[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30837-30849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14133]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1237

[CPSC Docket No. 2017-0023]


Safety Standard for Booster Seats

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 
2008 (CPSIA), the U.S. Consumer

[[Page 30838]]

Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is issuing this final rule 
establishing a safety standard for booster seats. The Commission is 
also amending its regulations regarding third party conformity 
assessment bodies to include the safety standard for booster seats in 
the list of notices of requirements (NORs).

DATES: This rule will become effective January 2, 2020. The 
incorporation by reference of the publication listed in this rule is 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as January 2, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keysha Walker, Lead Compliance 
Officer, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: 301-504-6820; email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Statutory Authority

    Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, part of the Danny Keysar Child Product 
Safety Notification Act, requires the Commission to: (1) Examine and 
assess the effectiveness of voluntary consumer product safety standards 
for durable infant or toddler products, in consultation with 
representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and 
independent child product engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate 
consumer product safety standards for durable infant and toddler 
products. Standards issued under section 104 of the CPSIA are to be 
``substantially the same as'' the applicable voluntary standards or 
more stringent than the voluntary standard, if the Commission 
determines that more stringent requirements would further reduce the 
risk of injury associated with the product.
    The term ``durable infant or toddler product'' is defined in 
section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as ``a durable product intended for use, 
or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the 
age of 5 years,'' and the statute specifies 12 categories of products 
that are included in the definition, including various types of 
children's chairs. Section 104(f)(2)(C) of the CPSIA specifically 
identifies ``booster chairs'' as a durable infant or toddler product. 
Additionally, the Commission's regulation requiring product 
registration cards defines ``booster seats'' as a durable infant or 
toddler product subject to the registration card rule. 74 FR 68668 
(Dec. 29, 2009); 16 CFR 1130.2(a)(3).
    As required by section 104(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA, the Commission 
consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, 
laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and the public to 
develop this rule, largely through the ASTM process. On May 19, 2017, 
the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for booster 
seats.\1\ 82 FR 22925. The NPR proposed to incorporate by reference the 
voluntary standard, without modification, developed by ASTM 
International, ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\, Standard Consumer Safety 
Specification for Booster Seats (ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Staff's May 3, 2017 Briefing Package for the NPR (Staff's 
NPR Briefing Package) is available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Notice%20of%20Proposed%20Rulemaking%20-%20Booster%20Seats%20-%20May%203%202017.pdf?97pmoM5UAGyQBBPFtTPyvFu_RjCZMAwL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this document, the Commission is issuing a final mandatory 
consumer product safety standard for booster seats. Since the NPR 
published, ASTM approved (April 1, 2018) and published (April, 2018) 
the current version of the voluntary standard for booster seats, ASTM 
F2640-18, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats 
(ASTM F2640-18), with three changes from the previous version:
     New performance and testing requirements for a new type of 
booster seat that hangs from the back of an adult chair;
     Clarification of the installation position for measuring a 
booster seat on an adult chair; and
     New warning statement in the instructional literature to 
address booster seats that do not have a reclined position.
As set forth in section IV.C.2 of this preamble, the Commission finds 
that each of these changes enhances the safety of booster seats.\2\ 
Accordingly, after the Commission's review and consideration of the 
revised ASTM standard and the comments on the NPR, the final rule 
incorporates by reference, without modification, the most recent 
voluntary standard for booster seats, ASTM F2640-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Tabs B and C of the June 20, 2018 Staff's Draft Final Rule 
for Booster Seats Under the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety 
Notification Act (Staff's Final Rule Briefing Package) explain and 
assess the new warning statement and the performance and testing 
requirements in the standard. The Staff's Final Rule Briefing 
Package is available at https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Final%20Rule%20-%20Safety%20Standard%20for%20Booster%20Seats%20-%20June%2020%202018.pdf?cCIgKaAyOt3nn.yeNTa5f8rpH7DsJB0v.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the final rule amends the list of notices of 
requirements (NORs) issued by the Commission in 16 CFR part 1112 to 
include the standard for booster seats. Under section 14 of the CPSA, 
the Commission promulgated 16 CFR part 1112 to establish requirements 
for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or 
testing laboratories) to test for conformity with a children's product 
safety rule. Amending part 1112 adds an NOR for the booster seat 
standard to the list of children's product safety rules.

II. Product Information

A. Definition of ``Booster Seat''

    ASTM F2640-18 defines a ``booster seat'' as:

a juvenile chair, which is placed on an adult chair to elevate a 
child to standard dining table height. The booster seat is made for 
the purpose of containing a child, up to 5 years of age, and 
normally for the purposes of feeding or eating. A booster seat may 
be height adjustable and include a reclined position.

    Booster seats may be constructed from a wide variety of materials, 
including wood, plastic, fabric, metal, and/or foam. Most booster 
seats, notably those intended for home use, have removable trays, 
allowing a table to be used as an alternative eating surface. Some 
booster seats are intended to double as floor seats for toddlers, and 
others are high chair/booster seat combination products. The ASTM 
standard covers combination products when the product is in a booster 
seat configuration.
    The definition of ``booster seat'' in ASTM F2640-18 is broad and 
includes within the scope of the standard booster seats that are 
designed specifically for use in restaurants. Several suppliers sell 
these ``food-service'' booster seats directly to restaurants or through 
restaurant supply companies. Consumers also may purchase some of these 
products directly, for example, through online third parties that act 
as brokers between buyers and sellers. Consequently, consumers use 
food-service booster seats in homes and in restaurant establishments 
open to the public. The Commission agrees with the scope of ASTM F2640-
18, and is not excluding food-service booster seats from the final 
rule.
    The final rule for booster seats does not cover children's seats 
intended for use in motor vehicles, which are also sometimes referred 
to as ``booster seats.''

B. Market Description

    CPSC staff identified 44 domestic firms supplying booster seats to 
the U.S. market. Thirty-four (34) domestic firms market their booster 
seats exclusively to consumers, while ten (10) domestic firms sell 
booster seats exclusively to restaurant or restaurant supply stores 
(usually through regional distributors or an internal portal). Sixteen 
of the 34 domestic firms that sell exclusively to

[[Page 30839]]

consumers are compliant with the current voluntary standard for booster 
seats. Of the 10 domestic firms selling food-service booster seats, 
none are compliant with the ASTM voluntary standard. Of the 44 known 
domestic suppliers, 29 are domestic manufacturers (10 large and 19 
small), 14 are domestic importers (five large and nine small), and one 
is a small domestic firm whose supply source staff could not 
determine.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Staff made determinations using information from Dun & 
Bradstreet and ReferenceUSAGov, as well as firm websites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Staff identified two foreign manufacturers selling directly to the 
United States. Other foreign booster seats are entering the U.S. market 
in a variety of ways as well. Staff found that online storefronts and 
online retailers, acting as brokers between buyers and sellers, are the 
source of a large number of booster seat products, particularly from 
Asia and Europe. Products purchased through these websites are 
sometimes shipped by the individual sellers. Often, staff cannot 
determine whether an online seller is located in the United States, or 
overseas, or whether the seller is a manufacturer, retailer, or 
importer, which makes it difficult for staff to categorize these 
companies for analysis. Staff found that European booster seats are 
also entering the U.S. market through foreign retailers who are willing 
to ship directly to the United States. Booster seats available online 
from foreign suppliers are less likely to be compliant with the ASTM 
voluntary standard.

