Infant Bouncer Seats NPR

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Dated: October 13, 2015.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015–26385 Filed 10–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1229
[Docket No. CPSC–2015–0028]

Safety Standard for Infant Bouncer
Seats
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:

The Danny Keysar Child
Product Safety Notification Act, section
104 of the Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’),
requires the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission
(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘CPSC’’) to
promulgate consumer product safety
standards for durable infant or toddler
products. These standards are to be
‘‘substantially the same as’’ applicable
voluntary standards or more stringent
than the voluntary standard, if the
Commission determines that more
stringent requirements would further
reduce the risk of injury associated with
the product. The Commission is
proposing a safety standard for infant

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

bouncer seats (‘‘bouncer seats’’) in
response to the direction of section
104(b) of the CPSIA. In addition, the
Commission is proposing an
amendment to 16 CFR part 1112 to
include 16 CFR part 1229 in the list of
notice of requirements (‘‘NORs’’) issued
by the Commission.
DATES: Submit comments by January 4,
2016.
ADDRESSES: Comments related to the
Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the
marking, labeling, and instructional
literature requirements of the proposed
mandatory standard for bouncer seats
should be directed to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, the
Office of Management and Budget, Attn:
CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–6974,
or emailed to oira_submission@
omb.eop.gov.
Other comments, identified by Docket
No. CPSC–2015–0028, may be
submitted electronically or in writing:
Electronic Submissions: Submit
electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
The Commission does not accept
comments submitted by electronic mail
(email), except through
www.regulations.gov. The Commission
encourages you to submit electronic
comments by using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, as described above.
Written Submissions: Submit written
submissions by mail/hand delivery/
courier to: Office of the Secretary,

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Room 820, 4330 East West Highway,
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301)
504–7923.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this proposed
rulemaking. All comments received may
be posted without change, including
any personal identifiers, contact
information, or other personal
information provided, to: http://
www.regulations.gov. Do not submit
confidential business information, trade
secret information, or other sensitive or
protected information that you do not
want to be available to the public. If
furnished at all, such information
should be submitted in writing.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to: http://
www.regulations.gov, and insert the
docket number, CPSC–2015–0028, into
the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the
prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Suad Wanna-Nakamura, Ph.D., Project
Manager, Directorate for Health
Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 5 Research Place,
Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 301–
987–2550; email: snakamura@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Statutory Authority
The CPSIA was enacted on August 14,
2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, part
of the Danny Keysar Child Product

E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM

19OCP1

EP19OC15.012

63168

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Safety Notification Act, requires the
Commission to: (1) Examine and assess
the effectiveness of voluntary consumer
product safety standards for durable
infant or toddler products, in
consultation with representatives of
consumer groups, juvenile product
manufacturers, and independent child
product engineers and experts; and (2)
promulgate consumer product safety
standards for durable infant and toddler
products. Standards issued under
section 104 are to be ‘‘substantially the
same as’’ the applicable voluntary
standards or more stringent than the
voluntary standard, if the Commission
determines that more stringent
requirements would further reduce the
risk of injury associated with the
product.
The term ‘‘durable infant or toddler
product’’ is defined in section 104(f)(1)
of the CPSIA as ‘‘a durable product
intended for use, or that may be
reasonably expected to be used, by
children under the age of 5 years,’’ and
the statute specifies twelve categories of
products that are included in the
definition, including walkers, carriers
and various types of children’s chairs.
In issuing regulations governing product
registration under section 104, the
Commission determined that an ‘‘infant
bouncer’’ falls within the definition of a
‘‘durable infant or toddler product.’’ 74
FR 68668 (Dec. 29, 2009); 16 CFR
1130.2(a)(15).
Pursuant to section 104(b)(1)(A) of the
CPSIA, the Commission consulted with
manufacturers, retailers, trade
organizations, laboratories, consumer
advocacy groups, consultants, and
members of the public in the
development of this notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’), largely through the
ASTM process. The NPR is based on the
most recent voluntary standard
developed by ASTM International
(formerly the American Society for
Testing and Materials), ASTM F2167–
15, Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Infant Bouncer Seats
(‘‘ASTM F2167–15’’), with specific
modifications to improve and
strengthen the requirements for onproduct warnings and instructional
materials provided with bouncer seats.
The testing and certification
requirements of section 14(a) of the
Consumer Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’)
apply to the standards promulgated
under section 104 of the CPSIA. Section
14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the
Commission to publish an NOR for the
accreditation of third party conformity
assessment bodies (‘‘test laboratories’’)
to assess conformity with a children’s
product safety rule to which a children’s
product is subject. The proposed rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

for bouncer seats, if issued as a final
rule, would be a children’s product
safety rule that requires the issuance of
an NOR. To meet the requirement that
the Commission issue an NOR for the
bouncer seat standard, this NPR also
proposes to amend 16 CFR part 1112 to
include 16 CFR part 1229, the CFR
section where the bouncer seat standard
will be codified, if the standard becomes
final.
II. Product Description
A. Definition of ‘‘Bouncer Seats’’
The scope section of ASTM F2167–15
defines an ‘‘infant bouncer seat’’ as: ‘‘a
freestanding product intended to
support an occupant in a reclined
position to facilitate bouncing by the
occupant, with the aid of a caregiver or
by other means.’’ ASTM F2167–15
states that infant bouncer seats are
intended for ‘‘infants who have not
developed the ability to sit up
unassisted (approximately 0 to 6 months
of age).’’
Bouncer seats vary widely in style
and complexity, but typically, bouncer
seats consist of a cloth cover stretched
over a wire or tubular frame. Wire frame
bouncers have two designs. The forward
bend design is constructed with the
seating area supported from the front
side of the product. The second wire
frame design is a rear bend design. In
the rear bend design, the seat is
supported from the rear side of the
product. Other bouncer designs are also
currently available, including, but not
limited to, products with individual
wire legs, solid bases, and spring
designs. These infant bouncer designs
use different methods to support the
seat and are intended for ‘‘bouncing,’’ as
defined in ASTM F2167.
All bouncer seats support the child in
an inclined position, and some brands
have adjustable seat backs. Various
bouncer seat models include a
‘‘soothing unit’’ that vibrates or bounces
the chair, and may play music or other
sounds. Most bouncer seats also feature
an accessory bar with attached toys that
are, or at some point will be, within the
child’s reach. Most of the bouncer seat
models examined by Commission staff
provide a 3-point restraint system
consisting of wide cloth crotch
restraints, and short adjustable waist
straps with plastic buckles. Only two
models of bouncer seats reviewed by
CPSC employed upper body restraints.
Many bouncer seat brands also include
an ‘‘infant insert,’’ intended for use to
support smaller babies. See Tabs C and
D, Staff Briefing Package: Infant Bouncer
Seats Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
dated September 30, 2015 (‘‘Staff NPR

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

63169

Briefing Package’’), available at: http://
www.cpsc.gov/Global/Newsroom/FOIA/
CommissionBriefingPackages/2015/
ProposedRuleSafetyStandardforInfant
BouncerSeatSeptember302.pdf.
B. Market Description
Although additional suppliers may
exist, CPSC staff identified 22 firms
supplying infant bouncer seats to the
U.S. market. The 22 identified firms
primarily specialize in the manufacture
and/or distribution of children’s
products, including durable nursery
products. The majority of the 22 known
firms are domestic (including 8
manufacturers and 10 importers). The
remaining four firms are foreign
manufacturers.1 In 2013, the CPSC
conducted a Durable Nursery Product
Exposure Survey (‘‘DNPES’’) of U.S.
households with children under age 6.
Data from the DNPES indicate that an
estimated 6.75 million infant bouncers
are in U.S. households (with 95%
probability that the actual value is
between 5.78 million and 7.72 million).
Data collected also indicate that about
31 percent of the infant bouncers in U.S.
households are currently in use (an
estimated 2.09 million infant bouncers,
with 95 percent probability that the
actual value is between about 1.5
million and 2.68 million). Tab F, Staff
NPR Briefing Package.
III. Incident Data
CPSC’s Directorate for Epidemiology,
Division of Hazard Analysis is aware of
277 reported incidents involving
bouncer seats, including 11 fatalities
and 51 injuries, occurring between
January 1, 2006 and February 2, 2015.
The incidents are based on reports
involving victims 12 months and
younger in the Injury or Potential Injury
Incident (‘‘IPII’’), In-Depth Investigation
(‘‘INDP’’), and Death Certificates
(‘‘DTHS’’) databases (collectively
referred to as Consumer Product Safety
Risk Management System data, or
‘‘CPSRMS’’ data). Additionally, CPSC
staff found 672 bouncer-related
incidents, including two fatalities,
reported in the National Electronic
Injury Surveillance System (‘‘NEISS’’)
records retrieved for bouncer incidents
from January 1, 2006 to December 31,
2013, involving children 12 months old
and younger. A detailed review of the
incident data and analysis associated
with bouncer seats can be found in Tabs
A, B, and D of the Staff NPR Briefing
Package.
1 Determinations were made using information
from Dun & Bradstreet and ReferenceUSAGov, as
well as firm Web sites.

E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM

19OCP1

63170

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

A. Fatalities
For the reporting periods described in
the preceding paragraph, CPSC staff
found 11 reported fatalities in the
CPSRMS data, and two reported
fatalities in the NEISS data. A brief
description of each incident follows:
• 120427HCC1640: A 6-month-old
died of blunt force trauma to the head
when the infant’s father lifted him in
the bouncer seat. The bouncer collapsed
and the child fell out of the back onto
carpeted floor. He suffered a linear skull
fracture and died the following day.
• 121001HCC2002: A 3-month-old
was fed and left to sleep in her bouncer
seat. The child’s father reported that he
found her face down, unrestrained, in
the seat. The seat was on the floor, and
the child’s mother and 2-year-old sister
had been asleep on a couch nearby.2
Cause of death was positional asphyxia.
• 070214CCC1300: A 2-month-old
who suffered from reflux and a
respiratory infection was placed,
unrestrained, to sleep in a bouncer that
was lined with a blanket; the bouncer
was on the floor next to the couch
where his mother slept for the night.
The child turned over in the seat, and
was found unresponsive, face down
against seat back. Cause of death was
positional asphyxia.
• 110726CAA3941: A 3-month-old
was placed on an adult bed in an infant
bouncer seat, unrestrained, for a nap.
The mother reported that the child had
fallen out of the seat and she found her
face down on the bed. The child was
diagnosed with an irreversible anoxic
brain injury and died 19 days later.
• 726037034: A 3-month-old was left
in a ‘‘bouncey (sic) seat on an adult
bed.’’ Cause of death was probable
asphyxia due to suffocation. No further
information is available.
• 1051041332: A 4-month-old
‘‘suffocated when face down in soft
bedding on bouncey (sic) seat at home.’’
No further information is available.
• 101012HCC3049: A 6-month-old
(born several weeks premature) was
placed in a bouncer on the floor (in
front of a television) as he was falling
asleep while his mother showered. She
placed a pillow under the rear legs of
the bouncer to raise it. She found the
child unresponsive, turned with his face
against the side of the bouncer, one leg
out of the restraints. Cause of death was
positional asphyxia.
• 080917HBB3900: A 2-month-old in
a bouncer was placed in a crib to sleep.
2 Both a car seat and an infant bouncer were
present at the scene. CPSC Health Sciences staff
found the information in the report insufficient to
determine the hazard that contributed to the fatality
in this incident.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

