Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29279 

disclosure of the information required 

by the Act and regulations, all parts of 

the required information shall be stated 

in immediate conjunction with each 

other in legible and conspicuous type or 

lettering of equal size and prominence. 

In making the required disclosure of the 

fiber content of the product, the generic 

names of fibers present in an amount 5 

percent or more of the total fiber weight 

of the product, together with any fibers 

disclosed in accordance with § 303.3(a), 

shall appear in order of predominance 

by weight, to be followed by the 

designation ‘‘other fiber’’ or ‘‘other 

fibers’’ if a fiber or fibers required to be 

so designated are present. The 

advertisement need not state the 

percentage of each fiber. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Revise § 303.44 to read as follows: 

§ 303.44 Products not intended for uses 

subject to the Act. 

Textile fiber products intended for 

uses not within the scope of the Act and 

regulations or intended for uses in other 

textile fiber products which are 

exempted or excluded from the Act 

shall not be subject to the labeling and 

invoicing requirements of the Act and 

regulations: Provided, An invoice or 

other document covering the marketing 

or handling of such products is given, 

which indicates that the products are 

not intended for uses subject to the 

Textile Fiber Products Identification 

Act. 

■ 16. Revise § 303.45 to read as follows: 

§ 303.45 Coverage and exclusions from 

the act. 

(a) The following textile fiber 

products are subject to the Act and 

regulations, unless excluded from the 

Act’s requirements in paragraph (b) of 

this section: 

(1) Articles of wearing apparel; 

(2) Handkerchiefs; 

(3) Scarfs; 

(4) Beddings; 

(5) Curtains and casements; 

(6) Draperies; 

(7) Tablecloths, napkins, and doilies; 

(8) Floor coverings; 

(9) Towels; 

(10) Wash cloths and dish cloths; 

(11) Ironing board covers and pads; 

(12) Umbrellas and parasols; 

(13) Batts; 

(14) Products subject to section 4(h) of 

the Act; 

(15) Flags with heading or more than 

216 square inches (13.9 dm2) in size; 

(16) Cushions; 

(17) All fibers, yarns and fabrics 

(including narrow fabrics except 

packaging ribbons); 

(18) Furniture slip covers and other 

covers or coverlets for furniture; 

(19) Afghans and throws; 

(20) Sleeping bags; 

(21) Antimacassars and tidies; 

(22) Hammocks; and 

(23) Dresser and other furniture scarfs. 

(b) Pursuant to section 12(b) of the 

Act, all textile fiber products other than 

those identified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, and the following textile fiber 

products, are excluded from the Act’s 

requirements: 

(1) Belts, suspenders, arm bands, 

permanently knotted neckties, garters, 

sanitary belts, diaper liners, labels 

(either required or non-required) 

individually and in rolls, looper clips 

intended for handicraft purposes, book 

cloth, artists’ canvases, tapestry cloth, 

and shoe laces. 

(2) All textile fiber products 

manufactured by the operators of 

company stores and offered for sale and 

sold exclusively to their own employees 

as ultimate consumers. 

(3) Coated fabrics and those portions 

of textile fiber products made of coated 

fabrics. 

(4) Secondhand household textile 

articles which are discernibly 

secondhand or which are marked to 

indicate their secondhand character. 

(5) Non-woven products of a 

disposable nature intended for one-time 

use only. 

(6) All curtains, casements, draperies, 

and table place mats, or any portions 

thereof otherwise subject to the Act, 

made principally of slats, rods, or strips, 

composed of wood, metal, plastic, or 

leather. 

(7) All textile fiber products in a form 

ready for the ultimate consumer 

procured by the military services of the 

United States which are bought 

according to specifications, but shall not 

include those textile fiber products sold 

and distributed through post exchanges, 

sales commissaries, or ship stores; 

provided, however, that if the military 

services sell textile fiber products for 

nongovernmental purposes the 

information with respect to the fiber 

content of such products shall be 

furnished to the purchaser thereof who 

shall label such products in conformity 

with the Act and regulations before such 

products are distributed for civilian use. 

(8) All hand woven rugs made by 

Navajo Indians which have attached 

thereto the ‘‘Certificate of Genuineness’’ 

supplied by the Indian Arts and Crafts 

Board of the United States Department 

of Interior. The term Navajo Indian 

means any Indian who is listed on the 

register of the Navajo Indian Tribe or is 

eligible for listing thereon. 

(c) The exclusions provided for in 

paragraph (b) of this section shall not be 

applicable: 

(1) if any representations as to the 

fiber content of such products are made 

on any label or in any advertisement 

without making a full and complete 

fiber content disclosure on such label or 

in such advertisement in accordance 

with the Act and regulations with the 

exception of those products excluded by 

paragraph (b)(5) of this section; or 

(2) If any false, deceptive, or 

misleading representations are made as 

to the fiber content of such products. 

(d) The exclusions from the Act 

provided in paragraph (b) of this section 

are in addition to the exemptions from 

the Act provided in section 12(a) of the 

Act and shall not affect or limit such 

exemptions. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2013–10584 Filed 5–17–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1227 

[Docket No. CPSC–2013–0019] 

Safety Standard for Carriages and 

Strollers 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: 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 

concludes that more stringent 

requirements would further reduce the 

risk of injury associated with the 

product. The Commission is proposing 

a safety standard for carriages and 

strollers in response to the direction 

under Section 104(b) of the CPSIA. 

DATES: Submit comments by August 5, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Comments related to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the 

marking, labeling, and instructional 

literature of the proposed rule should be 

directed to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC 

Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–6974, or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

29280 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

emailed to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Other comments, identified by Docket 

No. CPSC–2013–0019, 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 in the following way: Mail/ 

Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, 

or CD–ROM submissions), preferably in 

five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 

504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this proposed 

rulemaking. All comments received may 

be posted without change, including 

any personal identifiers, contact 

information, or other personal 

information provided, to: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Do not submit 

confidential business information, trade 

secret information, or other sensitive or 

protected information that you do not 

want to be available to the public. If 

furnished at all, such information 

should be submitted in writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: http:// 

www.regulations.gov, and insert the 

docket number, CPSC–2013–0019, into 

the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the 

prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rana Balci-Sinha, Project Manager, 

Division of Human Factors, Directorate 

for Engineering Sciences, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 5 Research 

Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 

301–987–2584; email: 

rbalcisinha@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Statutory Authority 

The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA, Pub. 

L. 110–314) was enacted on August 14, 

2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, part 

of the Danny Keysar Child Product 

Safety Notification Act, requires the 

Commission to: (1) Examine and assess 

the effectiveness of voluntary consumer 

product safety standards for durable 

infant or toddler products, in 

consultation with representatives of 

consumer groups, juvenile product 

manufacturers, and independent child 

product engineers and experts; and (2) 

promulgate consumer product safety 

standards for durable infant and toddler 

products. These standards are to be 

‘‘substantially the same as’’ applicable 

voluntary standards or more stringent 

than the voluntary standard if the 

Commission concludes that more 

stringent requirements would further 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

the product. The 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.’’ 

