 
Thirty-seven injuries are included in this category, of which seven 
were treated at a hospital ED.
    2. Seat-Related Issues (29%): 254 incidents involved seat-related 
issues. These incidents included failure of the lock/latch that 
controls the seat-recline function; seat pads tearing, cracking, and/or 
peeling; the seat back detaching altogether; seat height adjustment 
lock/latch failure; and seat detachment from the base available for 
certain models. Twenty-one injuries are included in this category, two 
resulting in hospitalizations and five of which were ED-treated 
injuries.
    3. Tray-Related Issues (20%): 171 incidents involved issues 
relating to booster seat trays. These incidents included tray paint 
finish peeling off, trays failing to lock/stay locked, trays with sharp 
protrusions on the underside, trays too tight/difficult to release, and 
trays pinching fingers. These incidents also included complaints about 
broken toy-accessories, which are usually attached to the tray (or 
tray-insert). Thirty-six injuries are included in this category, 
including one that required ED treatment.
    4. Design Problems (4%): 33 incidents involved a potential 
entrapment hazard due to the design of the booster seat. Most of these 
incidents involved limbs, fingers, and toes entrapped in spaces/
openings between the armrest and seat back/tray, between passive crotch 
restraint bar and seat/tray, between tray inserts, or in toy 
accessories. Fifteen injuries were included in this category, two 
requiring ED treatment.
    5. Stability-Related Issues (4%): 31 incidents involved issues of 
booster seat stability. Most of these incidents (27 of 31) concerned 
the adult chair to which the booster seat was attached tipping back or 
over. Some of these incidents resulted from the child pushing back from 
the table or counter. Twenty-two injuries (including two 
hospitalizations and five ED-treated injuries) and one fatality are 
included in this category.
    6. Armrest Problems (3%): 24 incidents involved booster seat 
armrests cracking or breaking. In a few cases, the armrest reportedly 
arrived broken inside the booster seat packaging. One injury is 
included in this category.
    7. Miscellaneous Product Issues (2%): 16 miscellaneous incidents 
involved a variety of product-related issues, including unclear 
assembly instructions, poor quality construction, odor, rough surface, 
breakage, or loose hardware at unspecified sites. Nine injuries were 
included in this category, including two ED-treated injuries.
    8. Combination of Multiple Issues (2%): 17 incidents involved a 
combination of the above-listed product hazards. Four injuries were 
included in this category.
    9. Unknown Issues (<0.5%): Four incidents involved unknown issues. 
In these incidents, insufficient information was available for CPSC 
staff to determine how the incidents occurred. In one incident in this 
category, a fatality, there were confounding factors reported that 
likely contributed to the death. One other injury was reported in this 
category.

D. Product Recalls

    Compliance staff reviewed recalls of booster seats that occurred 
from January 1, 2008 to September 30, 2016. During that time, there was 
one consumer-level recall involving booster seats. The recall was 
conducted to resolve a fall hazard caused when the stitching on the 
booster seat's restraint straps loosened, allowing the straps to 
separate from the seat and the child to fall out of the seat.

IV. International Standards for Booster Seats

    CPSC staff identified one international standard--BS EN16120 Child 
Use and Care Articles--Chair Mounted Seat--intended for a similar 
product category. EN16120 addresses products for a more narrow age 
range of children (up to 36 months); whereas, F2640-17[egr]\1\ includes 
products intended for children up to 5 years of age. Some individual 
requirements in the EN16120 standard are more stringent than ASTM 
F2640-17[egr]\1\. For example, EN16120 contains requirements for head 
entrapment, lateral protection, surface chemicals, cords/ribbons, 
material shrinkage, packaging film, and monofilament threads. 
Conversely, some individual requirements in F2640-17[egr]\1\ are more 
stringent than those found in EN 16120; ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\ includes 
requirements for tray performance and toy accessories. CPSC

[[Page 22928]]

staff believes that the current ASTM standard, ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\, 
is the most comprehensive of the standards to address the identified 
product hazards.

V. Voluntary Standard--ASTM F2640

A. History of ASTM F2640

    The voluntary standard for booster seats was first approved and 
published in 2007, as ASTM F2640-07, Standard Consumer Safety 
Specification for Booster Seats. ASTM has revised the voluntary 
standard nine times since then. The current version of the standard, 
ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\ was approved on March 01, 2017 and published in 
March 2017.