III. Incident Data

A. CPSRMS Data

    The data discussed in this section come from CPSC's Consumer 
Product Safety Risk Management System (CPSRMS), which collects data 
from consumer reports, medical examiners, other state and local 
authorities, retailer reports, newspaper clippings, death certificates, 
and follow-up CPSC In-Depth Investigations of reported incidents.\4\ 
From the CPSRMS, CPSC is aware of a total of 912 incidents (2 fatal and 
152 nonfatal injuries) related to booster seats reported to have 
occurred from January 1, 2008 through October 31, 2017.\5\ The 912 
booster seat incidents include 45 new booster seat-related incidents 
reported since publication of the NPR (collected between October 1, 
2016 and October 31, 2017). None of the 45 newly reported incidents is 
a fatality. All of the newly reported incidents fall within the same 
hazard patterns identified in the NPR. Retailers and manufacturers 
reporting through the CPSC's ``Retailer Reporting Program'' account for 
93 percent of the newly reported incidents (42 out of 45 incidents). 
CPSC received the remaining three incident reports from consumers using 
SaferProducts.gov. CPSC Field staff conducted an In-Depth Investigation 
on one of the newly reported incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ These reported deaths and incidents do not provide a 
complete count of all that occurred during this time period. 
However, they do provide a minimum number of incidents occurring 
during this period and illustrate the circumstances involved in the 
incidents related to booster seats.
    \5\ The NPR described incidents reported to have occurred from 
January 1, 2008 through September 30, 2016. A detailed description 
of these data can be found in Tab A of the Staff's NPR Briefing 
Package.
    Tab A of the Staff's Final Rule Briefing Package provides a 
detailed description of the 45 newly reported incidents (collected 
between October 1, 2016 and October 31, 2017). Fifty-three percent 
of the 45 newly reported incidents were reported to have occurred 
between October 2016 and October, 2017 (i.e., post-NPR timeframe). 
The remaining 47 percent of newly reported incidents occurred during 
the timeframe covered in the NPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Fatalities
    CPSC received reports of two fatalities associated with the use of 
a booster seat. Both incidents occurred in 2013 and were described in 
the NPR:
    [ssquf] In one incident, a 22-month-old female, sitting on a 
booster seat attached to an adult chair, pushed off from the table and 
tipped the adult chair backwards into a glass panel of a china cabinet 
behind her. The cause of death was listed as ``exsanguination due to 
hemorrhage from incised wound.''
    [ssquf] In the other incident, a 4-year-old male fell from a 
booster seat to the floor; he seemed uninjured at the time, but later 
that evening while riding his bike, the child fell, became 
unresponsive, and later died. The cause of death was multiple blunt 
force trauma.
2. Nonfatalities
    CPSC is aware of 152 booster seat nonfatal injury incidents 
occurring between January 1, 2008 and October 31, 2017 (146 incidents 
reported in the NPR and 6 newly reported incidents). A majority of 
these incidents involved children 18 months and younger. The severity 
of the injury types among the 152 reported injuries are described 
below:
    [ssquf] Five children required a hospital admission. The injuries 
were skull fractures, concussions, and other head injuries.
    [ssquf] Another 22 children were treated and released from a 
hospital emergency department (ED) for injuries resulting mostly from 
falls.
    [ssquf] The remaining incidents primarily involved contusions, 
abrasions, and lacerations, due to falls or entrapment of limbs/
extremities.
    No injury occurred, or the report did not mention an injury 
occurring, for the remaining 758 incident reports (719 incidents 
reported in the NPR and 39 newly reported incidents). However, CPSC 
staff's review of these incident report descriptions indicates the 
potential for a serious injury or even death.

B. Hazard Pattern Identification

    CPSC considered all 912 reported incidents to identify the 
following hazard patterns associated with booster seats:
    1. Restraint/Attachment Problems (37%): 339 incidents (317 
incidents reported in the NPR and 22 newly reported incidents) involved 
the mechanism for attaching a booster seat to an adult chair, or the 
restraint system that contains the child within the booster seat. 
Issues with the attachment mechanism included anchor buckles/clasps/
straps breaking, tearing, fraying, detaching or releasing. Restraint-
system problems included: buckles/prongs breaking, jamming, releasing 
too easily, or separating from straps; straps tearing or fraying, 
pinching, or coming undone; and general inadequacy or ineffectiveness 
of restraints in containing the child in place. In 21 incident reports, 
staff could not determine from the report if the buckle or strap 
referred to in the report meant the restraint or the attachment system. 
In eight of the incident reports, both systems were reported to have 
failed. Thirty-seven injuries (all reported in the NPR) are included in 
this category, of which seven were treated at a hospital ED.
    2. Seat-Related Issues (28%): 255 incidents (254 incidents reported 
in the NPR and 1 newly reported incident) involved seat-related issues. 
These incidents included failure of the lock/latch that controls the 
seat-recline function; tearing, cracking, and/or peeling seat pads; 
detaching seat backs; failure of seat height adjustment lock/latches; 
and seats detaching from the base of certain models. Twenty-two 
injuries are included in this category: Three resulting in 
hospitalization and five ED-treated injuries. The newly reported 
incident involved the booster seatback detaching altogether, allowing 
the child to fall and sustain multiple skull fractures, requiring 
hospitalization.
    3. Tray-Related Issues (21%): 189 incidents (171 incidents reported 
in the NPR and 18 newly reported incidents) involved issues related to 
booster seat trays. These incidents included tray

[[Page 30840]]

paint finish peeling off, trays failing to lock/stay locked, trays with 
sharp protrusions on the underside, trays too tight/difficult to 
release, and trays pinching fingers. These incidents also included 
complaints about broken toy accessories, which are usually attached to 
the tray (or tray insert). Thirty-eight injuries are included in this 
category, including one that required ED treatment.
    4. Design Problems (3.8%): 35 incidents (33 discussed in the NPR 
and 2 newly reported) involved a potential entrapment hazard due to the 
design of the booster seat. Most of these incidents involved limbs, 
fingers, and toes entrapped in spaces/openings between the armrest and 
seat back/tray, between the passive crotch-restraint bar and the seat/
tray, between the tray inserts, or in toy accessories. Sixteen injuries 
were included in this category, two requiring ED treatment.
    5. Stability-Related Issues (3.4%): 31 incidents, discussed in the 
NPR, involved booster seat stability. Most of these incidents (27 of 
31) concerned the adult chair to which the booster seat was attached 
tipping back or tipping over. Some of these incidents resulted from the 
child pushing back from the table or counter. Twenty-two injuries 
(including two hospitalizations and five ED-treated injuries) and one 
fatality are included in this category.
    6. Armrest Problems (2.6%): 24 incidents, discussed in the NPR, 
involved booster seat armrests cracking or breaking. In a few cases, 
the armrest reportedly arrived broken inside the booster seat 
packaging. One injury is included in this category.
    7. Miscellaneous Product Issues (1.9%): 17 miscellaneous incidents 
(16 incidents reported in the NPR and 1 newly reported incidents) 
involved a variety of product-related issues, including unclear 
assembly instructions, poor quality construction, odor, rough surface, 
rough edges, breakage, or loose hardware at unspecified sites. One 
incident report alleged that the poor design of the booster seat failed 
to contain/support the child and led to a fall injury. Ten injuries 
were included in this category, including two ED-treated injuries.
    8. Combination of Multiple Issues (1.9%): 17 incidents, discussed 
in the NPR, involved a combination of the product hazards listed above. 
Four injuries were included in this category.
    9. Unknown Issues (0.5%): Five incidents involved unknown issues (4 
incidents reported in the NPR and 1 newly reported incident). In these 
incidents, CPSC staff had insufficient information to determine how the 
incidents occurred. One incident in this category, a fatality, reported 
confounding factors that likely contributed to the death. Two other 
injuries were reported in this category, including a fall injury.