In this document, the Commission is 

proposing a safety standard for carriages 

and strollers. ‘‘Strollers’’ are specifically 

identified in section 104(f)(2)(I) of the 

CPSIA as a durable infant or toddler 

product. Pursuant to Section 

104(b)(1)(A), the Commission consulted 

with manufacturers, retailers, trade 

organizations, laboratories, consumer 

advocacy groups, consultants, and 

members of the public in the 

development of this proposed standard, 

largely through the ASTM process. The 

proposed rule is based on the voluntary 

standard developed by ASTM 

International (formerly the American 

Society for Testing and Materials), 

ASTM F833–13, ‘‘Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Carriages and 

Strollers’’ (ASTM F833–13), with a 

proposed additional requirement and 

test method to address scissoring, 

pinching, or shearing hazards at the 

hinge link of 2D fold strollers. ASTM 

F833–13 includes carriages as well as 

strollers, as well as convertible 

carriages/strollers. Accordingly, the 

proposed rule would cover all of these 

product types. The ASTM standard is 

copyrighted, but it can be viewed as a 

read-only document during the 

comment period on this proposal only, 

at: http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm, by 

permission of ASTM. 

II. Product Description 

A. Definition of Carriage and Stroller 

ASTM F833–13 ‘‘Standard Consumer 

Safety Performance Specification for 

Carriages and Strollers’’ defines a 

‘‘stroller’’ as a wheeled vehicle to 

transport children usually from infancy 

to 36 months of age. Children are 

transported generally in a sitting-up or 

semi-reclined position. The motive 

power is supplied by a person moving 

at a walking rate while pushing on a 

handle attached to the stroller. 

Carriages, on the other hand, are 

wheeled vehicles to transport an infant 

usually in a lying down position. Thus, 

the principal difference between 

strollers and carriages is the position of 

the occupant. Both carriages and 

strollers may be capable of being folded 

for storage. Umbrella strollers are 

lightweight, compact when folded, and 

may lack certain accessories such as 

baskets underneath the seat or cup 

holders for the caregiver. Strollers that 

fold in two dimensions, the height and 

length are called ‘‘2D’’ strollers. 

Strollers that collapse in all three 

dimensions—height, length, and 

width—resulting in a smaller folded 

package than 2D strollers are called 

‘‘3D’’ strollers. Other types of strollers 

include travel systems that 

accommodate an infant car seat on a 

stroller. If a stroller is intended to be 

used at a jogging rate, then it is called 

a jogging stroller. Some products can be 

used as both strollers and carriages 

(convertible carriages/strollers). 

Convertible carriages or strollers are 

intended to be converted by the owner 

to be used as a carriage or a stroller. 

Some strollers incorporate automatic or 

assisted folding and unfolding 

mechanisms. 

B. Market Description 

The majority of carriages/strollers are 

produced and/or marketed by juvenile 

product manufacturers and distributors. 

CPSC staff believes that there are 

currently at least 86 suppliers of 

carriages/strollers to the U.S. market. 

Thirty-four are domestic manufacturers, 

33 are domestic importers, and the 

supply sources of seven domestic firms 

are unknown. In addition, 12 foreign 

firms supply strollers to the U.S. 

market—six foreign manufacturers, two 

firms that import products from foreign 

companies and distribute them from 

outside of the United States, two foreign 

retailers that ship directly to the United 

States, and two firms with unknown 

supply sources. 

According to a 2005 survey conducted 

by the American Baby Group (2006 

Baby Products Tracking Study), nearly 

all new mothers (99 percent) own at 

least one stroller. Based on data from 

the survey, nearly 4.1 million strollers 

are owned by new mothers, and there 

would be an estimated 9.1–11.2 million 

households with strollers available for 

use annually (4.1 million × .99 × 2.25 to 

4.1 million × .99 × 2.75). Approximately 

26 percent of strollers were handed 

down or purchased secondhand. Thus, 

about 74 percent of strollers were 

acquired new, and approximately 3 

million strollers are sold to households 

annually (.99 × .74 × 4.1 million births 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29281 

per year). Strollers can cost anywhere 

between $20 to $1,200, depending upon 

the type and brand. On average, 

umbrella strollers tend to be the least 

expensive (around $25–$50 for the least 

costly versions); and most other strollers 

cost around $150–$300, with many 

carriages, travel systems, and jogging 

strollers costs running in the $500–$700 

range. Strollers generally are used 

during a child’s first two years, with 

some caregivers continuing to use 

strollers into the third year. Although 

CPSC staff does not know the 

proportion of consumers who continue 

to use strollers into the third year, CPSC 

staff believes that approximately 25–75 

percent may do so. 

III. Incident Data 

The incident data was reviewed for 

carriages, strollers, and convertible 

carriages/strollers. There have been only 

a few incidents with no reported 

injuries associated with carriages, and 

CPSC staff has not identified any 

carriage-specific hazards. Accordingly, 

the incident data focuses on strollers. 

CPSC’s Directorate for Epidemiology, 

Division of Hazard Analysis, is aware of 

a total of 1,207 incidents related to 

strollers reported from January 1, 2008 

through December 31, 2012. The age 

range for the data extracted includes 

children 4 years old or younger (or 

unreported/unknown). Four incidents 

involved a fatality, and 1,203 incidents 

were nonfatal. 

A. Fatalities 

Four stroller-related fatalities were 

reported to CPSC from January 1, 2008 

through December 31, 2012. Two of the 

incidents were related to insufficient 

clearance space between stroller 

components: in the first fatal incident, 

a 5-month old infant’s head became 

entrapped between the seat and tray; in 

the second incident, a 5-month-old 

infant’s head was wedged between the 

car seat of a travel system and a metal 

bar located under the cup holder. In the 

third fatal incident, the stroller 

collapsed onto a 4-year-old child, 

resulting in compressional 

asphyxiation. The fourth fatal incident 

occurred when the stroller fell off of a 

dock and into a bay, which resulted in 

the child drowning. However, that 

incident lacked sufficient details to 

determine if the fatality was product 

related. 

B. Nonfatalities 

A total of 1,203 stroller-related 

nonfatal incidents were reported from 

January 1, 2008 through December 31, 

2012. Of the nonfatal incidents, 359 

resulted in an injury. Seventy-two of the 

nonfatal injuries were related to hinges; 

wheel-related issues resulted in 52 

reported injuries; while locking 

mechanism failures were associated 

with 42 reported injuries. A total of 70 

incidents resulted in moderate and 

severe injuries, such as lacerations 

requiring stitches, tooth extractions, 

fractures, head injuries, and partial 

amputations of fingers. 

C. Hazard Pattern Identification 

CPSC staff considered all of the fatal 

and nonfatal reported incidents to 

identify hazard patterns associated with 

strollers. The hazard patterns were 

grouped into the following categories: 

Wheel issues were the most 

commonly reported hazard, with a total 

of 429 incidents (36 percent of the 1,207 

incidents). The major hazard patterns 

included broken wheel rim, wheel 

detachment, and a burst tire. A total of 

52 reported injuries occurred, including 

two hospitalizations due to falls that 

resulted in a bone fracture and head 

concussion. 

Parking brake problems related to 

parking brake failure or assembly 

resulted in 132 incidents, including 

eight injuries. Incidents typically 

occurred when the parking brakes were 

assumed to be functional after setting 

them, but the stroller rolled away and 

struck an object. 

