Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31691 

any such product manufactured on or 

after December 1, 2010 tested by a third 

party conformity assessment body 

accredited to do so and must issue a 

certificate of compliance with 16 CFR 

part 1215 based on that testing. 

To ease the transition to the new 

standard and avoid a ‘‘bottlenecking’’ of 

products at conformity assessment 

bodies at or near the effective date of 16 

CFR 1215, the Commission will accept 

certifications based on testing that 

occurred prior to the effective date of 

the new standard in certain prescribed 

circumstances. However, any such 

testing must comport with all CPSC 

requirements, including: 

• At the time of product testing, the 

product was tested by a third party 

conformity assessment body that was 

ISO/IEC 17025 accredited by an ILAC– 

MRA member, and had been accepted 

by the Commission, at the time of the 

test. 

• The accreditation scope in effect for 

the third party conformity assessment 

body at the time of testing expressly 

included testing to the test method(s) 

included in 16 CFR part 1215; and 

• The test results show compliance 

with the test methods in the new 

regulation (16 CFR part 1215). 

Dated: May 25, 2010. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13080 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1215 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2009–0064] 

Safety Standard for Infant Bath Seats: 

Final Rule 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Section 104(b) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’) requires the 

United States Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘Commission,’’ ‘‘CPSC,’’ 

‘‘we’’) to promulgate consumer product 

safety standards for durable infant or 

toddler products. These standards are to 

be ‘‘substantially the same as’’ applicable 

voluntary standards or more stringent 

than the voluntary standard if the 

Commission concludes that more 

stringent requirements would further 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

the product. We are issuing a safety 

standard for infant bath seats in 

response to the direction under section 

104(b) of the CPSIA. 

DATES: The rule will become effective 

on December 6, 2010 and apply to 

products manufactured or imported on 

or after that date. The incorporation by 

reference of the publication listed in 

this rule is approved by the Director of 

the Federal Register as of December 6, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carolyn Manley, Office of Compliance 

and Field Operations, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 4330 East 

West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7607; 

cmanley@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background and Statutory Authority 

Section 104(b) of the Consumer 

Product Safety Improvement Act of 

2008 (‘‘CPSIA,’’ Public Law 110–314) 

requires the Commission to promulgate 

consumer product safety standards for 

durable infant or toddler products. 

Section 104 includes infant bath seats 

among these products. See CPSIA, 

section 104(f). The standards developed 

under section 104 of the CPSIA are to 

be ‘‘substantially the same as’’ applicable 

voluntary standards or more stringent 

than the voluntary standard if the 

Commission concludes that more 

stringent requirements would further 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

the product. Section 104(b)(2) of the 

CPSIA directs the Commission to begin 

rulemaking for two standards by August 

14, 2009. Under this provision, the 

Commission published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’) in the 

Federal Register of September 3, 2009 

(74 FR 45719) proposing a safety 

standard for bath seats. The proposed 

standard was substantially the same as 

a voluntary standard developed by 

ASTM International (formerly known as 

the American Society for Testing and 

Materials), ASTM F 1967–08a, 

‘‘Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Infant Bath Seats,’’ 

with some modifications to strengthen 

the standard in order to reduce the risk 

of injury associated with bath seats. The 

Commission is now issuing a final 

standard for infant bath seats that is 

almost the same as the proposed 

standard it published in September 

2009. 

B. The Product 

Infant bath seats are used in a tub or 

sink to support a seated infant while he 

or she is being bathed. They are 

marketed for use with infants between 

the age of approximately 5 months (the 

time at which infants can sit up 

unassisted) to the age of approximately 

10 months (the time at which infants 

begin pulling themselves up to a 

standing position). Currently, there are 

two manufacturers and one importer of 

bath seats active in the United States 

(one fewer than at the time the 

Commission published its proposed 

rule). All are members of the Juvenile 

Products Manufacturers Association 

(‘‘JPMA’’), which is the major United 

States trade association representing 

juvenile product manufacturers and 

importers. All produce a variety of 

children’s products in addition to bath 

seats. 

The exact number of bath seats 

currently sold or in use is not known. 

Data from a 2005 survey by the 

American Baby Group (2006 Baby 

Products Tracking Study), in 

conjunction with Centers for Disease 

Control (‘‘CDC’’) birth data, indicated 

annual sales of bath seats of about 1.5 

million and about 1.8 million bath seats 

in use. In 2000, JPMA estimated annual 

sales of bath seats at about one million 

and estimated up to 2 million bath seats 

in use for infants under one year of age. 

C. ASTM Voluntary Standard 

ASTM F 1967, ‘‘Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Infant Bath 

Seats,’’ was first published in 1999. 

Between 2003 and 2007, the ASTM 

standard was subsequently revised 

several times to exclude tub-like 

products and to include requirements 

that the Commission had proposed in a 

notice of proposed rulemaking it issued 

in 2003, 68 FR 74878 (December 29, 

2003). 

In response to changes in the ASTM 

standard, the design of bath seats 

changed significantly. The new designs 

use an arm that clamps onto the side of 

the bath tub rather than relying on 

suction cups for stability. In its 

proposed rule, the Commission 

referenced ASTM F 1967–08a, which 

was published in December 2008, and 

contains the same labeling, stability and 

leg opening requirements as the 2007 

version. In April 2010, ASTM published 

a new version of ASTM F 1967. The 

differences between the 2008 and 2010 

standards are insubstantial (one word in 

section 8.1.1). The 2010 version adopted 

none of the changes the Commission 

proposed. Thus, the final standard 

continues to reference ASTM F 1967– 

08a. 

JPMA provides certification programs 

for juvenile products, including bath 

seats. Manufacturers submit their 

products to an independent testing 

laboratory to test the product for 

conformance to the ASTM standard. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
31692 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Currently only one bath seat model is 

certified to ASTM F 1967–08a. 

The ASTM standard includes general 

requirements common to many ASTM 

standards for children’s products; 

performance requirements specific to 

bath seats to address the hazards of the 

bath seat tipping over or the child 

becoming entrapped and/or submerged 

in the leg openings; and labeling 

requirements to address the child 

coming out of the bath seat. 

General requirements in the ASTM 

standard, none of which the 

Commission is modifying, include: 

• Requiring compliance with CPSC’s 

standards concerning sharp points and 

edges, small parts, and lead paint (16 

CFR parts 1303, 1500.48, 1500.49, 

1500.50, 1500.51, and 1501); 

• Requirements for latching and 

locking mechanisms; 

• Requirements to prevent scissoring, 

shearing and pinching; 

• Entrapment testing for accessible 

holes and openings; 

• Torque/tension test for graspable 

components; and 

• A requirement that warning labels 

be permanent. 