She was found suspended, partially
upside down, over the side of the
bouncer with one leg entwined in the
restraints. A depression in the mattress
suggests that the child’s face was against
it. Cause of death was mechanical
asphyxia.
• X1490229A: A 4-month-old was
swaddled and placed for a nap,
unrestrained, in a bouncer, which was
then placed on the floor; the child
reportedly just started to roll over, but
had not done so completely on her own.
Her parents found her unresponsive
‘‘with her face against the back of the
infant seat and half way off the chair
from the waist level down . . .’’; she
could not be resuscitated. Cause of
death was positional asphyxia.
• 140102HWE0001: A 6-month-old
was sleeping, strapped into a bouncer
and when she awoke, was moved in the
bouncer to a bedroom and left briefly
with two toddlers, and possibly a pet
dog. When the caregiver returned, she
found the chair overturned on the floor
with the victim’s neck lying over the
chair’s [toy bar]. The report is
inconsistent regarding whether the
bouncer was placed initially on the bed
or on the floor. HS staff considers the
injuries described in the ME’s report to
be consistent with a fall rather than a
tip-over at floor level. The child died
five days later. Cause of death was
positional asphyxia.
• 140422CAA1573: A 3-month-old
was placed to sleep for the evening,
unrestrained, in a bouncer on the floor
in a room with several other children.
Her mother found her five hours later
face down in front of the bouncer on the
floor and not breathing.
• NEISS: 120328281: The parents of a
5-month-old found him unresponsive,
flipped over in the bouncer seat with his
leg still through one leg hole. The cause
listed was cardiac arrest.3
• NEISS: 130645295: A 2-month-old
child had been asleep in a ‘‘bouncy’’;
his father awoke to find the child
unresponsive on the floor. The cause of
death was cardiac arrest.4
Most of the infants’ deaths involved
the presence of excess bedding in or
under the bouncer; placement of the
bouncer on a soft surface such as an
adult bed; placement of the bouncer in
a crib; and carrying or placing the
bouncer at an elevated height. Most of
3 CPSC staff found the information in this
incident insufficient to determine the hazard that
contributed to the fatality because the term ‘‘leg
hole’’ was deemed inconsistent with the features of
an infant bouncer and because of the lack of detail
provided.
4 CPSC staff found the information in this
incident insufficient to determine the hazard that
contributed to the fatality.

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

the bouncer seat deaths also involved
the infant being placed in the bouncer
to sleep unrestrained, which allowed
the infant unsupervised time and
movement within the hazardous
environment which contributed to the
death. Tab B, Staff NPR Briefing
Package. In nine cases, the child was
reported as napping or sleeping and
without restraints in five of the nine
incidents. In two cases, the child was
partially out of the restraints when
found; in the case when the bouncer
was inside the crib, the child was
partially suspended upside down over
the side of the bouncer with one leg in
the restraints. Moreover, in at least four
cases, the child’s emerging ability to
turn over, resulted in the child’s face
resting against the conforming surface of
the seat back, and this appears to have
been a significant factor in causing the
child’s death. Tab D, Staff NPR Briefing
Package.
B. Non-Fatalities
Of the 277 CPSRMS bouncer-related
incidents involving children 12 months
old and younger, 266 incidents were
nonfatal. Fifty-one (51) of these nonfatal
incidents reported injuries. Four of the
51 reported injuries involved serious
head injuries related to falls from a
bouncer placed on an elevated surface.
Other reported injuries included skull
fractures, leg fractures, head contusions,
eye bruises, facial bruises and scratches,
a split lip and torn upper frenulum, a
finger bruise, leg cuts, leg bruises, heel
lacerations, and a blood blister. Because
reporting is ongoing, the number of
injuries and fatalities associated with
bouncer seats are subject to change. See
Tab A, Staff NPR Briefing Package.
Incidents involving the infant
occupant falling from the bouncer are of
most concern to CPSC because falls
have the greatest potential for a serious
injury. According to Health Sciences
staff’s analysis, 77 of the 266 nonfatal
incidents involved the infant occupant
falling from the bouncer. In five of these
incidents, the infant occupant fell from
a bouncer placed at an elevated height,
such as on a kitchen countertop or
dining table, or the bouncer was being
carried by the caregiver; in four (80%)
of these elevated-height incidents, the
infant fell from the bouncer and
sustained a severe head injury. Severe
head injuries, such as concussions and
fractured skulls, could cause extensive
brain damage and affect the infant’s
motor development, emotional
development, speech, ability to think
and learn, and overall quality of life,
long after the incident has occurred. The
majority of the remaining 189 nonfatal
incidents that did not involve a fall

E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM

19OCP1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

resulted in no injuries or minor injuries.
Only one incident resulted in a
moderate injury; in that incident a 3month-old infant shifted in the bouncer
and sustained a fractured leg. See Tab
B, Staff NPR Briefing Package.
C. Hazard Pattern Identification for
CPSRMS Incidents
To identify hazard patterns associated
with infant bouncer seats, CPSC staff
considered all 277 reported incidents in
CPSRMS involving product-related
issues. Tab A, Staff NPR Briefing
Package. Product-related issues
associated with these incidents include:
Product Design—Seventy-five (75)
incident reports describe issues related
to bouncer product design. Design
issues described in these incident
reports consist of sharp plastic rods,
uncushioned side metal bars, overhead
attachments not clipping properly,
sharp pieces of fabric, lack of padding
in the footing area, bouncer frames that
easily entrap arms/legs/fingers, easily
movable feet cushion flaps, sharp
plastic grooves from a musical
component, sagging seat belts, and
lopsided or low-riding bouncer frames.
Sixteen of the 75 incidents resulted in
injuries, all of which were minor.
Structural Integrity—Seventy (70)
incident reports describe issues related
to the structural integrity of bouncer
components, such as bouncer seats
collapsing when picked up, collapsing
during use, and releasing fabric from the
plastic frame, plus various other
structural issues involving broken sides,
recline adjustment pieces, wire bases,
front tube retainers, and rubber feet.
Twelve of the 70 incidents resulted in
minor injuries.
Toy Bar-Related—Thirty-six (36)
incident reports involve problems with
the toy bar or toys attached to the toy
bar. These reports describe the
following types of issues: Toy bars that
fail to snap into place, toy bars breaking
after being used as a handle, toys
breaking off the bar, toys on the bar
swinging back to hit the victim, toys
scratching and pinching fingers or toes,
and children getting hands or feet
caught on the toy attachments. Ten of
the 36 incidents resulted in minor
injuries.
Stability—Stability issues comprise
thirty-three (33) tip-over incidents
involving a bouncer seat placed on the
floor. While 26 bouncer tip-over
incidents resulted in no reported
injuries, seven incident reports include
injuries such as a split lip, head
contusions, and facial bruises.
Chemical/Electric Hazards—Thirty
(30) incident reports describe issues
related to chemical or electrical hazards,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

including two reported injuries (a thigh
welt and a rash). One incident involved
a bouncer seat emanating a toxic smell;
another incident involved a victim who
developed a rash after directly touching
the bouncer; and 28 incidents involved
batteries or the vibration motors.
Twenty-four of the battery/motor
incidents included reports of leaking,
cracking, or exploding batteries. Four of
the battery/motor incident reports
specifically described motor-related
issues, which include overheating
motors, motors making strange noises,
and motors catching on fire, resulting in
burning plastic and structural burn
marks.
Restraints—Twenty (20) incidents,
including two reported minor injuries,
involve issues with bouncer restraints,
including falling out of bouncer seats
despite being strapped in, tearing/
fraying straps, non-latching seat belts,
and breaking seat buckles.
Hazardous Placement—Eleven (11)
incidents involved a hazardous
placement of the bouncer where victims
in bouncer seats fell from elevated
surfaces, fell face down onto soft
bedding, or suffocated while attempting
to slip out of a bouncer seat placed on
an unstable surface. One incident
included a reported skull fracture
injury; another incident involved a
fatality resulting from blunt force head
trauma; and nine incidents involved
fatalities due to asphyxia.
Unknown—Two (2) incidents
involved an unknown hazard, including
one that involved a reported injury, and
one that resulted in a death from
positional asphyxia.
D. NEISS Data Analysis
CPSC staff retrieved 672 NEISS
records (estimated total of 17,200
injuries) describing infant bouncer seat
incidents between January 1, 2006 and
December 31, 2013. See Tab A, Staff
NPR Briefing Package. Injury estimates
are derived from NEISS data, where
sampling weights are used to project the
number of cases reported by NEISS
hospitals to national estimates. A
statistically significant upward trend
exists in the estimated emergency
department-treated injuries involving
bouncer seats for victims under 1-yearold from 2006 to 2013.
An estimated 15,500 patients were
treated and released for bouncer
injuries, and an estimated 1,300 patients
were treated and admitted, treated and
transferred to another hospital, or held
for observation. An estimated 15,100
(92%) bouncer injuries involved the
head and face, while 1,300 estimated
injuries involved an unknown area, or
the rest of the body (appendages, torso,

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

63171

internal). Two cases involved a victim
who died from cardiac arrest. One
victim died after flipping over in an
infant bouncer seat with his leg still
through one leg opening, and the other
victim was found on the floor
unresponsive after being asleep in the
bouncer. These two fatalities are in
addition to the 11 fatalities reported in
CPSRMS.
Of the 672 NEISS records describing
bouncer injuries, 287 incidents took
place on the floor or an unknown
location. The remaining 385 incidents,
or an estimated 9,200 injuries, involved
hazardous placements: 342 of these
incidents, or an estimated 8,100
injuries, resulted from falls. Hazardous
placements included counters, tables,
and other elevated surfaces (e.g., beds,
carried or lifted positions, chairs,
couches, dressers, stairs, and
appliances). An estimated 6,800
injuries, or 74 percent of all estimated
bouncer injuries associated with a
hazardous placement, involved the
bouncer being placed on a counter or
table. Health Sciences staff analysis
determined that 50 of these hazardous
placement incidents resulted in a severe
head injury, such as a concussion or
fractured skull. Twelve severe head
injuries were the result of the caregiver
carrying the infant in the bouncer. See
Tab B, Staff’s NPR Briefing Package.
CPSC staff noted two other factors in the
fall-related NEISS data. In 54 of the
reports, the incident occurred when
someone was carrying or picking up the
child in the infant bouncer. In 33 of the
cases, the child was reported to be
unrestrained at the time of the incident;
the number of cases of children falling
while unrestrained is likely to be
underreported.
Eighty-one percent of the incidents
resulted in injuries (n=532;
estimate=13,900). CPSC staff reviewed
the NEISS cases and determined the
severity of the reported injuries. Based
on that analysis, 11 percent of the
injuries were severe, such as skull
fractures and intracranial hemorrhages;
and 41 percent were moderate, such as
less serious head injuries and fractures
involving other body parts. CPSC staff
concluded that infants were more likely
to sustain a severe head injury when
they fell from elevated heights, and that
the potential for severe head injury
increases if the child is being carried in
the bouncer, and/or if they are
unrestrained in the bouncer.
E. Product Recalls
Since January 1, 2006, Compliance
staff conducted two bouncer seat recalls
involving two different firms. The first
recall, in April 2007, involved 1,400

E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM

19OCP1

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

63172

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules

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

dynamic testing than BS EN 12790.
Slip-resistance tests are substantially
similar in both standards. BS EN 12790
contains an unintentional folding test
that is not applicable to infant bouncer
seats. Finally, although ASTM F2167
does not have a restraint slip test, the
restraint strength test requires an
additional pull test at 45lb (200 N) to
the normal use direction. Accordingly,
overall, ASTM F2167–15 is more
stringent in most areas than BS EN
12790 and addresses the hazard patterns
identified in CPSC’s incident data.