Lock mechanism issues resulting in 

unexpected collapse of the stroller 

accounted for 121 incidents. One 

fatality was reported where the partially 

erected, unlatched stroller collapsed 

onto the child when he climbed into the 

seat, resulting in compressional 

asphyxiation. A total of 42 injuries were 

reported in this category, including two 

hospitalizations, one due to a fall that 

resulted in a skull fracture and the 

second due to the collapse of the 

stroller, resulting in an amputated 

finger. 

Restraint issues, such as a child 

unbuckling the restraint, restraint 

breakage or detachment, and restraints 

that are too loose were reported in 83 

incidents, resulting in 29 injuries. 

Hinge issues were reported in 75 

incidents, resulting in 72 injuries. This 

is the highest injury rate of any stroller 

hazard category. Most of the hingerelated injuries occurred when a 

caregiver was unfolding the stroller for 

use and the child was climbing into the 

stroller. Reported injuries involved 

pinched, lacerated, or amputated fingers 

or arms, including one hospitalization 

for reattachment of a finger. 

Structural integrity-related issues, 

such as failure or malfunction of various 

structural components (e.g., frame, 

attachment points for the seat, footrest, 

and sunshades) resulted in 63 incidents. 

A total of 16 injuries were reported in 

this category, including one 

hospitalization due to a fall, which 

resulted in bleeding gums. 

Stability/tip-over issues resulted in 58 

incidents, including 24 reported injuries 

resulting mostly from falls. 

Clearance issues between certain 

components of a stroller, such as seat 

and handlebar, basket, canopy, tray, or 

frame, between the footrest and wheel 

or between the car seat and handlebar 

resulted in 38 incidents including 19 

injuries. Two fatalities were reported in 

this category. In the first incident, a 5- 

month-old victim’s head was trapped 

between the edge of the car seat and a 

metal bar located right under the cup 

holder. In the second incident, a 5- 

month-old child had his head trapped 

in the opening between the stroller seat 

and tray. 

Car seat attachment-related issues, 

including the car seat detaching, not 

locking, or tipping over, resulted in 35 

incidents. Most of the incidents resulted 

in no injury, and five resulted in minor 

injuries, such as bumps. 

Canopy-related issues were involved 

in 24 incidents and resulted in 18 

injuries. Sixteen injuries were due to 

canopy folds, where the child’s finger 

was caught. One injury required 

hospitalization where a child’s finger 

was reattached. Other hazards included 

cords that are attached to canopies, 

resulting in strangulation hazards and 

attachments with sharp edges or small 

parts. 

Handlebar issues were involved in 21 

incidents, resulting in seven injuries. 

One injury required hospitalization after 

a child’s finger was caught in a 

reversible handle hinge and was 

amputated. Eleven incidents were the 

result of broken handlebars. 

Seat-related issues, such as seat fabric 

tear resulted in 19 incidents including 

4 injuries. 

Sharp points or edges resulted in 18 

incidents with 16 injuries. 

Tray-related issues, such as breakage, 

detachment, or malfunction resulted in 

14 incidents, including 11 injuries, eight 

involving fingers. 

Unspecified category includes 

stroller-related incidents lacking 

sufficient information to determine the 

cause. There were 32 reported incidents 

in this category, including 21 injuries 

and one fatality. The fatal incident 

involved a stroller falling off of a dock 

and into a bay that resulted in a victim 

drowning. There were two 

hospitalizations: The first incident 

involved a child falling into a lake while 

strapped in his stroller, and the second 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

29282 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

incident involved a child falling off of 

his stroller at his home. 

Miscellaneous problems, including 

strap detachment, logo detachment, 

rust, lead, tearing material, and jump 

seat detachment were involved in 40 

incidents, including 15 with reported 

injuries. In 15 incidents, a child was 

choking on a toy accessory or tag that 

had been removed from the product. 

Five of the injuries resulted in 

unexpected detachment of jump seats 

while in use. 

In some cases, older children (5 years 

of age or older) and adults also got 

injured on the stroller. Strollers are not 

self-propelled and remain stationary 

until pushed by a person other than the 

occupant. Caregivers are also involved 

in setting up the stroller (e.g., folding, 

unfolding, removing the stroller from 

the trunk, and pumping air into the 

stroller tire). Caregiver involvement 

requires a different set of interactions 

with the stroller and poses various risks. 

There were 78 reported stroller 

incidents that involved children older 

than 4 and adults: 20 of these injuries 

were moderate and severe. Out of 78 

incidents, 72 involved victims between 

17 and 64 years of age. Seventy-four 

incidents resulted in injuries, mostly to 

the fingers. 

In addition, there were five consumer 

complaint reports with no incidents or 

injuries. 

D. NEISS Data 

In addition to the 1,207 incident 

reports received by the Commission, we 

estimated the number of injuries treated 

in U.S. hospital emergency departments 

using the CPSC’s National Electronic 

Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). 

Over a 4-year-period, a total of 46,200 

stroller-related injuries were treated in 

U.S. hospital emergency departments 

from January 2008 through December 

2011. Because CPSC’s NEISS data for 

2012 is not yet finalized, only partial 

estimates for 2012 are available. There 

was no statistically significant increase 

or decrease observed in the estimated 

injuries from one year to the next, nor 

was there any statistically significant 

trend observed over the 4-year period 

from 2008 to 2011. 

No fatalities were reported through 

NEISS. Most of the injuries (94%) were 

treated and released. Most of the 

incidents were related to falls on or off 

the stroller. A breakdown of the 

characteristics among the emergency 

department-treated injuries associated 

with strollers is presented in the bullets 

below: 

• Injured body part—head (51%), face 

(24%), mouth (9%), finger (5%); and 

• Injury type—internal organ injury 

(36%), contusions/abrasions (24%), 

laceration (18%). 

E. Product Recalls 

Between January 1, 2008 and 

December 31, 2012, there were 29 

recalls involving 6.82 million strollers 

and 15 different firms. The recalls 

related to incidents involving finger 

injuries, strangulation hazards, brake 

failures, choking hazards, and fall 

hazards. Additional information on 

these recalls can be found in staff’s 

briefing package on the Commission’s 

Web site at: www.cpsc.gov or 

www.saferproducts.gov. 

IV. Other Standards 

A. International Standards 

CPSC staff reviewed the performance 

requirements of the current ASTM 

standard, ASTM F833–13, to the 

performance requirements of other 

standards, including those from Canada, 

the European Union (EU), and 

Australia/New Zealand. Strollers and 

carriages are regulated products in 

Canada that must meet the requirements 

published by Health Canada in April 

1985, SOR/85–379, Carriages and 

Strollers Regulations. Although 

Canada’s regulation has no requirements 

that address head entrapment or buckle 

release, the Canadian restraint system 

strength requirements are more severe 

than those in ASTM F833–13. The 

stroller standard in Europe, published 

in March 2012, is EN 1888:2012, Child 

care articles—Wheeled child 

conveyances—Safety requirements and 

test methods, also does not contain 

requirements that address head 

entrapment or buckle release. However, 

the EN 1888 standard requires fatigue 

tests in several places to evaluate the 

durability of attachment points and 

locks/latches. The standard that covers 

stroller safety in Australia and New 

Zealand, published on December 14, 

2009, AS/NZS 2088:2009 Prams and 

strollers—Safety requirements, is a very 

thorough and stringent stroller standard. 