C. NEISS Data

    The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), a 
statistically valid injury surveillance system,\6\ is the source of the 
injury estimates discussed in this section. Since the NPR, new ED-
treated injury data have become available for 2016. However, the 
estimates for 2016 are not reportable per NEISS publication 
criteria.\7\ As such, the Commission presents the injury estimates and 
injury characteristics for the aggregate data from 2008 through 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NEISS injury data are gathered from EDs of hospitals 
selected as a probability sample of all the U.S. hospitals with EDs 
open 24 hours a day that have at least six beds. The surveillance 
data gathered from the sample hospitals enable the CPSC staff to 
make timely national estimates of the number of injuries associated 
with specific consumer products.
    Staff extracted all data coded under product code 1556 
(Attachable high chairs including booster seats) for patients aged 
under 5 years. Staff considered certain records out-of-scope for the 
purposes of this memorandum. For example, staff excluded hook-on 
chair-related incidents that are also covered under product code 
1556 or car booster seats incorrectly coded as 1556; and also 
considered out-of-scope a sibling or a pet knocking over the adult 
chair holding the booster seat containing the child. Staff excluded 
these records prior to deriving the statistical injury estimates.
    \7\ According to the NEISS publication criteria, an estimate 
must be 1,200 or greater, the sample size must be 20 or greater, and 
the coefficient of variation must be 33 percent or smaller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPSC staff estimates a total of 12,000 injuries (sample size = 455, 
coefficient of variation = 0.10) related to booster seats were treated 
in U.S. hospital EDs over the 9-year period from 2008 through 2016. 
NEISS data for 2017 is not complete at this point in time. Similar to 
2016, staff cannot report injury estimates for some of the other 
individual years because of the NEISS publication criteria. Note, 
however, that staff did not observe any trend over the 9-year period 
regarding injuries increasing or decreasing.
    No deaths were reported through the NEISS. About 64 percent of the 
injured were younger than 2 years of age; among the remaining, 24 
percent, 8 percent, and 4 percent were 2-year-olds, 3-year-olds, and 4-
year-olds, respectively. For the ED-treated injuries related to booster 
seats reported in the 9-year period, the following characteristics 
occurred most frequently:
     Hazard--falls out of the booster seat (97 percent). Most 
of the falls were due to:
    [cir] Unspecified circumstances (55 percent).
    [cir] Unspecified tip overs (18 percent); tip overs due to child 
pushing back or rocking in seat (6 percent).
    [cir] Booster seat attachment or child-restraint mechanism failure/
defeat/non-use (8 percent).
     Injured body part--head (58 percent), face (22 percent), 
and mouth (7 percent).
     Injury type--internal organ injury (40 percent), 
lacerations (24 percent), and contusions/abrasions (19 percent).
     Disposition--treated and released (about 98 percent).
    Incidents in a Restaurant Setting. For the NPR, CPSC staff noted 
that although most of the incidents occurred in home settings, one 
incident report explicitly mentioned a restaurant where an infant was 
using a booster seat provided by the establishment. Among the new 
incidents that staff analyzed, none occurred at a restaurant.
    Among the NEISS ED-treated injury data, from 2008 to 2016, 31 
injury reports explicitly mentioned that the injury occurred in a 
restaurant setting. Although these 31 reports are included in the 
larger sample that yielded the total estimated number of injuries of 
12,000, a national injury estimate for restaurant injuries only does 
not meet the NEISS publication criteria and is not presented here. 
Staff reviewed the injury characteristics in these reports, which 
indicated that all of the injuries resulted from falls, but the 
circumstances were unspecified for the most part. Staff cannot discern 
from the injury reports whether the booster seats involved were 
provided by the establishment.

D. Product Recalls

    Compliance staff reviewed recalls of booster seats that occurred 
from January 1, 2008 to May 30, 2018. During that time, two consumer-
level recalls involved booster seats. Both recalls involved a fall 
hazard. One recalled product was associated with a fall hazard when the 
stitching on the booster seat's restraint straps loosened, allowing the 
straps to separate from the seat and the child to fall out of the seat. 
Another recall involved the booster seat restraint buckle, which opened 
unexpectedly, allowing a child to fall from the chair and be injured.

IV. Overview and Assessment of ASTM F2640

A. Overview of ASTM F2640

    The voluntary standard for booster seats, ASTM F2640, Standard 
Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats, is

[[Page 30841]]

intended to minimize the risk of injury or death to infants in booster 
seats associated with falls from booster seats, tipping over or out of 
booster seats, restraint disengagement or lack of a restraint system, 
tray disengagement, booster seats stability while attached to an adult 
chair, entrapments in booster seats, and other hazards such as cuts, 
bruises, and lacerations. ASTM F2640 was first approved and published 
in 2007, as ASTM F2640-07, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for 
Booster Seats. ASTM has since revised the voluntary standard 11 times. 
Tab C of Staff's Final Rule Briefing Package includes a description of 
each revision through 2018.
    The current version of the standard, ASTM F2640-18, was approved on 
April 1, 2018, and published in April 2018. ASTM F2640-18 includes 
three changes from the version of the standard proposed in the NPR, 
ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\:
     New performance and testing requirements for a new type of 
booster seat that hangs from the back of an adult chair;
     Clarification of the installation position for measuring a 
booster seat on an adult chair; and
     New warning statement in Instructional Literature to 
address booster seats that do not have a recline position.
    In section IV.C below, we describe and assess each change.

B. Description of ASTM F2640-18

    ASTM F2640-18 includes these key provisions: Scope, terminology, 
general requirements, performance requirements, test methods, marking 
and labeling, and instructional literature.
    Scope. This section describes what constitutes a ``booster seat.'' 
As stated in section II.A. of this preamble, the Scope section 
describes a booster seat as ``a juvenile chair, which is placed on an 
adult chair to elevate a child to standard dining table height.'' The 
description further specifies appropriate ages for children using a 
booster seat, stating, a ``booster seat is made for the purpose of 
containing a child, up to 5 years of age, and normally for the purposes 
of feeding or eating.''
    Terminology. This section defines terms specific to this standard.
    General Requirements. This section addresses numerous hazards with 
several general requirements; most of these general requirements are 
also found in the other ASTM juvenile product standards. The general 
requirements included in this section are:
    [ssquf] Sharp points or edges;
    [ssquf] Small parts;
    [ssquf] Wood parts;
    [ssquf] Lead in paint;
    [ssquf] Scissoring, shearing, and pinching;
    [ssquf] Openings;
    [ssquf] Exposed coil springs;
    [ssquf] Protective components;
    [ssquf] Labeling; and
    [ssquf] Toys.
    Performance Requirements and Test Methods. These sections contain 
performance requirements specific to booster seats (discussed here) and 
the required test methods to assess conformity with such requirements.
    [ssquf] Tray impact test: This test assesses the tray's resistance 
to breaking into small pieces or creating sharp points/edges when 
dropped from a specified height.
    [ssquf] Tray engagement test: This test assesses the tray's ability 
to remain engaged to the booster seat when subjected to a specified 
force horizontally and vertically.
    [ssquf] Static load test: This test assesses whether the booster 
seat can support its maximum recommended weight, by gradually applying 
a static load on the center of the seating surface for a specified 
amount of time.
    [ssquf] Restraint system test: This test assesses whether the 
restraint system can secure a child in the manufacturer's recommended-
use positions.
    [ssquf] Seat attachment test: This test specifies that a booster 
seat must have a means of attaching a booster seat to an adult chair 
and assesses the booster seat's ability to remain fastened to the adult 
chair when force is applied.
    [ssquf] Structural integrity (dynamic load): This requirement 
assesses the durability of the booster seat, including locking/latching 
devices which prevent folding or adjustment of the booster seat.
    [ssquf] Maximum booster seat dimensions: This requirement assesses 
how large a booster seat can be in relation to the adult chair 
dimensions specified on the booster seat's packaging.
    Marking and Labeling. This section contains various requirements 
related to warnings, labeling, and required markings for booster seats, 
and it prescribes various substance, format, and prominence 
requirements for this information.
    Instructional Literature. This section requires that easily 
readable and understandable instructions be provided with booster 
seats. Additionally, the section contains requirements related to 
instructional literature contents and format.