IV. International Standards for Bouncer
Seats
CPSC staff found no other standard
for infant bouncer seats. See Tab C, Staff
NPR Briefing Package. However, CPSC
staff identified two closely related
international standards, BS EN
14036:2003, Child Use and Care
Articles—Baby Bouncers—Safety
requirements (‘‘BS EN 14036’’) and BS
EN 12790:2002, Test Methods and Child
Care Articles—Reclined cradles (‘‘BS EN
12790’’), which pertain to products with
some characteristics similar to infant
bouncer seats. The scope of BS EN
14036 does not include bouncers
intended for inclined seating; rather, the
standard involves products designed to
suspend a child, from above, in an
essentially vertical, semi-seated
position. These products, sold as baby
jumpers in the United States, enable the
child’s toes/balls of the feet to have
contact with the floor to activate and
maintain the bouncing action. General
requirements in BS EN 14036 are
similar to ASTM F2167, but are less
stringent. Remaining requirements in BS
EN 14036 are not applicable to infant
bouncer seats.
BS EN 12790 specifies safety
requirements and the corresponding test
methods for fixed or folding reclined
cradles intended for children up to 6
months and/or up to a weight of 9 kg.
Unlike infant bouncer seats, BS EN
12790 is intended to cover nonbouncing products designed to be a safe
sleeping environment. BS EN 12790
contains the same general requirements
as BS EN 14036. Additional testing in
BS EN 12790 includes stability, static
strength, dynamic strength, slip
resistance, unintentional folding, and
restraints. ASTM F2167 contains more
stringent stability, static strength, and

A. History of ASTM F2167

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

V. Voluntary Standard—ASTM F2167
A voluntary standard for infant
bouncer seats was first approved in
December 2001 and published in
January 2002, as ASTM F2167–01,
Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Infant Bouncer Seats.
Since then, ASTM has revised the
standard nine times. Tab C of the Staff
NPR Briefing Package includes a
description of each revision. The
current version, ASTM F2167–15, was
approved on May 1, 2015, and
published in June 2015. ASTM F2167–
15 includes modified and new
performance and labeling requirements
developed by CPSC staff, in conjunction
with stakeholders on the ASTM
subcommittee task group, to address the
hazards associated with bouncer seats.
A description of the current voluntary
standard for bouncer seats follows.
B. Description of the Current Voluntary
Standard—ASTM F2167–15
ASTM F2167–15 includes the
following key provisions: Scope,
terminology, general requirements,
performance requirements, test
methods, marking and labeling, and
instructional literature.
Scope. Section 1 of ASTM F2167–15
states the scope of the standard,
detailing what constitutes an ‘‘infant
bouncer seat.’’ As stated in section II.A
of this preamble, the Scope section
defines an ‘‘infant bouncer seat’’ as ‘‘a
freestanding product intended to
support an occupant in a reclined
position to facilitate bouncing by the
occupant, with the aid of a caregiver or
by other means.’’ ASTM F2167–15
states that infant bouncer seats are
intended for ‘‘infants who have not
developed the ability to sit up
unassisted (approximately 0 to 6 months
of age).’’
Terminology. Section 3 of ASTM
F2167–15 provides definitions of terms
specific to this standard. For example,
section 3.1.1 of the ASTM standard
defines ‘‘conspicuous’’ to mean a ‘‘label

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

that is visible, when the infant bouncer
seat is in a manufacturer’s
recommended use position, to a person
sitting near the infant bouncer seat at
any one position around the infant
bouncer seat but is not necessarily
visible from all positions.’’
General Requirements. Section 5 of
ASTM F2167–15 addresses numerous
hazards with several general
requirements, most of which are also
found in the other ASTM juvenile
product standards. Several requirements
reference an existing CPSC standard.
The following general requirements
apply to bouncer seats. Where the
ASTM standard relies on a CPSC
mandatory standard, the mandatory
standard is cited in parentheses next to
the requirement:
• Hazardous sharp points and edges
(16 CFR 1500.48 and 1500.49);
• Small parts (16 CFR 1501);
• Lead in paint (16 CFR 1303);
• Banned articles (16 CFR
1500.18(a)(6) and 1500.86(a)(4));
• Wood parts;
• Latching and locking mechanisms;
• Scissoring, shearing, and pinching;
• Openings;
• Exposed coil springs;
• Protective components;
• Permanency of labels and warnings;
and
• Toys (ASTM F963).
Performance Requirements and Test
Methods. Sections 6 and 7 of ASTM
F2167–15 contain performance
requirements specific to bouncer seats,
as well as test methods that must be
used to assess conformity with such
requirements. Below is a discussion of
each performance requirement and the
related test method.
• Restraints. ASTM F2167–15
requires that restraints be provided with
a bouncer seat that are capable of
securing a child when the bouncer is
placed in any use position
recommended by the manufacturer.
ASTM F 2167–15 requires both a waist
and a crotch restraint, and the restraint
must be designed in such a way that the
crotch restraint must be used when the
waist restraint is in use. The standard
specifies that the restraint’s anchorages
shall not separate from the attachment
points to the bouncer when tested.
Testing to this requirement is performed
by securing the bouncer seat and
applying a 45lb (200N) force for a period
of 10 seconds to a single attachment
point of the restraint in the normal use
direction. Although no provisions in the
performance requirements address the
actual use of the restraint, ASTM
F2167–15 contains a warning label
requirement regarding proper use of the
restraint.

E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM

19OCP1

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules
• Stability. ASTM F2167–15 includes
a test for bouncer stability in each
direction, forward, sideward, and
rearward. In the forward stability test,
an infant CAMI dummy is placed in the
infant bouncer and the restraints are
adjusted to fit in accordance with the
manufacturer’s instructions. The
dummy is then removed and the
stability test fixture is placed in the seat.
A vertical static force of 21lb (93N) or
three times the manufacturer’s
recommended weight, whichever is
greater, is applied for 60 seconds to the
fixture at a distance of 6in (152.4mm) in
front of the crotch post. To pass the test,
the bouncer must not tip over or the
front edge must not touch the test
surface.
Repeatable stability testing in the
sideward and rearward directions is
more difficult to accomplish based on a
bouncer’s potential shifts in the center
of gravity. Because of these potential
shifts, sideward and rearward testing for
bouncers is done differently than in the
forward direction. The current sideward
and rearward stability tests are
performed with the infant CAMI
dummy placed in the seat and the
bouncer placed on a 20-degree incline
in the most unstable orientation other
than forward. To pass the test, the
bouncer must not tip over in this
position.
• Slip Resistance. The slip resistance
test is designed to keep bouncers from
traveling across a surface while being
used by a child. Bouncers placed on
smooth, hard surfaces, such as a kitchen
counter, are less likely to creep along
the surface while a child is in the seat,
if the product is designed to meet the
slip resistance requirement. The slip
resistance requirement in ASTM F2167–
15 includes both static and dynamic
components. The static slip resistance
test is performed on a smooth laminate
surface with a matte finish and a 10degree incline. A 7.5lb (3.4kg) CAMI
dummy is placed in the bouncer with
the front of the bouncer facing down the
incline. The bouncer must not move
down the incline more than 1/8 in.
(3mm) in 1 minute. The test is repeated
with the bouncer seat oriented with the
left, right, and rear sides pointed down
the incline.
In the dynamic slip resistance test, a
test fixture is placed in the bouncer seat
with a 7.5lb (93.4kg) weight, and the
bouncer is placed on the 10-degree
inclined surface. Additionally, if the
bouncer has a feature, such as a
vibration unit, the unit is to be turned
on during the test. An additional 2.5lb
(1.13kg) weight is dropped onto the test
fixture from a height of 6 in. (152.4mm)
a total of 10 times. To pass, the bouncer

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

seat is not allowed to move more than
1/2in (13mm) during the test. This test
is repeated with the bouncer in the
remaining sideways and rear
orientations.
• Structural Integrity and
Disassembly/Collapse. ASTM F2167–15
requires that bouncer seats pass a series
of three tests to evaluate structural
integrity: (1) A static load test; (2) a
dynamic load test; and (3) a
disassembly/collapse test.
To pass the first two tests, at the
conclusion of the tests, the bouncer seat
shall have no failure of seams, breakage
of materials, or changes of adjustments
that could cause the product not to fully
support the child or that creates a
hazardous condition outlined in the
general requirements of the standard.
The static load test requires that a 6″ ×
6″ × 3/4″ (152.4 × 152.4 × 1.91mm) wood
block be placed in the bouncer seat and
loaded with the greater of 60lb (27.3kg),
or 3 times the manufacturer’s
recommended maximum weight,
whichever is greater. The test is
intended to ensure that the bouncer
design is sufficient to hold the weight of
any child that is likely to use the
product.
The dynamic load test requires that a
6″ (152.4mm) weld cap be dropped from
a distance of 1″ (25mm) with the convex
surface face down onto the bouncer seat.
Extra weight is added to the weld cap
to provide a total weight of 33lb (15kg).
The drop for the dynamic load test is
repeated a total of 100 times. This test
simulates the child being placed in the
seat and removed, as well as the forces
applied to the bouncer while the child
is in the seat. This test provides a
reasonable factor of safety to ensure that
the bouncer seat does not fail when
used in accordance with the
manufacturer’s recommendations.
The disassembly/collapse test
simulates lifting the bouncer by the
ends with a child seated in the product
to see whether the bouncer collapses or
folds up into a position that might result
in injury. To conduct the test, a
newborn CAMI dummy is placed in the
bouncer seat and a 15lb (67N) force is
applied to the bouncer at the location
most likely to cause disassembly. In
situations where multiple locations are
present that could result in disassembly,
the test is repeated for each location. If
a hazardous condition results from the
test, the bouncer fails the requirement.
A hazardous condition is anything that
would result in the bouncer not meeting
the general requirements, or any visual
indications of disassembly or collapse of
the bouncer.
• Drop Test. The drop test is intended
to evaluate the durability of bouncer

