28358 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1After the Commission issued the NPR, staff 

learned of a reclined infant seat accessory for a high 

chair product that is intended for young infants. 

The product consists of a high chair base that is 

sold separately from, but accommodates, several 

seat accessories that are appropriate for different 

ages and sizes of children. One of the seat 

accessories is a reclined seat that, when placed on 

the high chair base, allows infants to be raised to 

the height of a dining table. Based on the 

characteristics of the infant seat accessory, its 

intended use, and marketing materials, CPSC staff 

believes that these products also meet the definition 

of a high chair. 

2Under SBA size standards, a high chair 

manufacturer is ‘‘small’’ if it has 500 or fewer 

employees, and an importer is ‘‘small’’ if it has 100 

or fewer employees. 

AEA NY E5 Binghamton, NY [Amended] 

Greater Binghamton Airport/Edwin A. Link 

Field, NY 

(Lat. 42°12′30′′ N, long. 75°58′47′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius 

of Greater Binghamton Airport/Edwin A. 

Link Field. 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 6, 

2018. 

Ryan W. Almasy, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern 

Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13050 Filed 6–18–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1231 

[Docket No. CPSC–2015–0031] 

Safety Standard for High Chairs 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) 

directs the Commission to issue 

standards for durable infant or toddler 

products. To comply with section 104 of 

the CPSIA, CPSC is issuing a safety 

standard for high chairs. This rule 

incorporates by reference ASTM F404– 

18, Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for High Chairs (ASTM 

F404–18). In addition, this rule amends 

the regulations regarding third party 

conformity assessment bodies to include 

the safety standard for high chairs in the 

list of Notices of Requirements (NORs). 

DATES: The rule will become effective 

on June 19, 2019. The incorporation by 

reference of the publication listed in 

this rule is approved by the Director of 

the Federal Register as of June 19, 2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keysha Walker, Office of Compliance 

and Field Operations, U.S. Consumer 

Product Safety Commission; 4330 East 

West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

email: KWalker@cpsc.gov; telephone: 

(301) 504–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Statutory Authority 

Congress enacted the CPSIA (Pub. L. 

110–314, 122 Stat. 3016), as part of the 

Danny Keysar Child Product Safety 

Notification Act, on August 14, 2008. 

Section 104(b) of the CPSIA requires 

CPSC to: (1) Examine and assess the 

effectiveness of voluntary consumer 

product safety standards for durable 

infant or toddler products, in 

consultation with representatives of 

consumer groups, juvenile product 

manufacturers, and independent child 

product engineers and experts; and (2) 

promulgate consumer product safety 

standards for durable infant or toddler 

products. Any standard CPSC adopts 

under this mandate must be 

substantially the same as the applicable 

voluntary standard, or more stringent 

than the voluntary standard if CPSC 

determines that more stringent 

requirements would further reduce the 

risk of injury associated with the 

product. Section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA 

defines the term ‘‘durable infant or 

toddler product’’ as ‘‘a durable product 

intended for use, or that may be 

reasonably expected to be used, by 

children under the age of 5 years,’’ and 

section 104(f)(2)(C) specifically 

identifies high chairs as a durable infant 

or toddler product. 

On November 9, 2015, the 

Commission issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR), proposing to 

incorporate by reference the thencurrent voluntary standard for high 

chairs, ASTM F404–15, with more 

stringent requirements for rearward 

stability and warnings on labels and in 

instructional literature. 80 FR 69144; 81 

FR 3354 (January 21, 2016) (correcting 

an error in the NPR). After the 

Commission issued the NPR, ASTM 

revised the voluntary standard several 

times, as discussed in section V of this 

preamble, and published the current 

version of the standard, ASTM F404–18, 

in March 2018. 

In this final rule, the Commission is 

incorporating by reference ASTM F404– 

18, with no modifications, as the 

mandatory safety standard for high 

chairs. As section 104(b)(1)(A) of the 

CPSIA requires, CPSC staff consulted 

with manufacturers, retailers, trade 

organizations, laboratories, consumer 

advocacy groups, consultants, and the 

public to develop this standard, largely 

through the ASTM standarddevelopment process. In addition, this 

final rule amends the list of NORs in 16 

CFR part 1112 to include the standard 

for high chairs. 

II. Product Description 

ASTM F404–18 defines a ‘‘high chair’’ 

as ‘‘a free standing chair for a child up 

to 3 years of age which has a seating 

surface more than 15 in. above the floor 

and elevates the child normally for the 

purposes of feeding or eating.’’ The 

ASTM standard further specifies that a 

high chair may be sold with or without 

a tray, have adjustable heights, or 

recline for infants.1

High chairs are available in various 

designs, including four-legged A-frame 

styles, single-leg pedestals, Z-frame 

styles, and restaurant-style. 

Construction materials often include a 

plastic, wood, or metal frame, and a 

padded fabric seat. Some designs 

include a tray or mounted toy 

accessories, fold for storage and 

transport, or convert for continued use 

as a child grows. ASTM F404–18 

requires high chairs to have a passive 

crotch restraint (i.e., two separate 

bounded openings for the occupant’s 

legs) and a three-point restraint system; 

some designs also include a rigid front 

torso support or a five-point restraint 

system with shoulder harnesses. 

III. Market Description 

CPSC staff has identified 59 domestic 

firms that currently supply high chairs 

to the U.S. market. Thirty-three of these 

firms manufacture high chairs and the 

remaining 26 firms are importers. Fortythree of the firms (26 manufacturers and 

17 importers) are small, according to the 

U.S. Small Business Administration’s 

(SBA) standards,2 and the remaining 16 

(7 manufacturers and 9 importers) are 

large. Of the 59 domestic firms, 43 

market their high chairs only to 

consumers, and 4 sell their high chairs 

to both consumers and restaurants. In 

addition, staff identified 9 foreign firms 

that supply high chairs to the U.S. 

market, including 8 manufacturers and 

1 importer. Staff also identified 

numerous high chairs that are 

manufactured outside the United States 

and bought domestically through online 

sales. 

At the time CPSC staff assessed the 

high chairs market, 13 of the 26 small 

domestic manufacturers, and 9 of the 17 

small domestic importers, reported that 

they complied with the ASTM standard 

for high chairs. 

IV. Incident Data 

CPSC receives data regarding productrelated injuries from several sources. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 28359 

3The NPR indicated that CPSC had received 

1,296 reports of high chair-related incidents that 

occurred between January 1, 2011 and December 

31, 2014, of which 1 was fatal and 138 reported 

injuries. Since the NPR, CPSC received an 

additional 546 reports of high-chair related 

incidents that occurred between January 1, 2011 

and September 30, 2017, of which 1 was fatal and 

133 reported injuries. 

One source is the National Electronic 

Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), 

from which CPSC can estimate, based 

on a probability sample, the number of 

injuries that are treated in U.S. hospital 

emergency departments (U.S. EDs) 

nationwide that are associated with 

specific consumer products. Other 

sources include reports from consumers 

and others through the Consumer 

Product Safety Risk Management 

System (which also includes some 

NEISS data) and reports from retailers 

and manufacturers through CPSC’s 

Retailer Reporting System—CPSC refers 

to these sources collectively as 

Consumer Product Safety Risk 

Management System data (CPSRMS). 

The preamble to the NPR summarized 

reports of high chair-related incidents 

that occurred between January 1, 2011 

and December 31, 2014, which CPSC 

received through CPSRMS sources. For 

the final rule, CPSC staff has updated 

this information to reflect newly 

reported high chair incidents that 

occurred between January 1, 2011 and 

December 31, 2014, as well as new 

incidents that occurred between January 

1, 2015 and September 30, 2017. In 

total, CPSC has received 1,842 reports of 

high-chair related incidents that 

occurred between January 1, 2011 and 

September 30, 2017. These incidents 

involved 2 fatalities and 271 reported 

injuries.3 Of the incidents that reported 

the age of the child involved, the 

majority of incidents involved children 

between 7 and 18 months old. 

The preamble to the NPR also 

summarized NEISS estimates for high 

chair-related incidents that occurred 

between January 1, 2011 and December 

31, 2014. After the Commission issued 

the NPR, complete injury data became 

available for 2015 and 2016, and CPSC 

staff has updated this information for 

the final rule. Including this new data 

and extrapolating from the probability 

sample, CPSC staff estimates that there 

were 49,900 high chair-related injuries 

treated in U.S. EDs between January 1, 

2011 and December 31, 2016. There 

were no deaths reported through NEISS 

for this period. There was no 

statistically significant increase or 

decrease in the estimated injuries from 

year-to-year between 2011 and 2016, 

and there was no statistically significant 

trend in the data over this period. 

Similarly to the CPSRMS data, of the 

incidents that reported the age of the 

child involved, most incidents involved 

children between 7 and 23 months old. 

A. Fatalities 

CPSC is aware of two fatal incidents 

that occurred between January 1, 2011 

and September 30, 2017. As the NPR 

stated, CPSC staff has been unable to 

collect detailed information about the 

fatal incident that was reported in 2014. 

CPSC received another report of a high 

chair-related fatality in 2016; this 

incident involved strangulation, but 

CPSC staff was unable to obtain 

additional details about the incident. 

B. Nonfatal Injuries 

Of the total 271 nonfatal injuries 

reported to CPSC through CPSRMS 

sources that occurred between January 

1, 2011 and September 30, 2017, 1 

involved a child who was admitted to 

the hospital with a skull fracture and 

retinal hemorrhage; 15 were treated in 

U.S. EDs for injuries including a 

puncture wound to the forehead, a 

broken collarbone, a compound fracture 

of the finger, lacerations, and 

contusions; and 1 reported a head injury 

and broken wrist, but did not indicate 

the treatment the child received. The 

remaining injuries primarily consisted 

of contusions, abrasions, and 

lacerations, resulting from falls or 

entrapment of limbs or extremities. 

The injuries and treatments reported 

through NEISS for 2015 and 2016 were 

consistent with those for 2011 through 

2014, described in the NPR. In most 

cases, the patient was treated in the U.S. 

ED and released (94 percent for 2011– 

2014, and 95 percent for 2015–2016). 