B. Description of the Current Voluntary Standard-ASTM F3118-17[egr]\1\

    ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\ includes the following key provisions: Scope, 
terminology, general requirements, performance requirements, test 
methods, marking and labeling, and instructional literature.
    Scope. This section states the scope of the standard, detailing 
what constitutes a booster seat. As stated in section II.A. of this 
preamble, the Scope section describes a booster seat as ``a juvenile 
chair, which is placed on an adult chair to elevate a child to standard 
dining table height.'' The scope section further specifies appropriate 
ages for children using a booster seat, stating that a ``booster seat 
is made for the purpose of containing a child, up to 5 years of age, 
and normally for the purposes of feeding or eating.''
    Terminology. This section provides definitions of terms specific to 
this standard.
    General Requirements. This section addresses numerous hazards with 
several general requirements; most are also found in the other ASTM 
juvenile product standards. The general requirements included in this 
section are:
    [ssquf] Sharp edges or points;
    [ssquf] Small parts;
    [ssquf] Wood parts;
    [ssquf] Lead in paint;
    [ssquf] Scissoring, shearing, and pinching;
    [ssquf] Openings;
    [ssquf] Exposed coil springs;
    [ssquf] Protective components;
    [ssquf] Labeling; and
    [ssquf] Toys.
    Performance Requirements and Test Methods. These sections contain 
performance requirements specific to booster seats (discussed here) and 
the test methods that must be used to assess conformity with such 
requirements.
    [ssquf] Tray impact test: This test assesses the tray's resistance 
to breaking into small pieces or creating sharp points/edges when 
dropped from a specified height.
    [ssquf] Tray engagement test: This test assesses the tray's ability 
to remain engaged to the booster seat when subjected to a specified 
force horizontally and vertically.
    [ssquf] Static load test: This test assesses whether the booster 
seat can support its maximum recommended weight, by gradually applying 
a static load on the center of the seating surface for a specified 
amount of time.
    [ssquf] Restraint system test: This test assesses whether the 
restraint system can secure a child in the manufacturer's recommended-
use positions.
    [ssquf] Attachment test: This test specifies that a booster seat 
must have a means of attaching a booster seat to an adult chair and 
assesses the booster seat's ability to remain fastened to the adult 
chair when force is applied.
    [ssquf] Structural integrity: This requirement assesses the 
durability of the locking/latching devices to prevent folding or 
adjustment of the booster seat.
    [ssquf] Maximum booster seat dimensions: This requirement assesses 
how large a booster seat can be in relation to the adult chair 
dimensions specified on the booster seat's packaging.
    Marking and Labeling. This section contains various requirements 
relating to warnings, labeling, and required markings for booster 
seats. This section prescribes various substance, format, and 
prominence requirements for such information.
    Instructional Literature. This section requires that easily 
readable and understandable instructions be provided with booster 
seats. Additionally, the section contains requirements relating to 
instructional literature contents and format.

VI. Assessment of the Voluntary Standard ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\

    CPSC staff identified 867 incidents (including two fatalities) 
related to the use of booster seats. CPSC staff examined the incident 
data, identified hazard patterns in the data, and worked with ASTM to 
develop the performance requirements in ASTM F2640. The incident data 
and identified hazard patterns served as the basis for the development 
of ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\ by ASTM with CPSC staff support throughout the 
process.
    CPSC believes that the current voluntary standard, ASTM F2640-
17[egr]\1\, addresses the primary hazard patterns identified in the 
incident data. The following section discusses how each of the 
identified product-related issues or hazard patterns listed in section 
III.C. of this preamble is addressed by the current voluntary standard:

A. Restraint/Attachment Problems

    Restraint system and attachment problems included buckles/prongs 
breaking, jamming, releasing too easily, or separating from straps; 
straps tearing or fraying, pinching, or coming undone; and inadequacy 
or ineffectiveness of restraints in containing the child in place, 
Similarly, complaints about the seat attachment system involved anchor 
buckles/clasps/straps breaking, tearing, fraying, detaching, or 
releasing. CPSC evaluated the attachment and restraint system tests in 
ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\, and believes that these tests adequately address 
this hazard.
    Section 6.5 of ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\ requires that a booster seat 
must have a means of ``attaching'' to an adult chair, and be able to 
withstand a specified force without becoming detached from the adult 
chair. Booster seats may employ several methods to secure to an adult 
chair, including straps, suction, and anti-skid bottoms or grip feet 
that minimize slippage on the chair by means of friction. However, 
because ``grip feet'' and ``friction bottoms'' do not actually attach 
(i.e., fasten) the booster seat to an adult chair, a majority of ASTM 
subcommittee members, as well as CPSC staff, does not consider these 
means of securing booster seats to an adult chair to be a means of 
attachment that Section 6.5 requires. Conversely, because suction 
physically fastens the booster seat to an adult chair, CPSC staff and a 
majority of ASTM subcommittee members consider suction to be a means of 
attachment under Section 6.5 of the current ASTM standard; 
nevertheless, any booster seat using suction as a means of attachment 
must still pass the attachment test to be compliant.
    Thus, promulgating the requirements of ASTM F2640[egr]\1\ as a 
mandatory standard might result in the following: (1) Booster seats 
that currently use grip feet/friction bottoms to secure the booster 
seat to the surface upon which it sits (disproportionately used on 
food-service booster seats) would not comply with the mandatory 
standard due to their lack of a means of attachment; and (2) booster 
seats that currently use suction as a means of attachment may not pass 
the mandatory standard's attachment test. CPSC requests comments on the 
effect of ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\'s attachment requirements becoming 
mandatory on booster seats that currently use grip feet/friction 
bottoms to secure the booster to the surface upon which it sits. 
Furthermore,

[[Page 22929]]

CPSC requests comments on whether a suction attachment method is 
capable of passing ASTM F2640[egr]\1\'s attachment test.

B. Seat-Related Issues

    Seat-related issues included failure of the lock/latch that 
controls the seat-recline function; seat pads tearing, cracking, and/or 
peeling; seat backs detaching altogether; seat height adjustment lock/
latch failures; and seat detachment from the base that is available for 
certain models. CPSC evaluated the static load and dynamic booster seat 
tests in ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\, and believes that these tests 
adequately address this hazard.

C. Tray-Related Issues

    Tray-related issues included trays with paint finish peeling off, 
trays failing to lock/stay locked, trays with sharp protrusions on the 
underside, trays that were too tight/difficult to release, and trays 
pinching fingers. Upon evaluation, CPSC believes that the general 
requirements section of F2640-17[egr]\1\ adequately addresses peeling 
paint, sharp protrusions, and pinching hazards, and the standard's tray 
engagement test adequately address the tray locking failures.

D. Design Problems

    Booster seat design problems resulted in limbs, fingers, and toes 
entrapped in spaces/openings between the armrest and seat back/tray, 
between passive crotch restraint bar and seat/tray, between tray 
inserts, or in toy accessories. CPSC evaluated the general requirements 
of ASTM 2640-17[egr]\1\ (namely requirements relating to scissoring, 
shearing, and pinching, openings, and toys) and believes that the ASTM 
standard adequately addresses this hazard.

E. Stability-Related Issues

    Stability-related incidents included instances where the adult 
chair to which the booster seat was attached, tipped back or tipped 
over. Addressing the stability of the booster seat while attached to an 
adult chair is difficult in a standard for booster seats because 
stability is dependent on the adult chair. The ASTM booster seat 
subcommittee and CPSC staff worked diligently to find an effective 
requirement to adequately address stability without specifying 
requirements for the adult chair. Although ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\ does 
not contain a performance requirement to address this hazard, it does 
contain a labeling requirement, whereby booster seats must contain a 
cautionary statement: ``Never allow a child to push away from table.'' 
Moreover, ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\ requires a booster seat to identify on 
the booster seat packaging the size of adult chair on which the booster 
seat can fit, thereby allowing consumers to make a more informed 
purchasing choice.

F. Armrest Problems

    Armrest problems included booster seat armrests cracking, and in a 
few cases, the armrest arriving to the consumer broken in the 
packaging. CPSC evaluated the static and dynamic load tests contained 
in ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\, and believes that those tests adequately 
address armrest-related hazards.

G. Miscellaneous Product-Related Issues

    Miscellaneous product-related issues included unclear assembly 
instructions, poor quality construction, odor, rough surface, breakage, 
or loose hardware at unspecified sites. CPSC evaluated the general 
requirements section, as well as the instructional literature 
requirements of ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\, and believes that those 
requirements adequately address this hazard.

VII. Proposed Standard for Booster Seats

    As discussed in the previous section, the Commission concludes that 
ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\ adequately addresses the hazards associated with 
booster seats. Thus, the Commission proposes to incorporate by 
reference ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\, without modification, into the final 
rule.