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

63173

seats in instances of misuse, and to
assess compliance with the general
safety requirements, such as small parts,
sharp points, and sharp edges. The drop
test applies dynamic forces to the
bouncer in directions not associated
with normal use by a child. The bouncer
must be dropped from a height of 36″
(914.4mm), once in each of six different
planes (top, bottom, front, rear, left side,
and right side). If the bouncer is of a
folding design, the six drops must be
done in both the folded and unfolded
configurations (for a total of 12 drops).
At the end of the test, the bouncer must
meet the general requirements outlined
in Section 5.0 of the standard.
• Toy Bar Attachment Integrity.
ASTM F2167–15 includes general
performance requirements to test toy
bars on bouncer seats. A static test is
performed with a 6″x6″x3/4″
(152.4x152.4x1.91mm) wood block
placed in the bouncer seat and loaded
with the greater of 40lb (18.2kg) or two
times the manufacturer’s recommended
maximum weight. The bouncer is then
gradually lifted. In the dynamic test, an
infant CAMI is placed in the seat and a
cable is attached to the center grasping
point of the handle. The bouncer is
raised and allowed to drop 2″ (5.1cm).
The toy bar must completely release
from the bouncer or move less than 2″
(5.1cm) from the resting position if the
bar has a single attachment point.
Additionally, individual toys included
with the bouncer are required to meet
the general requirements in the
standard.
• Battery Compartments. ASTM
recently added battery and containment
requirements to F2167. The new
requirements include permanently
marking the correct battery polarity
adjacent to the battery compartment,
providing a means to contain the
electrolytic material in the event of
battery leakage, protection against the
possibility of charging non-rechargeable
batteries, and defining a maximum
surface temperature for any accessible
component. The battery polarity
requirement requires a visual inspection
of the battery compartment. Surface
temperature and charging protection are
accomplished through the performance
of an operational test. The bouncer is
operated using new batteries of the type
recommended by the manufacturer.
Testing is performed by operating the
bouncer at the highest setting for 60
minutes. Upon conclusion, no battery
leakage, explosion, or fire can occur,
and no accessible component shall
exceed 160 °F degrees (71°C). The
performance requirement includes a
provision for testing using a/c power;
but staff is unaware of bouncers

E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM

19OCP1

63174

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

incident data associated with bouncer
seats. However, CPSC finds that the
warning label requirements in ASTM
F2167–15 can be improved to address
infant falls from bouncers placed on an
elevated surface. At this time, such falls
cannot be addressed by a performance
requirement for bouncer seats.
Addressing incidents when infants fall
from bouncer seats, as well as incidents
when infants fall while remaining in the
seat, will require a change in caregiver
behavior. Accordingly, CPSC is
proposing to strengthen the
requirements for the warning label to
increase compliance by caregivers and
reduce the risk of injury to infants. Tab
D, Staff NPR Briefing Package.
The following section discusses how
each of the product-related hazard
patterns identified in section III.C of this
preamble is addressed by the current
voluntary standard, ASTM F2167–15.
Where CPSC is proposing additional
requirements, the rationale for these
changes is also explained.
A. Product Design—CPSC staff
evaluated the current requirements in
ASTM F2167 and tested bouncer
samples to the tests for product design.
The performance requirements to test
for hazards related to product design are
the same as those used to test for
structural integrity. Additionally, the
drop test and the general requirements
in Section 5.0 are used to address this
hazard pattern. CPSC staff found that
each type of failure identified in the
incidents is addressed in the standard
with performance requirements and
associated tests. CPSC staff opined that
many of the incidents may be the result
of manufacturing, shipping, or
consumer assembly-related issues.
Accordingly, at this time, the
Commission does not believe that
adding or strengthening requirements is
likely to reduce the occurrence of these
incidents, and the current performance
requirements are adequate to address
this hazard pattern.
B. Structural Integrity—As reviewed
in section V.B of this preamble, ASTM
F2167–15 subjects infant bouncers to a
series of three tests to evaluate
structural integrity including: (1) A
static load test; (2) a dynamic load test;
and (3) a disassembly/collapse test.
After reviewing the available incident
information, CPSC staff concluded that
it is likely that many of the incidents
included in the structural integrity
category are the result of product
misassembly, and may not be the result
of product design. CPSC staff opined
that the three structural tests subject
infant bouncers to the reasonable forces
that could be applied during the normal
life of the product and adequately test

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

the structural strength of a bouncer.
Based on staff’s assessment, the
Commission is not proposing to add
more stringent performance
requirements at this time.
C. Toy Bar-Related—Based on staff’s
assessment of the standard, the toy bar
requirements in ASTM F 2167–15 are
adequate to address the identified
hazards. Staff evaluated many bouncers
that included a bar designed with small
toys attached that hang over the body of
a child seated in the bouncer. Individual
toys included with the bouncer are
required to meet the general
requirements in the standard, including
ASTM F 963. Additionally, the toy bar
is required to meet the toy bar integrity
test requirement. The toy bar integrity
requirement uses two different tests, a
static integrity test and a dynamic
integrity test, to address incidents in
which the toy bars are used as handles.
CPSC is unaware of any injuries
involving toy bars releasing when being
used as a handle that have occurred
since 2012, when the toy bar integrity
tests were added to ASTM F2167.
Although many of the recent toy bar
incident reports describe consumer
complaints about the toy bar releasing
or bending, CPSC does not consider
these reports to be safety related,
because the toy bars are specifically
designed to perform in a manner that
does not allow a consumer to use the
toy bar as a handle, and no reported
injuries resulted from these incidents.
D. Stability—ASTM F2167–15
adequately addresses stability-related
incidents. CPSC staff worked with the
ASTM subcommittee on bouncers to
modify and enhance all the stability
performance requirements. Beginning
with ASTM F2167–14, the rear and side
stability tests were strengthened by
ASTM when the angle of incline was
from 12 to 20 degrees. Additional
changes in ASTM F2167–15 include a
longer distance between the crotch post
of the test fixture and the application of
force for the forward stability test.
Changes to the stability requirements
will require the design of increasingly
stable bouncer designs similar to ones
currently available. CPSC believes that
these additional requirements will
reduce the likelihood of bouncer tip
overs and associated injuries.
E. Chemical/Electrical Hazards—To
address reported chemical and electrical
incidents, ASTM recently added battery
and containment requirements to the
2015 version of ASTM F2167. These
additional requirements were developed
with support from CPSC staff and based
on the incidents reported to CPSC. New
requirements include permanently
marking the correct battery polarity

E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM

19OCP1

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules
adjacent to the battery compartment,
providing a means to contain the
electrolytic material in the event of
battery leakage, protection against the
possibility of charging non-rechargeable
batteries, and defining a maximum
surface temperature for any accessible
component. Based on CPSC staff’s
assessment, CPSC believes that the new
battery requirements adequately address
reported electrical incidents by reducing
the likelihood of overheating and
battery leakage incidents.
F. Restraints—ASTM F2167–15
adequately addresses mechanical
incidents involving restraints. ASTM
F2167–15 requires that restraints be
provided with a bouncer seat. Restraints
must be capable of securing a child
when the bouncer is placed in any use
position recommended by the
manufacturer. ASTM F 2167 requires
both a waist and a crotch restraint, and
the restraint must be designed in such
a way that the crotch restraint must be
used when the waist restraint is in use.
Additionally, on-product warning
information regarding use of restraints is
required. See Tab D, Staff NPR Briefing
Package. As described below in section
VI.G.1, CPSC is proposing additional
language for the product warning label
to address incidents involving children
who fell from bouncers when placed,
unrestrained, to sleep.
G. Hazardous Placement—Hazardous
placement of bouncer seats occurs when
caregivers place bouncers in a
hazardous environment, resulting in
suffocation or head injuries. Factors that
contribute most to these hazards include
the presence of excess bedding in or
under the bouncer; placement of the
bouncer on a soft surface, such as an
adult bed; placement of the bouncer in
a crib; the infant being placed in the
bouncer to sleep unrestrained, which
allows the infant unsupervised time and
movement within the hazardous
environment; and carrying or placing
the bouncer at an elevated height.
ASTM F2167 addresses hazardous
placement of bouncer seats with tests
for stability and slip resistance,
designed to keep bouncers from
traveling across a surface while being
used by a child. These performance
requirements may help reduce the risk
of injury in hazardous placement.
Although the standard includes
performance testing for better stability
and slip resistance, addressing
hazardous placement incidents with
performance requirements is difficult
because the hazard scenario involves
consumer behavior, a foreseeable
misuse of the bouncer seat, which
should be used only on the floor.
Accordingly, CPSC is proposing

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

modifications to the text, placement,
and formatting of warnings
requirements and instructional
literature requirements of ASTM F2167–
15 to help further reduce injuries related
to this hazard pattern. A detailed
description of staff’s assessment,
rationale, and citations to the relevant
literature for the recommended changes
appear in Tab D of the Staff’s NPR
Briefing Package.
1. Modifications to the Warning Label
Content
The Commission proposes to add two
components to the warning statements
for bouncer seats that are absent in
ASTM F2167–15: (1) The phrase ‘‘even
if baby is sleeping’’ to the warning to
use restraints; and (2) developmental
guidance on when to stop using the
product to help avoid suffocation and
fall risks. In general, guidelines for
warning statements agree that warnings
should identify the hazards, the
consequences, and the means to avoid
them (e.g., Madden, 2006; Singer,
Balliro, & Lerner, 2003, October). The
content of the proposed modified
warnings meets these requirements by
calling attention to each of the behaviors
that are related to the specific hazards
identified, and advising caregivers how
to avoid those hazards.
(a) Use of Restraints
‘‘Always use restraints’’ is a part of
the warnings and instructions in the
current version of ASTM F2167, and has
been so over many editions of the
standard. Based on the incident data
relating deaths to suffocation among
unrestrained infants while they slept,
and serious head injuries to
unrestrained infants in falls from
bouncer seats that are placed on
elevated surfaces and falls from bouncer
seats that are being carried, CPSC
believes that the current requirement is
inadequate to address the risk of injury
to infants from falls out of bouncer
seats, or the risk of suffocation among
unrestrained infants who are sleeping.
The Commission’s proposed warning
language includes the statement,
‘‘Adjust to fit snugly, even if baby is
sleeping.’’ ASTM F2167–15 lacks the
phrase that addresses sleeping. CPSC
staff reports that while working with
ASTM, some ASTM members expressed
the opinion that ‘‘Always use restraints’’
is adequate because it allows for no
exceptions to the use of restraints, and
contended that the staff’s recommended
language communicates that the product
is intended for use as a place for the
child to sleep, and may encourage such
use. One member was concerned that
including language regarding sleep may

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

63175

suggest that manufacturers should bring
bouncers into compliance with
requirements for products that are
designed for sleep.
Although the Commission
understands the marketing concerns of
some manufacturers, the proposed rule
addresses how caregivers use bouncer
seats, the sleeping activity of infants
that are intended to use the product,
and the deaths and injuries reflected in
the data when caregivers fail to use
restraints. Accordingly, to address
caregiver behavior, it is essential to
include language that conveys the
hazard associated with allowing a child
to sleep in a bouncer seat while
unrestrained. The Commission’s
concern is that young infants, such as
those intended to use bouncer seats,
spend more time asleep than awake.7
Infants that spend more than brief
periods in a bouncer seat will fall asleep
on occasion (and caregivers will place
infants to sleep for the night in bouncer
seats under some circumstances), just as
infants fall asleep in strollers, swings,
and car-seat carriers. It may be
counterintuitive, and therefore unlikely
to occur to consumers, that products
made for infants’ use, especially those
that have features intended to soothe
and comfort them, would be unsafe
places for infants to sleep. In fact,
despite claims that bouncer seats are not
intended for children to sleep in, CPSC
staff found that some manufacturers’
marketing suggests that bouncers are
intended for sleep as well as play.
Caregivers may remove or loosen
restraints while a child is sleeping in a
bouncer seat. Removing or loosening
product restraints while a child naps or
sleeps is a known hazard pattern across
infant products that use restraints. It is
foreseeable that some caregivers will
perceive the restraints as uncomfortable
and unnecessary (Lerner, Huey, &
Kotwal; 2001), particularly for younger
users, who may be seen as not yet
mobile enough to be at risk of falling out
of the bouncer, and even less at risk of
falling if the infant is asleep. CPSC’s
proposed warning statement addresses
the fact that a child will sleep in the
bouncer, and addresses caregivers’
known inclination to loosen or remove
the restraints by specifying that they
should do the opposite to avoid the risk
of injury or death from the child falling
from the bouncer seat or turning in the
seat.
7 For example, see the American Academy of
Pediatrics Web site, http://
www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/baby/
sleep/Pages/default.aspx.