The most commonly injured body parts 

were the head (65 percent for 2011– 

2016) and face (17 percent for 2011– 

2016). The most common types of 

injuries were injuries to internal organs 

(48 percent for 2011–2014, and 51 

percent for 2015–2016), contusions and 

abrasions (22 percent for 2011–2014, 

and 16 percent for 2015–2016), and 

lacerations (11 percent for 2011–2014, 

and 16 percent for 2015–2016). 

CPSC staff also assessed NEISS data to 

determine the hazards associated with 

high chairs in restaurants. There were 

an estimated 1,600 injuries treated in 

U.S. EDs between 2011 and 2016, which 

were related to high chairs in restaurant 

settings. Most incidents involved users 

falling from the high chair. Of the 

reports that indicated the cause of the 

fall, it commonly occurred when a child 

attempted to climb into or out of the 

high chair; the high chair tipped over; 

or consumers did not use restraints or 

the restraints failed or were defeated. 

C. Hazard Patterns 

The hazards reported in the new 

incidents are consistent with the hazard 

patterns staff identified in the incidents 

presented in the NPR. The hazard in 

nearly all reported incidents, both those 

discussed in the NPR (96 percent) and 

in the new incidents (95 percent), 

involved issues with specific 

components of the high chair, including 

the frame, seat, restraint system, 

armrest, tray, toy accessories, and 

footrest. Design, stability, and other 

general product issues accounted for 4 

percent of incidents discussed in the 

NPR and 3 percent of the new incidents. 

Most of the NEISS incidents reported 

for 2015 and 2016 involved falls from 

high chairs, often when a child 

attempted to climb into or out of the 

high chair; when the chair tipped over 

when a child pushed back or rocked 

while in the high chair; or when a 

component of the high chair (e.g., 

restraint, tray, lock) failed or 

disengaged. 

V. ASTM F404–18 

In this final rule, the Commission 

incorporates by reference ASTM F404– 

18. The Commission is incorporating by 

reference ASTM F404–18 because it 

includes provisions that are the same as, 

or consistent with, the requirements 

proposed in the NPR, and CPSC staff 

believes that the standard addresses the 

hazards associated with high chairs. 

A. History of ASTM F404 

ASTM F404, Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for High Chairs, is 

the voluntary standard that addresses 

the hazard patterns associated with the 

use of high chairs. ASTM first approved 

and published the standard in 1975, as 

ASTM F404–75. ASTM has revised the 

standard numerous times since then. In 

the NPR, the Commission proposed to 

incorporate by reference ASTM F404– 

15, with modifications. 

After the Commission issued the NPR, 

ASTM revised ASTM F404 five times. 

CPSC staff worked with representatives 

of manufacturers, consumer groups, 

retailers, and other industry members 

and groups on the ASTM subcommittee 

on high chairs to develop requirements 

to address the hazards associated with 

high chairs, including issues and 

requirements raised in the NPR, 

concerns raised by members of the 

ASTM subcommittee, and comments on 

the NPR. CPSC staff also participated in 

the ASTM Ad Hoc Committee on 

Standardized Wording for Juvenile 

Product Standards (Ad Hoc TG) to 

finalize recommendations for warning 

labels, entitled, ‘‘Recommended 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
28360 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Language Approved by Ad Hoc Task 

Group, Revision C’’ (November 10, 

2017), to provide consistent and 

effective warnings for juvenile product 

standards. The most recent version of 

the standard, ASTM F404–18, reflects 

the work of these groups. ASTM 

approved ASTM F404–18 on February 

15, 2018, and published it in March 

2018. 

B. ASTM F404–18: Comparison With the 

NPR and Assessment of Requirements 

In the NPR, the Commission proposed 

to incorporate by reference ASTM 

F404–15, which addressed many of the 

hazard patterns associated with high 

chairs, with modifications to three areas 

of the standard. The Commission 

proposed more stringent requirements 

than those in ASTM F404–15 for 

rearward stability, warnings on labels, 

and instructional literature. Specifically, 

the Commission proposed: 

• More stringent rearward stability 

requirements, including test procedures, 

a formula for determining a ‘‘rearward 

stability index’’ (RSI), and a requirement 

that high chairs have an RSI of at least 

50; 

• more stringent warning content, 

format, and placement requirements 

than those in ASTM F404–15; and 

• warning content in instructional 

literature that aligned with the modified 

warning labels, as well as formatting 

requirements for warnings in 

instructions. 

The requirements in ASTM F404–18 

are largely the same as those the 

Commission proposed in the NPR. 

ASTM F404–18 includes the same 

scope, definitions, general requirements 

(e.g., threaded fasteners; latching and 

locking mechanisms), performance 

requirements, and test methods that the 

Commission proposed to incorporate by 

reference from ASTM F404–15. In 

addition, ASTM F404–18 includes 

modifications to reflect the more 

stringent requirements the Commission 

proposed in the NPR, to address 

comments filed in response to the NPR, 

and to provide additional detail and 

clarity. The following discussion 

compares the areas in which the NPR 

and ASTM F404–18 differ, and 

describes CPSC staff’s assessment of the 

ASTM F404–18 provisions. 

1. Stability Requirements 

In the NPR, the Commission proposed 

to require the forward and sideways 

stability requirements in ASTM F404– 

15 and more stringent rearward stability 

requirements, consisting of a test 

method and formula for determining the 

RSI for a high chair, and a minimum RSI 

of 50. ASTM F404–18 includes these 

requirements, with some additional 

details and minor changes for 

clarification. First, ASTM F404–18 

includes additional details about how to 

perform stability testing (e.g., using a 

low stretch cord), and, in particular, 

how to perform stability testing when 

product features vary (e.g., reclining seat 

backs; high chairs without trays; when 

test weights cannot be centered on the 

seat). Second, ASTM F404–18 includes 

minor wording changes to provide 

clarity, such as describing the point at 

which a high chair becomes unstable 

(for purposes of calculating the RSI) as 

the point where it ‘‘begins to tip over,’’ 

instead of the point at which it is on 

‘‘the verge of tipping over.’’ This 

wording maintains the meaning in the 

NPR, but adds clarity, in response to 

comments requesting clarification. 

CPSC staff in the Division of 

Mechanical and Combustion 

Engineering has reviewed the stability 

requirements in ASTM F404–18 and 

believes that they adequately address 

the stability issues associated with high 

chairs. The stability requirements in 

ASTM F404–18 are largely the same as 

the more-stringent stability 

requirements the Commission proposed 

in the NPR (maintaining the same test 

method, formula, and RSI limit), which 

staff believes are effective, and the 

minor modifications added to ASTM 

F404–18 add clarity and detail. 

2. Warning Label Requirements 

In the NPR, the Commission proposed 

more stringent warning label content, 

format, and placement requirements 

than those in ASTM F404–15. ASTM 

F404–18 also includes more stringent 

warning label requirements than those 

in ASTM F404–15, but the requirements 

are not identical to those in the NPR. 

Content. The content of the warnings 

in ASTM F404–18 are nearly identical 

to those the Commission proposed in 

the NPR, with minor changes to some 

wording. For example, ASTM F404–18 

requires the phrase ‘‘Fall Hazard’’ to 

appear before the warning statement. In 

addition, one of the NPR warnings 

stated: ‘‘children have suffered skull 

fractures after falling from high chairs’’; 

in contrast, ASTM F404–18 states: 

‘‘children have suffered severe head 

injuries including skull fractures when 

falling from high chairs.’’ ASTM F404– 

18 also includes some changes to how 

warnings are phrased, but conveys the 

same information as the wording in the 

NPR (e.g., ‘‘falls can happen quickly,’’ 

versus ‘‘falls can happen suddenly’’). 

CPSC staff in the Division of Human 

Factors (HF) has reviewed the warning 

label content requirements in ASTM 

F404–18 and believes that the warning 

content is largely consistent with that in 

the NPR, addressing the same general 

information, and staff concludes that the 

changes do not undermine the 

effectiveness of the warnings. Staff 

believes that warning of severe head 

injuries, coupled with citing skull 

fractures as one possible example of 

such an injury, is an effective way to 

warn users about the potential 

consequences of the fall hazard. 

Moreover, staff believes that this 

warning avoids the impression that the 

NPR language may have given, which is 

that skull fractures are the only type of 

potential injury. In addition, staff 

believes that the phrase, ‘‘Fall Hazard,’’ 

is unnecessary, but is not problematic. 

Format. The NPR and ASTM F404–18 

include the same requirements for size 

and organization of warning labels, but 

handle some other formatting 

requirements differently. After the 

Commission issued the NPR, the Ad 

Hoc TG finalized its recommendations 

for warning labels, which address 

warning format. The goal of the Ad Hoc 

TG recommendations is to provide 

consistent and effective warnings for 

juvenile products by addressing 

warning format issues that impact 

consumer attention, readability, hazard 

perception, and avoidance behaviors. 

The Ad Hoc TG recommendations are 

based largely on the requirements of 

ANSI Z535.4, American National 

Standard for Product Safety Signs and 

Labels (ANSI Z535.4), with additional 

content to account for the wide range 

and unique nature of durable nursery 

products, the concerns of industry 

representatives, and CPSC staff’s 

recommendations. ANSI Z535.4 

addresses format topics, such as safety 

alert symbols, signal words, panel 

format, color, and letter style; and 

additional Ad Hoc TG recommendations 

address text size, alignment, and 

organization. 

The warning format requirements in 

ASTM F404–18 align with the Ad Hoc 

TG recommendations. The warning 

format requirements in the NPR differ 

from ASTM F404–18 in the following 

ways: 

• Where the NPR proposed a specific 

typeface and required certain words to 

be in bold, ASTM F404–18 only 

recommends avoiding certain kinds of 

typeface (e.g., narrow); and 

• where the NPR detailed specific 

requirements for colors, borders, 

typeface, and referred to ANSI Z535.4 

for optional additional guidance, ASTM 

F404–18 simply requires conformance 

to ANSI Z535.4, which includes 

provisions on these topics. 