The ASTM standard’s requirements 

specifically related to hazards posed by 

bath seats (as discussed in part F of this 

preamble, the Commission’s rule 

modifies aspects of some of these 

requirements) include: 

• A test for stability performed on a 

test platform containing both a slip 

resistant surface and a smooth surface to 

test whether the bath seat may tip over 

during use; 

• Requirements for restraint systems 

requiring passive crotch restraint to 

prevent a child from sliding through 

front or sides of the seat; 

• Static load test to test whether the 

bath seat may break or become damaged 

during use; 

• A requirement that suction cups (if 

used) adhere to the bath seat and the 

surface; 

• A leg opening requirement to 

prevent children from sliding through 

these openings; 

• A leg opening requirement 

restricting the expansiveness of the 

seating area to prevent the child from 

slumping and becoming entrapped in a 

reclined position; and 

• Requirements for warning labels 

and instruction manual. 

D. Incident Data 

Since publication of the NPR in the 

Federal Register of September 3, 2009, 

the CPSC staff identified five new 

fatalities and five new non-fatal 

incidents, all of which occurred in 2009. 

Three deaths and three additional nonfatal incidents involved bath seat 

products (not combination infant bath 

tub-bath seat products) meeting the 

stability requirements of either F 1967– 

04 or F 1967–07. One death involved an 

earlier pre-2004 bath seat product and 

the remaining death involved a 

combination infant bath tub-bath seat 

product that was certified to the 2004 

edition of the bath seat and bath ring 

standard (F 1967–04) but is no longer 

being produced. (Combination bath tubbath seat products are no longer covered 

by F 1967 and will be covered by a new 

separate infant bath tub-specific 

standard.) This fatality is not included 

in the frequency statistics. The data 

update for the final rule also located 

additional information enabling CPSC 

staff to identify two 2005 fatality case 

reports, previously considered to be 

independent, as being a single case. 

Taking into account these changes in 

the data, from 1983 through November 

30, 2009, there have been 174 reported 

fatalities involving bath seats, although 

more fatalities may have occurred 

because fatality reporting is not 

considered to be complete for 2006, 

2007, 2008, and 2009. All of these 

fatalities were submersions. 

There were 300 non-fatal bath seat 

incidents reported to CPSC staff in this 

1983 through November 30, 2009 time 

frame. A submersion hazard was 

identified in 154 of these non-fatal 

incidents of which 117 were actual 

submersion incidents. (Submersion is 

defined as the act of placing, or the 

condition of being, under water. A 

submersion hazard indicates that 

submersion is possible, as a direct result 

of the incident. An actual submersion is 

when the victim actually became 

submerged as a result of the incident.) 

The remaining 146 reports were nonsubmersion hazards such as lacerations 

and limb entrapments. 

None of the identifiable products 

involved in the fatal bath seat incidents 

were certified to meet ASTM F 1967– 

08a or its predecessor, ASTM F 1967– 

07. Four of the non-fatal incidents 

involved products certified to ASTM F 

1967–07, neither of which were 

submersion hazards, and thus were not 

life threatening. 

Of the 174 fatal incidents, 23 involved 

products that were identified as being 

certified to the 2004 version of the 

ASTM standard. Three of these were 

due to the arm of the bath seat 

disengaging from the bath tub. Fifty-four 

of the non-fatal incidents involved bath 

seats certified to the 2004 version of the 

ASTM voluntary standard. 

E. Response to Comments on the NPR 

of September 3, 2009 

The Commission received seven 

comments on the NPR of September 3, 

2009. Four comments from individual 

consumers supported a mandatory 

safety standard for infant bath seats. In 

addition, the Commission received three 

specific comments on various aspects of 

the NPR. These three comments were 

from IISG (an international testing 

laboratory); the Juvenile Products 

Manufacturers Association (JPMA); and 

one comment from various consumer 

groups (Consumers Union, Kids in 

Danger, and Consumer Federation of 

America). These comments and the 

Commission’s responses to them are 

discussed below. 

1. Leg Opening Requirement 

a. Comment: One commenter asked 

that the rule be clarified to indicate that 

the torso probe shall be inserted in a 

straight direction and it is not allowed 

to be inserted partially and then rotated 

along some minor axis to make it pass 

through the hole. 

Response: In the NPR, the 

Commission proposed a change to the 

voluntary standard that called for the 

torso probe to be inserted in all 

orientations of the leg openings to 

determine if any position can create a 

slip through and/or entrapment hazard. 

This change was proposed because the 

language in the ASTM standard, which 

stated that the probe should be inserted 

in the most adverse orientation, was 

open to interpretation by the person 

performing the test. The language the 

commenter suggests would actually 

make the requirement less restrictive 

than what is already in the voluntary 

standard. For this reason, the 

Commission disagrees with the 

recommendation. 

b. Comment: One commenter argued 

that the proposed change to the leg 

opening torso probe would not have 

prevented the two incidents discussed 

in the NPR when children fit both their 

legs and hips through a single leg hole 

of the bath seat. The commenter 

asserted that reducing the leg opening 

might exacerbate entrapment and 

ingress and egress conditions. The 

commenter believes that the ASTM 

standard has optimized this probe size, 

is consistent with other standards that 

provide similar submarining protection, 

and should not be changed. 

Response: Although in these two 

incidents children did become 

entrapped in the leg holes, of more 

concern is the fact the victims’ pelvis 

and torso were able to penetrate the leg 

openings. Once the pelvis goes through 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31693 

the leg hole, the victim is in serious 

danger of submersion because the waist 

and upper torso are more malleable and 

therefore more capable of squeezing 

through the leg holes. Therefore, 

contrary to the commenter’s 

characterization of the incidents, the leg 

holes failed to prevent a potential 

submersion condition. The infants were 

not endangered by the entrapment as 

much as they were endangered by their 

position during their entrapment. These 

incidents show a failure in the design of 

the torso probe and the leg opening test 

which was developed to prevent the 

manufacture of leg holes that allow a 

pelvis to fit through them. As a 

photograph taken of the actual victim 

from one of the incidents clearly shows, 

in that incident the pelvis had fit 

through the leg opening. The current 

bath seat torso probe used to test the leg 

openings was based on probes from 

other juvenile products that do not 

normally entail use with wet, naked 

babies. The data associated with these 

two incidents suggest that the unique 

use of a bath seat in a watery, soapy 

environment requires a smaller probe. 