E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM

19OCP1

63176

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

(b) Developmental Guidance
The second modification to ASTM
F2167–15 in CPSC’s proposed warning
content is in the developmental
guidance given in the suffocation
warning and in the product instructions.
The warning in the current ASTM
standard includes the developmental
statement: ‘‘never use for a child able to
sit up unassisted,’’ a milestone which,
on average, a child will accomplish at
about 6 months of age. Some packaging
and instructions that CPSC staff
reviewed also stated that the product is
for use from birth until the child is able
to sit up unassisted, and use a weight
limit (25 lb) that reflects a 50th
percentile 18-month-old. The
Commission is concerned that this
combination of guidance leads
caregivers to use the product beyond the
point that it is safe. Before infants can
sit steadily by themselves, they lack
upper body and torso control, but
actively try to sit, turn, and reach for
objects. Infants in bouncer seats are
supported in an inclined position with
their upper body unconstrained. The
infant’s actions may cause them to hang
over the side or front, fall out or tip over
the bouncer, or turn into the surface of
the seat where the flexible, conforming
design of the seat can compromise the
external airways.
CPSC proposes that the bouncer seat
warning label and product instructions
advise caregivers to stop using the
product when children start trying to sit
up. On average, children reach this
milestone at 4.8 months.8 CPSC staff
recommended this milestone based on
the data indicating that most witnessed
instances in which the child’s activities
reportedly preceded tip-overs or
resulted in the child hanging out of the
bouncer involved children 5 months of
age or younger.
2. Modifications to Warning Label
Placement
Language in ASTM F2167–15 requires
the fall hazard warning to appear
anywhere on the front surface of the
product’s seat back. To address hazards,
warning labels must be conspicuous,
formatted to help attract and maintain
attention, and include appropriate
instructional content. Accordingly,
CPSC proposes that the fall hazard
warning label be required to be on the
front of the product near the infant’s
head to increase the likelihood that
caregivers will notice it, and comply
with its recommendations, at decision
points affecting the child’s safety. This
8 Range,

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

location near the infant’s head was
adopted for warnings on hand-held
infant carriers in 16 CFR part 1225,
Safety Standard for Hand-Held Infant
Carriers (‘‘HHIC’’; FR 78, No. 235;
73415, December 6, 2013) and the
National Highway Transportation
Administration’s (‘‘NHTSA’’) car seat
standard, 49 CFR 571.213 Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (‘‘FMVSS’’) No,
213.
CPSC’s research indicates that
placement of the warning label near the
child’s face on the bouncer seat is
essential in the effort to influence
caregivers’ behavior. Research indicates
that the location of a warning label
plays a vital role in its salience, a
crucial factor in effectiveness (cf. topic
reviews by Lesch, 2006; Silver & Braun,
1999). ASTM F2167–15 requires only
that the label be visible on the front
surface of the seat back with the
Newborn CAMI manikin placed in the
seat. The Commission is concerned that,
because of its artificial and static nature,
the test procedure in ASTM F2167–15
for visibility of the fall hazard warning
label is unlikely to replicate visibility of
the label under normal conditions of
product use. In addition to allowing
considerable variability in the
conspicuity of the label location, a basic
flaw in this method is the assumption
that what is visible under static test
conditions will be visible during routine
use. A label below the shoulder level or
along the torso down to the seat bight
may be covered by parts of the child’s
body or clothing, and the area may be
covered by a blanket, including an
accessory cover that comes with at least
one product.
Because a label must be seen to have
an effect, visibility is a prerequisite to
effectiveness. Visibility, in itself,
however, is an insufficient requirement.
Given the number, type, and severity of
the incidents that prompted the
revisions to the warnings, the
appropriate criterion is that the label be
likely to draw the caregiver’s attention
at any decision point that may affect
safe use. As with the required labeling
for hand-held infant carriers, the
warning label should be near the child’s
face because that is where the
caregiver’s attention is most likely to be
focused. This is the most conspicuous
location on the product and offers the
best opportunity to influence the
caregiver’s behavior.
During the ASTM process, when
CPSC staff suggested locating the fall
hazard warning next to the infants’
head, ASTM subcommittee members
expressed concerns that (1) common
label materials present potential
abrasion and cut hazards if adjacent to

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

an infant’s face; (2) the location is
design-restrictive for smaller models
because of the size of the label; and (3)
due to space restrictions, the location is
challenging for those firms that use
labels in multiple languages.
Based on staff’s review of bouncer
seats and the identified issues, the
Commission believes these issues can be
resolved. As noted above, CPSC’s
proposed location for the fall hazard
warning is the same as that recently
adopted for warnings on infant car seats
that are also hand-held carriers. NHTSA
adopted this location for its air bag
warning in these products in the late
1990’s, based on its own research. CPSC
staff examined car seats and found that
both heat transfer and sewn-on labels,
the latter of which was identified by
industry as a concern, are used on car
seats. CPSC’s project manager for the
hand-held carrier standard reported that
neither injuries nor space requirements
due to the need to produce labels in
multiple languages were raised as
concerns for hand-held carriers. Firms
that produce infant car seat carriers
have managed these issues successfully.
CPSC staff contacted NHTSA staff
responsible for routine data review, who
confirmed that there have been no
complaints of injury of any type
resulting from car seat labels near a
child’s face. Finally, CPSC’s proposed
label is approximately 2.25 inches long
and 2.0 inches wide. Review of handheld infant carriers that are also infant
car seats, which require a larger 9 label
for both the CPSC mandated
strangulation warning and the NHTSAmandated air bag warning, suggests that
there is at least as much space, and
perhaps more, on many infant bouncer
models, as on car seat carriers.
Although no voluntary or mandatory
requirement exists for multiple
languages on products sold in the U.S.,
given the relatively small size of the
proposed warning label, multiple
options appear available to firms for
placement of the fall hazard warning in
multiples languages. For example, the
warning label could appear in a
different language on either side of the
child’s head, as suggested by the
Canadian representative to the task
group; different labels could be made for
different markets; or the label length
could be extended to accommodate
additional languages, as some firms
have done with infant car seat labels.
9 The message panel of the air bag warning alone
must be no smaller than 30 cm2 (11 in.2); the
pictogram must be at least 30 mm in diameter (1.18
in.).

E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM

19OCP1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules

VII. Proposed CPSC Standard for
Bouncer Seats
The Commission concludes that
ASTM F2167–15 adequately addresses
most of the hazards associated with
bouncer seats, but proposes to modify
the warning label requirements to
increase effectiveness aimed at changing
caregiver behavior to further reduce the
risk of injury to infants from falls. Thus,
the Commission proposes to incorporate
by reference ASTM F2167–15 with the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

following modifications to the warning
label requirements:
• Revise the content of the warnings,
markings, and instructions to:
• Add text to the warnings that states
to use the restraints ‘‘. . . even if baby
is sleeping . . .’’;
• change the text in the warnings to
read, ‘‘stop using when baby starts
trying to sit up’’; and
• change the developmental guidance
in the instructions, if stated, to read,
‘‘from birth (or ‘‘0’’) until baby starts
trying to sit up.’’
• Require that the fall hazard label be
located on the front surface of the
bouncer adjacent to the area where the
child’s head would rest, and modify the
current visibility test to reflect this
requirement.
• Specify a standard format
(including black text on a white
background, table design, bullet points,
and black border) for the warnings on
the product and in the instructions.
VIII. Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112
To Include NOR for Bouncer Seat
Standard
The CPSA establishes certain
requirements for product certification
and testing. Products subject to a
consumer product safety rule under the
CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard
or regulation under any other act
enforced by the Commission, must be
certified as complying with all
applicable CPSC-enforced requirements.
15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Certification of
children’s products subject to a
children’s product safety rule must be
based on testing conducted by a CPSCaccepted third party conformity
assessment body. Id. 2063(a)(2). The
Commission must publish an NOR for
the accreditation of third party
conformity assessment bodies to assess
conformity with a children’s product
safety rule to which a children’s product
is subject. Id. 2063(a)(3). Thus, the
proposed rule for 16 CFR part 1229,
Safety Standard for Infant Bouncer
Seats, if issued as a final rule, would be
a children’s product safety rule that
requires the issuance of an NOR.
The Commission published a final
rule, Requirements Pertaining to Third
Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78
FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), codified at
16 CFR part 1112 (‘‘part 1112’’) and
effective on June 10, 2013, which
establishes requirements for
accreditation of third party conformity
assessment bodies to test for conformity
with a children’s product safety rule in
accordance with section 14(a)(2) of the
CPSA. Part 1112 also codifies all of the
NORs issued previously by the
Commission.

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

All new NORs for new children’s
product safety rules, such as the infant
bouncer seat standard, require an
amendment to part 1112. To meet the
requirement that the Commission issue
an NOR for the proposed bouncer seat
standard, as part of this NPR, the
Commission proposes to amend the
existing rule that codifies the list of all
NORs issued by the Commission to add
bouncer seats to the list of children’s
product safety rules for which the CPSC
has issued an NOR.
Test laboratories applying for
acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third
party conformity assessment body to
test to the new standard for bouncer
seats would be required to meet the
third party conformity assessment body
accreditation requirements in part 1112.
When a laboratory meets the
requirements as a CPSC-accepted third
party conformity assessment body, the
laboratory can apply to the CPSC to
have 16 CFR part 1229, Safety Standard
for Infant Bouncer Seats, included in
the laboratory’s scope of accreditation of
CPSC safety rules listed for the
laboratory on the CPSC Web site at:
www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.
IX. Incorporation by Reference
Section 1229.2(a) of the proposed rule
would incorporate by reference ASTM
F2167–15. The Office of the Federal
Register (‘‘OFR’’) has regulations
concerning incorporation by reference. 1
CFR part 51. The regulations require
that, for a proposed rule, agencies
discuss in the preamble of the NPR
ways that the materials the agency
proposes to incorporate by reference are
reasonably available to interested
persons or how the agency worked to
make the materials reasonably available.
In addition, the preamble of the
proposed rule must summarize the
material. 1 CFR 51.5(a).
In accordance with the OFR’s
requirements, section V.B. of this
preamble summarizes the provisions of
ASTM F2167–15 that the Commission
proposes to incorporate by reference.
ASTM F2167–15 is copyrighted. By
permission of ASTM, the standard can
be viewed as a read-only document
during the comment period on this NPR,
at: http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm.
Interested persons may also purchase a
copy of ASTM F2167–15 from ASTM
International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive,
P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA
19428; http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm.
One may also inspect a copy at CPSC’s
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, Room 820,
4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD
20814, telephone 301–504–7923.