C. Assessment of ASTM F2640-18

    CPSC staff identified 912 incidents (including two fatalities) 
related to the use of booster seats. CPSC staff examined the incident 
data, identified hazard patterns in the data, and worked with ASTM to 
develop and update the performance requirements in ASTM F2640. The 
incident data and identified hazard patterns formed the basis for ASTM 
to develop ASTM F2640-18 with CPSC staff's support throughout the 
process.\8\ The following section discusses how each of the identified 
product-related issues or hazard patterns listed in section III.C. of 
this preamble is addressed by the current voluntary standard, and it 
also describes and assesses each of the three changes included in ASTM 
F2640-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Assessment of ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\ in the NPR is at 82 FR 
22928-29, and in Tab B of Staff's NPR Briefing Package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Adequacy of ASM F2640-18 To Address Hazard Patterns
a. Restraint/Attachment Problems
    Restraint system and attachment problems included buckles/prongs 
breaking, jamming, releasing too easily, or separating from straps; 
straps tearing or fraying, pinching, or coming undone; and inadequacy 
or ineffectiveness of restraints in containing the child in place, 
Similarly, complaints about the seat attachment system involved anchor 
buckles/clasps/straps breaking, tearing, fraying, detaching, or 
releasing. The Commission has reviewed CPSC staff's evaluation of the 
attachment and restraint system tests in ASTM F2640-18, and concludes 
that these tests adequately address the identified hazards.
    Section 6.5 of ASTM F2640-18 requires that a booster seat must have 
a means of ``attaching'' to an adult chair, and be able to withstand a 
specified force without becoming detached from the adult chair. Booster 
seats may employ several methods to secure to an adult chair, including 
straps, suction, and anti-skid bottoms or grip feet that minimize 
slippage on the chair by means of friction. However, because ``grip 
feet'' and ``friction bottoms'' do not actually attach (i.e., fasten) 
the booster seat to an adult chair, the ASTM standard does not consider 
these to be a means of securing or attaching booster seats to an adult 
chair. The Commission agrees. Conversely, because suction physically 
fastens the booster seat to an adult chair, the ASTM standard considers 
suction to be a means of attachment under Section 6.5 of the current 
ASTM standard. The Commission agrees with this as well. Accordingly, 
the final rule requires any booster seat using suction as a means of

[[Page 30842]]

attachment to pass the attachment test to be compliant.
b. Seat-Related Issues
    Seat-related issues included failure of the lock/latch that 
controls the seat-recline function; seat pads tearing, cracking, and/or 
peeling; seat backs detaching altogether; seat height adjustment lock/
latch failures; and seat detachment from the base that is available for 
certain models. The Commission has reviewed CPSC staff's evaluation of 
the static load and dynamic booster seat tests in ASTM F2640-18, and 
concludes that these tests adequately address these hazards.
c. Tray-Related Issues
    Tray-related issues included trays with paint finish peeling off, 
trays failing to lock/stay locked, trays with sharp protrusions on the 
underside, trays that were too tight/difficult to release, and trays 
pinching fingers. The Commission has reviewed CPSC staff's evaluation 
of the standard, and concludes that the general requirements section of 
F2640-18 adequately addresses peeling paint, sharp protrusions, and 
pinching hazards, and the standard's tray engagement test adequately 
address the tray locking failures.
d. Design Problems
    Booster seat design problems resulted in limbs, fingers, and toes 
entrapped in spaces/openings between the armrest and seat back/tray, 
between a passive crotch restraint bar and seat/tray, between tray 
inserts, or in toy accessories. The Commission has reviewed CPSC 
staff's evaluation of the general requirements of ASTM 2640-18 (namely 
requirements relating to scissoring, shearing, and pinching, openings, 
and toys) and concludes that the ASTM standard adequately addresses the 
identified hazards.
e. Stability-Related Issues
    Stability-related incidents included instances where the adult 
chair, to which the booster seat was attached, tipped back or tipped 
over. Addressing the stability of the booster seat while attached to an 
adult chair is difficult in a standard for booster seats because 
stability depends on the adult chair. The ASTM booster seat 
subcommittee and CPSC staff worked diligently to find an effective 
requirement to adequately address stability without specifying 
requirements for the adult chair. Although ASTM F2640-18 does not 
contain a performance requirement to address this hazard, it does 
contain a labeling provision, requiring that booster seats must contain 
a cautionary statement: ``Never allow a child to push away from 
table.'' Moreover, ASTM F2640-18 requires a booster seat to identify on 
the booster seat packaging the size of adult chair on which the booster 
seat can fit, thereby allowing consumers to make a more informed 
purchasing choice.
f. Armrest Problems
    Armrest problems included booster seat armrests cracking, and in a 
few cases, the armrest arriving to the consumer broken in the 
packaging. The Commission has reviewed CPSC staff's evaluation of the 
static and dynamic load tests contained in ASTM F2640-18, and concludes 
that those tests adequately address armrest-related hazards.
g. Miscellaneous Product-Related Issues
    Miscellaneous product-related issues included unclear assembly 
instructions, poor quality construction, odor, rough surfaces, 
breakage, or loose hardware at unspecified sites. The Commission has 
reviewed CPSC staff's evaluation of the general requirements section, 
as well as the instructional literature requirements of ASTM F2640-18, 
and concludes that those requirements adequately address this hazard.
2. Description and Assessment of Changes in ASTM F2640-18
    Below we describe each of the three changes in the voluntary 
standard since publication of the NPR, as reflected in ASTM F2640-18. 
The Commission finds that each of these requirements enhances the 
safety of booster seats and strengthens the standard incorporated as 
the final rule for booster seats.
a. New Performance and Testing Requirements for a New Type of Booster 
Seat That Hangs From the Back of an Adult Chair
    The new style of booster seat attaches to the adult chair 
fundamentally differently than typical booster seats. This new design 
can fold and is marketed as a travel booster seat. Typical booster 
seats are placed on the seat of the chair and usually attached to the 
seat and back with straps. Thus, the typical booster seat rests on the 
chair seat and the adult chair seat bears all of the booster seat's 
weight. The new style of booster seat has a frame that hangs over the 
top of the adult chair seat back, usually with umbrella style hooks, 
and has feet that rest on the seat of the adult chair. The child's 
seating area is attached to the frame. Tab C of Staff's Final Rule 
Briefing Package contains a picture of this design.
    Section 6.7 of ASTM F2640-18 addresses this style of booster seat 
and has two requirements. The first requirement states that, when in 
all manufacturer's recommended use positions, the booster seat must not 
tilt forward more than 10 degrees from the horizontal. This requirement 
was added because a seat that is tilted forward too far may result in a 
child falling out of the seat. The second requirement states that the 
backrest support contact must contact the top of the adult chair 
backrest and extend over and below the top rear edge of the adult chair 
backrest. This requirement was added to ensure that the booster seat is 
reasonably secure to the adult chair backrest so that the booster seat 
does not fall off the adult chair.
    Section 6.8 of ASTM F2640-18 addresses the maximum booster seat 
dimensions. The previous version, ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\, also had a 
section addressing maximum dimensions, but it did not include 
requirements for the new, over-the-backrest-style booster seats. The 
latest version incorporates the previous requirements, but it also 
includes the requirements specific to this new style of booster seat.
b. Clarification of the Installation Position for Measuring a Booster 
Seat on an Adult Chair
    Section 7.10.1.1 of ASTM F2640-18 explains how to measure the 
maximum booster seat dimension for both traditional and over-the-
backrest style booster seats and includes a diagram of a test fixture 
to be used for over-the-backrest seats and a diagram of their proper 
installation. This test protocol was added to provide clarity and 
ensure that testing labs are performing the tests consistently.
c. New Warning Statement in Instructional Literature To Address Booster 
Seats That Do Not Have a Recline Position
    Section 9 (Instructional Literature) of F2640-18 contains a new 
requirement, Section 9.5, stating that if the booster seat has no 
recline feature, the instructions shall contain a statement addressing 
that the product is only for children capable of sitting upright 
unassisted.