Reducing the size of leg openings by 

making the torso probe more rounded at 

the corners and slightly smaller will 

prevent future submersion incidents. 

The issue of entrapment during 

ingress and egress is irrelevant to the leg 

hole opening test method. The 

Commission is aware that consumers 

have encountered difficulties with 

getting infants in and out of some 

models of bath seats currently sold in 

the United States. However, the size and 

shape of the leg hole opening is only 

one factor in the overall design of a bath 

seat’s occupant retention space. Such 

features as the shape of the seat, the 

slope of the supports, and the thickness 

and the type of materials used to make 

the bath seat are not determined by the 

performance requirements of the 

standard. The leg hole opening test does 

not dictate any other dimensional or 

design requirements for bath seats, 

leaving the designer ample freedom to 

design a bath seat that allows easy entry 

and exit. 

c. Comment: One commenter 

approved of the proposed change to the 

torso probe and conducting testing in all 

orientations, but stated that incident 

data indicate that leg openings on 

models currently meeting the ASTM 

standard may still pose this hazard. 

Response: The Commission concurs. 

The Commission’s changes to the torso 

probe are intended to address such 

incidents. 

2. Stability Issues 

a. Comment: One commenter states 

that the pass/fail criteria in the ASTM 

standard were specifically created to 

require that both the attachment 

disengage from the test platform and 

that the product fail to return to the 

manufacturer’s intended use position 

after being tested. The commenter 

asserts that both conditions must be 

present in order to constitute a failure. 

The commenter argues that the proposal 

to consider a tilt angle of 12-degrees or 

more from the bath seat’s initial starting 

position to be a failure is not indicative 

of an unsafe condition and ‘‘is a 

departure from the primary intent of the 

requirement which is to determine if the 

bath seat tips.’’ 

Response: The two parts of the criteria 

were added to the ASTM standard at 

different times, and there is no language 

to suggest that both conditions must be 

met in order to constitute a failure. If 

that were the intent, then there would 

be no need to add the second pass/fail 

criteria because if the bath seat 

disengaged from the test platform 

(condition #1), then obviously it would 

not return to the manufacturer’s 

intended use position (condition #2). 

This second condition was added in the 

2007 standard to address those 

situations where a bath seat started 

tipping, to a degree that could be 

hazardous, but did not fully disengage 

from the tub. The Commission’s 

modification to the ASTM standard 

clarifies the intent, as well as ensuring 

that a bath seat which significantly tips 

during the stability test, but returns to 

a fully upright condition, is not in 

compliance with the requirement. 

b. Comment: The same commenter 

argues that the 12 degree tilt test ‘‘is 

unrelated to submersion risk and would 

not reduce the risk of injury and 

submersion incidences identified in the 

incident data. The risk of submersion 

presents itself when the position of the 

product indicates that the child’s head 

area would be in a compromising 

position.’’ 

Response: CPSC agrees with the last 

statement presented above which is why 

the Commission is modifying the ASTM 

standard to provide a clearer definition 

of the pass/fail criteria. If the bath seat 

is tilted, children can slump over, lean 

over, and expose their faces to the water 

more easily than if the bath seat is not 

tilted. 

c. Comment: The same commenter 

states that the 17-pound force used in 

the stability testing in the ASTM 

standard was based on the assumption 

that the older user of a bath seat would 

apply his/her total weight in the head 

location when in a seated position. 

However, the commenter states, it is 

more likely that the child would exert 

only a percentage of his/her total body 

weight. 

Response: According to the rationale 

in the ASTM standard (Appendix, part 

X1.17), the original basis for the 17- 

pound force is that it represents 60 

percent of the 95th percentile (27.8 

pound) body weight for oldest users 

(which was for 12 to 15 month old 

children at the time the requirement 

was developed), not the child’s total 

body weight. A review of the incident 

data shows that fatal incidents that 

occurred in the newer style bath seats 

(which are designed for children who 

cannot yet pull themselves to a standing 

position) involved babies whose weights 

ranged from 15 to 30 pounds, with at 

least two of the victims (ages 8 and 9 

months) being 30 pounds at the time of 

their deaths. Thus, it is foreseeable that 

a child of this size may use the product 

and, as the commenter recognizes, exert 

a percentage of his/her body weight. 

Thus, the 17-pound force is still valid. 

d. Comment: The same commenter 

argues that the Commission’s change to 

the failure definition (adding the 12 

degree tilt angle test) would prohibit 

even ‘‘infinitesimal movements’’ of the 

bath seat with little affect on safety. 

Response: The Commission disagrees 

that this additional requirement would 

prohibit infinitesimal movement. The 

ASTM standard could be interpreted 

very strictly to not allow any movement 

or tilt of the bath seat from the original 

position. By adding the 12 degree tilt 

limit, the stability test allows bath seats 

some controlled flexibility. 

e. Comment: The same commenter 

asserts that the 12 degree tilt angle is 

random and lacks any rationale as to 

how exceeding this angle could result in 

a compromising unsafe condition. 

Response: In developing this 

requirement, CPSC staff conducted an 

analysis looking at various water levels 

and possible head positions of 

occupants vs. angles of bath seats to 

determine what level of tilt was 

potentially hazardous. In addition, 

CPSC staff looked at other ASTM 

standards, such as those for infant 

bouncer seats and toys which use a 10 

degree table or tilt when testing for 

stability. Lastly, staff acknowledged that 

the requirement must allow for the 

ductility of the aluminum rod test 

fixture combined with some expected 

ductility or flexing of the bath seat itself. 

Therefore, the staff conducted testing to 

determine the maximum level of tilt that 

might be expected solely due to the 

flexibility of the bath seat and the test 

rig. As a result of this work, staff 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
31694 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

selected a tilt angle of 12 degrees as the 

pass/fail criteria to insure passing 

products will remain in the 

manufacturer’s intended use position. 

Thus, the 12 degree angle will allow 

for some inherent flexibility in the 

system (the product and the test rig) as 

a whole, but would fail a bath seat that: 

(1) Stayed firmly clamped to the bath 

tub but the bath seat itself experienced 

significant ductility (i.e., its ability to be 

fashioned into a new form or drawn out 

without breaking) or flexibility (12 

degrees or more) during the testing; or 

(2) had a clamping mechanism that lost 

firm contact with the bath tub and 

allowed the bath seat to tilt 12 degrees 

or more during the test. 

f. Comment: The same commenter 

argues that, so long as the product 

remains attached, the angle at which it 

may tilt during testing does not affect 

the safety of the bath seat. The 

commenter asks, if the product were to 

reach a 15 degree angle, how would this 

angle result in an unsafe condition if the 

product remains attached? 