E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM

19OCP1

EP19OC15.002

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

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

63177

63178

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules

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

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

A. Introduction
The Commission is issuing a
proposed rule under the requirements of
section 104 of the Consumer Product
Safety Improvement Act (‘‘CPSIA’’) that
would incorporate by reference the most
recent ASTM standard for infant
bouncer seats, ASTM F2167–15, with
several modifications to the
requirements for product warnings and
instructional literature. In this section,
we summarize staff’s evaluation of the
potential economic impact of the
proposed rule on infant bouncer seats
on small entities, including small
businesses, as required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (‘‘RFA’’).
Section 603 of the RFA requires that
agencies prepare an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) and make it
available to the public for comment
when the general notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’) is published,
unless the head of the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The IRFA
must describe the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities and
identify any alternatives that may
reduce the impact. See Tab F, Staff NPR
Briefing Package.
B. The Product
An infant bouncer seat is defined in
ASTM F2167–15, Standard Consumer
Safety Specification for Infant Bouncer
Seats, as ‘‘a freestanding product
intended to support an occupant in a
reclined position to facilitate bouncing
by the occupant, with the aid of a
caregiver or by other means.’’ It is

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

intended for ‘‘infants who have not
developed the ability to sit up
unassisted (approximately 0 to 6 months
of age).’’ These products vary widely in
price; they can be purchased for as little
as $20, but can also easily cost more
than $200.
C. The Market for Infant Bouncer Seats
Staff identified 22 firms (including
large and small) supplying infant
bouncer seats to the U.S. market,
although there may be additional firms
as well. These firms specialize primarily
in the manufacture and/or distribution
of children’s products, including
durable nursery products. The majority
of the 22 known firms are domestic
(including 8 manufacturers and 10
importers). The remaining four firms are
foreign manufacturers.10 Staff expects
that the infant bouncer seats of 17 of
these firms are already compliant with
ASTM F2167 because the firms either:
(1) Have their bouncers certified by the
Juvenile Products Manufacturers
Association (‘‘JPMA’’) (six firms); (2)
claim compliance with the voluntary
standard (ten firms); or (3) have been
tested to the ASTM standard by CPSC
staff (one firm).11
D. Reason for Agency Action and Legal
Basis for the Proposed Rule
Section 104 of the CPSIA requires the
CPSC to promulgate a mandatory
standard for infant bouncer seats that is
substantially the same as, or more
stringent than, the voluntary standard if
the Commission determines that a more
stringent standard would further reduce
the risk of injury associated with such
products.
CPSC staff worked closely with ASTM
to develop the revised requirements, test
procedures, and warning labels that
have been incorporated into ASTM
F2167 since the rulemaking process
started in January 2013 in an effort to
reduce this risk. However, not all of
staff’s warning label recommendations
were adopted into the most recent
version of the voluntary standard,
ASTM F2167–15. Therefore, the
Commission proposes to incorporate by
10 Determinations were made using information
from Dun & Bradstreet and ReferenceUSAGov, as
well as firm Web sites.
11 JPMA typically allows 6 months for products
in their certification program to shift to a new
standard once it is published. The version of the
standard that firms are likely testing to currently is
ASTM F2167–14. Two newer versions of the
standard have been published since then, but
neither will become effective for JPMA certification
purposes before September 2015. Additionally,
many infant bouncer seats are expected to be
compliant with ASTM F2167–14a without
modification, and firms compliant with earlier
versions of the standard are likely to remain
compliant as the standard evolves.

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

reference ASTM F2167–15, with the
remaining modifications staff
recommended to ASTM.
E. Requirements of the Proposed Rule
The Commission proposes adopting
the voluntary ASTM standard for infant
bouncer seats (ASTM F2167–15) with
additional changes to the warning labels
(in particular, the location of the fall
hazard warning label) and a test to
ensure the visibility of those labels on
the product. A description of the current
voluntary standard appears in section V
of this preamble, and a description of
the proposed modifications to the
warning requirements appears in
section VII of this preamble.
All firms would need to modify the
text of their warnings for both the
product and the instruction manual.
The fall hazard warning would need to
be re-located next to the child’s head 12
and be visible when accessories are in
use (such as a toy bar or an infant insert
used for supporting a smaller child’s
upper body).
Staff discussed these changes with
several ASTM members and supplier
representatives. The possible economic
impact of these changes on small
business is discussed in Tab F of Staff’s
NPR Briefing Package and in section
XI.G of this preamble.
F. Other Federal or State Rules
No federal rules duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed rule.
G. Impact on Small Businesses
CPSC is aware of approximately 22
firms (large and small) currently
marketing infant bouncer seats in the
United States, 18 of which are domestic.
Under U.S. Small Business
Administration (‘‘SBA’’) guidelines, a
manufacturer of infant bouncer seats is
categorized as small if it has 500 or
fewer employees, and importers and
wholesalers are considered small if they
have 100 or fewer employees. Our
analysis is limited to domestic firms
because SBA guidelines and definitions
pertain to U.S.-based entities. Based on
these guidelines, about 12 of the 22
firms are small—five domestic
manufacturers and seven domestic
importers. Additional unknown small
domestic infant bouncer seats suppliers
may be operating in the U.S. market.
1. Small Manufacturers
The economic impact of the proposed
bouncer standard should be small for
the five small domestic manufacturers,
apart from third party testing costs. The
12 The warning was only recently moved to the
front of the bouncer (ASTM F2167–15).

E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM

19OCP1

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules
bouncers of all of these firms already
comply with the ASTM voluntary
standard currently in effect for testing
purposes (F2167–14). These firms are
expected to remain compliant with the
voluntary standard as it evolves,
because they follow and, in at least
three cases, actively participate in the
standard development process.
Therefore, compliance with the
voluntary standard is part of an
established business practice. ASTM
F2167–15, the version the Commission
proposes to incorporate, will be in effect
by the time the mandatory standard
becomes final and these firms are likely
to be in compliance based on their
history.
None of the small manufacturers
typically includes more than four
languages in their warnings (two firms
use two languages; two firms use three
languages; and one firm uses four
languages). Based upon inspection of
their products and the space available
for the warnings, redesign should not be
required for any of the bouncers
supplied by the known small
manufacturers. The firm using four
languages might opt to redesign to give
their product(s) a less cluttered
appearance. However, discussions with
a firm representative contacted by staff
indicated that the firm was not
concerned about the location of the
warning labels.
Under section 14 of the CPSA, once
the new infant bouncer seat
requirements become effective, all
manufacturers will be subject to the
third party testing and certification
requirements of the CPSA and the
Commission’s rule Testing and Labeling
Pertaining to Product Certification at 16
CFR part 1107 (‘‘the 1107 rule’’). Third
party testing will include any physical
and mechanical test requirements
specified in the final infant bouncer
seats rule. Manufacturers and importers
should already be conducting required
lead testing for bouncers. Third party
testing costs are in addition to the direct
costs of meeting the infant bouncer seats
standard.
All infant bouncer seats sold by U.S.
manufacturers are currently tested to
verify compliance with the ASTM
standard, though not necessarily via
third party. Thus, the impact to testing
costs will be limited to the difference
between the cost of third party tests and
the cost of current testing regimes. As a
frame of reference, suppliers have
estimated that testing to the ASTM
voluntary standard typically costs about
$560–$800 per model sample. Based on
an examination of firm revenues from
recent Dun & Bradstreet or
ReferenceUSAGov reports, the impact of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

third party testing to ASTM F2167–15 is
unlikely to be economically significant
for most small manufacturers (i.e.,
testing costs will be less than 1 percent
of gross revenue). Although the
Commission does not know how many
samples will be needed to meet the
‘‘high degree of assurance’’ criterion
required in the 1107 rule, over 24 units
per model would be required to make
testing costs to exceed one percent of
gross revenue for the small
manufacturer with the lowest gross
revenue. One firm has a much larger
number of infant bouncer models than
the other small manufacturers, however,
and its testing costs could exceed 1
percent of gross revenue if as few as
seven units per model were required for
testing. Note that this calculation
assumes the rule would generate
additional testing costs in the $560–
$800 per model sample range. Given
that all firms are conducting some
testing already, this likely overestimates
the impact of the rule with respect to
testing costs. However, we do not know
specifically how much the third party
requirement adds to testing costs or
precisely how many models are needed
to meet the ‘‘high degree of assurance’’
criterion and cannot rule out a
significant economic impact. We
welcome comments regarding
incremental costs due to third party
testing (i.e., how much does moving
from a voluntary to a mandatory third
party testing regime add to testing costs,
in total and on a per test basis). In
addition, we seek comments regarding
the accuracy of assuming that a ‘‘high
degree of assurance’’ can be achieved
with fewer than seven samples.
2. Small Importers
a. Small Importers With Compliant
Infant Bouncer Seats
Five small importers of infant bouncer
seats are currently in compliance with
the voluntary standard and, based on
prior compliance with the voluntary
standard, would likely continue
compliance as new versions of the
voluntary standard are published. The
bouncers supplied by these firms
would, for the most part, only require
modifications to meet the warning label
changes.
The placement of the new warnings
could potentially require significant
changes to existing models of imported
bouncers. Imported bouncers tend to be
produced to broadly meet the current
requirements for several trading
partners simultaneously, including the
labeling requirements for multiple
countries. Producers for international
markets typically address labeling

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

63179

requirements for their various trading
partners by simply providing a warning
that covers all required safety issues in
multiple languages. However, the
proposed rule’s specificity regarding
warning label location could make
simple replication of the warning label
in multiple languages impractical due to
space constraints on the front surface of
the back of the bouncer. While only the
English-language warning would be
required for products sold in the United
States, this could mean that foreign
producers will need to design a product
for the U.S. market. One solution could
be as straightforward as reducing the
number of languages used for warnings
on U.S.-bound bouncer seats.
Regardless, having a differing product
for the U.S market could create
logistical problems or costs, which
could be passed on to importers.
We have no information regarding the
degree to which foreign producers tend
to pass on increases in regulatory costs
to importers and are seeking comment
on this topic. Because we lack
information on the costs to importers
associated with complying with the
proposed rule, we are unable to rule out
a significant impact for three of the five
importers of compliant bouncers. We
begin our discussion of potential
impacts by assuming, when possible,
firms would prefer to develop a U.S.specific product with fewer warning
labels rather than exit the bouncer
market or develop a bouncer with
sufficient room to accommodate
warnings in languages for both their
U.S. and foreign markets. Developing
such a bouncer would address the
requirements in the proposed rule,
while ensuring that the appearance of
their bouncers remains comparable to
their competition’s products (for which
one to three languages is typical). The
Commission requests feedback from the
public, particularly from small
importers, on the portion of regulatory
compliance costs typically borne by
importers, as well as information on the
costs of developing a compliant bouncer
for the U.S. market.
CPSC staff believes that one importer
would not likely experience a
significant economic impact based on
comparing redesign cost estimates
provided by suppliers (around $200,000
to $300,000) to its annual revenue, even
if its supplier passed on 100 percent of
the costs of redesign.
The Commission requests feedback on
the cost estimate for product redesign,
as well as how that cost level might
differ if the redesign focused exclusively
on warning label changes and the
logistical problems it might create.
Based upon examination of this firm’s