However, the standard lacks a head 

entrapment test and a dynamic 

scissoring, shearing, and pinching test. 

This standard also requires fatigue tests 

to evaluate the durability of attachment 

points and locks/latches, similar to 

those found in EN 1888. 

CPSC staff evaluated the requirements 

of the international standards and 

determined that the current ASTM 

F833–13 standard is the most 

comprehensive of the standards to 

address the incident hazards associated 

with strollers. Although some 

individual requirements in international 

standards are more stringent than ASTM 

F833–13, based on the current hazard 

patterns identified in the incident 

reports, CPSC is not proposing to adopt 

additional requirements at this time, 

with the exception of the proposed 

performance requirement and test 

procedure to address scissoring, 

shearing, and pinching hazards 

associated with 2D fold strollers. 

However, CPSC staff will continue to 

monitor hazard patterns and 

recommend future changes, if necessary. 

B. Voluntary Standard—ASTM F833 

1. History of ASTM F833 

ASTM F833, ‘‘Standard Consumer 

Safety Performance Specification for 

Carriages and Strollers,’’ establishes 

safety performance requirements, test 

methods, and labeling requirements to 

minimize the hazards to children 

presented by carriages and strollers. 

ASTM first published a consumer 

product safety standard for strollers in 

1983. It has been revised 20 times in the 

past 29 years, with six revisions in the 

past 5 years. By the end of 2008, the 

majority of the general requirements 

were in place, including the following: 

• Latching mechanisms must resist 

unintentional folding when a 45 lb. 

force is applied five times in an attempt 

to fold the product without releasing a 

latch; 

• Toy accessories must meet the 

requirements of ASTM F963, Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for Toy 

Safety; and 

• Several general requirements 

common to ASTM standards, including: 

hazardous points and edges; small parts; 

paint and surface coatings; wood being 

smooth and free of splinters; holes and 

slots that could trap a child’s finger; 

exposed coil springs; warning label 

permanency; and retention of protective 

components. 

In addition, eight performance 

requirements were included in ASTM 

F833–08: 

• Parking Brake—A parking brake 

must be provided and the braked wheels 

shall not rotate more than 90° when 

tested on a 12° incline. 

• Static Load—A stroller shall 

support a weight of 100 lbs. or 2.5 times 

the manufacturer-recommended 

maximum weight in each individual 

seating area. A combination unit of a car 

seat on a stroller must support a 50-lb. 

weight. 

• Stability—The product with a 17- 

lbm. CAMI dummy shall not tip over 

when placed on a 12° incline and shall 

not tip forward when a 40 lb. force is 

applied downward where a child would 

likely step to climb into the stroller. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29283 

• Restraining System—A three-point 

restraint system (waist and crotch) must 

be present and may not detach, nor may 

the adjusting elements permit slippage 

more than 1 in. when tested as follows: 

a. Apply 45-lb. force to each 

anchoring point. 

b. Insert CAMI infant dummy, secure 

restraints, and pull a leg with 45-lbs. of 

force five times. 

• Occupant Retention—A wall 

surrounding all sides above the floor of 

the occupant space shall not permit the 

passage of a 3-in. diameter probe. 

• Combination Unit of a Car Seat on 

a Stroller—This section lists the specific 

requirements combination frame/car 

seat products must meet to eliminate 

omissions due to differing 

interpretations of the standard. 

• Impact Test—The product shall not 

become damaged, and the car seat may 

not become completely separated from 

the frame, with 40 lb. (or maximum 

recommended weight) secured by the 

restraint system in each seating area, 

then allowed to roll 40 in. down a 20° 

slope into a rigid steel stop. 

• Passive Containment/Foot 

Opening—Products with a tray or grab 

bar in front of the occupant that creates 

an opening that could potentially trap a 

child’s head are not permitted. If the 

opening permits the passage of a 3.0 in. 

x 5.5 in. torso probe, it must also permit 

the passage of an 8.0-in. diameter head 

probe sphere. 

Minor changes to the standard were 

made from 2008 through 2011. In 

addition to editorial alterations and 

clarifications, the 2009 revision (F833– 

09) excluded self-propelled products, 

including tricycles with push handles. 

The next revision, published in May 

2010 (F833–10), added rotating seats to 

the stability test, and more importantly, 

made the impact test more stringent. In 

addition, the detachment of any car seat 

attachment point from a stroller frame 

would constitute a failure of the impact 

test. The 2011 version of the standard 

added a requirement specifying the text 

size for instructional literature 

warnings. 

2. Description of the Current Voluntary 

Standard—ASTM F833–13 

Since 2011, CPSC staff has worked 

with ASTM stakeholders in task groups 

to develop new requirements and 

improve certain requirements to address 

the hazards identified in the incident 

data. With the exception of a proposed 

performance requirement and test 

procedure to address scissoring, 

shearing, and pinching hazards 

associated with 2D fold strollers, CPSC 

finds that ASTM F833–13 will address 

the hazards identified in the incident 

data. This section discusses how each 

hazard pattern described is addressed in 

the current voluntary standard ASTM 

F833–13. 

Wheel Issues—A new performance 

requirement addresses the wheel 

detachment hazard pattern. This 

requirement verifies the strength with 

which wheels are attached to the 

stroller. A wheel detachment test is 

applied to non-swivel wheels and 

swivel wheels, as well as to the wheels 

that are intended to be detached from a 

removable wheel fork assembly. A new 

warning label is also required on the 

front wheel fork, alerting the user to a 

possible tip-over hazard if the wheel is 

not attached securely. In addition, new 

warning labels are required for threewheeled strollers, if the front wheel is 

intended to be locked during running, 

jogging, or walking fast. 

Parking Brakes—ASTM F833–13 

includes a modified performance 

requirement and associated test to 

address weak parking brakes. The 

improved requirement increases both 

the applied force (by approximately 

50%) and the number of repetitions, 

resulting in a more stringent parking 

brake system performance requirement. 

Lock Mechanism—A more stringent 

performance requirement requires the 

successful completion of a test that 

applies a force to the handle bars in a 

direction likely to break and disengage 

the folding latch system. This updated 

requirement will significantly reduce 

the hazard associated with weak lock/ 

latch mechanisms. 

Restraint—The requirements included 

in the ASTM standard prior to the 2013 

version addressed restraint system 

breakage, detachment, and poor fit 

failure modes. ASTM F833–13 adds a 

new requirement to reduce the ability of 

a child to escape by unbuckling the 

harness straps. The new requirement 

states that the buckle shall either have 

a single-action release mechanism that 

does not release at a force less than 9 

lbf., or a buckle that consists of a 

double-action release mechanism. 

Hinges—The highest injury rate of 

any stroller hazard category arises from 

scissoring, pinching, or shearing at the 

hinge link of 2D and 3D strollers. Even 

though certain pinching and shearing 

hazards are addressed in the previous 

versions of the standard, this 

requirement applied only after the 

stroller was erected and secured. 