D. International Standards for Booster Seats

    The Commission is aware of one international voluntary standard 
pertaining to booster seats, BS EN16120 Child Use and Care Articles--
Chair Mounted Seat. CPSC staff compared the performance requirements of 
ASTM F2640-18 to the performance

[[Page 30843]]

requirements of BS EN16120, which is intended for a similar product 
category, and identified several differences. Primarily, the scope of 
ASTM F2640-18 includes products intended for children up to 5 years of 
age, while EN 16120 is intended for products up to an age of 36 months, 
or a maximum weight of 15 kg (33 lbs.).
    Staff found that some individual requirements in the BS EN16120 
standard are more stringent than ASTM F2640-18. For example, BS EN16120 
includes requirements for head entrapment, lateral protection, surface 
chemicals, cords/ribbons, material shrinkage, packaging film, and 
monofilament threads. Staff did not identify any hazard patterns in 
CPSC's incident data that such provisions could address. Conversely, 
some individual requirements in ASTM F2640-18 are more stringent than 
those found in EN 16120. For example, ASTM F2640-18 includes 
requirements for tray performance and toy accessories. Currently, CPSC 
is not aware of any technically feasible method to test for the most 
prevalent and dangerous hazard pattern, falls resulting from tipping 
over in an adult chair. However, CPSC staff will continue to monitor 
hazard patterns and recommend future changes to the Commission, if 
necessary.

V. Response to Comments

    CPSC received eight comments on the NPR. Four commenters generally 
supported the NPR. Two commenters requested that CPSC wait to finalize 
the rule to include the next version of the voluntary standard, which 
would include two open ASTM ballot items, including a new booster seat 
design that attaches to an adult chair by hooking over the top back of 
the chair. Two commenters stated that booster seats manufactured for 
food-service establishments should be exempt from the mandatory 
standard, or be subject to a different standard. Below we summarize and 
respond to each significant issue raised by the commenters.
    Comment 1: Two commenters stated that the Commission should not 
issue a final rule until ASTM approves the next version of ASTM F2640. 
The commenters stated that the 2018 version would clarify the intent of 
the maximum booster seat dimension test and would address the new hook 
on booster seat design.
    Response 1: The Commission agrees with these commenters. The final 
rule incorporates by reference the latest version of the voluntary 
standard, ASTM F2640-18.
    Comment 2: Two manufacturer commenters contended that food-service 
booster seats should not be covered under ASTM F2640, with one 
commenter proposing that a separate commercial standard be developed. 
These commenters stated that food-service booster seats have simple 
designs intended solely to be positioned easily alongside a dining 
table, and raised to a height for a child to eat. Commenters noted 
several elements that make food-service booster seats different from 
home-use booster seats, including: (1) Less-confined designs to 
accommodate bulky outerwear; (2) generally smaller size; (3) tray-less; 
(4) not adjustable (no swiveling or reclining); and (5) typically use 
attachment methods like anti-skid pads or raised rubber feet that can 
accommodate restaurant seating, such as booths and benches, which belts 
and straps cannot.
    One manufacturer-commenter noted that the level of supervision over 
children in restaurants is greater than in homes, where children may be 
left unattended while eating. The commenter stated that this makes 
food-service booster seat designs, which are completely appropriate for 
restaurant use, potentially risky in home settings. Rather than 
addressing this under the current regulation, however, the commenter 
suggested a separate regulation for food-service booster seats that 
focuses on elements that ensure proper use, such as more stringent 
warnings and instructional literature (in particular not using food-
service booster seats outside of commercial settings, and not leaving 
children unsupervised during use), as well as educating end users and 
wait staff.
    Consumer advocate-commenters agreed with the NPR that food-service 
booster seats should be included under the mandatory standard because 
these products are available for sale to consumers and consumers use 
the products in restaurants, and these products should provide the same 
measure of safety.
    Response 2: The Commission recognized in the NPR that food-service 
booster seats vary in design and where they will be used, and that the 
attachment requirement in ASTM F2640 may require a design change for 
some food-service booster seats. Accordingly, the NPR invited 
commenters to provide information on the effects of making ASTM F2640-
17[epsiv]\1\'s attachment requirements mandatory on booster seats that 
currently use grip feet/friction bottoms to secure the booster to the 
surface upon which it sits. Additionally, the NPR solicited comments 
regarding the capability of suction cups to comply with performance 
requirements.
    Although the Commission agrees that some differences exist between 
food-service booster seats and booster seats intended for home-use, the 
commenters did not provide sufficient, specific information to support 
the assertion that food-service booster seats should not be covered 
under ASTM F2640; nor did they provide cost estimates for varying 
designs, other than generally stating that the process of compliance 
would be costly and time intensive. Accordingly, despite CPSC staff's 
interviews with affected parties, and after careful review of the 
comments, the Commission has not identified any inherent differences 
between the two products that would prevent food-service booster seats 
from meeting the mandatory standard and remaining fundamentally the 
same product. For example, although no food-service booster seats have 
trays, trays are not required to meet the booster seat final rule. If a 
booster seat does not have a tray, the requirements, tests, warnings, 
and instructions related to trays are not required. As another example, 
although it is true that anti-skid pads and raised rubber feet would 
not be considered attachment methods under the mandatory standard, they 
may still be used in addition to an attachment method like a belt, 
strap, or suction cup. Food-service booster seats can likely meet the 
new standard by adding a belt, for example, while retaining the anti-
slip mechanism they were using already.
    Section 6.5 of ASTM F2640 (2017[epsiv]\1\ and 2018 versions) 
requires a mechanism of attaching a booster seat to an adult chair, but 
it does not require the attachment mechanism to be a strap. Although a 
strap attachment would not work on a bench or booth, non-strap 
attachment methods, such as suction cups, could be used to secure a 
booster to a bench. Additionally, ASTM F2640 does not state any 
specific requirements for booster seats used on a booth or bench-type 
seating. Under the standard, booster seats are tested on an adult 
chair. The standard requires the attachment method to withstand force 
requirements. Although ``grip feet'' or ``friction bottoms'' are not a 
sufficient means of fastening a booster seat to an adult chair, some 
suction cups can be sufficient to withstand the force required in the 
standard.
    Based on the foregoing, the Commission rejects the assertion that 
food-service booster seats should solely rely on warnings to prevent 
falls in food-service booster seats. In a food-service environment, 
booster seats are used on adult chairs and bench-style

[[Page 30844]]