HF staff has reviewed the warning 

label format requirements in ASTM 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 28361 

F404–18 and believes that they are 

appropriate. The warning format 

requirements in ASTM F404–18 are 

largely consistent with the provisions in 

the NPR, because the NPR discussed the 

same format topics and referenced ANSI 

Z535.4; and the requirements resolve 

many of the comments filed in response 

to the NPR by clarifying conflicting or 

unclear provisions. Because the 

requirements align with the Ad Hoc TG 

recommendations, staff believes they are 

effective. 

Placement. The NPR proposed 

requiring all warning content to appear 

on one label that was visible both when 

putting a child in the high chair and 

once a child was in the high chair. 

ASTM F404–18 allows the warning 

content to appear on two labels. One 

label, addressing fall injuries and 

restraints, must be visible when putting 

a child in the high chair; the second 

label, addressing attendance, must be 

visible when a child is in the high chair. 

HF staff has reviewed the warning 

label placement requirements in ASTM 

F404–18 and believes that they are 

sufficient. In response to the NPR, 

commenters identified challenges the 

placement requirements in the NPR 

posed. For example, commenters noted 

that it would be difficult for high chair 

models with design or size limitations 

to meet the placement requirements 

proposed in the NPR because the 

proposal required a single label with 

more content that was visible during all 

stages of use. After considering these 

comments, staff agrees that the two 

warning labels ASTM F404–18 requires 

are justified. Staff believes that the 

placement requirements in ASTM 

F404–18 are adequate because they 

require each of the warnings to be 

visible at the time the information is 

most relevant. 

First, ASTM F404–18 requires the 

fall-related warnings to be visible to 

caregivers when putting a child into the 

high chair. Warning caregivers of the 

hazard, potential injuries, and how to 

avoid the hazard is most relevant when 

they are placing the child into the high 

chair, because it informs them of the 

risks from the outset of use, and may 

motivate them to use restraints 

appropriately. Thus, it is likely more 

important to include these warnings on 

a label that is visible when placing a 

child in the high chair, than on a label 

that is visible during use. Second, 

ASTM F404–18 requires the warning to 

‘‘stay near and watch child during use’’ 

to be visible when the child is in the 

high chair. Reminding caregivers to 

supervise children is most relevant 

when a child is already in the high 

chair, and the caregiver may become 

distracted or leave the child unattended. 

Accordingly, it is likely more important 

to include this warning on a label that 

is visible during use, rather than on a 

label that is visible when initially 

putting a child into the high chair. 

Thus, although staff believes it would be 

ideal to convey all warning information 

in a place that is visible during all stages 

of use, given design and space 

limitations, the placement requirements 

in ASTM F404–18 are appropriate. 

3. Instructional Literature Requirements 

In the NPR, the Commission proposed 

more stringent content and design 

requirements for warnings in 

instructional literature than those in 

ASTM F404–15. ASTM F404–18 also 

requires more stringent instructional 

literature requirements than ASTM 

F404–15, although the design 

requirements are not identical to those 

in the NPR. 

The warning content requirements for 

instructional literature in ASTM F404– 

18 are consistent with those in the NPR. 

Both the NPR and ASTM F404–18 

required instructional literature to 

contain the warning statements 

specified for on-product warning labels, 

by referencing the applicable sections 

regarding on-product warning labels 

(i.e., Section 8). 

With respect to the design of warnings 

in instructional literature, the NPR 

proposed highly contrasting colors and 

referenced ANSI Z535.6, Product Safety 

Information in Product Manuals, 

Instructions, and Collateral Materials 

(ANSI Z535.6), for optional design 

guidance. Like the NPR, ASTM F404–18 

references ANSI Z535.6, but also 

includes more-detailed requirements 

regarding text size, alignment, and 

organization, and requires conformance 

with ANSI Z535.4 (with some 

exceptions for areas that are not critical 

for instructions). These requirements 

eliminate some areas of confusion 

commenters noted regarding the 

requirements proposed in the NPR. 

HF staff has reviewed the 

instructional literature requirements in 

ASTM F404–18 and believes they are 

effective. The requirements in ASTM 

F404–18 are consistent with the types of 

formatting and content provisions 

proposed in the NPR and are based on 

the Ad Hoc TG recommendations, 

which staff believes are effective and 

resolve areas of confusion raised in the 

NPR comments. 

4. Restaurant-Style High Chairs 

The NPR discussed whether a 

mandatory standard should apply to 

restaurant-style high chairs (i.e., high 

chairs intended for use in restaurants, 

also known as ‘‘food service high 

chairs’’) or whether the hazards, 

environment, and product features 

useful in a restaurant, as well as 

compliance costs, justified fully or 

partially exempting restaurant-style 

high chairs from the final rule or 

creating different requirements for them. 

The ASTM standard does not 

distinguish restaurant-style high chairs 

from those intended for home use, and 

applies to all high chairs. 

CPSC has determined that restaurantstyle high chairs should remain within 

the scope of the final rule, consistent 

with ASTM F404–18. NEISS data 

indicate that an estimated 1,600 

incidents related to high chairs occurred 

in restaurants and were treated in U.S. 

EDs between 2011 and 2016. The hazard 

patterns in these incidents appear 

similar to those in homes, primarily 

involving children falling from high 

chairs due to issues with restraints, tip 

overs, or when a child was climbing 

into or out of the high chair. In addition, 

CPSC staff identified four firms that sell 

restaurant-style high chairs to both 

restaurants and consumers. Finally, 

section 104 of the CPSIA requires the 

Commission to adopt a mandatory 

standard that is substantially the same 

as the voluntary standard, or more 

stringent than the voluntary standard. 

Because the voluntary standard for high 

chairs applies to all high chairs, 

including those used in restaurants, 

excluding them from the final rule or 

applying less stringent requirements for 

restaurant-style high chairs would be 

inconsistent with the CPSIA. 

C. Incorporation by Reference 

The Office of the Federal Register 

(OFR) has regulations concerning 

incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 

51. These regulations require the 

preamble to a final rule to summarize 

the material and discuss the ways in 

which the material the agency 

incorporates by reference is reasonably 

available to interested persons, and how 

interested parties can obtain the 

material. 1 CFR 51.5(b). In accordance 

with the OFR regulations, this section 

summarizes ASTM F404–18, and 

describes how interested parties may 

obtain a copy of the standard. 

ASTM F404–18 contains 

requirements concerning: 

• Threaded fasteners; 

• sharp edges and points; 

• small parts; 

• wood parts; 

• latching or locking mechanisms; 

• permanency of labels; 

• openings; 

• lead in paint; 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
28362 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

• forward, sideways, and rearward 

stability; 

• exposed coil springs; 

• scissoring, shearing, and pinching; 

• restraint systems; 

• structural integrity; 

• tray latch release mechanisms; 

• side containment; 

• protrusions; 

• protective components; 

• tray or front torso support; 

• static loads on the seat, step, 

footrest, and tray; 

• bounded openings; 

• warnings and labels; and 

• instructional literature. 

The standard also includes test 

methods to assess conformance with 

these requirements. 

Interested parties may obtain a copy 

of ASTM F404–18 from ASTM, through 

its website (http://www.astm.org), or by 

mail from ASTM International, 100 Bar 

Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428. Alternatively, 

interested parties may inspect a copy of 

the standard at CPSC’s Office of the 

Secretary. 

VI. Comments Filed in Response to the 

NPR 

CPSC received 16 comments in 

response to the NPR. The comments are 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking, CPSC–2015–0031, at: 

www.regulations.gov. A summary of the 

comments, grouped by topic, and CPSC 

staff’s responses are below. 

A. Effective Date 

Comment: CPSC received a comment 

from four consumer advocate groups 

that supported the proposed 6-month 

effective date. Another commenter, 

representing juvenile product 

manufacturers, requested a 1-year 

effective date, stating that additional 

time would be necessary to change 

products to meet the new requirements, 

particularly for warning labels and 

instructional literature. 

Response: The warning label and 

instructional literature requirements in 

the final rule should require lessburdensome product changes than the 

proposed rule, particularly because the 

final rule allows for two separate labels 

with distinct placement requirements. 

This reduces the need for a longer 

effective date. However, some firms will 

need to modify their products to meet 

the final rule. For 49 percent of small 

firms, CPSC staff cannot rule out the 

possibility that the final rule will have 

a significant economic impact. In 

addition, staff believes that some firms 

may not be aware of the ASTM standard 

or that CPSC is issuing a rule on high 

chairs. A longer effective date would 

reduce this impact. Accordingly, the 

Commission is providing a longer 

effective date for the final rule than 

proposed. The rule will take effect 12 

months after publication of this final 

rule. 

B. Passive Crotch Restraint 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the ASTM requirement that passive 

crotch restraints must be permanently 

attached to a high chair or tray before 

shipment (section 6.9.1.5) should not 

apply to high chairs for which 

consumers assemble every component, 

with instructions. 

Response: CPSC believes that this 

exception would be inappropriate for 

two reasons. First, CPSC staff believes 

that it is important for passive restraints 

to be attached permanently to a high 

chair or tray before shipment, because it 

helps ensure that users do not 

intentionally or inadvertently assemble 

or use a high chair without the passive 

restraint. This requirement is intended 

to reduce the likelihood of death from 

positional asphyxia. Second, section 

104 of the CPSIA does not permit CPSC 

to create such an exception. Section 104 

requires the Commission to adopt a 

mandatory standard for high chairs that 

is ‘‘substantially the same as’’ or ‘‘more 

stringent than’’ the voluntary standard. 

Because ASTM F404 requires 

permanent attachment of passive 

restraints (and has since 2015), creating 

an exception to this requirement would 

be less stringent than the voluntary 

standard. 

C. Rearward Stability 

Two commenters raised issues 

regarding the clarity and repeatability of 

the proposed rearward stability 

requirements. 

Comment: One commenter pointed 

out that § 1231.2(b) of the proposed rule, 

which the Commission proposed to 

replace section 6.5 of ASTM F404–15, 

would have required compliance with 

sections 7.7.2.4 to 7.7.2.4.6 of ASTM 

F404, instead of all of section 7.7. 

Response: Some section references 

were mistakenly omitted from the 

ASTM standard when ASTM revised 

the stability requirements in the 

standard. Correspondingly, the NPR 

included incomplete section references. 