VIII. Proposed Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112 To Include NOR for Booster 
Seats

    The CPSA establishes certain requirements for product certification 
and testing. Products subject to a consumer product safety rule under 
the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard or regulation under any 
other act enforced by the Commission, must be certified as complying 
with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). 
Certification of children's products subject to a children's product 
safety rule must be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third 
party conformity assessment body. Id. 2063(a)(2). The Commission must 
publish an NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity 
assessment bodies to assess conformity with a children's product safety 
rule to which a children's product is subject. Id. 2063(a)(3). Thus, 
the proposed rule for 16 CFR part 1237, Standard Consumer Safety 
Specification for Booster Seats, if issued as a final rule, would be a 
children's product safety rule that requires the issuance of an NOR.
    The Commission published a final rule, Requirements Pertaining to 
Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), 
codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (part 1112) and effective on June 10, 
2013, which establishes requirements for accreditation of third party 
conformity assessment bodies to test for conformity with a children's 
product safety rule in accordance with section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA. 
Part 1112 also codifies all of the NORs issued previously by the 
Commission.
    All new NORs for new children's product safety rules, such as the 
booster seats standard, require an amendment to part 1112. To meet the 
requirement that the Commission issue an NOR for the booster seats 
standard, as part of this NPR, the Commission proposes to amend the 
existing rule that codifies the list of all NORs issued by the 
Commission to add booster seats to the list of children's product 
safety rules for which the CPSC has issued an NOR.
    Test laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third 
party conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for 
booster seats would be required to meet the third party conformity 
assessment body accreditation requirements in part 1112. When a 
laboratory meets the requirements as a CPSC-accepted third party 
conformity assessment body, the laboratory can apply to the CPSC to 
have 16 CFR part 1237, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for 
Booster Seats, included in the laboratory's scope of accreditation of 
CPSC safety rules listed for the laboratory on the CPSC Web site at: 
www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.

Incorporation by Reference

    The Commission proposes to incorporate by reference ASTM F2640-
17[egr]\1\, without modification. The Office of the Federal Register 
(OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 
51. For a proposed rule, agencies must discuss in the preamble to the 
NPR ways that the materials the agency proposes to incorporate by 
reference are reasonably available to interested persons or how the 
agency worked to make the materials reasonably available. In addition, 
the preamble to the proposed rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 
51.5(a).
    In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section V.B. of this 
preamble summarizes the provisions of ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\ that the 
Commission

[[Page 22930]]

proposes to incorporate by reference. ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\ is 
copyrighted. By permission of ASTM, the standard can be viewed as a 
read-only document during the comment period on this NPR, at: http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. Interested persons may also purchase a copy of 
ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\ from ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, 
P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. One may also inspect a copy at CPSC's Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East 
West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923.

IX. Effective Date

    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the 
effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of the 
final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Although a 6-month effective date has been 
adopted for several other section 104 rules, the Commission is 
proposing an effective date of 12 months after publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register to allow booster seat manufacturers 
additional time to bring their products into compliance after the final 
rule is issued. CPSC was unable to rule out a significant economic 
impact for some booster seat importers and small firms, and a 12-month 
effective date will allow additional time for manufacturers and 
importers to make necessary changes to bring their booster seats into 
conformance with the ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\ and arrange for third party 
testing.

X. Regulatory Flexibility Act

A. Introduction

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that agencies review 
a proposed rule for the rule's potential economic impact on small 
entities, including small businesses. Section 603 of the RFA generally 
requires that agencies prepare an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (IRFA) and make the analysis available to the public for 
comment when the agency publishes an NPR. 5 U.S.C. 603. Section 605 of 
the RFA provides that an IRFA is not required if the agency certifies 
that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Staff could not rule 
out a significant economic impact on 20 of the 29 small suppliers of 
booster seats to the U.S. market. Accordingly, staff prepared an IRFA 
and poses several questions for public comment to help staff assess the 
rule's potential impact on small businesses.
    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 
contain:
    [ssquf] A description of the reasons why action by the agency is 
being considered;
    [ssquf] a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis 
for, the proposed rule;
    [ssquf] a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the 
number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
    [ssquf] a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, 
and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities subject to the requirements 
and the type of professional skills necessary for the preparation of 
reports or records; and
    [ssquf] identification, to the extent possible, of all relevant 
federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 
proposed rule; and
    In addition, the IRFA must describe any significant alternatives to 
the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable 
statutes and minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed 
rule on small entities.