seating. Adhering to the mandatory standard for booster seats will 
ensure that food-service booster seats remain attached to adult chairs 
under the testing protocol, but not impede using grip feet on bench 
seating, if that is how manufacturers choose to address this issue. 
Additionally, nothing in the final rule would prevent food-service 
booster seat suppliers from providing additional warnings and 
instructions, if they believe such information will improve the safety 
their products.
    Section 104 of the CPSIA requires the Commission to promulgate a 
booster seat standard that is either ``substantially the same as'' the 
voluntary standard or ``more stringent than'' the voluntary standard if 
the more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury 
associated with the product. Accordingly, CPSC's mandatory standard 
could only provide requirements for food-service booster seats that 
differ from the ASTM standard, if those different requirements 
strengthen the standard and further reduce the risk of injury. The 
commenters have not provided any safety rationale for excluding food-
service booster seats from the final rule. None of the suggestions 
presented by commenters would result in a standard that is ``more 
stringent than'' the voluntary standard. Therefore, the Commission is 
not modifying the booster seat requirements for food-service booster 
seats as part of the mandatory standard. However, as explained below, 
in response to Comment 6, the final rule provides additional time to 
comply with the new standard.
    Comment 3: One commenter stated that to comply with the standard, 
booster seats using suction as a means of attachment should be required 
to pass the attachment test in ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\.
    Response 3: The Commission agrees that regardless of the means of 
attachment, all booster seats must meet the requirements in section 6.5 
of the current voluntary standard, ASTM F2640-18. These requirements 
include: Not allowing the booster seat to fall off the adult chair and 
break, and remaining functional after applying a 45-pound force 
horizontally to the center of the front of the booster seat five times. 
The requirements do not prescribe how the seat should be attached to 
the adult chair.
    Comment 4: One commenter questioned the applicability of placing 
warning labels on commercial booster seats because of size constraints 
on restaurant style-booster seats. The commenter indicated that the 
distance from the seat surface to the top of the side walls of the seat 
range from 3 inches to 5 inches, which restricts the space for 
labeling, and requests conspicuous labeling to include the seat 
surface.
    Response 4: The most recent version of the voluntary standard 
applicable to booster seats, ASTM F2640-18, requires the warning label 
to be conspicuous. A ``conspicuous label'' is defined in the standard 
as a ``label which is visible, when the product is in the 
manufacturer's recommended use position, to a person standing at the 
sides or front of the booster seat'' (ASTM F2640-18, section 3.1.1). 
Accordingly, the definition of ``conspicuous'' in the standard does not 
preclude use of the seat surface for the warning label placement, 
because the seat surface is visible to a person standing at the sides 
or front of the booster seat.
    Additionally, to address comments that a side wall height range of 
3 inches to 5 inches would restrict warning placement, staff generated 
mock warning labels that meet the ASTM F2640-18 requirement for signal 
word and font size in section 8.4.5. Tab B of Staff's Final Rule 
Briefing Package provides pictures of these mock warning labels. 
Staff's mock-ups show that the label can be placed on products with 
limited side wall space. Accordingly, manufacturers have the 
flexibility to place the warning label on seat surface or on the seat 
vertical wall.
    Comment 5: One commenter urged CPSC to work with manufacturers to 
use design and visual cues, such as pictograms, to ensure warnings are 
conveyed effectively to those with limited or no English literacy.
    Response 5: The Commission acknowledges that well-designed 
graphics, such as pictograms, can be useful for consumers with limited 
or no English literacy. However, the design of effective graphics can 
be difficult. Some seemingly obvious graphics are poorly understood and 
can give rise to interpretations that are the opposite of the intended 
meaning (so-called ``critical confusions''). To avoid confusion, a 
warning pictogram should be developed with an empirical study and 
should also be well-tested on the target audience. Thus far, pictograms 
have not been developed for booster-seat warning labels. In the future, 
if CPSC staff advises that graphic symbols are needed to reduce the 
risk of injury associated with these products, the Commission can 
consider updating the mandatory standard to include pictograms.
    Comment 6: The Commission received four comments on CPSC's proposed 
12-month effective date for the booster seats mandatory standard. One 
comment, submitted by three consumer advocacy groups, supported a 6-
month effective date (which they seem to believe mistakenly was the 
Commission's proposal). Two commenters, a juvenile product 
manufacturers' association and a private citizen, supported the 
proposed 12-month effective date, although the private citizen said 
that they would also support an even longer effective date to reduce 
the economic impact on small firms. A fourth commenter, a small 
manufacturer of food-service booster seats, suggested a 2-year 
effective date to allow additional time for product development. The 
commenter stated: ``compliance may require the costly and time 
intensive process of developing and building new tooling to comply with 
the Standard.''
    In a follow-up call with Commission staff (a phone log is in 
regulations.gov), the fourth commenter elaborated on the request for a 
2-year effective date, stating that for their booster seats to come 
into compliance with the revised ASTM standard, they will need to 
design and test new plastic molds. Creating a new mold includes 
researching and developing a new design, initial tool-building to 
implement the design, and then testing the resulting product. The 
commenter stated that the entire process takes longer for firms like 
theirs because their mold-maker is located overseas. Consequently, if 
changes to the mold are required after testing the new product, the 
turnaround time is longer than if all the work were conducted in the 
United States. According to the commenter, if the design process goes 
perfectly, with no required changes, then their booster seats could be 
redesigned in time to meet the 12-month effective date. The commenter 
stated that the request for a 2-year effective date was based on the 
design process for plastic molds and the potential need to create and 
test several iterative designs.
    Response 6: The Commission recognizes that longer effective dates 
minimize the impact on affected firms. The initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis (IRFA) found that a significant economic impact 
could not be ruled out for 69 percent of the small firms operating in 
the U.S. market. Staff advised that many of those firms might not be 
aware of the ASTM voluntary standard or the CPSC booster seats 
rulemaking, particularly food-service booster seat suppliers, which 
make up one-third of the small suppliers for

[[Page 30845]]

which a significant impact could not be ruled out. The information 
supplied by the fourth commenter on the time and cost involved in 
designing and producing new plastic molds is consistent with 
information supplied by CPSC engineers, as is the longer time frame 
required for firms conducting some of their redesign overseas. Staff 
engineers have also indicated that foam products would require new 
molds as well, which likely require similar cost and time investments.
    Based on this information, the Commission concludes that a 12-month 
effective date likely represents a ``best-case'' scenario for many 
affected firms, and that 2 years likely represents a ``worst-case'' 
scenario for firms required to come into compliance. Firms designing 
and/or testing their molds in the United States should be able to meet 
shorter timelines, both in ``best-case'' and ``worst-case'' scenarios. 
After considering the information provided by commenters, the 
Commission is providing an 18-month effective date for all firms to 
come into compliance with the final rule. An 18-month effective date 
balances the need for improved consumer safety, with reducing the 
impact of the final rule on small firms.
    Although some firms using molds may require iterative designs to 
meet the standard, the 2-year time estimate for product redesign using 
molds applies in cases where a mold must be modified several times, and 
the mold-redesign work is conducted overseas. Not all firms use molds, 
not all firms have molds made overseas, and not all firms will 
encounter sufficient difficulty with their molds to require a full 2 
years to make their iterative changes. Additionally, not all products 
will require a full redesign. Some products already meet the ASTM 
voluntary standard and the anticipated product modifications (straps 
and/or more secure means of attachment) in those cases are not complex 
and should not fall within the ``worst-case'' scenario of a 2-year 
design process.
    Moreover, providing additional time for firms to come into 
compliance reduces burden by allowing firms the time: (1) To spread out 
design and testing costs over a longer period; (2) to come into 
compliance if they are currently unaware of the voluntary standard or 
the rulemaking; and (3) to redesign a plastic or foam product to 
accommodate the design, tooling, and testing adjustments that may be 
required during the product redesign process.

VI. Mandatory Standard for Booster Seats

    As discussed in the previous section, the Commission concludes that 
ASTM F2640-18 adequately addresses the hazards associated with booster 
seats. Thus, the final rule incorporates by reference ASTM F2640-18, 
without modification, as the mandatory safety standard for booster 
seats.

VII. Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112 to Include NOR for Booster Seats 
Standard

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

VIII. Incorporation by Reference

    Section 1237.2 of the final rule provides that booster seats must 
comply with applicable sections of ASTM F2640-18. The OFR has 
regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. These 
regulations require that, for a final rule, agencies must discuss in 
the preamble to the rule the way in which materials that the agency 
incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested 
persons, and how interested parties can obtain the materials. 
Additionally, the preamble to the rule must summarize the material. 1 
CFR 51.5(b).
    In accordance with the OFR's requirements, the discussion in 
section IV of this preamble summarizes the required provisions of ASTM 
F2640-18. Interested persons may purchase a copy of ASTM F2640-18 from 
ASTM, either through ASTM's website, or by mail at the address provided 
in the rule. A copy of the standard may also be inspected at the CPSC's 
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Note 
that the Commission and ASTM arranged for commenters to have ``read-
only'' access to ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\ during the NPR's comment 
period.

IX. Effective Date

    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the 
effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of the 
final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Typically, the Commission provides a 6-
month effective date for final rules issued for durable infant or 
toddler products under section 104 of the CPSIA. However, in the NPR, 
the Commission proposed that the booster seat rule be effective 12 
months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, to 
allow booster seat manufacturers additional time to bring their 
products into compliance.
    CPSC received several comments on the effective date of the final 
rule, which are summarized in section V of this preamble, comment 6. As 
explained there, the remolding process for plastic and foam booster 
seats could take in ``best-case scenarios'' 12 months, but in

[[Page 30846]]

``worst-case scenarios'' the process could take up to 2 years. 
Recognizing that worst-case scenarios are likely to be rare, the 
Commission is providing an 18-month effective date for the final rule. 
Moreover, as explained in the next section of the preamble, the 
additional time reduces the impact of the rule on small businesses.