ASTM corrected this error in later 

revisions to ASTM F404. Section 6.5 of 

ASTM F404–18, which the Commission 

incorporates by reference in this final 

rule, now properly references all of 

section 7.7. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the phrase ‘‘verge of tipping over,’’ used 

to determine the RSI, is subjective, and 

will cause variation in measurements of 

tipping distance. 

Response: ASTM revised this 

language in ASTM F404–18 to add 

clarity, and the provision now states: 

‘‘the point that [the high chair] becomes 

unstable and begins to tip over,’’ which 

CPSC staff believes addresses this issue. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the rearward tipping force load 

application ‘‘must be reached in at least 

5 seconds’’ and suggested that the load 

force varies, depending on how quickly 

or slowly a particular tester applies this 

load, leading to variation in the RSI of 

about 4 points. 

Response: ASTM F404–15, which was 

in effect at the time the Commission 

issued the NPR, stated: ‘‘Gradually 

apply the force over a period of 5 s.’’ In 

the NPR, the Commission proposed to 

modify this language to state: 

‘‘Gradually increase the horizontal force 

over a period of at least 5 seconds.’’ 

ASTM F404–18 includes the language 

proposed in the NPR, which makes it 

clear that 5 seconds is a minimum, not 

a maximum, timeframe, and to 

emphasize that testers should apply the 

load slowly and steadily. As in other 

ASTM standards that include stability 

requirements, the 5-second reference is 

not meant to be an upper time limit 

during which testers must hurriedly 

apply force. If testers apply force 

sufficiently slowly, negligible dynamic 

force should factor into the equation 

and maximum tip-over force readings 

will be consistent. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the wording, diagram, and calculation 

formula for rearward stability in the 

NPR are confusing and flawed, 

including confusing identifiers, crossed 

out words, and multiple definitions of 

‘‘F.’’ 

Response: ASTM revised the diagram 

in ASTM F404–18 to resolve these 

issues, removing crossed out words and 

defining the forces more clearly, by 

designating F1 and F2 as unique and 

clearly identified forces. Likewise, the 

RSI calculation in ASTM F404–18 

includes the maximum F2 force, rather 

than the original, ambiguous force F. 

The new diagram is in ASTM F404–18 

Figure 10, and the RSI formula is in 

section 7.7.2.6(4). 

D. Warning Labels 

1. Content 

CPSC received five comments that 

discussed issues related to warning 

content. One commenter supported the 

Commission’s proposed warning 

content, particularly the statement: 

‘‘Falls can happen quickly if child is not 

restrained properly.’’ Another 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 28363 

commenter supported the warning 

content in ASTM F404–15, rather than 

the NPR, but did not provide specific 

reasons for preferring the ASTM 

content. The remaining three comments 

discussed the following issues. 

Comment: Two commenters were 

concerned about the increased length of 

the proposed warning, and one of the 

two was concerned with the proposed 

requirement that all warning 

information appear on a single label. 

Response: These comments address 

two related issues—spreading warning 

content across multiple labels, and the 

length of warning content. With respect 

to the first issue, the NPR proposed to 

require all warnings to appear on a 

single label. The NPR and staff’s 

supporting briefing package explained 

the reasons for that proposed 

requirement. As an example, in ASTM 

F404–15, the warning: ‘‘Never leave 

child unattended,’’ did not appear on 

the same label that described the fall 

hazard and potential consequences. 

However, never leaving a child 

unattended is one behavior consumers 

can use to avoid the fall hazard. 

Consequently, staff believed that the 

warning would be more effective if the 

mitigating behavior appeared on the 

same label as the information about the 

hazard and consequences. Unlike the 

NPR, ASTM F404–18 spreads the 

required warnings across two labels. As 

section V of this notice discusses, HF 

staff believes that spreading the 

warnings across two labels is 

acceptable. 

With respect to the length of warning 

content, the warnings the Commission 

proposed in the NPR were longer than 

the warnings in ASTM F404–15. ASTM 

F404–18 includes revised warning 

content that is consistent with the NPR. 

CPSC staff worked with ASTM to ensure 

that ASTM F404–18 includes the 

essentials of the warnings the NPR 

proposed, but also addresses comments 

submitted in response to the NPR, and 

ASTM subcommittee members’ 

concerns. This final rule incorporates by 

reference ASTM F404–18, without 

modifications. CPSC staff maintains that 

the additional warning content 

proposed in the NPR, and the analogous 

content in ASTM F404–18, is 

appropriate, because it addresses 

deficiencies in the warning content in 

ASTM F404–15. For example, the 

description of injuries that could be 

sustained from high chair incidents in 

ASTM F404–15 (i.e., ‘‘serious injury or 

death’’) was vague. Research suggests 

that more explicit descriptions improve 

consumer compliance with 

recommended hazard-avoidance 

behaviors. Similarly, the warning in 

ASTM F404–15 did not describe the 

speed with which incidents can occur. 

This information is important because 

consumers have reported that they may 

not use restraints on high chairs because 

they think they can notice and stop 

emerging incidents in time. In addition, 

the warning did not state that a tray is 

not intended to restrain a child. This 

information is necessary because 

consumers have reported that they 

consider the tray, functionally, to be 

part of a high chair’s restraint system, 

and some incidents suggest that 

consumers rely on the tray alone to 

restrain the child. Finally, the warning 

lacked a statement about properly 

adjusting the restraint system. There 

have been fall-related incidents where 

children were restrained, but the 

restraint system was loose or otherwise 

allowed the child to wriggle out. 

Staff acknowledges that consumers 

are more likely to fully read short 

warnings than longer ones. However, 

brevity is only one factor to consider 

when designing a warning. A short 

warning is unlikely to be effective if it 

does not convey all key information 

about the hazards, and carefully 

selected additional content can enhance 

consumer compliance with warnings. In 

addition, staff does not consider the 

warnings in the NPR and ASTM F404– 

18 to be unusually long, or so long that 

they would dissuade consumers from 

reading the full content. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that referring to serious injuries broadly, 

such as ‘‘serious injury or death,’’ is 

likely to be more effective than a 

specific and limited reference to ‘‘skull 

fractures.’’ One of these commenters 

stated that referring to skull fractures 

alone, may cause caregivers to ignore 

other, more frequent risks. 

Response: ASTM F404–18 includes 

broader language (i.e., ‘‘severe head 

injuries’’) than the Commission 

proposed in the NPR, in addition to the 

specific injuries (i.e., ‘‘skull fractures’’) 

referenced in the NPR warning. Staff 

believes that including the broader 

language avoids the perception that 

skull fractures are the only type of 

serious injuries that occur. Staff believes 

that coupling the broad and specific 

injuries, rather than stating only the 

broader injury, is important to improve 

consumer compliance with the 

recommended hazard-avoidance 

behavior because research shows that 

more explicit or detailed information in 

a warning increases warning 

effectiveness, and vividness increases 

the salience of the message, which 

triggers the reader’s motivation to act. 

Comment: Two commenters noted 

that CPSC should not require the 

warning statement about trays (i.e., 

‘‘Tray is not designed to hold child in 

chair’’) for high chairs that do not have 

trays. 

Response: CPSC agrees with this 

comment. ASTM F404–18 requires the 

same warning regarding trays as the 

Commission proposed in the NPR, but 

only requires this warning for high 

chairs that are designed to be used with 

a tray. 

2. Format 

CPSC received several comments 

regarding the warning format 

requirements proposed in the NPR. A 

summary of the comments, and staff’s 

responses, are below. First, however, is 

a general discussion of the changes to 

warning format requirements in the 

ASTM standard since the NPR. These 

changes are the result of the Ad Hoc 

TG’s efforts and address comments 

CPSC received about warning format. 

After the Commission issued the NPR, 

there were several developments related 

to warning format and design. In short, 

the Ad Hoc TG finalized and published 

recommendations for warning format, 

and ASTM revised the warning 

requirements in ASTM F404–18 to be 

consistent with the Ad Hoc TG 

recommendations. 

The Ad Hoc TG was formed to 

develop standardized language across 

ASTM juvenile products standards, and 

was developing recommendations for 

warning format when the Commission 

issued the high chairs NPR. HF staff 

serves on the Ad Hoc TG, as well as the 

ANSI Z535 Committee on Safety Signs 

and Colors. In this capacity, staff 

collaborated with the other members of 

the Ad Hoc TG to develop the finalized 

recommendations for warning format. 

With the goal of providing consistent 

formatting requirements for all juvenileproduct standards and addressing 

warning format issues that impact the 

effectiveness of warnings, the Ad Hoc 

TG recommendations require warning 

content to be ‘‘easy to read and 

understand’’; not contradict information 

elsewhere on the product; be in English 

(at a minimum); and meet various 

formatting requirements. The formatting 

requirements include minimum text 

size; text alignment; bullet, lists, 

outline, and paragraph forms for hazardavoidance statements; and compliance 

with sections of ASNI Z535.4— 

specifically, sections 6.1 to 6.4 (which 

include requirements for safety alert 

symbols, signal words, and warning 

panel format, arrangement, and shape), 

7.2 to 7.6.3 (which include color 

requirements), and 8.1 (which addresses 

letter style). The Ad Hoc TG 

recommendations also include 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
28364 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

recommended requirements for general 

labeling issues, such as labeling 

permanency, and content related to 

manufacturer contact information and 

date of manufacture. 

The Ad Hoc TG recommendations 

and the resulting changes to ASTM 

F404–18 address many of the comments 

filed in response to the proposed 

warning format requirements in the 

NPR. Below are the comments CPSC 

received on that topic, and staff’s 

responses. 

Comment: Four commenters objected 

to the NPR proposal to require ‘‘key 

words’’ to appear in boldface, because 

the phrase is open to interpretation. One 

commenter also noted that because the 

NPR proposed to require warnings to 

‘‘address’’ the specified warning 

content, rather than state it exactly as 

phrased in the standard, a rule could 

not designate specific words as ‘‘key 

words.’’ 

Response: The commenter is correct 

that the standard does not define ‘‘key 

words’’ and requires warning statements 

to ‘‘address’’ the specified warning 

content, rather than state it exactly as it 

is worded in the standard. ASTM F404– 

18 does not include this proposed 

requirement. 