E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM

19OCP1

63180

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

revenues and the revenues associated
with the sale of bouncers, this firm also
could likely exit the market without
experiencing a significant economic
impact.
If product redesign costs $200,000
and the supplying firm only passed on
roughly 50 percent of the expected
redesign costs, then two of the
remaining four importers would not
likely experience significant economic
impact. The Commission requests input
on whether it is reasonable to assume,
in the absence of alternative
information, foreign suppliers will share
up to 50 percent of the costs of redesign,
as well as information supporting any
alternative estimates of the relative
portions of cost sharing that is typical
for an importer and its supplying firm.
If the supplying firm were unwilling or
unable to limit cost passed through,
then one of these firms could probably
exit the market without significant
economic impact as sales of bouncers
are likely to contribute less than one
percent to its overall revenue.
The fourth importer would likely only
avoid significant economic impact if
their supplier absorbed 100 percent of
the cost of a redesign. Dropping
bouncers from their product line could
be an option. However, it is likely that
the sales revenue generated by bouncer
sales exceeds one percent of their
overall revenue. This importer is an
exclusive distributor for their supplier’s
products in the U.S., so an alternative
supplier is not an option.
We request information on the
relationship between exclusive
distributors and their suppliers,
particularly as it pertains to willingness
to shoulder redevelopment costs to
maintain a U.S. market presence.
Neither annual revenue nor bouncer
sales revenue was available for the final
small importer of compliant bouncers;
therefore, no assessment of impact
could be made.
b. Small Importers With Noncompliant
Infant Bouncer Seats
Two firms import bouncers that do
not comply with the voluntary standard.
The bouncers for these firms will
require changes to come into
compliance with the voluntary standard
as well as modifications to meet the
proposed warning label requirements.
Similar to the case of importers of
compliant bouncers, the proposed
location of the warning labels on the
front of the bouncer adjacent to the head
could present a problem, because one
firm typically uses nine languages while
the other uses six. These importers may
need to tailor a product for the U.S,
which could be logistically difficult or

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

costly, especially for a small firm with
low sales volume.
The size of the economic impact on
the two firms with noncompliant infant
bouncer seats will depend upon the cost
of the changes required and the degree
to which their supplying firms pass on
any increases in production costs
associated with changes in the product
needed to meet the mandatory standard.
Again, we do not have any information
on the proportion of compliance costs
passed on and are seeking public
comment on this topic. It is possible
that these two importers could
discontinue the sale of infant bouncer
seats altogether, as the product does not
appear to represent a substantial portion
of either firms’ product lines. However,
one of the two firms would likely only
avoid a significant economic impact if
its supplier absorbed 100 percent of the
cost of a redesign and it seems likely
that its bouncer sales might exceed 1
percent of its annual sales revenue as
well. Again, we do not have specific
information on bouncer sales revenues,
and cannot rule out a significant
economic impact for either firm.
Both of the small importers with
noncompliant bouncers are directly tied
to their foreign suppliers and finding an
alternate supply source would not be a
viable alternative for these firms.
However, given this close relationship,
the foreign suppliers likely would have
an incentive to work with their U.S.
subsidiaries to maintain an American
market presence.
The Commission is interested in
information regarding the relationship
between foreign producers and their
U.S. subsidiaries and whether such
relationships decrease the likelihood
that the subsidiary experiences a
significant economic impact due to a
rule.
3. Third Party Testing Costs for Small
Importers
As with manufacturers, all importers
will be subject to third-party testing and
certification requirements, and
consequently, will be subject to costs
similar to those for manufacturers if
their supplying foreign firm(s) does not
perform third party testing. The majority
of bouncer importers are already testing
their products to verify compliance with
the ASTM standard, and any costs
would be limited to the incremental
costs associated with third party testing
over the current testing regime.
We were able to obtain revenue data
for one of the small importers with
noncompliant bouncers. For that
importer, third party testing costs,
considered alone and apart from any
additional performance requirements

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

due to the proposed rule, would not
exceed one percent of gross revenue
unless around 12 units per model
required testing to provide a ‘‘high
degree of assurance.’’ Although staff
believes that it is unlikely that any
importer would need to test more than
12 samples, we are seeking information
regarding the validity of that
assumption. We had no basis for
examining the size of the impact for the
remaining importer of noncompliant
bouncers.
It is important to note that our
analysis of the impact of the draft
proposed rule have evaluated the
impacts of complying with performance
requirements and third party testing
requirements independently. Firms will,
in fact, experience the costs jointly. It is
possible for testing costs, when
evaluated independently, to not create
significant economic impact (and vice
versa).
The Commission seeks information on
the extent to which performance
requirements and testing costs evaluated
jointly generate significant economic
impact even when each component
evaluated independently is not expected
to lead to significant impact.
H. Alternatives
Three alternatives are available to the
Commission that may minimize the
economic impact on small entities: (1)
Adopt ASTM F2167–15 with no
modifications; 13 (2) adopt ASTM
F2167–15 with the proposed
modifications, except for the warning
label location specificity; and (3) allow
a later effective date.
Section 104 of the CPSIA requires that
the Commission promulgate a standard
that is either substantially the same as
the voluntary standard or more
stringent. Therefore, adopting ASTM
F2167–15 with no modifications is the
least stringent rule allowed by law. This
alternative would reduce the impact on
all of the known small businesses
supplying infant bouncers to the U.S.
market because this alternative would
eliminate any economic impact related
directly to complying with the proposed
rule for all five of the known small
domestic manufacturers and the five
small importers with compliant infant
bouncers, all of whom are expected to
comply with ASTM F2167–15 by the
time the final rule becomes effective.
Firms with compliant products,
however, would continue to be affected
by third party testing requirements.
13 As discussed in the briefing memo, adopting
the voluntary standard with no modifications is an
option if the Commission determines that a more
stringent standard would not further reduce the risk
of injury associated with infant bouncers.

E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM

19OCP1

63181

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Alternatively, the Commission could
adopt a more stringent alternative that is
still less stringent than the proposed
rule by adopting ASTM F2167–15 with
the proposed modifications, except for
the requirement that the warning labels
on the product be located next to the
occupant’s head. With the exception of
impacts due to third party testing, this
would eliminate most of the impact on
small manufacturers (all of which sell
compliant bouncer seats), leaving them
with only minor costs associated with
changing the wording and format of
their warning labels. The impact on the
five small importers of compliant
bouncers would be similarly reduced.
Finally, the Commission could reduce
the proposed rule’s impact on small
businesses by setting a later effective
date. A later effective date would reduce
the economic impact on firms in two
ways. One, firms would be less likely to
experience a lapse in production/
importation, which could result if they
are unable to comply and third party
test within the required timeframe. Two,
firms could spread costs over a longer
time period, thereby reducing their
annual costs, as well as the present
value of their total costs. We request
comment on the 6-month effective date,
as well as feedback on how firms
(particularly small importers) would
likely address the proposed rule.
I. Small Business Impacts of the
Accreditation Requirements for Testing
Laboratories
In accordance with section 14 of the
CPSA, all children’s products that are
subject to a children’s product safety
rule must be tested by a CPSC-accepted
third party conformity assessment body
(i.e., testing laboratory) for compliance
with applicable children’s product
safety rules. Testing laboratories that
want to conduct this testing must meet
the NOR pertaining to third party
conformity testing. NORs have been
codified for existing rules at 16 CFR part
1112. Consequently, the Commission
proposes an amendment to 16 CFR part
1112 that would establish the NOR for
those testing laboratories that want to

test for compliance with the bouncers
final rule. This section assesses the
impact of the amendment on small
laboratories.
A Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) was conducted as
part of the promulgation of the original
1112 rule (78 FR 15836, 15855–58) as
required by the RFA. Briefly, the FRFA
concluded that the accreditation
requirements would not have a
significant adverse impact on a
substantial number of small laboratories
because no requirements were imposed
on laboratories that did not intend to
provide third party testing services. The
only laboratories that were expected to
provide such services were those that
anticipated receiving sufficient revenue
from the mandated testing to justify
accepting the requirements as a business
decision.
Based on similar reasoning, amending
the rule to include the NOR for the
bouncer seat standard will not have a
significant adverse impact on small
laboratories. Moreover, based upon the
number of laboratories in the U.S. that
have applied for CPSC acceptance of the
accreditation to test for conformance to
other juvenile product standards, we
expect that only a few laboratories will
seek CPSC acceptance of their
accreditation to test for conformance
with the infant bouncer seat standard.
Most of these laboratories will have
already been accredited to test for
conformance to other juvenile product
standards, and the only costs to them
would be the cost of adding the bouncer
seat standard to their scope of
accreditation, a cost that test
laboratories have indicated is extremely
low when they are already accredited
for other section 104 rules. As a
consequence, the Commission certifies
that the NOR for the infant bouncer seat
standard will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
XII. Environmental Considerations
The Commission’s regulations address
whether the agency is required to
prepare an environmental assessment or

an environmental impact statement.
Under these regulations, a rule that has
‘‘little or no potential for affecting the
human environment,’’ is categorically
exempt from this requirement. 16 CFR
1021.5(c)(1). The proposed rule falls
within the categorical exemption.
XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains
information collection requirements that
are subject to public comment and
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (‘‘OMB’’) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3521). In this document, pursuant to 44
U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth:
• A title for the collection of
information;
• a summary of the collection of
information;
• a brief description of the need for
the information and the proposed use of
the information;
• a description of the likely
respondents and proposed frequency of
response to the collection of
information;
• an estimate of the burden that shall
result from the collection of
information; and
• notice that comments may be
submitted to the OMB.
Title: Safety Standard for Infant
Bouncer Seats.
Description: The proposed rule would
require each infant bouncer seat to
comply with ASTM F2167–15,
Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Infant Bouncer Seats.
Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F2167–15
contain requirements for marking,
labeling, and instructional literature.
These requirements fall within the
definition of ‘‘collection of
information,’’ as defined in 44 U.S.C.
3502(3).
Description of Respondents: Persons
who manufacture or import bouncer
seats.
Estimated Burden: We estimate the
burden of this collection of information
as follows:

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN
16 CFR section

Number of
respondents

Frequency
of responses

Total
annual
responses

Hours per
response

Total burden
hours

1229.2(a) ..............................................................................