X. Regulatory Flexibility Act \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Tab D of Staff's Final Rule Briefing Package contains the 
complete Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires 
that agencies review a proposed rule and a final rule for the rule's 
potential economic impact on small entities, including small 
businesses. Section 604 of the RFA generally requires that agencies 
prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) when 
promulgating final rules, unless the head of the agency certifies that 
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. For booster seats, staff cannot rule out a 
significant economic impact for 19 of the 29 (66 percent) known small 
domestic suppliers of booster seats to the U.S. market. Accordingly, 
staff prepared a FRFA that is available at Tab D of the Staff's Final 
Rule Briefing Package. We provide a summary of the FRFA below.
    The Commission is aware of 29 small firms, including 19 domestic 
manufacturers, nine domestic importers, and one firm of unknown type, 
currently marketing booster seats in the United States. The Commission 
concludes that it is unlikely that there would be a significant 
economic impact on the eight small manufacturers and two small 
importers of booster seats that comply with the current voluntary 
standard for Juvenile Products Manufacturer's Association-(JPMA) 
testing purposes, ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\.\10\ However, the Commission 
cannot rule out a significant economic impact for 19 of the suppliers 
of noncompliant booster seats (11 manufacturers, seven importers, and 
one unknown type).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) has 
certification programs for several durable infant products with 
voluntary ASTM standards. Typically, JPMA's certification program 
has a 6-month delay between the publication of a new ASTM voluntary 
standard and its adoption for compliance testing under their 
program. Published in March 2017, ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\ went into 
effect for JPMA-testing purposes in September 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. The Product

    Section II.A of this preamble defines ``booster seats'' and 
discussed booster seat combination products. The final rule would cover 
these products when they are in their booster seat configuration. Some 
suppliers produce booster seats intended predominately for restaurant 
use. As discussed in sections II.A and V (comment 2), the Commission 
will include food-service booster seats in the final rule with the same 
requirements as home-use booster seats. The prices for food-service and 
home-use booster seats are similar, averaging $44 to $60. Not 
surprisingly, combination high chair/booster seat products tend to be 
more expensive, ranging in price from $50 to $250.

B. Final Rule Requirements and Third Party Testing

    All booster seats manufactured after the final rule's effective 
date must meet the requirements of the final rule (ASTM F2640-18 with 
no modification). They will also need to be third party tested, as 
described below.
    Under section 14 of the CPSA, once the new booster seat 
requirements become effective as a consumer product safety standard, 
all suppliers will be subject to the third party testing and 
certification requirements under the CPSA and the Testing and Labeling 
Pertaining to Product Certification rule (16 CFR part 1107) (1107 
rule), which require manufacturers and importers to certify that their 
products comply with the applicable children's product safety 
standards, based on third party testing, and subject their products to 
third party testing periodically. Third party testing costs are in 
addition to the costs of modifying the booster seats to meet the 
standard. For booster seats, the third party testing costs are expected 
to be $500 to $1,000 per sample tested, with the higher cost being more 
applicable to the smallest suppliers.\11\ As the component part testing 
rule allows (16 CFR part 1109), importers may rely upon third party 
tests obtained by their suppliers, which could reduce the impact on 
importers. The incremental costs would also be lower for suppliers of 
compliant booster seats if they are already obtaining third party tests 
to assure conformance with the voluntary standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ These cost estimates are for testing compliance with the 
physical or mechanical requirements in the standard only. 
Manufacturers and importers of booster seats are already subject to 
third party testing requirements with respect to lead content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. IRFA Issues Raised in the Public Comments

    The IRFA requested public feedback on three questions:
    1. What actions might firms take to bring their booster seats into 
compliance with the proposed rule? What costs might be associated with 
those actions?
    2. What are the differences between food-service and home-use 
booster seats and their typical use environments (restaurants and 
homes)? How might the safety risks vary between the two use 
environments? Are there any alternative requirements that might address 
these risk variations and make booster seats safer in both use 
environments?
    3. What is the appropriate effective date for the proposed rule?
    CPSC did not receive public comment in response to question one. 
CPSC did receive comments on questions 2 and 3. Comment summaries and 
the Commission's responses appear in section V of this preamble.

D. The Market for Booster Seats

    The market for booster seats was outlined in section II.B. Under 
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines, a manufacturer of 
booster seats is considered small if it has 500 or fewer employees; and 
importers are considered small if they have 100 or fewer employees. 
CPSC limited its regulatory flexibility analysis to domestic firms 
because SBA guidelines and definitions pertain to U.S.-based entities. 
Based on these guidelines, 29 of 44 domestic firms are small--19 
domestic manufacturers, 9 domestic importers, and 1 domestic firm whose 
supply source could not be categorized. Additional small domestic 
booster seat suppliers may be operating in the U.S. market, possibly 
including some of the firms operating online storefronts. As discussed 
in the FRFA, staff expects impacts of the final rule to be small for 
online suppliers that staff could not readily identify as domestic; 
therefore, they are not included in the analysis.

E. Impact on Small Businesses

1. Small Manufacturers
a. Small Manufacturers With Compliant Booster Seats
    Of the 19 small manufacturers, eight produce booster seats that 
comply with the ASTM voluntary standard currently in effect for testing 
purposes (ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\).12 13 ASTM F2640-

[[Page 30847]]

18, the version of the voluntary standard upon which the final rule is 
based, for JPMA certification testing purposes, will be in effect in 
November 2018. The new version of the standard (ASTM F2640-18) 
addresses booster seats that hang from the back of the adult chair and 
ensures that the maximum booster seat dimensions test is performed 
while in the manufacturer's recommended installation configuration. In 
general, the Commission expects that small manufacturers whose booster 
seats already comply with the voluntary standard currently in effect 
for testing purposes will remain compliant with the voluntary standard 
as it evolves, because they follow, and in five cases, actively 
participate in, the development of the ASTM voluntary standard. 
Therefore, for these small manufacturers, compliance with the voluntary 
standard is part of an established business practice. As such, the 
Commission does not expect the final rule to have a significant impact 
on any of the eight small manufacturers with booster seats expected to 
meet the requirements of the voluntary standard. Additionally, because 
these firms already test to the ASTM standard, the Commission expects 
that any third party testing costs will be minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) has 
certification programs for several durable infant products with 
voluntary ASTM standards. Typically, JPMA's certification program 
has a 6-month delay between publication of a new ASTM voluntary 
standard and its adoption for compliance testing under their 
program. Published in March 2017, ASTM F2640-17[epsiv]\1\ went into 
effect, for JPMA testing purposes, in September 2017. ASTM F2640-18 
will be in effect for JPMA testing before the mandatory booster seat 
standard goes into effect. Therefore, compliant firms are expected 
to remain compliant.
    \13\ In this case, four of the firms with compliant booster 
seats are part of JPMA's certification program, while the other four 
firms claim compliance based on testing performed to the ASTM 
standard performed outside of the JPMA certification program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Small Manufacturers With Noncompliant Booster Seats
    Eleven small manufacturers produce booster seats that do not comply 
with the voluntary standard, five of which produce food-service booster 
seats, and six that produce booster seats for home use. CPSC staff 
cannot determine the extent of the changes and the cost of the changes 
required for the booster seats of these 11 firms to come into 
compliance with the final rule. For all 11 small manufacturing firms 
producing booster seats that do not meet the voluntary standard, the 
cost of redesigning the products could exceed 1 percent of the firm's 
revenue. Overall, staff cannot rule out a significant economic impact 
on any of the 11 small manufacturers producing noncompliant booster 
seats. Additionally, of 11 firms, staff estimates that the impact of 
third party testing could result in significant costs for six firms.
2. Small Importers
a. Small Importers With Compliant Booster Seats
    Staff identified two booster seat importers currently in compliance 
with the voluntary standard. Staff expects that small importers, like 
manufacturers whose booster seats already comply with the voluntary 
standard currently in effect for testing purposes, will remain 
compliant with the voluntary standard as it evolves, because these 
small importers follow the standard development process. Therefore, 
these firms are likely already to be in compliance, and the final rule 
should not have a significant impact on either of the small importers 
with compliant booster seats. Any third party testing costs for 
importers of compliant booster seats would be limited to the 
incremental costs associated with third party testing beyond their 
current testing regime. Staff does not expect significant impacts to 
result from incremental testing costs.
b. Small Importers With Noncompliant Booster Seats
    Staff does not have sufficient information to rule out a 
significant impact from the final rule for any of the seven importers 
with noncompliant booster seats. The economic impact on importers 
depends on the extent of the changes required to come into compliance 
and the responses of their supplying firms, which staff cannot 
generally determine for noncompliant importers. Third party testing and 
certification to the final rule could impose significant costs for 
three of the seven firms with booster seats believed not to comply with 
the ASTM standard. However, third party testing costs are unlikely to 
be greater than 1 percent of the firms' gross revenues for the 
remaining four firms.
3. Small Unknown Firm Type With Noncompliant Booster Seats
    For one firm identified as a supplier of noncompliant booster seats 
in the U.S. market, staff is unable to determine whether the firm is a 
manufacturer or an importer, and thus, staff does not have sufficient 
information to rule out the possibility that modifications required to 
come into compliance with the rule could result in a significant impact 
(i.e., greater than 1 percent of revenues) on this small noncompliant 
firm.
4. Summary of Impacts
    The Commission is aware of 29 small firms, including 19 domestic 
manufacturers, nine domestic importers, and one firm of unknown type, 
currently marketing booster seats in the United States. Based on the 
foregoing, the Commission concludes that it is unlikely that there 
would be a significant economic impact on the eight small manufacturers 
and two small importers of compliant booster seats. However, the 
Commission cannot rule out a significant economic impact for any of the 
19 suppliers of noncompliant booster seats (11 manufacturers, seven 
importers, and one unknown type).

F. Efforts To Minimize the Impact on Small Entities

    The NPR proposed an effective date 12 months after the publication 
of the final rule in the Federal Register. CPSC received two comments 
requesting a later effective date, including one from a food-service 
booster seat manufacturer who requested a 2-year effective date, 
stating they needed more time to develop and build the new tooling that 
would be required to meet the mandatory standard. As discussed in 
sections V (comment 6) and IX of this preamble, the Commission agrees 
that a later effective date would reduce the economic impact of the 
final rule on firms. Firms would have more time to adjust their designs 
and tooling and thus, less likely to experience a lapse in production/
importation, which could result if they were unable to produce or 
locate suppliers within the required timeframe. Additionally, firms 
could spread these costs of compliance over a longer time period, 
thereby reducing their annual costs, as well as the present value of 
their total costs. To help reduce the impact on all small firms, as 
well as specifically reduce the potential burden on firms using molds 
that may require iterative designs to meet the standard, particularly 
where some work is conducted overseas, the final rule provides an 18-
month effective date.

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

    In accordance with section 14 of the CPSA, all children's products 
that are subject to a children's product safety rule must be tested by 
a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body (i.e., testing 
laboratory) for compliance with applicable children's product safety 
rules. Testing laboratories that want to conduct this testing must meet 
the notice of requirements (NOR) pertaining to third party conformity 
testing. NORs have been codified for existing rules at 16 CFR part 1112 
(1112 rule). Consequently, the Commission will amend the 1112 rule to 
establish the NOR for testing laboratories that want accreditation to 
test for compliance with the booster seats final rule. This section 
assesses the impact of the amendment on small laboratories.
    The Commission certified in the NPR that the proposed NOR would not 
have

[[Page 30848]]

a significant impact on a substantial number of small laboratories 
because:
     No requirements were imposed on laboratories that did not 
intend to provide third party testing services;
     Only firms that anticipated receiving sufficient revenue 
from the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements would 
provide testing services; and
     Most of these laboratories will already be accredited to 
test for conformance to other juvenile product standards, and the only 
costs to them would be the cost of adding the children's booster seats 
standard to their scope of accreditation.
    No substantive changes in these facts have occurred since the NPR 
was published, and CPSC did not receive any comments regarding the NOR. 
Therefore, for the final rule, the Commission continues to certify that 
amending part 1112 to include the NOR for the booster seats final rule 
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
laboratories.

XI. Environmental Considerations

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

XII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The final rule for booster seats contains information collection 
requirements that are subject to public comment and review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The preamble to the proposed rule (82 FR 
22932-33) discussed the information collection burden of the proposed 
rule and specifically requested comments on the accuracy of our 
estimates. OMB has not yet assigned a control number for this 
information collection. We did not receive any comment regarding the 
information collection burden of the proposal. However, the final rule 
makes modifications regarding the information collection burden because 
the number of estimated manufacturers subject to the information 
collection burden is now estimated at 46 manufacturers, rather than the 
49 manufacturers initially estimated in the proposed rule, and the 
number of models tested has increased from two models in the NPR, to 
three models for the final rule.
    Accordingly, the estimated burden of this collection of information 
is modified as follows:

                                                       Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Number of       Frequency of     Total annual      Hours per       Total burden
                           16 CFR section                              respondents       responses        responses         response          Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1237...............................................................              46                3              138                1              138
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our estimate is based on the following:
    Section 8.1 of ASTM F640-18 requires that all booster seats and 
their retail packaging be permanently marked or labeled as follows: The 
manufacturer, distributor, or seller name, place of business (city, 
state, mailing address, including zip code), and telephone number; and 
a code mark or other means that identifies the date (month and year as 
a minimum) of manufacture.
    CPSC is aware of 46 firms that supply booster seats in the U.S. 
market. For PRA purposes, we assume that all 46 firms use labels on 
their products and on their packaging already. All firms will need to 
make some modifications to their existing labels. We estimate that the 
time required to make these modifications is about 1 hour per model. 
Each of the 46 firms supplies, on average, test slightly more than 2.5 
different models of booster seats per year. Accordingly, for this 
estimate we round the number of models to three. Therefore, we estimate 
the burden hours associated with labels to be 138 hours annually (1 
hour x 46 firms x 3 models per firm = 138 hours annually).
    We estimate the hourly compensation for the time required to create 
and update labels is $32.47 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,'' December 2017, Table 9, 
total compensation for all sales and office workers in goods-producing 
private industries: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/). Therefore, we estimate 
the annual cost to industry associated with the labeling requirements 
in the final rule to be approximately $4,481 ($32.47 per hour x 138 
hours = $4,480.86). This collection of information does not require 
operating, maintenance, or capital costs.
    Section 9.1 of ASTM F2640-18 requires instructions to be supplied 
with the product. Under the OMB's regulations (5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)), the 
time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a 
collection of information that would be incurred by persons in the 
``normal course of their activities'' are excluded from a burden 
estimate, where an agency demonstrates that the disclosure activities 
required to comply are ``usual and customary.'' We are unaware of 
booster seats that generally require use instructions but lack such 
instructions. Therefore, we estimate that no burden hours are 
associated with section 9.1 of ASTM F2640-18, because any burden 
associated with supplying instructions with booster seats would be 
``usual and customary'' and not within the definition of ``burden'' 
under the OMB's regulations.
    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), we have submitted the information collection requirements of 
this final rule to the OMB.

XIII. Preemption

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

[[Page 30849]]

List of Subjects

16 CFR Part 1112

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

16 CFR Part 1237

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends 16 
CFR parts 1112 and 1237 as follows:

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

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

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

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


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (47) 16 CFR part 1237, Safety Standard for Booster Seats.
* * * * *

0
3. Add part 1237 to read as follows:

PART 1237--SAFETY STANDARD FOR BOOSTER SEATS

Sec.
1237.1 Scope.
1237.2 Requirements for booster seats.

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


Sec.  1237.1   Scope.

    This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for 
booster seats.


Sec.  1237.2   Requirements for booster seats.

    Each booster seat must comply with all applicable provisions of 
ASTM F2640-18, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats 
(approved on April 1, 2018). The Director of the Federal Register 
approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from ASTM 
International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, 
PA 19428; http://www.astm.org. You may inspect a copy at the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 
East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone: 301-504-7923, or at 
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For 
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-14133 Filed 6-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6355-01-P