Comment: Three commenters stated 

that there is no clear definition or 

understanding of ‘‘non-condensed’’ sans 

serif typeface, and this provision may be 

misinterpreted or confusing. One 

commenter also stated that some 

compressed and narrow typefaces are 

easy to read, and therefore, the rule 

should not preclude them. 

Response: There is no formal 

definition of ‘‘non-condensed typeface,’’ 

and some condensed typefaces could be 

adequately legible. ASTM F404–18 does 

not include the proposed provision or 

prohibit the use of condensed type, but 

it does include a note that recommends 

avoiding typefaces with ‘‘large heightto-width ratios, which are commonly 

identified as ‘condensed,’ ‘compressed,’ 

‘narrow,’ or similar.’’ 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that the proposed note, referring readers 

to ANSI Z535.4 for ‘‘optional additional 

guidance,’’ may not be clear to 

manufacturers or test laboratories. 

Response: ASTM F404–18 does not 

include the proposed note; instead, the 

standard includes specific warning 

format requirements and requires 

conformance to the 2011 version of 

ANSI Z535.4. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that the reference to ‘‘instructions’’ in 

section 8.4.2 of the NPR is inappropriate 

because section 8 of the standard 

addresses warnings, not instructions 

(which are addressed in section 9). 

Response: ASTM F404–18 corrects 

this inconsistency, referring to ‘‘marking 

or labeling’’ rather than ‘‘labels or 

written instructions.’’ 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the NPR proposal that warning message 

text must be black on a white 

background conflicts with the NPR 

proposal that warning statements be in 

‘‘highly contrasting colors.’’ 

Response: ASTM F404–18 does not 

include the proposed requirements as 

they were stated in the NPR. Instead, 

ASTM F404–18 requires conformance 

with ANSI Z535.4–2011, section 7.3, 

which requires message panel text to be 

black lettering on a white background or 

white lettering on a black background. 

These color requirements apply unless 

special circumstances preclude the use 

of these colors (section 7.6.3), in which 

case the warning text must contrast with 

the background. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the proposed warning requirements 

should apply only to the warnings that 

the standard requires, and not to 

additional warnings that are not 

requirements. 

Response: Since the Commission 

issued the NPR, CPSC staff has 

continued to work with the Ad Hoc TG 

to develop final warning format 

recommendations, which ASTM F404– 

18 includes. Consistent with the Ad Hoc 

TG recommendations, ASTM F404–18 

requires all warnings to meet the format 

requirements in the standard. CPSC staff 

believes that all warning statements 

should meet these format requirements 

because they are important to capture 

consumer attention, improve 

readability, and increase hazard 

perception and avoidance behavior. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that CPSC wait to issue a 

mandatory standard for warnings until 

the Ad Hoc TG completes its work on 

general warning format requirements. 

Response: The Ad Hoc TG has 

completed and published its 

recommendations, and ASTM F404–18 

includes updates to reflect those 

recommendations. 

3. Placement 

Comment: Four commenters 

discussed warning placement. One 

commenter supported the proposed 

placement requirements (i.e., that the 

warning be visible while placing the 

child in the high chair and while the 

child is seated in the high chair) and the 

remaining three commenters did not. 

These three commenters raised general 

concerns about limited space on some 

high chairs, especially models with low 

seatbacks. The commenters stated that it 

would be difficult, and perhaps 

impossible, to meet the proposed 

placement requirements on those 

models, suggesting that manufacturers 

would have to redesign or discontinue 

the models. The commenters 

emphasized the need for flexibility. One 

commenter stated that there is no clear 

evidence that a label that is visible 

when a child is in a high chair, or a 

secondary label if the seatback is not 

high enough, will actually change 

caregivers’ behaviors. 

Response: Consistent with these 

comments, ASTM F404–18 includes 

modified warning placement 

requirements, which provide greater 

flexibility than the requirements 

proposed in the NPR. ASTM F404–18 

requires two labels, each with respective 

placement requirements, which CPSC 

staff believes are sufficient. ASTM 

F404–18 requires that fall-related 

warnings be visible to a caregiver only 

when placing a child into the high 

chair. CPSC staff believes this is 

sufficient because this allows caregivers 

to see the warning about the hazard, its 

consequences, and the key actions to 

avoid the hazard, immediately before 

this information is relevant. Although 

the warning may not be visible once a 

child is in the high chair, the warning 

likely would be visible when the high 

chair is not in use, exposing consumers 

to the message at other times, such as 

when cleaning or moving the high chair. 

ASTM F404–18 also requires a second 

warning statement (which may appear 

on a separate label), instructing 

caregivers to ‘‘stay near and watch child 

during use.’’ This warning must be 

‘‘conspicuous’’ (i.e., visible to a person 

standing near the high chair when a 

child is in the high chair, but not 

necessarily visible from all positions). 

Commenters and ASTM high chair 

subcommittee members have pointed 

out that this warning statement also 

applies to hazards other than falls, such 

as choking hazards. CPSC staff agrees 

and believes that this warning, in a 

conspicuous location, separate from the 

fall-related warning, will serve as a 

general reminder to remain with a child 

who is in the high chair. Because the 

warning statement must be visible when 

the child is still seated in the high chair, 

caregivers will be more likely to see the 

warning when they are about to leave 

the seated child than if the warning 

statement were included as part of the 

warning that must be visible while 

placing the child into the high chair. 

4. Miscellaneous Comments About 

Warning Labels 

Comment: Three commenters stated 

that there is no justification to revise the 

ASTM F404–15 warning requirements. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 28365 

Two of these commenters noted that 

ASTM F404–15 had only recently been 

adopted, so there is no evidence that the 

warning requirements are ineffective. 

Response: In accordance with the 

statutory language in the CPSIA, when 

assessing an ASTM standard for 

rulemaking under section 104, CPSC 

staff considers whether more stringent 

requirements would further reduce the 

risk of injury associated with the 

product. Accordingly, for this 

rulemaking, staff considered whether 

more stringent warning requirements for 

high chairs would further reduce the 

risk of injury, were appropriate, and 

were supported by scientific and 

technical literature. Based on staff’s 

assessment, the NPR proposed more 

stringent warning requirements, many 

of which ASTM F404–18 includes. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

large warning labels would be sufficient 

to address the hazards associated with 

high chairs. 

Response: Staff does not believe that 

warnings, alone, are sufficient to 

address the demonstrated hazards. 

Literature on safety and warnings 

consistently identifies a hierarchy of 

approaches to controlling hazards. In 

this hierarchy, warnings are less 

effective at eliminating or reducing 

exposure to hazards than designing the 

hazard out of a product or guarding 

consumers from the hazard. Warnings 

are less effective than these other 

approaches because they do not prevent 

consumer exposure to the hazard. 

Rather, warnings rely on educating 

consumers about the hazard and then 

persuading them to alter their behavior 

to avoid the hazard. For warnings to be 

effective, consumers need to behave 

consistently, which may not be the case 

when situational factors, such as fatigue, 

stress, or social influences, impact 

precautionary behavior. As a result, 

warnings should supplement, rather 

than replace, design standards or 

provisions that attempt to guard 

consumers from a hazard, unless those 

alternatives are not possible. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adding pictograms to the 

warning provisions in the standard to 

convey the hazard effectively and 

reduce language barriers. 

Response: Well-designed graphics 

may be useful to convey the fall hazard 

associated with high chairs. However, 

designing effective graphics can be 

difficult. Some seemingly obvious 

graphics can be misinterpreted. 

Consequently, CPSC staff believes that it 

is appropriate to permit supporting 

graphics in high chair warnings, but not 

require them. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the NPR included warning requirements 

for high chairs that have seats that are 

also used as seats in strollers, but does 

not address high chairs with seats that 

also function as booster seats. 

Response: A product with a seat that 

functions as a seat for a high chair and 

a booster seat must meet the 

requirements in both the high chair and 

booster seat standards. CPSC staff 

believes that manufacturers are capable 

of meeting the requirements of both 

standards, and therefore, staff does not 

believe that revisions to the 

requirements are necessary. 

E. Instructional Literature 

Comment: Three commenters 

expressed confusion about the proposed 

color requirements for instructional 

literature in the NPR. Two commenters 

stated that the requirements were 

contradictory, and another commenter 

stated that the proposed color 

requirements take away the flexibility to 

use other colors. 

Response: CPSC agrees that the 

proposed color requirements for 

instructional literature may be unclear 

and that manufacturers should have 

some flexibility in choosing colors for 

instructional literature. After the 

Commission issued the NPR, the Ad 

Hoc TG published recommendations for 

the format of warnings in instructional 

literature. The instructional literature 

requirements in ASTM F404–18 are 

based on those recommendations, and 

CPSC believes that the requirements are 

appropriate and address commenters’ 

concerns. ASTM F404–18, section 9.3, 

clarifies that instructional literature is 

not required to meet the same color 

requirements as on-product labels. 

Instead, section 9.4 of ASTM F404–18 

provides flexibility, stating that 

warnings must stand out within 

instructional literature, by requiring 

‘‘the signal word and safety alert symbol 

[to] contrast with the background of the 

signal word panel, and the warnings [to] 

contrast with the background of the 

instructional literature.’’ 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that the sentence ‘‘Additional warnings 

similar to the statements included in 

this section shall also be included,’’ 

which was in proposed § 1231.2(e)(1) in 

the NPR, was unclear. 

Response: The ASTM high chairs 

subcommittee replaced this statement in 

ASTM F404–18 with a new section 9.3, 

which states: ‘‘The instructions shall 

address the following additional 

warnings.’’ This modification should 

resolve any confusion. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that the note proposed in the NPR, 

referring readers to ANSI Z535.6 for 

‘‘optional additional guidance,’’ may not 

be clear to manufacturers or test 

laboratories. 

Response: ASTM standards regularly 

use ‘‘notes’’ to make suggestions that are 

not mandatory requirements. Because 

other ASTM standards include notes, 

manufacturers and test laboratories 

understand their meaning and know 

that they are not requirements. In 

addition, the Ad Hoc TG 

recommendations, which were 

developed in collaboration with 

industry members, reference ANSI 

Z535.6 for additional guidance on the 

design of warnings in instructional 

literature. In accordance with that 

recommendation, ASTM F404–18 

includes the note referring to ANSI 

Z535.6. 