Response: CPSC disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that the 

condition of the product during the test 

has no bearing on safety. In the test, a 

17-pound load is applied and then 

released. In real life, if a child leans over 

a bath seat railing, he/she may not be 

able to sit back upright. Young infants 

do not have a good sense of balance, and 

the more the bath seat allows them to 

tilt forward, the less likely they will be 

able to return to an upright position. If 

a child’s body remains tilted forward, 

this could result in his/her face 

becoming submerged in the water. Once 

an infant’s face is submerged, the infant 

may not pull his/her face out of the 

water. Infants may be physically capable 

of lifting their heads, but they may not 

do so because they do not recognize the 

need to do so or because they breathe 

in a lungful of water before trying to lift 

their head. Bath seats should never 

allow an infant’s face to be submerged 

under water. In addition, another 

argument against allowing any 

significant tilt during the test is that the 

more the seat tilts forward, the higher 

the likelihood for a child to crawl out 

of the seat. When the seat is far enough 

forward, even if it has not tipped over, 

the child can stand (hunched over) on 

his/her feet with legs still through the 

leg holes, and this would also make a 

tilted seat hazardous. 

g. Comment: One commenter agreed 

that the pass/fail criteria in the ASTM 

stability requirements need clarification, 

but recommended that the Commission 

consider any movement from the bath 

seat’s originally fixed position to be a 

failure. 

Response: There are three ways that a 

bath seat can fail the stability 

requirement as proposed in the NPR 

(and finalized in the rule): (1) If the bath 

seat tips over (and remains tipped over 

after the test); (2) if any attachment 

point disengages from (is no longer in 

contact with) the test platform (bath tub) 

and the bath seat fails to return to the 

manufacturer’s recommended use 

position after the test; and (3) if the 

measured tilt angle during the test ever 

exceeds 12 degrees. 

The first two pass/fail criteria above 

were already required under the 

voluntary standard, and the third one 

was proposed by CPSC as a new 

additional requirement in the NPR, and 

is also in the final rule. With regard to 

the third criteria, there are two different 

ways in which a bath seat can tilt during 

stability testing. The first is the tilt that 

might occur when the bath seat 

attachment slips or moves from its 

original fixed position. The second is 

the tilt that can occur due to the 

flexibility between all the parts of the 

bath seat and the bath seat test fixture 

(the aluminum rod and clamping 

devices). Depending on the product, it 

is possible to have both factors 

contribute to the tilt, or just have the 

second factor contribute to the tilt. 

There is no way to eliminate the 

flexibility of the system (the bath seat 

and the test fixture) entirely. The 

flexibility of the aluminum rod itself 

can result in a two degree tilt. When the 

clamping fixtures and then the expected 

flexibility of the plastic used in the 

product are added, there is inherent 

flexibility in the system that cannot be 

totally eliminated. A tilt test must allow 

for this flexibility among all the 

components of the system. Twelve 

degrees allows for some practical 

amount of flexibility that is inherent in 

a bath seat and the test rig, but is still 

not a significant tilt angle that might 

compromise the safety of the occupant. 

3. Changes to Test Platform Preparation 

Comment: One commenter stated that, 

while it agrees with the application of 

the soap solution inside and outside of 

the tub, it believes that the soap solution 

should be applied once the product has 

been installed, if manufacturers present 

this as a prerequisite to use in 

instructional literature because 

clamping mechanisms rely on a clean 

tub side surface for effectiveness. 

Response: Regardless of instructional 

literature or warnings, it is foreseeable 

that caregivers will install the bath seat 

on a wet and soapy tub; therefore, bath 

seats should be tested under such 

conditions. 

4. Weighing the Seat Down 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adding a statement 

requiring removal of the weight once the 

seat is flooded to eliminate the potential 

for a counterweight to be included 

during the test. 

Response: The Commission agrees 

with this comment and has included 

such a statement in the final rule. 

5. Maximum Water Level 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that all bath seats be 

labeled to indicate a maximum water 

level to be used. The comment stated 

that, because 96% of all deaths, injuries, 

and other incidents involve bath seats 

used in water depths greater than one or 

two inches, the fill line demarcation 

should be specified at depths of no 

greater than two inches. 

Response: The Commission is 

concerned that a water line could imply 

a safe water level. However, children 

can drown in very little water. In 

addition, because of various bath seat 

designs, some of which may elevate the 

bath seat, two inches of water in the tub 

can correspond to a water level 

insufficient to cover the occupant’s legs. 

Thus, the maximum water level 

recommended would change based on 

the design of the bath seat, and would 

not necessarily reflect a ‘‘safe level’’. The 

Commission believes that the ASTM 

wording required in the user 

instruction, ‘‘Babies can drown in as 

little as 1 inch of water. ALWAYS bathe 

your infant using as little water as 

necessary,’’ describes the risk associated 

with any level of water in a more 

accurate manner. If there was a water 

line indicator that could visually 

express the increasing risk with 

increasing water depth without 

implying that a shallow level was ‘‘safe,’’ 

then CPSC staff may agree with the 

suggestion. At this time, CPSC staff does 

not believe a maximum water level 

requirement should be added to the 

standard, but does believe it is 

something that manufacturers could 

consider for their products. CPSC staff 

will continue to monitor this issue and 

the Commission could add such a 

requirement in the future if it is feasible. 

6. Incident Data 

Comment: One comment notes that 

the numbers of fatalities stated in the 

NPR do not reflect the increased fatality 

rate of recent years. Although the 171 

reported fatalities involving bath seats 

from 1983 through 2008 represents an 

average of 6.6 reported deaths per year 

over the 26 year period, an analysis of 

the most recent years for which there is 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31695 

complete data (1998 through 2007) 

shows an average of 9.7 reported deaths 

per year—nearly 50 percent more than 

stated. The commenter notes that, in 

comparison, baby bath tubs (a popular 

alternative) showed an average fatality 

rate of only 1.7 deaths per year during 

this same time period. 

Response: Some fatalities in recent 

years involved older products. Caution 

should be used in any analysis since 

this product, its standards, and markets 

have changed significantly over the 

years. Comparisons between bath seats 

and infant bath tubs are not 

straightforward due to differences in the 

product and target population. Also, 

incidents are voluntarily reported and 

represent a minimum count. An 

updated memorandum of incident data 

was provided as part of the briefing 

package for the final rule. 

7. Risks Related to Bath Seats and Risks 

Related to Bath Tubs 

Comment: The same commenter 

noted that comparing the risks related to 

bath seats and those related to bath tubs 

indicates that the ASTM F 1967 

standard has not been effective in 

reducing infant deaths in bath seats and 

that bath seats are inherently more 

dangerous than infant bath tubs. 

Response: Risk analysis is very 

difficult to perform with these products 

due to changes in the market, standards, 

and product. Without accurate usage 

data, it was not possible for CPSC staff 

to perform this analysis. Comparisons 

between bath seats and infant bath tubs 

are not straightforward due to 

differences in the product and target 

population. Based on the ownership 

data that is available for infant bath 

seats and infant bath tubs, it is clear that 

infant bath tubs are far more prevalent 

than infant bath seats. It is also clear 

that many of those surveyed own both 

products, possibly using them at 

different stages in their child’s 

development. It is also apparent that 

ownership rates for bath seats increased 

substantially between 1993 and 2002, 

but have since dropped off. In 2004, the 

ASTM standard was significantly 

modified (with additional changes made 

in 2007 and 2008), which means that 

determining the effectiveness of the 

voluntary standard requires examining 

the incidents with pre-2004 infant bath 

seats and comparing them to incidents 

involving post-2004 bath seats—in 

particular those that comply with the 

voluntary standard. Therefore, looking 

at only the number of annual incidents 

is insufficient to evaluate the voluntary 

standard’s effectiveness or to evaluate 

its likely effectiveness, were it 

mandatory. 

8. Unattended Bath Seats 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the bath seat standard must address the 

primary hazard pattern with these 

products—leaving an infant 

unattended—and encouraged the CPSC 

to ‘‘explore technology to ensure that it 

would be difficult to use a bath seat 

unless a caregiver is in close proximity 

to the product.’’ 

Response: The Commission is open to 

suggestions to overcome the tendency of 

caregivers to feel confident leaving 

children unsupervised in bath seats. To 

date, no practical solutions to this 

serious problem have been developed, 

except for warning labels, which were 

last strengthened in the ASTM 

voluntary standard in 2007. 

9. CPSIA Process 

a. Comment: One commenter stated 

that the Commission ‘‘should not modify 

existing effective standards unless it can 

clearly substantiate on the record before 

it that such changes will provide a 

demonstrable reduction of injury.’’ The 

commenter noted that the ASTM 

standard was originally published in 

1999 and has undergone several 

revisions since then through the ASTM 

subcommittee and task group process 

and that CPSC has participated in this 

process. The commenter states that it 

sees ‘‘little value in revising the current 

requirements in this standard by using 

the NPR regulatory process’’ and is 

‘‘concerned that the imposition of 

additional requirements without 

demonstrable evidence that they will 

both enhance bath safety and not create 

unintended entrapment related hazards, 

will restrict the availability of 

potentially lifesaving products.’’ 

Response: Section 104(b) of the CPSIA 

requires the Commission to use the 

notice and comment rulemaking process 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

to promulgate consumer product safety 

standards for durable infant or toddler 

products. The CPSIA directs the 

Commission to issue a rule that is 

‘‘substantially the same as’’ the 

applicable voluntary standard or ‘‘more 

stringent than’’ the voluntary standard if 

the more stringent standard ‘‘would 

further reduce the risk of injury 

associated with the product.’’ See 

section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA. The 

statute does not require that the 

Commission, in the commenter’s words, 

‘‘clearly substantiate on the record 

before it that such change will provide 

a demonstrable reduction in injury.’’ 

Section 104 of the CPSIA takes durable 

infant or toddler products out of the 

Commission’s usual rulemaking 

procedure and all of the findings that 

would be required under sections 7 and 

9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act 

(‘‘CPSA’’). For these products, Congress 

wanted ‘‘the highest level of safety for 

such products that is feasible.’’ See 

section 104(b)(2) of the CPSIA. The 

Commission recognizes that the ASTM 

standard has been in place for numerous 

years and has been refined through 

ASTM’s standard-setting process. 

Nevertheless, incidents continue to 

occur. Under the mandate of section 104 

of the CPSIA, the Commission is 

promulgating more stringent 

requirements where necessary to 

address certain design features that 

CPSC staff believes contribute to some 

of these continuing deaths and torso 

entrapments. The staff has conducted 

testing and performed analyses to 

support the requirements that are 

different from the ASTM requirements 

and that it believes will reduce the risk 

of injury from infant bath seats. 

b. Comment: The same commenter 

states that it believes ‘‘the most 

streamlined approach to following the 

primary congressional mandate that 

standards required to be developed are 

to be ‘substantially the same as’ 

applicable voluntary standards, would 

be to adopt a regulation that wholly 

adopts the existing ASTM standard, 

with the ability to subject it to the 

ASTM update and review process. CPSC 

can assure itself veto authority as part 

of an implementing regulation, which 

provides it with the ability to restrict 

diminution of effective ASTM standard 

provisions, similar to the authority 

applicable under CPSIA Section 106, as 

a check to changes that reduce stringent 

protections.’’ The commenter suggests 

that CPSC adopt ASTM F 1967–08a as 

a consumer product safety standard 

issued by the Commission under section 

9 of the CPSA and that any additional 

changes to the pending ASTM standard 

be submitted to the ASTM standard 

setting process. The commenter states, 

‘‘this process could also incorporate a 

provision by rule that a reservation of 

right to the CPSC to object to any 

subsequent revisions to the ASTM 

Standard, similar to that afforded under 

CPSIA Section 106(g).’’ 

Response: The standard the 

Commission proposed for infant bath 

seats incorporates by reference most of 

ASTM F 1967–08a with a few 

modifications to strengthen the 

standard. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA 

sets forth the procedure for these 

standards for durable infant or toddler 

products, and it is different from what 

Congress provided in section 106 of the 

CPSIA. It is doubtful that the 

Commission, by rule, could change the 

procedure Congress provided for rules 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
31696 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

under section 104 of the CPSIA to the 

one Congress provided for rules under 

section 106 of the CPSIA. 

F. Assessment of Voluntary Standard 

ASTM F 1967–08a and Description of 

the Final Rule 

1. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA: 

Consultation and CPSC Staff Review 

Section 104(b) of the CPSIA requires 

the Commission to assess the 

effectiveness of the voluntary standard 

in consultation with representatives of 

consumer groups, juvenile product 

manufacturers and other experts. This 

consultation process began in October 

2008 during the ASTM subcommittee 

meeting regarding the ASTM infant bath 

seat voluntary standard. The 

Commission has reviewed the incident 

data and the ASTM F 1967–08a 

standard and conducted testing on bath 

seats to assess the ASTM standard. 

Consistent with section 104(b) of the 

CPSIA, this rule establishes a new 16 

CFR part 1215, ‘‘Safety Standard for 

Bath Seats.’’ The new part incorporates 

by reference the requirements for bath 

seats in ASTM F 1967–08a with certain 

changes to specific provisions to 

strengthen the ASTM standard as 

discussed below. These modifications 

are almost identical to the changes the 

Commission proposed in the NPR of 

September 3, 2009. Differences from the 

NPR are noted in the discussion below. 

2. Description of the Final Rule, 

Including Changes to the ASTM 

Standard’s Requirements 

While most requirements of the 

ASTM standard are sufficient to reduce 

the risk of injury posed by bath seats, 

the Commission has determined to 

modify several provisions in the 

standard to make them more stringent 

and further reduce the risk of injury and 

to clarify the test procedures. The 

following discussion describes the final 

rule, including changes to the ASTM 

requirements, and notes any changes 

from the NPR. In addition, some editing 

and formatting changes have been made 

which make the final text different from 

the NPR. These changes were made at 

the request of the Office of the Federal 

Register and do not alter the substance 

of the rule. 

a. Scope (§ 1215.1) 

The final rule states that part 1215 

establishes a consumer product safety 

standard for infant bath seats 

manufactured or imported on or after a 

date which would be six months after 

the date of publication of a final rule in 

the Federal Register. 

The Commission received no 

comments on this provision in the NPR 

and is finalizing it without change. 

b. Incorporation by Reference 

(§ 1215.2(a)) 

Section 1215.2(a) explains that, 

except as provided in § 1215.2(b), each 

infant bath seat must comply with all 

applicable provisions of ASTM F 1967– 

08a, ‘‘Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Infant Bath Seats,’’ 

which is incorporated by reference. 

Section 1215.2(a) also provides 

information on how to obtain a copy of 

the ASTM standard or to inspect a copy 

of the standard at the CPSC. 

The Commission received no 

comments on this provision in the NPR 

and is finalizing it without change. 

c. Definition of Bath Seat 

(§ 1215.2(b)(1)(i)) 

In the NPR, the Commission proposed 

changing the definition of bath seat to 

the definition in a previous NPR the 

Commission had issued in 2003—‘‘an 

article that is used in a bath tub, sink, 

or similar bathing enclosure and that 

provides support, at a minimum, to the 

front and back of a seated infant during 

bathing by a caregiver * * *.’’ 

The Commission received no 

comments on this provision and is 

finalizing it without change. 

d. Stability Requirement 

Limiting the tilt of the bath seat 

(§ 1215.2(b)(2)(i), (b)(4)(i), and (b)(5)(i)). 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

proposed rule (74 FR at 45720 through 

45721), when testing bath seats, CPSC 

staff found that the clamping 

mechanism on the JPMA-certified bath 

seat lifted from the side of the tub and 

continued to tip when force was 

applied. The clamp did not disengage 

from the tub, but the arm rest contact 

points were no longer in contact with 

the tub surface. This situation allows for 

possible misinterpretation of the ASTM 

standard’s pass/fail criteria because the 

bath seat tilted from its original position 

while the clamp remained attached to 

the side of the tub. Moreover, this 

scenario could present a hazard to an 

infant using a bath seat. As explained in 

greater detail in the response to 

comments in section E of this preamble 

above, with the bath seat in this position 

an infant could submerge his/her face in 

the water, and the tilt of the seat could 

increase the likelihood the infant will 

crawl out of the seat. Thus, the NPR 

proposed a requirement to limit the 

allowable tilt angle of the bath seat 

during the stability test. This 

modification is added in several places 

of the ASTM standard: To section 6.1, 

between sections 7.4.2.2 and 7.4.2.3, 

and between sections 7.4.2.3 and 

7.4.2.4. The Commission proposed that 

a bath seat capable of tilting 12 degrees 

or more during testing be considered a 

failure. This limit was determined after 

measuring, and allowing for the 

flexibility of, current products. CPSC 

staff also considered other ASTM 

standards such as those for infant 

bouncer seats and toys. These standards 

use a 10 degree table or tilt when testing 

stability, and so the Commission 

proposed a tilt angle just above that 

level. 

The final rule retains the 12 degree tilt 

limit. (We discussed comments relating 

to stability at part E of this preamble.) 

The final rule also clarifies the 

language in section 6.1 of the ASTM 

standard to make it consistent with the 

definition of bath seat. This is a change 

from the NPR. Thus, the final rule 

removes the beginning phrase in section 

6.1: ‘‘for bath seats which provide 

support for an occupant’s back and 

support for the sides or front of the 

occupant or both.’’ Given the definition 

of bath seat in the final rule, this phrase 

is redundant, and the final rule, 

therefore, eliminates it. 

Clarifying the order of steps in the 

stability test (§ 1215.2(b)(3)). The final 

rule retains other proposed changes 

clarifying the order of steps to be 

performed when conducting the 

stability test. The Commission proposed 

re-ordering the steps specified in the 

ASTM standard for preparing the test 

surface and installing the bath seat to 

clarify that the test platform should be 

flooded before installing the bath seat. 

Test solution application 

(§ 1215.2(b)(3)(i)(B)). The Commission 

proposed that a test solution be applied 

to all areas where the product may make 

contact while in use. As explained in 

the NPR’s preamble (74 FR at 45721), 

the ASTM standard requires that a 

soapy test solution ‘‘thoroughly saturate 

the coverage area’’ which is defined in 

the ASTM standard as any internal 

surface of the tub well or tub bottom 

that makes contact with the product. In 

its testing of bath seats, CPSC staff 

found that spraying the soap solution on 

the top and outer surface contact points 

as well as the interior surfaces affected 

the final position of the bath seat and 

therefore could affect the results of the 

test. The Commission recognizes that 

the outside of a tub may become wet, 

and this may affect the ability of a bath 

seat’s attachment arm to remain stable. 

The final rule retains this requirement. 

(We discussed comments relating to test 

platform preparation at part E of this 

preamble.) 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31697 

Measuring water levels 

(§ 1215.2(b)(3)(i)(D)). When testing the 

stability of bath seats, CPSC staff noted 

that it can be difficult to obtain accurate 

water level measurements because the 

unoccupied bath seat may float when 

the test platform is flooded. To address 

this, the Commission proposed to add a 

clarifying statement: ‘‘For the purpose of 

measuring the water level, the product’s 

seating surface can be temporarily 

weighed down to prevent the seat from 

floating.’’ 

In response to a comment to the NPR 

(see part E of this preamble), the final 

rule retains this change, but also adds 

the following clarifying language: ‘‘The 

weight shall be removed following the 

measurement of the water level and 

prior to conducting the test.’’ 

e. Leg Opening Requirement 

(§ 1215.2(b)(6)(i) Through (8)) 

According to recent incident reports, 

children have fit both legs and their 

hips through a single leg hole of a bath 

seat that complies with the ASTM 

standard. The torso probe specified in 

the ASTM standard used to test the size 

of the leg openings is not sufficiently 

analogous to the human infant in this 

wet environment. This has resulted in a 

child’s torso fitting through a leg hole 

when the ASTM torso probe does not. 

The Commission proposed decreasing 

the length of the vertical and horizontal 

axes of the wood torso probe specified 

in the ASTM standard by approximately 

five percent and rounding the corners of 

the probe resulting in a 1.45′′ radius 

rather than the current 1′′ radius size of 

the probe. To accomplish this, the 

Commission proposed modifications to 

Figure 4 in the ASTM standard that 

shows the torso probe. As explained in 

the preamble to the NPR (see 74 FR at 

45721) and in the response to comments 

in section E above, the Commission 

believes that changes in the test probe 

would not restrict the utility of the 

product, but would still allow many 

possible designs for bath seats, even 

ones which would accommodate large 

children. 

The NPR also proposed changing (at 

§ 1215.2(b)(6)(i) and (7)(i)) the ASTM 

standard’s instruction in section 7.7.1 

and 7.7.2 of the ASTM standard to 

insert the test probe ‘‘* * * in the most 

adverse orientation into each opening.’’ 

The Commission proposed changing 

this language because the terms ‘‘the 

most’’ appearing with respect to adverse 

orientation is open to interpretation. 

The final rule retains the proposed 

wording that the probe needs to be 

inserted ‘‘in all orientations to 

determine if any position can create a 

slip through and/or entrapment hazard.’’ 

f. Size of Warning Label Requirement 

(§ 1215.2(b)(9) and(10)) 

According to the incident data, one 

hazard associated with almost all of the 

deaths that are reported involving bath 

seats is caregivers leaving children 

unattended in the bath seat. For 

example, of the 23 deaths reported from 

2004–2009, where the bath seat product 

was certified to meet the stability 

requirements of ASTM F 1967–04, 21, 

or more than 91%, occurred when 

caregivers reported leaving the child for 

as little as 1 minute. (This data, 

collected by CPSC staff only reflects full 

reporting of deaths through 2006.) 

While ASTM 1967–07 updated the 

language of the warning label (see 1967– 

07 section 8.1), the size of the warning 

label has not changed in any of the prior 

four updates to this standard. (The 

previous standards required letters not 

less than 0.2 in. (5 mm) in height for the 

safety alert symbol, the signal word, and 

all other words that are all capital 

letters, with all remaining text not less 

than 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) in height.) The 

warning label explains, among other 

things, caregivers should ‘‘ALWAYS 

keep baby within adult’s reach.’’ The 

final rule doubles the size of this 

warning in order to raise the visibility 

of this vital information to caregivers. 

G. Effective Date 

In the NPR, the Commission proposed 

that the standard would become 

effective six months after publication of 

a final rule. The Commission received 

no comments on the proposed effective 

date. The final rule provides that the 

rule will become effective six months 

after publication and thus will require 

that bath seats manufactured or 

imported on or after that date must meet 

this standard. 

H. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’) generally requires that agencies 

review final rules for their potential 

economic impact on small entities, 

including small businesses. 5 U.S.C. 

604. 

Three firms currently market infant 

bath seats in the United States: One 

large domestic manufacturer, one small 

foreign manufacturer and one small 

domestic importer. All of these 

companies’ bath seats are expected to 

require modifications to meet the bath 

seat standard. This final regulatory 

flexibility analysis focuses on the small 

domestic importer. 

As noted in the NPR preamble (see 74 

FR at 45722), the effect of the regulation 

on importers of bath seats would be felt 

indirectly, requiring a shift in suppliers 

rather than the design and production of 

a different product. The impact on the 

small domestic importer is expected to 

be small. The small domestic importer 

would most likely respond by 

discontinuing the import of its noncomplying bath seat, either replacing 

the bath seat with a complying product 

or another juvenile product (the firm 

currently imports approximately 165 

juvenile products, of which three are 

substitutes for its imported bath seat). 

Hence, even if the cost of developing 

a compliant product did prove to be a 

barrier for individual small firms, the 

loss of bath seats as a product category 

is expected to be minor and would 

likely be mitigated by increased sales of 

competing products, such as multi-stage 

infant bathtubs, or entirely different 

juvenile products. 

I. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations 

provide a categorical exclusion for the 

Commission’s safety standards from any 

requirement to prepare an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement as they 

‘‘have little or no potential for affecting 

the human environment.’’ 16 CFR 

1021.5(c)(1). This rule falls within the 

categorical exclusion. 

J. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F 1967–08 

contain requirements for marking, 

labeling and instructional literature that 

are considered ‘‘information collection 

requirements’’ under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. In 

a separate notice in this issue of the 

Federal Register, the Commission is 

publishing a notice requesting 

comments on this collection of 

information. 

K. Preemption 

Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

2075(a), provides that where a 

‘‘consumer product safety standard 

under [the CPSA]’’ 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,’’ thus 

implying that the preemptive effect of 

section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply. 

Therefore, a rule issued under section 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
31698 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

104 of the CPSIA will invoke the 

preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the 

CPSA when it becomes effective. 

L. Certification 

Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the 

requirement that 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). Such certification 

must be based on a test of each product 

or on a reasonable testing program or, 

for children’s products, on tests on a 

sufficient number of samples by a third 

party conformity assessment body 

recognized by the Commission to test 

according to the applicable 

requirements. As discussed above in 

section K, section 104(b)(1)(B) of the 

CPSIA refers to standards issued under 

that section, such as the rule for infant 

bath seats established in this notice, as 

‘‘consumer product safety standards.’’ By 

the same reasoning, such standards 

would also be subject to section 14 of 

the CPSA. Therefore, any such standard 

would be considered to be a consumer 

product safety rule to which products 

subject to the rule must be certified. 

Because infant bath seats are 

children’s products, they must be tested 

by a third party conformity assessment 

body accredited by the Commission. 

The Commission is issuing a separate 

notice of requirements to explain how 

laboratories can become accredited as a 

third party conformity assessment 

bodies to test to this new infant bath 

seat safety standard. (Infant bath seats 

also must comply with all other 

applicable CPSC requirements, such as 

the lead content requirements of section 

101 of the CPSIA and potentially the 

phthalate content requirements in 

section 108 of the CPSIA should the 

bath seat incorporate a toy component, 

the tracking label requirement in section 

14(a)(5) of the CPSA, and the consumer 

registration form requirements in 

section 104 of the CPSIA.) 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR 1215 

Consumer protection, Incorporation 

by reference, Imports, Infants and 

children, Labeling, Law enforcement, 

and Toys. 

■ Therefore, the Commission amends 

Title 16 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations by adding part 1215 to read 

as follows: 

PART 1215—SAFETY STANDARD FOR 

INFANT BATH SEATS 

Sec. 

1215.1 Scope. 

1215.2 Requirements for infant bath seats. 

Authority: The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. Law 110–314, 

§ 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008). 

§ 1215.1 Scope. 

This part 1215 establishes a consumer 

product safety standard for infant bath 

seats manufactured or imported on or 

after December 6, 2010. 

§ 1215.2 Requirements for infant bath 

seats. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, each infant bath seat 

shall comply with all applicable 

provisions of ASTM F 1967–08a, 

Standard Consumer Safety Specification 

for Infant Bath Seats, approved 

November 1, 2008. 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; telephone 

610–832–9585; www.astm.org. You may 

inspect a copy at the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

(b) Comply with the ASTM F 1967– 

08a standard with the following 

additions or exclusions: 

(1) Instead of complying with section 

3.1.1 of ASTM F 1967–08a, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 3.1.1 Bath seat, n—an article that 

is used in a bath tub, sink, or similar 

bathing enclosure and that provides 

support, at a minimum, to the front and 

back of a seated infant during bathing by 

a caregiver. This does not include 

products that are designed or intended 

to retain water for bathing. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(2) In addition to section 6.1 of ASTM 

F 1967–08a, comply with the following: 

(i) 6.1 Stability—* * * If any time 

during the application of force, the seat 

is no longer in the initial ‘intended use 

position’ and is tilted at an angle of 12 

degrees or more from its initial starting 

position, it shall be considered a failure. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(3) Instead of complying with section 

7.4.1. of ASTM F 1967–08a, comply 

with the following: 

(i) 7.4.1 Surface Preparation and 

Product Installation: 

(A) 7.4.1.1 Prepare the test surface as 

follows: 

(B) 7.4.1.2 For all surfaces on the test 

platform where the product makes 

contact, clean the coverage area (as 

defined in 7.4.3.3) with a commercial 

cleaner intended for bath tubs, then 

wipe the coverage area with alcohol and 

allow to dry. 

(C) 7.4.1.3 Using a spray bottle 

containing a 1:25 mixture of test 

solution (see table 1) to distilled water, 

immediately before each test run, 

thoroughly saturate all test platform 

surfaces above the water line where the 

product makes contact and where 

contact might be expected. 

(D) 7.4.1.4 Flood the test platform 

with clear water that is at an initial 

temperature of 100 to 105° F (37.8 to 

10.6° C) and a depth of 2 in. (51 mm) 

above the highest point of the occupant 

seating surface. Install the product 

according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions onto the test platform 

specified in 7.4.3. For the purpose of 

measuring the water level, the product’s 

seating surface can be temporarily 

weighed down to prevent the seat from 

floating. The weight shall be removed 

following the measurement of the water 

level and prior to conducting the test. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(4) After section 7.4.2.2 and before 

section 7.4.2.3 of ASTM F 1967–08a, 

comply with the following: 

(i) Rigidly install an inclinometer to 

the test bar above the location where 

force is to be applied. The weight of the 

inclinometer and the fastening method 

shall be less than or equal to 2.2 

pounds. The inclinometer shall have a 

measurement tolerance of less than or 

equal to 0.5 degrees. Measure and 

record the pre-test angle of the test bar. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(5) Between section 7.4.2.3 (including 

Note 2) and section 7.4.2.4 of ASTM F 

1967–08a, comply with the following: 

(i) Measure and record the maximum 

angle of the test bar during the 

application of the 17.0 lbf load. 

Calculate the absolute value of the 

Change in Angle in degrees. Change in 

Angle = (Angle measured during test)— 

(Angle measured pre-test). 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(6) Instead of complying with the first 

sentence in section 7.7.1 of ASTM F 

1967–08a, comply with the following: 

(i) 7.7.1 With the bath seat in each of 

the manufacturer’s recommended use 

position(s), insert the tapered end of the 

Bath Seat Torso Probe (see Fig. 4) in all 

orientations into each opening. * * * 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(7) Instead of complying with the first 

sentence in section 7.7.2 of ASTM F 

1967–08a, comply with the following: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31699 

(i) 7.7.2 With the bath seat in each of 

the manufacturer’s recommended use 

position(s), insert the tapered end of the 

Bath Seat Shoulder Probe (see Fig. 6) in 

all orientations into each opening. 

* * * 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(8) Instead of Figure 4 of ASTM F 

1967–08a, use the following: 

(9) Instead of complying with section 

8.1.1 of ASTM F 1967–08a, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 8.1.1 The safety alert symbol, the 

signal word, and all other words that are 

all capital letters shall be in sans serif 

type face with letters not less than 0.4 

in. (10 mm) in height, with all 

remainder of the text not less than 0.2 

in. (5 mm) in height. Specified 

warning(s) on both the product and the 

package shall be distinctively separated 

from any other wording or designs and 

shall appear in the English language at 

a minimum. They shall also be highly 

visible and in a contrasting color to the 

background on which they are located. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(10) In addition to complying with 

section 8.2 of ASTM F 1967–08a, 

comply with the following: 

(i) 8.2 * * * The specified warnings 

may not be placed in a location that 

allows the warning(s) to be obscured or 

rendered inconspicuous when in the 

manufacturer’s recommended use 

position. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

Dated: May 25, 2010. 

Todd Stevenson, 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13073 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

25 CFR Part 900 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

25 CFR Part 1000 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

25 CFR Part 900 

Indian Health Service 

25 CFR Part 900 

RIN 1076–AE86 

Indian Self-Determination Act 

Contracts and Annual Funding 

Agreements—Appeal Procedures 

AGENCIES: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior; Indian Health Service, Health 

and Human Services. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) in the Department of the Interior 

(DOI) and the Indian Health Service 

(IHS) in the Department of Health and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER04JN10.000</GPH>