22

4

88

1

88

Our estimate is based on the
following:
Section 8.1.1 of ASTM F2167–15
requires that the name and the place of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

business (city, state, and mailing
address, including zip code) or
telephone number of the manufacturer,
distributor, or seller be marked clearly

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

and legibly on each product and its
retail package. Section 8.1.2 of ASTM
F2167–15 requires a code mark or other
means that identifies the date (month

E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM

19OCP1

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

63182

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules

and year, as a minimum) of
manufacture.
Twenty-two known entities supply
bouncer seats to the U.S. market may
need to make some modifications to
their existing labels. We estimate that
the time required to make these
modifications is about 1 hour per
model. Based on an evaluation of
supplier product lines, each entity
supplies an average of four models of
bouncer seats; 14 therefore, the estimated
burden associated with labels is 1 hour
per model × 22 entities × 4 models per
entity = 88 hours. We estimate the
hourly compensation for the time
required to create and update labels is
$30.19 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
‘‘Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation,’’ March 2015, Table 9,
total compensation for all sales and
office workers in goods-producing
private industries: http://www.bls.gov/
ncs/). Therefore, the estimated annual
cost to industry associated with the
labeling requirements is $2,656.72
($30.19 per hour × 88 hours =
$2,656.72). No operating, maintenance,
or capital costs are associated with the
collection.
Section 9.1 of ASTM F2167–15
requires instructions to be supplied
with the infant bouncer. Bouncer seats
are complicated products that generally
require use and assembly instructions.
Under the OMB’s regulations (5 CFR
1320.3(b)(2)), the time, effort, and
financial resources necessary to comply
with a collection of information that
would be incurred by persons in the
‘‘normal course of their activities’’ are
excluded from a burden estimate, where
an agency demonstrates that the
disclosure activities required to comply
are ‘‘usual and customary.’’ We are
unaware of bouncer seats that generally
require use instructions but lack such
instructions. Therefore, we tentatively
estimate that no burden hours are
associated with section 9.1 of ASTM
F2167–15, because any burden
associated with supplying instructions
with bouncer seats would be ‘‘usual and
customary’’ and not within the
definition of ‘‘burden’’ under the OMB’s
regulations.
Based on this analysis, the proposed
standard for bouncer seats would
impose a burden to industry of 88 hours
at a cost of $2,656.72 annually.
In compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we have submitted the
information collection requirements of
14 This number was derived during the market
research phase of the initial regulatory flexibility
analysis by dividing the total number of bouncer
seats supplied by all bouncer seat suppliers by the
total number of bouncer seat suppliers.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

this rule to the OMB for review.
Interested persons are requested to
submit comments regarding information
collection by November 18, 2015, to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB (see the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this notice).
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A),
we invite comments on:
• Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the CPSC’s functions,
including whether the information will
have practical utility;
• the accuracy of the CPSC’s estimate
of the burden of the proposed collection
of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
• ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected;
• ways to reduce the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of
information technology; and
• the estimated burden hours
associated with label modification,
including any alternative estimates.
XIV. Preemption
Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2075(a), provides that when a consumer
product safety standard is in effect and
applies to a product, no state or political
subdivision of a state may either
establish or continue in effect a
requirement dealing with the same risk
of injury unless the state requirement is
identical to the federal standard. Section
26(c) of the CPSA also provides that
states or political subdivisions of states
may apply to the Commission for an
exemption from this preemption under
certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of
the CPSIA refers to the rules to be
issued under that section as ‘‘consumer
product safety rules.’’ Therefore, the
preemption provision of section 26(a) of
the CPSA would apply to a rule issued
under section 104.
XV. Request for Comments
This NPR begins a rulemaking
proceeding under section 104(b) of the
CPSIA to issue a consumer product
safety standard for bouncer seats, and to
amend part 1112 to add bouncer seats
to the list of children’s product safety
rules for which the CPSC has issued an
NOR. We invite all interested persons to
submit comments on any aspect of the
proposed mandatory safety standard for
bouncer seats and on the proposed
amendment to part 1112. Specifically,
the Commission requests comments on
the costs of compliance with, and
testing to, the proposed bouncer seats

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

safety standard; the impact of the
proposed rule on small businesses; the
proposed 6-month effective date for the
new mandatory bouncer seats safety
standard; and the proposed amendment
to part 1112. During the comment
period, the ASTM F2167–15, Standard
Consumer Safety Specification for Infant
Bouncer Seats, is available as a readonly document at: http://www.astm.org/
cpsc.htm.
Comments should be submitted in
accordance with the instructions in the
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of
this notice.
List of Subjects
16 CFR Part 1112
Administrative practice and
procedure, Audit, Consumer protection,
Incorporation by Reference, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Third
party conformity assessment body.
16 CFR Part 1229
Bouncer seats, Chairs, Consumer
protection, Imports, Incorporation by
reference, Infants and children,
Labeling, Law enforcement, Seats, and
Toys.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Commission proposes to
amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 1112—REQUIREMENTS
PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY
CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT BODIES
1. The authority citation for part 1112
continues to read as follows:

■

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

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

■

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

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(42) 16 CFR part 1229, Safety
Standard for Infant Bouncer Seats.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Add part 1229 to read as follows:
PART 1229—SAFETY STANDARD FOR
INFANT BOUNCER SEATS
Sec.
1229.1 Scope.
1229.2 Requirements for infant bouncer
seats.
Authority: Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110–314, 122
Stat. 3016.

E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM

19OCP1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Scope.

This part establishes a consumer
product safety standard for infant
bouncer seats.
§ 1229.2
seats.

Requirements for infant bouncer

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, each infant bouncer
seat must comply with all applicable
provisions of ASTM F2167–15,
Standard Consumer Safety Specification
for Infant Bouncer Seats, approved on
May 1, 2015. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by
reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may
obtain a copy from ASTM International,
100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://
www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may
inspect a copy at the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330
East West Highway, Bethesda, MD
20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at
the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to: http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_
federalregulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) Comply with ASTM F2167–15
with the following additions or
exclusions:
(1) Instead of complying with sections
7.11.1 through 7.11.3.3 of ASTM F2167–
15, comply with the following:
(i) 7 .11.1 Visibility with Accessories
Excluding Toy Bar. Identify and install
each accessory unrelated to the toy bar
that could obscure the warning label
during a caregiver’s interaction with the
occupant. Place the bouncer on the
floor.
(ii) 7.11.1.1 Face the front of the
bouncer from a distance of 1.0 ft (0.3 m
and verify that all warning text is visible
and not obscured by the accessory(ies).
(iii) 7.11.1.2 A label on the bouncer
seat back surface that is obscured by an
accessory such as an infant insert would
meet the visibility requirement if the
label is plainly visible and easily
readable on the accessory.
(A) 7.11.2 Visibility with Toy Bar and
Related Accessories. Identify and install

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

the toy bar and related accessory(ies)
that could obscure the warning label
during a caregiver’s interaction with the
occupant. Place the bouncer on the
floor.
(B) 7.11.2.1 Face the front of the
bouncer from a distance of 1.0 ft (0.3 m
and verify that all warning text is visible
and not obscured by the toy bar and
related accessory(ies).
(C) 7.11.2.2 A fall hazard label that is
partly obscured by a toy bar or its
related accessories, but is visible with a
shift of the observer’s head position
would meet the visibility requirement.
(2) Instead of complying with sections
8.3.1 through 8.3.3.1 of ASTM F2167–
15, comply with the following:
(i) 8.3.1 Warning Groups and
Header—Each infant bouncer seat shall
be labeled with two groups of warning
statements: a fall hazard warning and a
suffocation warning. Each warning
statement group shall be preceded by a
header consisting of the safety alert
symbol

and the signal word ‘‘WARNING.’’
(ii) 8.3.2 Warning Format—The
background color for the safety alert
symbol and the signal word shall be
orange, red or yellow, whichever
provides best contrast against the
product material. The safety alert
symbol and the signal word shall be in
bold capital letters not less than 0.2 in.
(5 mm) high. The remainder of the text
shall be characters whose upper case
shall be at least 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) high.
All elements of these warnings shall be
permanent, and in sans serif, noncondensed style font. Precautionary
statements shall be indented from
hazard statements and preceded with
bullet points. The warning label and the
panel containing the signal word
‘‘WARNING’’ shall be surrounded by a
heavy black line. Message panels within
the labels shall be delineated with solid
lines between sections of differing
content. The background color in the
message panel shall be white and the
text shall be black. If an outside border
is used to surround the heavy black
lines of the label, the border shall be
white and the corners may be radiused.

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

(iii) 8.3.3 Warning Locations:
(A) 8.3.3.1 The fall hazard warnings
label in 8.3.4.1 shall be on the front
surface of the infant bouncer seat back
adjacent to the area where a child’s head
would rest, so that the label is plainly
visible and easily readable. If one or
more accessories are provided with the
bouncer that could obscure the warning
label during use, the visibility of the
label shall be verified in accordance
with 7.11.
(B) [Reserved].
(3) Instead of complying with sections
8.3.4.1 through 8.3.5 of ASTM F2167–
15, comply with the following:
(i) 8.3.4.1 Fall Hazard:
Fall Hazard: Babies have suffered
skull fractures falling while in and from
bouncers.
• Use bouncer ONLY on floor.
• Always use restraints. Adjust to fit
snugly, even if baby is sleeping.
• Never lift or carry baby in bouncer.
[NOTE: Bouncer seats with a handle(s)
intended for use to lift and carry a child
are exempt from including this warning
statement.]
(ii) 8.3.4.2 Suffocation Hazard:
Suffocation Hazard: Babies have
suffocated when bouncers tipped over
on soft surfaces.
• Never use on a bed, sofa, cushion,
or other soft surface.
• Never leave baby unattended. To
prevent falls and suffocation:
• Always use restraints. Adjust to fit
snugly, even if baby is sleeping.
• Stop using bouncer when baby
starts trying to sit up.
(iii) 8.3.5 Figs. 10–12 The safety alert
symbol

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

E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM

19OCP1

EP19OC15.003 EP19OC15.013

§ 1229.1

63183

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

(5) Instead of complying with section
9.1.1.5 of ASTM F2167–15, comply with
the following:
(i) 9.1.1.5 Instructions must indicate
the manufacturer’s recommended
maximum weight, height, age,
developmental level, consistent with the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

warning statement in 8.3.4.2, or
combination thereof of the occupant for
which the infant bouncer seat is
intended. If the infant bouncer seat is
not intended for use by a child for a
specific reason (insert reason), the

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

instructions shall so state this
limitation.
(ii) [Reserved]
(6) In section 10 of ASTM F2167–15,
replace Figures 11 and 12 with the
following:

E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM

19OCP1

EP19OC15.004 EP19OC15.005

63184

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules

[FR Doc. 2015–26386 Filed 10–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0645; FRL–9935–80–
Region 9]

Air Plan Approval; Phoenix, Arizona;
Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide
Maintenance Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:

The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of
Arizona. On March 9, 2005, the EPA
redesignated Phoenix, Arizona from
nonattainment to attainment for the
carbon monoxide (CO) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and approved the State’s plan
addressing the area’s maintenance of the
NAAQS for ten years. On April 2, 2013,
the State of Arizona submitted to the
EPA a second maintenance plan for the

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 16, 2015

Jkt 238001

Phoenix area that addressed
maintenance of the NAAQS for an
additional ten years. The EPA is also
proposing to find adequate and approve
a transportation conformity motor
vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) for
the year 2025 and beyond.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before November 18, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2015–0645, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or withdrawn. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
If you need to include CBI as part of
your comment, please visit http://
www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets for instructions.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make.
For additional submission methods,
the full EPA public comment policy,
and general guidance on making

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

effective comments, please visit http://
www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets.
John
Kelly, Planning Office (Air–2), Air
Division, Region 9, Environmental
Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105,
(415) 947–4151, kelly.johnj@epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we
are giving meaning to certain words or
initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials Act or CAA
mean or refer to the Clean Air Act,
unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The initials AADT mean or refer
to Annual Average Daily Traffic.
(iii) The initials ADEQ mean or refer
to Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality.
(iv) The initials ANP mean or refer to
Annual Monitoring Network Plans,
commonly known as Annual Network
Plans or ANP.
(v) The initials CO mean or refer to
carbon monoxide.
(vi) The words EPA, we, us or our
mean or refer to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
(vii) The initials MAG mean or refer
to the Maricopa Association of
Governments.

E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM

19OCP1

EP19OC15.006

Dated: October 13, 2015.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.

63185