F. Restaurant-Style High Chairs 

Comment: CPSC received three 

comments about restaurant-style high 

chairs. Commenters suggested that 

stability or warning and instructional 

requirements, alone, would be adequate 

for restaurant-style high chairs; that 

there should be a separate commercial 

high chair standard; or that no standard 

is necessary for these products. 

Commenters cited several reasons to 

create a different standard for 

restaurant-style high chairs. For 

example, commenters noted that 

restaurant settings make particular 

features useful in a high chair, such as 

large seats, trayless designs, and the 

ability to stack multiple high chairs. In 

addition, consumer behavior, such as 

more-attentive supervision of children, 

may occur in restaurant settings. 

Moreover, commenters stated, injury 

data do not indicate a need to regulate 

these products. One manufacturer noted 

receiving complaints about a restaurantstyle high chair that conformed to 

ASTM F404. The complaints stated that 

it was difficult for children to get in and 

out of the chair, the chair did not 

accommodate children wearing bulky 

clothing, and the chair did not 

accommodate children over one-year 

old. One commenter noted that some 

restaurant-style high chairs are only 

available through commercial portals, 

while another commenter noted that 

restaurant-style high chairs are sold to 

the public for home use. Commenters 

suggested using educational efforts, 

such as affixing labels or instructions to 

restaurant-style high chairs to inform 

consumers and restaurant staff about 

proper use, the intended setting, and 

hazards; or providing similar 

information on packaging, product 

websites, and at points of sale. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
28366 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: CPSC understands that 

there may be differences in the useful 

features and level of supervision in 

restaurant settings and homes. It is 

possible that requiring restaurant-style 

high chairs to meet ASTM F404–18 

would interfere with design features 

that make high chairs useful in a 

restaurant setting, such as large leg 

openings. In addition, it is possible that 

design features that meet ASTM F404– 

18 could contribute to injuries in a 

restaurant setting. For example, small 

leg openings could make it more 

difficult to remove children from a high 

chair when they are wearing bulky 

outerwear or shoes; or consumers may 

opt for potentially hazardous 

alternatives to a high chair if the high 

chair is inconvenient to use, such as 

placing children on an unsecured and 

elevated chair. However, CPSC staff 

does not have evidence that these 

possibilities will occur. 

To the contrary, CPSC has several 

reasons to believe that the final rule 

should apply to all high chairs, 

including restaurant-style high chairs. 

First, after issuing the NPR, CPSC staff 

further examined incident data to 

determine the extent to which high 

chair-related injuries occur in restaurant 

settings. Staff found that between 2011 

and 2016, there were an estimated 1,600 

injuries treated in U.S. EDs that 

involved high chairs in restaurant 

settings. Most incidents involved 

children falling from high chairs, 

commonly when climbing into or out of 

the high chair, when the high chair 

tipped over, or when restraints were not 

used, failed, or were defeated. These 

hazard patterns are consistent with high 

chair incidents in homes. As a result, 

CPSC believes that there is no safety 

justification to exclude restaurant-style 

high chairs from the final rule. 

Second, although only a small 

number of firms sell restaurant-style 

high chairs directly to consumers for 

use in their homes, these sales indicate 

that the features and settings for 

restaurant-style high chairs do not 

provide a basis for distinguishing them 

from home-use high chairs. CPSC staff 

identified four firms that supply high 

chairs to the U.S. market that sell their 

high chairs to both consumers and 

restaurants. 

Third, CPSIA section 104 requires the 

Commission to adopt a mandatory 

standard that is substantially the same 

as the voluntary standard, or more 

stringent than the voluntary standard. 

Because ASTM F404 applies to all high 

chairs, excluding restaurant-style 

products from the mandatory standard 

would make the mandatory standard 

less stringent than the voluntary 

standard, contrary to the CPSIA 

requirement. 

VII. Final Rule 

Section 1231.2(a) of the final rule 

requires high chairs to comply with 

ASTM F404–18 and incorporates the 

standard by reference. Section V of this 

preamble describes the OFR 

requirements for incorporating material 

by reference. In accordance with those 

requirements, section V summarizes 

ASTM F404–18, explains how the 

standard is reasonably available to 

interested parties, and how interested 

parties may obtain a copy of the 

standard. 

The final rule also amends 16 CFR 

part 1112 to add a new § 1112.15(b)(44) 

that lists 16 CFR part 1231, Safety 

Standard for High Chairs, as a 

children’s product safety rule for which 

the CPSC has issued an NOR. Section 

XIII of this preamble provides 

additional information about 

certifications and NORs. 

VIII. Effective Date 

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 

U.S.C. 551–559) generally requires that 

agencies set an effective date for a final 

rule that is at least 30 days after the 

Federal Register publishes the final 

rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The NPR proposed 

that the final rule for high chairs, and 

the amendment to part 1112, would take 

effect 6 months after publication. CPSC 

received comments requesting an 

implementation date of 1 year, asserting 

that additional time would be necessary 

for firms to modify products to meet the 

standard. CPSC believes that 1 year is 

sufficient for firms to modify their 

products to meet the new standard. 

Therefore, this rule will take effect 1 

year after publication in the Federal 

Register, and will apply to products 

manufactured or imported on or after 

that date. 

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule contains information 

collection requirements that are subject 

to public comment and Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) review 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521). 

Under the PRA, CPSC must estimate the 

‘‘burden’’ associated with each 

‘‘collection of information.’’ 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c). 

In this rule, section 8 of ASTM F404– 

18 contains labeling requirements that 

meet the definition of ‘‘collection of 

information’’ in the PRA. 44 U.S.C. 

3502(3). In addition, section 9 of ASTM 

F404–18 requires instructions to be 

provided with high chairs; however, 

CPSC believes this requirement can be 

excluded from the PRA burden estimate. 

OMB allows agencies to exclude from 

the PRA burden estimate any ‘‘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,’’ if the disclosure activities 

required to comply are ‘‘usual and 

customary.’’ 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). 

Because high chairs generally require 

use and assembly instructions, and 

CPSC staff is not aware of high chairs 

that generally require instructions but 

lack them, CPSC believes that providing 

instructions with high chairs is ‘‘usual 

and customary.’’ For this reason, CPSC’s 

burden estimate includes only the 

labeling requirements. 

The preamble to the NPR discussed 

the information collection burden of the 

proposed rule and requested comments 

on the accuracy of CPSC’s estimates. 80 

FR 69158 to 69159. CPSC did not 

receive any comments about the 

information collection burden of the 

proposed rule. However, the 

information collection burden has 

changed since the NPR because CPSC 

staff has identified 68 high chair 

suppliers (59 domestic firms and 9 

foreign firms), rather than the 62 firms 

identified in the NPR, that it estimates 

will be subject to the information 

collection burden. Accordingly, the 

estimated burden of this collection of 

information is 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 

1231.2 .................................................................................. 68 2 136 1 136 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 28367 

The estimated reporting burden is 

based on CPSC staff’s expectation that 

all 68 high chair suppliers will need to 

modify their labels to comply with the 

final rule. CPSC staff estimates that it 

will take about 1 hour per model to 

make these modifications and, based on 

staff’s evaluation of product lines, that 

each supplier has an average of 2 

models of high chairs. As a result, CPSC 

estimates that the burden associated 

with the labeling requirements is: 68 

entities × 1 hour per model × 2 models 

per entity = 136 hours. CPSC staff 

estimates that the hourly compensation 

for the time required to create and 

update labels is $34.21 (U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, ‘‘Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation,’’ Sept. 2017, 

Table 9, total compensation for all sales 

and office workers in goods-producing 

private industries: http://www.bls.gov/ 

ncs/). Therefore, the estimated annual 

cost associated with the labeling 

requirements is: $34.21 per hour × 136 

hours = $4,652.56. CPSC does not 

expect there to be operating, 

maintenance, or capital costs associated 

with this information collection. 

As the PRA requires, CPSC has 

submitted the information collection 

requirements of this final rule to OMB. 

44 U.S.C. 3507(d). OMB has assigned 

control number 3041–0173 to this 

information collection. 

X. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

A. Introduction 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 

5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires agencies to 

consider the potential economic impact 

of a proposed and final rule on small 

entities, including small businesses. 

Section 604 of the RFA requires 

agencies to prepare and publish a final 

regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) 

when they issue a final rule, unless the 

head of the agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The FRFA must discuss: 

• The need for and objectives of the 

rule; 

• significant issues raised in public 

comments about the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA), a response to 

comments from the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA, the agency’s 

assessment of the comments, and any 

changes made to the rule as a result of 

the comments; 

• the description and estimated 

number of small entities that will be 

subject to the rule; 

• the reporting, recordkeeping, and 

other compliance requirements of the 

rule, as well as the small entities that 

would be subject to those requirements, 

and the types of skills necessary to 

prepare the reports or records; 

• steps the agency took to minimize 

the significant economic impact on 

small entities; and 

• the factual, policy, and legal 

reasons the agency selected the 

alternative in the final rule, and why it 

rejected other significant alternatives. 

5 U.S.C. 604 

Based on an assessment by staff from 

CPSC’s Directorate for Economic 

Analysis, CPSC cannot certify that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As a result, 

staff has prepared a FRFA. This section 

summarizes the FRFA for this final rule. 

The complete FRFA is available as part 

of the CPSC staff’s briefing package at: 

https://cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Final

%20Rule%20-%20Safety%20Standard

%20for%20High%20Chairs%20- 

%20May%2030%202018.pdf

?mBuoGQbhxpGcMFyO6it0g

NeBOOFZrTA9. 

B. Reason for Agency Action 

Section 104 of the CPSIA requires the 

Commission to issue a mandatory 

standard for high chairs that is 

substantially the same as the voluntary 

standard, or more stringent than the 

voluntary standard. In this final rule, 

the Commission incorporates by 

reference the voluntary standard, ASTM 

F404–18, as the mandatory safety 

standard for high chairs. This rule aims 

to address the safety hazards associated 

with high chairs that are demonstrated 

in incident data. 