Incident data showed that the majority 

of the injuries occurred when the 

stroller was partially erected; therefore, 

a new requirement addressing the 

hazard during the unfolding action was 

necessary. ASTM F833–13 now 

includes a requirement to address the 

hinge link hazards on 3D fold strollers, 

but it still fails to address 2D fold 

strollers. The proposed rule would add 

a performance requirement and test 

method similar to the provisions for 3D 

fold strollers to address hinge link 

hazards on 2D fold strollers. 

Structural Integrity—ASTM F833–13 

contains performance requirements that 

contribute to the general evaluation of 

structural integrity, including latching 

mechanisms, parking brake 

requirements, static load, stability, 

restraining system, and impact test. 

Stability/Tip Over—Performance 

requirements associated with stability 

have been strengthened in ASTM F833– 

13 to account for strollers that have 

rearward or swiveling seats that can face 

multiple directions. In addition, testing 

requirements for stability have been 

modified so that the test is executed to 

a more stringent stability performance 

requirement. 

Clearance—In addition to the 

preexisting requirement associated with 

evaluating the gap between the seat and 

front tray to prevent head entrapment, 

ASTM F833–13 requires a new 

entrapment test with a car seat on a 

stroller or convertible carriage/stroller. 

This additional requirement addresses 

the fatality scenario in which a child 

was found suspended between the foot 

end of a car seat and a metal bar under 

the cup holder tray. 

Car Seat Attachment—ASTM F833– 

13 requires combination units to meet 

general requirements associated with 

latching, parking brakes, static load, and 

stability and tip over. 

Canopy—ASTM F833–13 includes a 

new performance requirement to 

address the scissoring, shearing, and 

pinching hazard caused by canopy 

pivots. In addition, the standard 

incorporates a new performance 

requirement to address the strangulation 

hazard associated with cords and straps 

within the ‘‘occupant space,’’ by 

eliminating cords or straps that can 

create a hazardous loop. 

Handlebar—ASTM F833–13 

addresses the structural integrity of 

handlebar hinges and latches, the 

strength of metal frame, and handle grip 

structural integrity with an improved 

latch performance requirement. 

Seat—The separated seam failure 

mode is addressed by ASTM F833–13 

with the static load performance 

requirement. This requirement states 

that the seat shall support 100 lbs. or 2.5 

times the manufacturer’s recommended 

maximum weight, whichever is greater. 

Sharp Points or Edges—Sharp points 

and edges are addressed in ASTM 

F833–13. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

29284 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Tray—Most of the incidents 

associated with trays involve pinch 

hazards with the closing motion or gaps 

that entrap small fingers. Although 

ASTM F833–13 does not specifically 

address scissoring, shearing, and 

pinching hazards due to tray 

articulation, latching, and locking, it 

does include a general requirement for 

openings. 

Miscellaneous—Choking hazards are 

addressed by ASTM F833–13 in the 

small parts prohibition section, labeling 

section, as well as the toy accessories 

requirement. 

Older Children and Adults—The 

requirements added to or improved in 

ASTM F833–13, and the proposed new 

requirement and test method to address 

scissoring, shearing, and pinching 

hazards associated with 2D fold 

strollers, may address nearly half of the 

adult injury hazard patterns that were 

identified by CPSC staff. 

IV. Proposed Change to ASTM F833–13 

Hinge issues were reported in 75 

incidents, resulting in 72 injuries. This 

is the highest injury rate of any stroller 

hazard category. Most of the hingerelated injuries resulted from scissoring, 

pinching, or shearing at the hinge link 

of 2D and 3D strollers. Most of the 

incidents occurred when a caregiver 

was unfolding the stroller for use and 

the child was climbing into the stroller. 

Reported injuries involved pinched, 

lacerated, or amputated fingers or arms, 

including one hospitalization for 

reattachment of a finger. Incident data 

show that the majority of the injuries 

occurred when the stroller was partially 

erected; therefore, a new requirement 

addressing the hazard during the 

unfolding action had to be developed. 

Although ASTM F833–13 now includes 

a requirement addressing this hazard in 

the 3D fold strollers, it does not address 

2D fold strollers. For 3D fold strollers, 

ASTM F833–13 requires that 3D saddle 

hinges must be constructed to prevent 

injury from scissoring, shearing, or 

pinching. The 3D fold test is dynamic. 

The stroller is partially unfolded so that 

the main side rail tubes are positioned 

90° to one another. Saddle hinge 

scissoring, shearing, and pinching 

conditions are checked for with the two 

probes (0.210-in. and 0.375-in. 

diameter) while opening the stroller into 

the manufacturer’s recommended open 

and locked position. 

The proposed rule would add a 

performance requirement and test 

method similar to the provisions for 3D 

fold strollers to address scissoring, 

shearing, and pinching hazards 

associated with 2D fold strollers. The 

proposed new requirement would 

provide that the frame folding action of 

a stroller shall not create a scissoring, 

shearing, or pinching hazard when 

tested. The proposed new test is 

dynamic, like the saddle hinge test, and 

the test also determines if the hazard 

exists with the same two probes while 

the stroller is moved from a partially to 

the fully erect and locked position. 

Scissoring, shearing, or pinching that 

may cause injury exists when the edges 

of the rigid parts admit a 0.210-in 

diameter probe but do not admit a 

0.375-in diameter probe when tested. 

Based on the incident data and 

anthropometric dimensions of the child 

occupant, the proposal defines an 

‘‘access zone’’ that is easily accessible 

by a child. All hinges that are within the 

access zone must be checked for a 

scissoring, shearing, or pinching hazard 

while the stroller is moved from a 

partially to a fully erect and locked 

position. Adding this new performance 

requirement and test procedure would 

significantly reduce the risk of injury 

associated with the frame folding action. 

V. Effective Date 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) generally requires that the 

effective date of the rule be at least 30 

days after publication of the final rule. 

5 U.S.C. 553(d). On April 7, 2012, CPSC 

staff received a letter from the Juvenile 

Products Manufacturers Association 

(JPMA), asking for an effective date of 

24 months following publication of the 

carriage and stroller final rule. In that 

letter, JPMA stated that many challenges 

remain before implementing the new 

requirements, including design changes 

and revised product development 

schedules. The ASTM balloting process 

in February 2013 generated more recent 

comments regarding the effective date. 

Several manufacturers commented again 

on the need for additional time for 

compliance to address significant design 

and development redesign 

implementation. However, these 

commenters now request 18 months. 

The Commission is aware that 

significant revisions were made to the 

latest version of the standard requiring 

many modifications to carriages and 

strollers. Due to the complexity of 

stroller designs, and to allow time for 

manufacturers of carriage/stroller 

products to come into compliance, the 

Commission proposes that the standard 

become effective 18 months after 

publication of a final rule in the Federal 

Register. The Commission invites 

comment on whether 18 months is an 

appropriate length of time for carriage/ 

stroller manufacturers to come into 

compliance with the rule. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. Introduction 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

requires that proposed rules be 

reviewed for their potential economic 

impact on small entities, including 

small businesses. Section 603 of the 

RFA generally requires that agencies 

prepare an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis and make it available to the 

public for comment when a general 

notice of proposed rulemaking is 

published. The initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis must describe the 

impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities and identify any alternatives 

that may reduce the impact. 

Specifically, the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis must contain: 

• A description of, and where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the proposed 

rule will apply; 

• A description of the reasons why 

action by the agency is being 

considered; 

• A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

proposed rule; 

• A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of 

the classes of small entities subject to 

the requirements and the types of 

professional skills necessary for the 

preparation of reports or records; and 

• Identification, to the extent 

possible, of all relevant federal rules 

which may duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed rule. 

2. Reason for Agency Action and Legal 

Basis for the Proposed Rule 

The Danny Keysar Child Product 

Safety Notification Act, section 104 of 

the CPSIA, requires the CPSC to 

promulgate mandatory standards that 

are substantially the same as, or more 

stringent than, the voluntary standard 

for a durable infant or toddler product. 

CPSC staff worked closely with ASTM 

stakeholders to develop the new 

requirements and test procedures that 

have been incorporated into ASTM 

F833–13, which forms the basis of the 

proposed rule. 

3. Other Federal Rules 

Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires 

every manufacturer and private labeler 

of a children’s product that is subject to 

a children’s product safety rule to 

certify, based on third party testing 

conducted by a CPSC-accepted 

laboratory, that the product complies 

with all applicable children’s product 

safety rules. Section 14(d)(2) of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29285 

CPSA requires the Commission to 

establish protocols and standards, by 

rule, for among other things, ensuring 

that a children’s product is tested 

periodically and where there has been a 

material change in the product, and for 

safeguarding against the exercise of 

undue influence on a conformity 

assessment body by a manufacturer or 

private labeler. A final rule 

implementing sections 14(a)(2) and 

14(d)(2) of CPSA, Testing and Labeling 

Pertaining to Product Certification, 16 

CFR part 1107, became effective on 

February 13, 2013 (the 1107 rule). 

Carriages and strollers will be subject 

to a mandatory children’s product safety 

rule, so they will also be subject to the 

third party testing requirements of 

section 14 of the CPSA and the 1107 

rule when the final rule and the notice 

of requirements become effective. 

4. Impact on Small Businesses 

Approximately 86 firms currently 

supply carriages/strollers in the U.S. 

market. Under U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) guidelines, a 

manufacturer is small if it has 500 or 

fewer employees, and importers and 

wholesalers are considered small if they 

have 100 or fewer employees. Based on 

these guidelines, about 51 suppliers are 

small firms—26 domestic 

manufacturers, 22 domestic importers, 

and three firms with unknown supply 

sources. There may be additional 

unknown small carriage/stroller 

suppliers operating in the U.S. market. 

Small Manufacturers. The expected 

impact of the proposed rule on small 

manufacturers will differ based on 

whether their carriages/strollers are 

already compliant with ASTM F833–11. 

In general, firms whose carriages/ 

strollers meet the requirements of 

ASTM F833–11 are likely to continue to 

comply with the voluntary standard as 

new versions are published. In addition, 

they are likely to meet any new standard 

before a final rule becomes effective. 

Many of these firms are active in the 

ASTM standard development process, 

and compliance with the voluntary 

standard is part of an established 

business practice. 

Meeting ASTM F833–13’s 

requirements could necessitate product 

redesign for at least some carriages/ 

strollers not believed to be compliant 

with ASTM F833–11 (7 of 26 small 

domestic manufacturers). A redesign 

would be minor if most of the changes 

involve adding straps and fasteners or 

using different mesh or fabric, but could 

be more significant if changes to the 

frame are required. Due to the 

complexity of carriages/strollers, a 

complete redesign of these products, 

including engineering time, prototype 

development, tooling, and other 

incidental costs, could exceed $1 

million for the most complex models. 

Industry sources, including JPMA, note 

that new tooling alone could exceed 

$300,000 per product model. However, 

costs and development time are likely to 

vary widely across firms. Companies 

with substantial experience in 

manufacturing carriages/strollers should 

be able to complete redesigns more cost 

effectively than firms with less 

experience. Additionally, firms with 

numerous carriage/stroller models may 

experience lower costs because models 

could be redesigned as a group. 

The direct impact on manufacturers 

whose products are expected to meet 

the requirements of ASTM F833–13 (19 

of 26 small domestic manufacturers) 

could be significant in some cases, due 

to the proposed 2D frame folding 

requirement, as well as the relatively 

low revenues associated with many 

small manufacturers. While meeting this 

requirement could be as simple as 

replacing hinges or adding covers, this 

may not be a realistic alternative for 

some firms. According to one 

manufacturer, it is difficult to make 

added parts look cohesive with the 

original product, a quality that 

consumers might prefer. Therefore, 

some firms may need to develop new 

models, rather than try to create 

cohesive products by retrofitting older 

models. The majority of small 

manufacturers have at least one 2D 

stroller model; so it is possible that at 

least some will opt to redesign their 

existing noncompliant strollers. 

The direct costs of design/redesign on 

firms may be mitigated if the costs are 

treated as new product expenses that 

can be amortized, and the Commission 

is proposing an 18-month effective date 

to help reduce further the impact of the 

proposed rule. This would give firms 

additional time to develop new/ 

modified products and spread costs over 

a longer time frame. It is possible that 

additional time beyond 18 months may 

be required, however; and CPSC 

requests specific comments on 

alternative effective dates. 

In addition, once the rule becomes 

final and the notice of requirements is 

in effect, all manufacturers will be 

subject to the additional costs associated 

with the third party testing and 

certification requirements. This will 

include any physical and mechanical 

test requirements specified in the final 

rule; lead and phthalates testing is 

already required. 

CPSC staff estimates that testing to the 

ASTM voluntary standard could cost 

about $800¥$1,000 per model sample. 

On average, each small domestic 

manufacturer supplies seven different 

models of carriages/strollers to the U.S. 

market annually. Therefore, if third 

party testing were conducted every year 

on a single sample for each model, third 

party testing costs for each manufacturer 

would be about $5,600¥$7,000 

annually. Based on a review of firm 

revenues, the impact of third party 

testing to ASTM F833–13 is unlikely to 

be significant if only one sample per 

model is required. However, if more 

than one sample would be needed to 

meet the testing requirements, it is 

possible that third party testing costs 

could have a significant impact on one 

or more of the small manufacturers. 

Small Importers. Most small 

importers of carriages/strollers currently 

in compliance with F833–11 (13 of 22 

small domestic importers) would likely 

continue to comply with the standard as 

it evolves. Any increase in production 

costs experienced by their suppliers 

may be passed on to them. Given the 

possibility that even firms with 

compliant products may opt to design a 

new carriage/stroller rather than retrofit 

their existing models, the costs 

associated with the added 2D folding 

frame requirement could be significant 

for some firms, especially those that do 

not follow the ASTM standard 

development process (as is the case with 

at least one small importer of compliant 

strollers). 

Importers of carriages/strollers would 

need to find an alternate source if their 

existing supplier does not come into 

compliance with the requirements of the 

proposed rule (currently, nine importers 

of strollers may not be in compliance 

with F833–11). Some could respond to 

the rule by discontinuing the import of 

their noncomplying products, possibly 

discontinuing the product line 

altogether. The impact of such a 

decision could be mitigated by replacing 

the noncompliant carriage/stroller with 

a compliant carriage/stroller or by 

deciding to import an alternative 

product in place of the carriage/stroller. 

However, some of these firms have few 

or no other products in their product 

line. 

Because many of these firms have low 

sales revenues and limited product lines 

apart from carriages/strollers and 

carriage/stroller accessories, it is 

possible that the proposed rule could 

have a significant impact on one or 

more importers. The proposed 18-month 

effective date would spread the costs of 

compliance over a longer period of time, 

mitigating the impact on all importers. 

As is the case with manufacturers, all 

importers will be subject to third party 

testing and certification requirements, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

29286 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

and consequently, will experience costs 

similar to those for manufacturers if 

their supplying foreign firm(s) does not 

perform third party testing. The 

resulting costs could have a significant 

impact on a few small importers who 

must perform the testing themselves, 

even if only one sample per model were 

required. 

Alternatives. Under the Danny Keysar 

Child Product Safety Notification Act, 

one alternative that would reduce the 

impact on small entities is to make the 

voluntary standard mandatory with no 

modifications. Doing so would 

eliminate the impact on the 19 small 

manufacturers and 13 small importers 

with compliant products. However, 

adopting the voluntary standard with no 

modifications may not substantially 

benefit firms with noncompliant 

products, as their carriages/strollers 

might still require redesign. 

The proposed 18-month effective date 

will allow suppliers additional time to 

modify and/or develop compliant 

carriages/strollers and spread the 

associated costs over a longer period of 

time. However, the Commission could 

opt to set an even later effective date. 

Doing so could reduce further the 

impact on affected firms. A third 

alternative would be to set an earlier 

effective date. However, setting an 

earlier effective date could increase the 

impact of the rule on small entities. 

VII. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations address 

whether we are required to prepare an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement. If our 

rule has ‘‘little or no potential for 

affecting the human environment,’’ it 

will be categorically exempted from this 

requirement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The 

proposed rule falls within the 

categorical exemption. 

VIII. 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 Carriages 

and Strollers 

Description: The proposed rule would 

require each stroller/carriage to comply 

with ASTM F833–13, Standard 

Consumer Safety Performance 

Specification for Carriages and Strollers. 

Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F833–13 

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 carriages 

and/or strollers. 

Estimated Burden: We estimate the 

burden of this collection of information 

as follows: 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN

16 CFR Section Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

responses 

Total annual 

responses 

Hours per 

response 

Total burden 

hours 

1227 ..................................................................................... 86 6 516 1 516 

Our estimates are based on the 

following: 

Section 8.1.1 of ASTM F833–13 

requires that the name and the place of 

business (city, state, mailing address, 

including zip code, or telephone 

number) of the manufacturer, 

distributor, or seller be marked clearly 

and legibly on each product and its 

retail package. Section 8.1.2 of ASTM 

F833–13 requires a code mark or other 

means that identifies the date (month 

and year, as a minimum) of 

manufacture. 

There are 86 known entities 

supplying strollers/carriages to the U.S. 

market. All 86 firms are assumed to use 

labels already on both their products 

and their packaging, but they might 

need to make some modifications to 

their existing labels. The estimated time 

required to make these modifications is 

about 1 hour per model. Each entity 

supplies an average of six different 

models of strollers/carriages; therefore, 

the estimated burden associated with 

labels is 1 hour per model × 86 entities 

× 6 models per entity = 516 hours. We 

estimate the hourly compensation for 

the time required to create and update 

labels is $27.12 (U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, ‘‘Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation,’’ December 

2012, Table 9, total compensation for all 

sales and office workers in goodsproducing private industries: http:// 

www.bls.gov/ncs/). Therefore, the 

estimated annual cost to industry 

associated with the labeling 

requirements is $13,993.92 ($27.12 per 

hour × 516 hours = $13,993.92). There 

are no operating, maintenance, or 

capital costs associated with the 

collection. 

Section 9.1 of ASTM F833–13 

requires instructions to be supplied 

with the product. Carriages/strollers are 

products that generally require 

assembly, and products sold without 

such information would not be able to 

compete successfully with products 

supplying this information. 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.’’ 

Therefore, because we are unaware of 

carriages/strollers that generally require 

some installation, but lack any 

instructions to the user about such 

installation, we tentatively estimate that 

there are no burden hours associated 

with section 9.1 of ASTM F833–13 

because any burden associated with 

supplying instructions with carriages/ 

strollers 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 strollers and carriages 

would impose a burden to industry of 

516 hours at a cost of $13,993.92 

annually. 

In compliance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

§ 3507(d)), we have submitted the 

information collection requirements of 

this rule to the OMB for review. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29287 

Interested persons are requested to 

submit comments regarding information 

collection by June 19, 2013, 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. 

IX. Preemption 

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

2075(a), provides that where 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,’’ thus implying 

that the preemptive effect of section 

26(a) of the CPSA would apply. 

Therefore, a rule issued under section 

104 of the CPSIA will invoke the 

preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the 

CPSA when it becomes effective. 

X. Certification and Notice of 

Requirements (NOR) 

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). Section 14(a)(2) of the 

CPSA requires that certification of 

children’s products subject to a 

children’s product safety rule be based 

on testing conducted by a CPSCaccepted third party conformity 

assessment body. Section 14(a)(3) of the 

CPSA requires the Commission to 

publish a notice of requirements (NOR) 

for the accreditation of third party 

conformity assessment bodies (or 

laboratories) to assess conformity with a 

children’s product safety rule to which 

a children’s product is subject. The 

proposed rule for 16 CFR part 1227, 

‘‘Safety Standard for Carriages and 

Strollers,’’ when issued as a final rule, 

will be a children’s product safety rule 

that requires the issuance of an NOR. 

The Commission recently published a 

final rule, Requirements Pertaining to 

Third Party Conformity Assessment 

Bodies, 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), 

which is codified at 16 CFR part 1112 

(referred to here as Part 1112). This rule 

will take effect June 10, 2013. Part 1112 

establishes requirements for 

accreditation of third party conformity 

assessment bodies (or laboratories) to 

test for conformance with a children’s 

product safety rule in accordance with 

Section14(a)(2) of the CPSA. The final 

rule also codifies all of the NORs that 

the CPSC had published to date. All 

new NORs, such as the carriages and 

strollers standard, require an 

amendment to part 1112. Accordingly, 

the proposed rule would amend part 

1112 to include the carriages and 

strollers standard along with the other 

children’s product safety rules for 

which the CPSC has issued NORs. 

Laboratories applying for acceptance 

as a CPSC-accepted third party 

conformity assessment body to test to 

the new standard for carriages and 

strollers 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, it 

can apply to the CPSC to have 16 CFR 

part 1227, Safety Standard for Carriages 

and Strollers, included in its scope of 

accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed 

for the laboratory on the CPSC Web site 

at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch. 

In connection with the part 1112 

rulemaking, CPSC staff conducted an 

analysis of the potential impacts on 

small entities of the proposed rule 

establishing accreditation requirements, 

77 FR 31086, 31123–26 (May 24, 2012), 

as required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and prepared an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). Briefly, the 

IRFA concluded that the requirements 

would not have a significant adverse 

impact on a substantial number of small 

laboratories because no requirements 

are imposed on laboratories that do not 

intend to provide third party testing 

services under section 14(a)(2) of the 

CPSA. The only laboratories that are 

expected to provide such services are 

those that anticipate receiving sufficient 

revenue from providing the mandated 

testing to justify accepting the 

requirements as a business decision. 

Laboratories that do not expect to 

receive sufficient revenue from these 

services to justify accepting these 

requirements would not likely pursue 

accreditation for this purpose. Similarly, 

amending the part 1112 rule to include 

the NOR for the carriages and strollers 

standard would not have a significant 

adverse impact on small laboratories. 

Moreover, based upon the number of 

laboratories in the United States 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 carriages and strollers 

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 

carriages and strollers standard to their 

scope of accreditation. As a 

consequence, the Commission certifies 

that the proposed notice requirements 

for the carriages and strollers standard 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

XI. Request for Comments 

This proposed rule begins a 

rulemaking proceeding under section 

104(b) of the CPSIA to issue a consumer 

product safety standard for carriages 

and strollers. We invite all interested 

persons to submit comments on any 

aspect of the proposed rule. 

In particular, we note that there are a 

number of international standards 

applicable to carriages, strollers, or both 

(discussed above in IV. Other Standards, 

A. International Standards). Based on 

quantitative analysis, are there one or 

more international performance 

requirements that are substantially the 

same as, or are more stringent than, a 

related requirement or requirements in 

ASTM F833–13? If available, please 

submit any such analysis. 

Comments should be submitted in 

accordance with the instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this notice. 

List of Subjects 

16 CFR Part 1112 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

29288 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

requirements, Third party conformity 

assessment body. 

16 CFR Part 1227 

Consumer protection, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Infants and 

children, Labeling, Law enforcement, 

and Toys. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Commission proposes to 

amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 1112—REQUIREMENTS 

PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY 

CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT BODIES 

■ 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 Part 1112.15 by adding 

paragraph (b)(37) 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) The CPSC has published the 

requirements for accreditation for third 

party conformity assessment bodies to 

assess conformity for the following 

CPSC rules or test methods: 

* * * * * 

(37) 16 CFR part 1227, Safety 

Standard for Carriages and Strollers. 

PART 1227—SAFETY STANDARD FOR 

CARRIAGES AND STROLLERS 

■ 3. Add a new part 1227 to read as 

follows: 

Sec. 

1227.1 Scope. 

1227.2 Requirements for Carriages and 

Strollers. 

Authority: The Consumer Product Safety 

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

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

L. 112–28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011). 

§ 1227.1 Scope. 

This part establishes a consumer 

product safety standard for carriages 

and strollers. 

§ 1227.2 Requirements for Carriages and 

Strollers. 

(a) Each carriage and stroller must 

comply with all applicable provisions of 

ASTM F833–13, Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Carriages and 

Strollers, approved on April 1, 2013. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approves this incorporation by reference 

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 

1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy 

from ASTM International, 100 Bar 

Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428; http:// 

www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may 

inspect a copy at the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

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

federal_register/code_of_federal

regulations/ibr_locations.html. 

(b) Comply with ASTM F833–13 

standard with the following additions: 

(1) In addition to complying with 

section 3.1.21 of ASTM F833–13, 

comply with the following: 

(i) 3.1.22 2D fold stroller, n-a stroller 

that folds the handlebars and leg tubes 

only in the front-to-back (or back-tofront) direction. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(2) Instead of complying with section 

5.7 of ASTM F833–13, comply with the 

following: 

(i) 5.7 Scissoring, Shearing, and 

Pinching 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(3) In addition to complying with 

section 5.7.3 of ASTM F833–13, comply 

with the following: 

(i) 5.7.4 The frame folding action of 

a 2D fold stroller and convertible 

carriage/stroller (carriages are exempted 

from this requirement) shall be designed 

and constructed so as to prevent injury 

from scissoring, shearing, or pinching. 

Scissoring, shearing, or pinching that 

may cause injury exists when the edges 

of the rigid parts admit a 0.210-in (5.33- 

mm) diameter probe but do not admit a 

0.375-in (9.53-mm) diameter probe 

when tested in accordance with 7.18. 

Units with a removable seat that prevent 

the complete folding of the unit when 

still attached are exempt from this 

requirement. Note: The evaluation at 

any given location is performed with the 

understanding that the probes are 

allowed to enter the location from any 

angle/direction. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(4) In addition to complying with 

section 7.17 of ASTM F833–13, comply 

with the following: 

(i) 7.18 Frame Folding Scissoring, 

Shearing, and Pinching 

(A) 7.18.1 2D fold stroller and 

convertible carriage/stroller evaluation: 

Place the unit’s seatback in the most 

upright position. Identify and mark the 

portion of the unit’s rigid frame 

members and hinges that have potential 

scissoring, shearing, or pinching action 

during folding of the unit and are within 

or penetrate the access zone shown in 

the Fig X anywhere within the width of 

the stroller. All marked portions of the 

frame shall be evaluated per 7.18.2 or 

7.18.3 as applicable. For units that 

feature two or more folding operations 

that are able to be carried out 

independently of each other, each 

operation must be independently 

evaluated per the test methods in 7.18.2 

or 7.18.3 as applicable. This includes all 

seat-facing positions as recommended 

by the manufacturer and each occupant 

position on multiple occupancy units. 

Tray and front grab bar movements not 

a result of unfolding operation are 

excluded from this evaluation. 

(B) 7.18.2 For units where the front 

and rear wheels move toward each other 

during folding—measure the change in 

distance (distance A, see Fig Y) between 

the front and rear wheel axle centers 

when moving from the completely 

folded to completely erected position. 

The measurement shall be taken with 

any swivel wheels in the locked 

position and in the plane where the axel 

centerlines are perpendicular to the 

fore/aft horizontal axis of the stroller. To 

determine the starting point for testing, 

start folding the unit from erect to 

folded/’’closed’’ position until the 

distance between the wheel axel centers 

is 2⁄3 of the total travel distance (see 

figure Y for an example). From this 

point check the marked portions 

identified in 7.18.1 for scissoring, 

shearing, and pinching in accordance 

with 5.7.4 while moving the stroller 

from this partially folded position to the 

fully erect and locked position. 

(C) 7.18.3 For units where the front 

and rear wheels axle centers move away 

from each other or do not change 

distance during folding—place the unit 

in partially erect position so the handle 

tube is rotated 90 deg. from the fully 

erect and locked position. From this 

point assess the marked portions 

identified in 7.18.1 for scissoring, 

shearing, and pinching in accordance 

with 5.7.4 while moving the unit from 

this partially folded position to the fully 

erect and locked position. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29289 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(5) In addition to complying with the 

Appendix of ASTM F833–13, comply 

with the following: 

(i) XI.18 Rationale for 7.18: A 3 year 

old child’s sitting shoulder height is 15 

inches and upper limb length is 19 

inches based on 95th percentile 3-year 

old child’s measurements (Pheasant, 

S.T. (1996). Bodyspace: 

Anthropometrics, Ergonomics and the 

Design of Work (2nd ed.). London, UK: 

Taylor & Francis). The access zone 

covers a child sitting in the most upright 

position reaching forward hence the 

reason for defining 19′′ from the seat 

back junction. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

Dated: May 10, 2013. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11638 Filed 5–17–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2013–0059] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Big Bay Boom, San Diego 

Bay, San Diego, CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish four temporary safety zones 

upon the navigable waters of San Diego 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP20MY13.001</GPH>