B. Market Description

    The Commission has identified 49 firms supplying booster seats to 
the U.S. market, 39 that supply home-use booster seats, and 10 that 
supply food-service booster seats. Forty-four of these firms (28 
manufacturers, 15 importers, and one supplier with an unknown supply 
source) are domestic. The remaining five firms are foreign.

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

    As discussed in section I. of this preamble, section 104 of the 
CPSIA requires the CPSC to promulgate consumer product safety standards 
for durable infant or toddler products that are substantially the same 
as, or more stringent than, the relevant voluntary standard. Section 
104(f)(2)(C) of the CPSIA specifically identifies ``booster chairs'' as 
a durable infant or toddler product for which the Commission shall 
promulgate a consumer product safety standard.

D. Impact of Proposed 16 CFR Part 1237 on Small Businesses

    CPSC staff is aware of 49 firms currently marketing booster seats 
in the United States, 44 that are domestic. Under U.S. Small Business 
Administration (SBA) guidelines, a manufacturer is considered small if 
it has 500 or fewer employees; and importers and wholesalers are 
considered small if they have 100 or fewer employees. Staff limited its 
analysis to domestic firms because SBA guidelines and definitions 
pertain to U.S.-based entities. Based on these guidelines, 29 of the 44 
domestic firms are small--18 manufacturers, 10 importers, and one firm 
with an unknown supply source. Additional unknown small domestic 
booster seat suppliers may be operating in the U.S. market.
1. Small Manufacturers
i. Small Manufacturers With Compliant Booster Seats
    Of the 18 small manufacturers, eight produce booster seats that 
comply with ASTM F2640-14, the voluntary standard currently in effect 
for testing purposes under the Juvenile Product Manufactures 
Association (JPMA) certification program. In general, it is expected 
that the small manufacturers whose booster seats already comply with 
the current voluntary standard will remain compliant with the voluntary 
standard as it evolves, because these small manufacturers follow, and 
in some cases, participate actively in the standard development 
process. ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\ has already been published and will be 
in effect by the time the mandatory standard becomes final. Moreover, 
history indicates that these firms are likely to be in compliance by 
the time the mandatory standard takes effect.
    All but one of these eight already-compliant firms supply home-use 
booster seats that use straps/belts as an attachment method. The 
remaining small manufacturer uses suction to attach their home-use 
booster seat to adult chairs. It is unclear whether the suction-type 
booster seats would pass the attachment test in ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\ 
without modifications. Several participants in the ASTM voluntary 
standards development process, including one of the supplier 
representatives contacted by CPSC staff, believes that belts and/or 
straps will be required to pass the attachment test. If modifications 
were required, the impact could be significant. The firm could 
undertake efforts to improve their existing suction system, or they 
could modify the chair to use strap/belt attachment system, which would 
involve creating new product molds, as well as the cost of the belts 
and buckles. Several of the supplier representatives staff contacted 
believe that a complete

[[Page 22931]]

redesign for booster seats costs approximately $500,000. Although it is 
unlikely that the cost of addressing the attachment performance 
requirement would be that high, any change that involves redesign can 
be expensive, and the affected firm likely has relatively low sales 
revenue. Therefore, staff cannot rule out a significant impact on this 
firm.
ii. Small Manufacturers With Noncompliant Booster Seats
    Ten small manufacturers produce booster seats that do not comply 
with the voluntary standard; half are home-use booster seat 
manufacturers, and the other half are food-service booster seat 
manufacturers. Staff cannot rule out a significant economic impact for 
any of these small manufacturers. The booster seats manufactured by all 
10 firms are likely to require modifications, some of which may be 
significant, to meet the requirements of the voluntary standard. For 
example, eight of the 10 firms use attachment methods other than belts 
or straps, such as suction or friction, on one or more of their booster 
seat products. Six of those firms supply plastic or foam booster seats, 
which are likely to be more expensive to modify than wooden booster 
seats. In addition, some plastic booster seats may require a complete 
redesign to comply with the warning label requirements, even if 
sufficient space is available on the product to display the labels.
    Staff cannot determine the extent and cost of the changes required 
for compliance of these manufacturers' booster seat products; 
therefore, staff cannot rule out a significant economic impact on these 
businesses. However, based on the revenue data available for these 
firms, the impact is not likely to be significant for two of the firms, 
unless modifications that cost more than $200,000 are required. The 
impact on five of the firms could be significant, even with relatively 
minor changes (i.e., less than $40,000). Without additional 
information, staff cannot determine the impact on the remaining three 
firms.
    The Commission requests information on the changes that may be 
required to meet the voluntary standard, ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\ and, in 
particular, the time and cost associated with any necessary redesign or 
retrofitting. The Commission also requests information on the degree to 
which modifications required as a result of ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\'s 
attachment test may add to a firm's costs.
iii. Third Part Testing Costs for Small Manufacturers
    Under section 14 of the CPSA, once the requirements of ASTM F2640-
17[egr]\1\ are effective, all manufacturers will be subject to the 
third party testing and certification requirements under the 1107 rule. 
Third party testing will include any physical and mechanical test 
requirements specified in the final booster seat rule. Manufacturers 
and importers should already be conducting required lead testing for 
booster seats. Third party testing costs are in addition to the direct 
costs of meeting the requirements of the booster seat standard.
    Eight of the 18 small booster seats manufacturers are already 
testing their products, although not necessarily by a third party, to 
verify compliance with the ASTM standard. For these manufacturers, the 
impact on testing costs will be limited to the difference between the 
cost of third party tests and the cost of current testing regimes. CPSC 
staff contacted small booster seat manufacturers. They estimate that 
third party testing booster seats to the ASTM voluntary standard would 
cost about $500 to $1,000 per model sample. For the eight small 
manufacturers that are already testing, the incremental costs are 
unlikely to be economically significant.
    For the 10 small manufacturers that are not currently testing their 
products to verify compliance with the ASTM standard, the impact of 
third party testing could result in significant costs for three firms. 
Although CPSC does not currently know how many samples will be needed 
to meet the ``high degree of assurance'' criterion required in the 1107 
rule, testing costs could exceed one percent of gross revenue for two 
of these firms, if five samples are needed to be tested (assuming high-
end testing costs of $1,000 per model sample). Revenue information was 
not available for the third firm, but that firm's revenue appears to be 
very small. Accordingly, that firm might be significantly affected by 
third party testing costs.
    The Commission welcomes comments regarding overall testing costs 
and incremental costs due to third party testing (i.e., how much does 
moving from a voluntary to a mandatory third party testing regime add 
to testing costs, in total, and on a per-test basis). In addition, the 
Commission seeks comments on the number of booster seat units that 
typically need to be tested to provide a ``high degree of assurance.''
2. Small Importers
    CPSC does not believe that any of the 10 small importers of booster 
seats currently complies with the ASTM standard. There is insufficient 
information to rule out a significant impact for any of the 10 small 
importers supplying noncompliant booster seats. Whether there will be a 
significant economic impact will depend upon the extent of the changes 
required to comply and the responses of importers' supplying firms. Any 
increase in production costs experienced by their suppliers from 
changes made to meet the mandatory standard may be passed on to these 
importers. Costs would include expenses associated with coming into 
compliance with the voluntary standard, as well as costs associated 
with the attachment test (all of the home-use booster seats supplied by 
these firms already use straps/belts, but neither of the food-service 
suppliers appears to do so, and therefore, they will likely need to 
make changes to come into compliance).
    Four of the 10 importers with noncompliant booster seats (two 
import food-service booster seats, and two import home-use booster 
seats) do not appear to have direct ties to their product suppliers. 
These firms may opt to switch to alternative suppliers (or, in some 
cases, alternative products), rather than bear the cost of complying 
with the standard. Although it is unclear whether the costs associated 
with changing suppliers would be significant for these firms.
    The remaining six firms (all of which import home-use booster 
seats) are directly tied to their foreign suppliers, and therefore, 
finding an alternative supply source would not be a viable alternative. 
The foreign suppliers of these firms, however, may have an incentive to 
work with their U.S. subsidiaries/distributors to maintain an American 
market presence. It is also possible that these firms may discontinue 
the sale of booster seats altogether because booster seats are not a 
large component of their product lines. CPSC staff was unable to 
determine whether exiting the booster seats market would generate 
significant economic impacts due to the lack of sales revenue for 
booster seats, as well as the lack of revenue data for most of these 
firms.
    As with manufacturers, importers will be subject to third party 
testing and certification requirements; consequently, importers will be 
subject to costs similar to those of manufacturers, if their supplying 
foreign firm(s) does not perform third party

[[Page 22932]]

testing. Moving to third party certification for the requirements of 
the proposed rule is unlikely to result in significant costs for the 
four small importers for whom revenue data are available. However, 
there was no revenue data available for the remaining six small 
importers; accordingly, CPSC had no basis for examining the size of the 
impact on those firms.
3. Summary
    In summary, based upon current information, CPSC cannot rule out a 
significant economic impact for 20 of the 29 booster seat firms 
operating in the U.S. market. The 12-month proposed effective date 
would help to spread costs over a longer time-frame.
4. Alternatives
    One alternative is available to minimize the economic impact on 
small entities supplying booster seats while also meeting the statutory 
objectives. The Commission could allow a later effective date than 
proposed.
    The Commission is proposing a 12-month effective date to allow 
booster seat manufacturers additional time (beyond the more usual 6-
month effective date) to bring their products into compliance after the 
final rule is issued. The Commission believes that the proposed 12-
month effective date would allow firms that may not be aware of the 
ASTM voluntary standard, or may believe that their product falls 
outside the scope of the standard, additional time to make this 
determination and thereafter, bring their products into compliance. The 
Commission could further reduce the proposed rule's impact on small 
businesses by setting an effective date later than 12 months after the 
final rule is issued. 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/importation, which could result if 
they are unable to bring their products into compliance and certify 
compliance based on third party tests within the required timeframe. 
Additionally, firms could spread the costs of developing compliant 
products over a longer time period, thereby reducing their annual 
costs, as well as the present value of their total costs (i.e., they 
could time their spending to better accommodate their individual 
circumstances).

E. Impact of Proposed 16 CFR Part 1112 Amendment on Small Businesses

    This proposed rule also would amend part 1112 to add booster seats 
to the list of children's products for which the Commission has issued 
an NOR. As required by the RFA, staff conducted a Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) when the Commission issued the part 1112 
rule (78 FR 15836, 15855-58). The FRFA concluded that the accreditation 
requirements would not have a significant adverse impact on a 
substantial number of small testing laboratories because no 
requirements were imposed on test laboratories that did not intend to 
provide third party testing services. The only test laboratories that 
were expected to provide such services were those that anticipated 
receiving sufficient revenue from the mandated testing to justify 
accepting the requirements as a business decision.
    Based on similar reasoning, amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include 
the NOR for the booster seat product standard will not have a 
significant adverse impact on small test laboratories. Moreover, based 
upon the number of test laboratories in the United States that have 
applied for CPSC acceptance of accreditation to test for conformance to 
other mandatory juvenile product standards, we expect that only a few 
test laboratories will seek CPSC acceptance of their accreditation to 
test for conformance with the booster seats standard. Most of these 
test laboratories will have already been accredited to test for 
conformance to other mandatory juvenile product standards, and the only 
costs to them would be the cost of adding the booster seat standard to 
their scope of accreditation. Consequently, the Commission certifies 
that the proposed NOR amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include the infant 
booster seat standard will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

XI. Environmental Considerations

    The Commission's regulations address whether the agency is required 
to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact 
statement. Under these regulations, certain categories of CPSC actions 
normally have ``little or no potential for affecting the human 
environment,'' and therefore, they do not require an environmental 
assessment or an environmental impact statement. Safety standards 
providing requirements for products come under this categorical 
exclusion. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The proposed rule falls within the 
categorical exclusion.

XII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains information collection requirements 
that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In this document, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 
3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth:
    [ssquf] A title for the collection of information;
    [ssquf] a summary of the collection of information;
    [ssquf] a brief description of the need for the information and the 
proposed use of the information;
    [ssquf] a description of the likely respondents and proposed 
frequency of response to the collection of information;
    [ssquf] an estimate of the burden that shall result from the 
collection of information; and
    [ssquf] notice that comments may be submitted to the OMB.
    Title: Safety Standard for Booster Seats.
    Description: The proposed rule would require each booster seat to 
comply with ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\, Standard Consumer Safety 
Specification for Booster Seats. Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F2640-
17[egr]\1\ contain requirements for marking, labeling, and 
instructional literature. These requirements fall within the definition 
of ``collection of information,'' as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).
    Description of Respondents: Persons who manufacture or import 
booster seats.
    Estimated Burden: We estimate the burden of this collection of 
information as follows:

                                                       Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Number of       Frequency of     Total annual      Hours per       Total burden
                           16 CFR Section                              respondents       responses        responses         response          hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1237...............................................................              49                2               98                1               98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 22933]]

    Our estimate is based on the following:
    Forty-nine known entities supply booster seats to the U.S. market 
and may need to make some modifications to their existing warning 
labels. We estimate that the time required to make these modifications 
is about 1 hour per model. Based on an evaluation of supplier product 
lines, each entity supplies an average of 2 models of booster seats; 
therefore, the estimated burden associated with labels is 1 hour per 
model x 49 entities x 2 models per entity = 98 hours. We estimate the 
hourly compensation for the time required to create and update labels 
is $33.53 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for 
Employee Compensation,'' December 2016, Table 9, total compensation for 
all sales and office workers in goods-producing private industries: 
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/). Therefore, the estimated annual cost to 
industry associated with the labeling requirements is $3,286 ($33.53 
per hour x 98 hours). No operating, maintenance, or capital costs are 
associated with the collection.
    Section 9.1 of ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\ requires instructions to be 
supplied with the product. Under the OMB's regulations (5 CFR 
1320.3(b)(2)), the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to 
comply with a collection of information that would be incurred by 
persons in the ``normal course of their activities'' are excluded from 
a burden estimate, where an agency demonstrates that the disclosure 
activities required to comply are ``usual and customary.'' We are 
unaware of booster seats that generally require use instructions but 
lack such instructions. Therefore, we tentatively estimate that no 
burden hours are associated with section 9.1 of ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\, 
because any burden associated with supplying instructions with booster 
seats would be ``usual and customary'' and not within the definition of 
``burden'' under the OMB's regulations.
    Based on this analysis, the proposed standard for booster seats 
would impose a burden to industry of 98 hours at a cost of $3,286 
annually.
    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), we have submitted the information collection requirements of 
this rule to the OMB for review. Interested persons are requested to 
submit comments regarding information collection by June 19, 2017, to 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see the 
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice).
    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), we invite comments on:
    [ssquf] Whether the collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the CPSC's functions, including whether the 
information will have practical utility;
    [ssquf] the accuracy of the CPSC's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    [ssquf] ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected;
    [ssquf] 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
    [ssquf] the estimated burden hours associated with label 
modification, including any alternative estimates.

XIII. Preemption

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

XIV. Request for Comments

    This NPR begins a rulemaking proceeding under section 104(b) of the 
CPSIA to issue a consumer product safety standard for booster seats, 
and to amend part 1112 to add booster seats to the list of children's 
product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued an NOR. We invite 
all interested persons to submit comments on any aspect of this 
proposal. In addition to requests for specific comments elsewhere in 
this NPR, the Commission requests comments on the differences between 
home-use and food-service booster seats and the ability of each type of 
booster seat to meet the requirements in the proposed booster seat 
standard, the proposed effective date, and the costs of compliance 
with, and testing to, the proposed booster seats standard. During the 
comment period, ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\, Standard Consumer Safety 
Specification for Booster Seats, is available as a read-only document 
at: http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm.
    Comments should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in 
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.

List of Subjects

16 CFR Part 1112

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

16 CFR Part 1237

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission 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:  15 U.S.C. 2063; Pub. L. 110-314, section 3, 122 
Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008).

0
2. Amend Sec.  1112.15 by adding paragraph (b)(47) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (47) 16 CFR part 1237, Safety Standard for Booster Seats.
* * * * *
0
3. Add part 1237 to read as follows:

PART 1237--SAFETY STANDARD FOR BOOSTER SEATS

Sec.
1237.1 Scope.
1237.2 Requirements for booster seats.

    Authority:  Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 
14, 2008); Sec. 3, Pub. L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).


Sec.  1237.1  Scope.

    This part establishes a consumer product safety standard booster 
seats.


Sec.  1237.2  Requirements for booster seats.

    Each booster seat must comply with all applicable provisions of 
ASTM F2640-17[egr]\1\, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for 
Booster Seats

[[Page 22934]]

(approved on March 1, 2017). The Director of the Federal Register 
approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from ASTM 
International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, 
PA 19428; http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may inspect a copy at the 
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 
820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-
7923, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). 
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Dated: May 15, 2017.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-10044 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6355-01-P