C. Comments Relevant to the FRFA 

CPSC did not received any comments 

specifically addressing the IRFA that 

accompanied the proposed rule or from 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of SBA. 

However, CPSC received comments 

about the effective date of the final rule 

and restaurant-style high chairs, which 

are relevant to the FRFA insofar as they 

impact the costs associated with the 

rule. 

1. Effective Date 

In the NPR, the Commission proposed 

that the rule would take effect 6 months 

after publication in the Federal 

Register. One comment, from four 

consumer advocate groups, expressed 

support for the proposed 6-month 

effective date. Another comment, filed 

on behalf of juvenile product 

manufacturers, requested a 1-year 

effective date, to provide time for firms 

to change their products to meet the 

new standard. 

After considering these comments, 

and the potential economic impact of 

the rule on small firms, the Commission 

is extending the effective date for the 

final rule to 1 year. CPSC staff believes 

that this longer effective date will 

reduce the economic impact of the rule 

on firms, some of which may not be 

aware of the ASTM standard or the 

rulemaking, by reducing the potential 

for a lapse in production or imports 

while bringing products into 

compliance with the rule, and spreading 

the costs of compliance over a longer 

time period. 

2. Restaurant-Style High Chairs 

CPSC received three comments about 

restaurant-style high chairs. Section VI 

of this preamble detailed these 

comments. To summarize, commenters 

noted that it may be appropriate to 

apply only some requirements, no 

requirements, or to create new 

requirements for restaurant-style high 

chairs. Commenters noted that 

restaurant settings make certain features 

useful on a high chair, which may not 

comply with the standard, and that 

safety features may be less necessary in 

restaurants, where caregivers are likely 

to be near children and supervising 

them when they are in a high chair. 

CPSC has considered this information 

and believes that it is appropriate to 

apply the final rule to all high chairs, 

including restaurant-style high chairs. 

The final rule may particularly impact 

firms that supply restaurant-style high 

chairs, because they have features 

intended to accommodate restaurant 

settings and these features may be 

difficult to retain while complying with 

the standard, thereby requiring more 

extensive changes than home-use 

models. Nevertheless, consumer safety, 

home-use of these products, and 

statutory limitations justify applying the 

rule to all high chairs. The rationale for 

including restaurant-style high chairs in 

the rule is discussed elsewhere in this 

notice. 

D. Description of Small Entities Subject 

to the Rule 

CPSC staff identified 68 firms that 

supply high chairs to the U.S. market, 

of which 59 are domestic, and 9 are 

foreign. Of the 59 domestic firms, 33 

manufacture high chairs, and 26 of 

those 33 manufacturers are small, 

according to SBA’s standards. The 

remaining 26 domestic firms import 

high chairs, and 17 of those 26 

importers are small, according to SBA’s 

standards. Of the 59 domestic firms, 43 

market their high chairs only to 

consumers, and 4 sell their high chairs 

to both consumers and restaurants. It is 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
28368 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

possible that there are additional high 

chair suppliers in the U.S. market that 

staff has not identified. 

E. Description of the Final Rule 

Sections V and VII of this preamble 

describe the requirements in the final 

rule, which incorporates by reference 

ASTM F404–18. In addition, the final 

rule amends the regulations regarding 

third party conformity assessment 

bodies to include the safety standard for 

high chairs in the list of NORs. 

F. Impact on Small Businesses 

For the FRFA, staff limited its 

analysis to the 59 domestic firms staff 

identified as supplying high chairs to 

the U.S. market because SBA guidelines 

and definitions apply to domestic 

entities. In assessing whether a rule will 

have a significant economic impact on 

small entities, staff generally considers 

impacts ‘‘significant’’ if they exceed 1 

percent of a firm’s revenue. 

1. Small Manufacturers 

At the time staff prepared the FRFA, 

13 of the 26 small manufacturers 

reported that their high chairs complied 

with the ASTM standard that was in 

effect for testing purposes. Staff believes 

that firms that report complying with 

the voluntary standard will continue to 

comply with the standard as it evolves, 

as part of an established business 

practice. Of these 13 firms, 2 

manufacture compact high chairs with 

limited space for warning labels. In the 

IRFA, staff predicted that the proposed 

rule could have a significant impact on 

these two firms because the NPR 

required a single warning label to be 

visible when placing a child in the high 

chair and when the child was seated in 

the high chair. However, the final rule 

does not include this requirement, 

instead dividing the warning 

information over two labels, each with 

different placement requirements. This 

change reduces the burden on firms to 

modify their products to accommodate 

labeling requirements. Therefore, staff 

does not expect the final rule to have a 

significant economic impact on any of 

these 13 firms and third party testing 

costs are expected to be minimal 

because these firms already test their 

products for compliance with the 

voluntary standard. 

The remaining 13 small 

manufacturers produce high chairs that 

do not comply with the voluntary 

standard. Seven of these firms 

manufacture high chairs for home use, 

and six produce restaurant-style high 

chairs. For the seven firms that 

manufacture high chairs for home use, 

the final rule could have a significant 

economic impact. The cost of 

redesigning their products to meet 

ASTM F404–18 could exceed 1 percent 

of each firm’s respective revenue. In 

addition, these firms do not have 

extensive product lines; one of these 

firms produces only high chairs. For the 

six firms that manufacture high chairs 

for restaurant settings, the final rule 

could also have a significant economic 

impact. In particular, two of these firms 

make plastic high chairs, which could 

require them to create new molds for 

their products to comply with the rule. 

Staff believes that third party testing 

costs could potentially have a 

significant economic impact on some of 

these firms, but these costs would be 

small, relative to the overall impact of 

the rule. 

2. Small Importers 

At the time staff prepared the FRFA, 

9 of the 17 small importers reported that 

their high chairs complied with the 

ASTM standard that was in effect for 

testing purposes. In the IRFA, staff 

anticipated that the proposed rule could 

have a significant economic impact on 

four of these firms because they 

imported compact high chairs that 

might have needed to be redesigned to 

create space for a label that met the 

proposed label placement requirements. 

Because the final rule does not include 

this requirement, allowing greater 

flexibility, staff does not expect that 

these firms will have to redesign their 

products. One importer supplies a 

relatively new type of high chair that 

includes a reclining seat insert, but 

preliminary staff testing indicates that 

the product meets the requirements in 

the final rule. In addition, staff believes 

that any third party testing costs these 

importers may incur would be limited 

to the incremental costs associated with 

third party testing over their current 

testing regimes. Therefore, staff does not 

expect the final rule to have a 

significant economic impact on any of 

these nine firms. 

The remaining eight small importers 

supply high chairs that do not comply 

with the voluntary standard. Staff does 

not have sufficient information to 

conclude that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on these 

firms. The economic impact of the rule 

on importers depends on the extent of 

the changes needed for their products to 

comply with the rule and the response 

of their suppliers. Staff generally cannot 

determine this information for importers 

that do not already comply with the 

voluntary standard. Nevertheless, staff 

expects that the final rule will have a 

smaller economic impact than the 

proposed rule, because the final rule 

includes less-burdensome warning 

placement requirements than the NPR. 

Suppliers are more likely to pass on 

the costs of producing or redesigning 

products to comply with the final rule 

to importers with whom they do not 

have direct ties. Six of the eight small 

importers of noncompliant high chairs 

do not have direct ties with their 

suppliers. To avoid these costs, the six 

importers may replace their suppliers, 

select alternative products, or stop 

supplying high chairs if they have 

diverse product lines. For the remaining 

two importers that have direct ties to 

their suppliers, finding an alternative 

supply source likely is not a viable 

alternative. However, these firms’ 

foreign suppliers may absorb some of 

the costs to maintain a presence in the 

U.S. market. Alternatively, these two 

importers could stop supplying high 

chairs, although this may be unlikely 

because both firms have only a few 

products in their product lines. 

In addition, staff believes that third 

party testing could result in significant 

costs for two of the firms that import 

noncompliant high chairs. For one of 

these firms, testing costs could exceed 1 

percent of its gross revenue if it tests as 

few as two units per model. The second 

firm would need to test about three 

units per model before testing costs 

would exceed 1 percent of its gross 

revenue. For two additional small 

importers of noncompliant high chairs, 

each of which supply only one high 

chair model, staff could not obtain 

revenue data to determine the potential 

impact of third party testing. 

3. Accreditation Requirements for 

Testing Laboratories 

Section 14 of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (CPSA; 15 U.S.C. 2051–2089) 

requires all children’s products that are 

subject to a children’s product safety 

rule to be tested by a third party 

conformity assessment body (i.e., testing 

laboratory) that has been accredited by 

CPSC. Testing laboratories that want to 

conduct this testing must meet the NOR 

for third party conformity testing. The 

final rule amends 16 CFR part 1112 to 

establish an NOR for testing laboratories 

to test for compliance with the high 

chair rule. 

In the IRFA for this rule, staff 

anticipated that the accreditation 

requirements would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small laboratories 

because: (1) The rule imposed 

requirements only on laboratories that 

intended to provide third party testing 

services; (2) laboratories would assume 

the costs only if they anticipated 

receiving sufficient revenue from the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 28369 

testing to justify accepting the 

requirements as a business decision; 

and (3) most laboratories would already 

have accreditation to test for 

conformance to other juvenile product 

standards, thereby limiting the costs to 

adding the high chair standard to their 

scope of accreditation. CPSC has not 

received any information to date that 

contradicts this assessment. Therefore, 

staff believes that the NOR for the high 

chair standard will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

G. Alternatives and Steps To Minimize 

Economic Impacts 

In the NPR, the Commission 

discussed several alternatives to the 

proposed rule that would reduce the 

economic impact of the rule on small 

entities. In effect, the Commission has 

incorporated two of these alternatives 

into the final rule. 

One option the Commission discussed 

in the NPR involved modifying the rule 

to require compliance with the ASTM 

standard, without the additional more 

stringent requirements proposed in the 

NPR, or at least without the more 

stringent label placement requirements 

in the NPR. This alternative would 

allow the Commission to meet the 

mandate in CPSIA section 104 to adopt 

a rule that is substantially the same as 

the voluntary standard, but reduce the 

economic impact of the rule by reducing 

the changes needed to conform to the 

rule. 

ASTM F404–18 includes the more 

stringent requirements proposed in the 

NPR, except for the label placement 

requirements, which remain consistent 

with ASTM F404–15. Under the final 

rule, firms will not have to meet 

additional, more stringent requirements 

than those in the voluntary standard. 

Moreover, the warning label placement 

requirements in the final rule provide 

more flexibility than the NPR—allowing 

for two separate labels, each of which is 

subject to only one visibility 

requirement, rather than two—thereby 

requiring less-burdensome product 

changes than the proposed rule. 

Therefore, in effect, the Commission has 

adopted this alternative, by 

incorporating by reference ASTM F404– 

18 without additional, more stringent 

requirements, and eliminating the more 

stringent label placement requirements 

proposed in the NPR. 

Another alternative CPSC considered 

was extending the effective date of the 

rule. In the NPR, the Commission 

proposed a 6-month effective date for 

the final rule, consistent with other 

durable infant and toddler product 

rules. CPSC received comments about 

the effective date, suggesting that firms 

need 1 year to modify products to meet 

the standard, as some firms will need to 

redesign their products, test new 

products, and modify their production 

processes. Based on this information, 

CPSC believes that 1 year is a reasonable 

amount of time to account for needed 

changes, and is extending the effective 

date of the rule to 1 year. This should 

reduce the economic costs of the rule for 

small entities. Setting a later effective 

date reduces the likelihood of a lapse in 

production or imports if firms cannot 

comply with the standard or obtain 

third party testing within the time 

provided. In addition, a later effective 

date spreads the costs of compliance 

over a longer period, reducing annual 

costs and the present value of total 

costs. 

Finally, CPSC considered partially or 

fully excluding restaurant-style high 

chairs from the final rule, or adopting 

more-limited requirements for these 

products. The requirements could be 

particularly costly for manufacturers 

and importers of restaurant-style high 

chairs because this style of chair has 

features intended to accommodate 

restaurant settings that would be 

difficult to retain while complying with 

the standard. As discussed previously in 

this preamble, although excluding 

restaurant-style high chairs from the 

final rule would reduce the economic 

impact on several small entities, CPSC 

believes that this alternative would not 

be appropriate given incident data, 

home use of these products, and the 

mandate in CPSIA section 104. 

XI. Environmental Considerations 

CPSC’s regulations list categories of 

agency actions that ‘‘normally have little 

or no potential for affecting the human 

environment.’’ 16 CFR 1021.5(c). Such 

actions qualify as ‘‘categorical 

exclusions’’ under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321–4370m–12), which do not require 

an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. One 

categorical exclusion listed in CPSC’s 

regulations is for rules or safety 

standards that ‘‘provide design or 

performance requirements for 

products.’’ 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). Because 

the final rule for high chairs creates 

design or performance requirements, the 

rule falls within the categorical 

exclusion. 

XII. Preemption 

Under section 26(a) of the CPSA, no 

state or political subdivision of a state 

may establish or continue in effect a 

requirement dealing with the same risk 

of injury as a federal consumer product 

safety standard under the CPSA unless 

the state requirement is identical to the 

federal standard. 15 U.S.C. 2075(a). 

However, states or political subdivisions 

of states may apply to CPSC for an 

exemption, allowing them to establish 

or continue such a requirement if the 

state requirement ‘‘provides a 

significantly higher degree of protection 

from [the] risk of injury’’ and ‘‘does not 

unduly burden interstate commerce.’’ 

Id. 2075(c). 

One of the functions of the CPSIA was 

to amend the CPSA, adding several 

provisions to the CPSA, including 

CPSIA section 104 in 15 U.S.C. 2056a. 

As such, consumer product safety 

standards that the Commission creates 

under CPSIA section 104 are covered by 

the preemption provision in the CPSA. 

As a result, the preemption provision in 

section 26 of the CPSA applies to the 

mandatory safety standard for high 

chairs. 

XIII. Testing, Certification, and 

Notification of Requirements 

Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires the 

manufacturer or private labeler of a 

children’s product that is subject to a 

children’s product safety rule to certify 

that, based on a third party conformity 

assessment body’s testing, the product 

complies with the applicable children’s 

product safety rule. 15 U.S.C. 

2063(a)(2)(A), 2063(a)(2)(B). Section 

14(a) also requires CPSC to publish an 

NOR for a third party conformity 

assessment body (i.e., testing laboratory) 

to obtain accreditation to assess 

conformity with a children’s product 

safety rule. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(3)(A). 

Because this safety standard for high 

chairs is a children’s product safety 

rule, it requires CPSC to issue an NOR. 

On March 12, 2013, the Commission 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register, entitled Requirements 

Pertaining to Third Party Conformity 

Assessment Bodies, establishing 16 CFR 

part 1112, which sets out the general 

requirements and criteria concerning 

testing laboratories. 78 FR 15836. Part 

1112 includes procedures for CPSC to 

accept a testing laboratory’s 

accreditation and lists the children’s 

product safety rules for which CPSC has 

published NORs. When CPSC issues a 

new NOR, it must amend part 1112 to 

include that NOR. Accordingly, the 

Commission is amending part 1112 to 

include the high chairs standard. 

Testing laboratories that apply for 

CPSC acceptance to test high chairs for 

compliance with the new high chair 

rule would have to meet the 

requirements in part 1112. When a 

laboratory meets the requirements of a 

CPSC-accepted third party conformity 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
28370 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

assessment body, the laboratory can 

apply to CPSC to include 16 CFR part 

1231, Safety Standard for High Chairs, 

in the laboratory’s scope of accreditation 

of CPSC safety rules listed on the CPSC 

website at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch. 

As the RFA requires, CPSC staff 

conducted a FRFA for the rulemaking in 

which the Commission adopted part 

1112. 78 FR 15836, 15855–58. To 

summarize, the FRFA concluded that 

the accreditation requirements would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

laboratories because no requirements 

were imposed on laboratories that did 

not intend to provide third party testing 

services. The only laboratories CPSC 

expected to provide such services were 

those that anticipated receiving 

sufficient revenue from the mandated 

testing to justify accepting the 

requirements as a business decision. 

By the same reasoning, adding an 

NOR for the high chair standard to part 

1112 will not have a significant 

economic impact on small test 

laboratories. A relatively small number 

of laboratories in the United States have 

applied for accreditation to test for 

conformance to existing juvenile 

product standards. Accordingly, CPSC 

expects that only a few laboratories will 

seek accreditation to test for compliance 

with the high chair standard. Of those 

that seek accreditation, CPSC expects 

that most will have already been 

accredited to test for conformance to 

other juvenile product standards. The 

only costs to those laboratories will be 

the cost of adding the high chair 

standard to their scopes of accreditation. 

For these reasons, CPSC certifies that 

amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include 

an NOR for the high chairs standard will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

List of Subjects 

16 CFR Part 1112 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Third-party conformity 

assessment body. 

16 CFR Part 1231 

Consumer protection, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Infants and 

children, Labeling, Law enforcement, 

Toys. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Commission amends 16 

CFR chapter II as follows: 

PART 1112—REQUIREMENTS 

PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY 

CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT BODIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1112 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 110–314, section 3, 122 

Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008); 15 U.S.C. 2063. 

■ 2. Amend § 1112.15 by adding 

paragraph (b)(44) to read as follows: 

§ 1112.15 When can a third party 

conformity assessment body apply for 

CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule 

or test method? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(44) 16 CFR part 1231, Safety 

Standard for High Chairs. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Add part 1231 to read as follows: 

PART 1231—SAFETY STANDARD FOR 

HIGH CHAIRS 

Sec. 

1231.1 Scope. 

1231.2 Requirements for high chairs. 

Authority: Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110–314, 122 

Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Pub. L. 112–28, 

125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011). 

§ 1231.1 Scope. 

This part establishes a consumer 

product safety standard for high chairs. 

§ 1231.2 Requirements for high chairs. 

(a) Each high chair shall comply with 

all applicable provisions of ASTM 

F404–18, Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for High Chairs, approved 

on February 15, 2018. The Director of 

the Federal Register approves this 

incorporation by reference in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy 

from ASTM International, 100 Bar 

Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://

www.astm.org. You may inspect a copy 

at the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301– 

504–7923, or at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

For information on the availability of 

this material at NARA, call 202–741– 

6030, or go to: https://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations.html. 

(b) [Reserved] 

Alberta E. Mills, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12938 Filed 6–18–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

31 CFR Part 592 

Rough Diamonds Control Regulations 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets 

Control (OFAC) is amending the Rough 

Diamonds Control Regulations to clarify 

several reporting requirements and 

remove another, clarify which entity 

may issue Kimberley Process 

Certificates for the export of rough 

diamonds from the United States, clarify 

the steps necessary to validate a 

Kimberley Process Certificate, add two 

definitions that define rough diamond 

packaging requirements and Kimberley 

Process voided certificates, and make 

certain technical and conforming 

changes to the penalties section of the 

regulations. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective June 19, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department of the Treasury’s Office of 

Foreign Assets Control: Assistant 

Director for Licensing, tel.: 202–622– 

2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory 

Affairs, tel.: 202–622–4855, Assistant 

Director for Sanctions Compliance & 

Evaluation, tel.: 202–622–2490; or the 

Department of the Treasury’s Office of 

the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets 

Control), Office of the General Counsel, 

tel.: 202–622–2410. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic and Facsimile Availability 

This document and additional 

information concerning OFAC are 

available from OFAC’s website 

(www.treas.gov/ofac). 

Background 

On August 4, 2003, OFAC 

promulgated the Rough Diamonds 

Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 592 

(the ‘‘Regulations’’), to implement 

Executive Order 13312 (E.O. 13312) of 

July 29, 2003. E.O. 13312 was issued to 

implement the Clean Diamond Trade 

Act (Pub. L. 108–19) (CDTA) and the 

multilateral Kimberley Process 

Certification Scheme for rough 

diamonds (KPCS). OFAC amended the 

Regulations on September 23, 2004 to 

revise certain reporting requirements 

(69 FR 56936). OFAC further amended 

the Regulations on May 21, 2008 (73 FR 

29433) to enhance the compilation of 

statistical data relating to the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES