[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28390-28397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13024]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 28390]]



CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1238

[Docket No. CPSC-2018-0015]


Safety Standard for Stationary Activity Centers

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, 
Section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 
(CPSIA), requires the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission 
(Commission, or CPSC) to promulgate consumer product safety standards 
for durable infant or toddler products. These standards are to be 
``substantially the same as'' applicable voluntary standards or more 
stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that 
more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury 
associated with the product. The Commission is proposing a safety 
standard for stationary activity centers in response to the direction 
under Section 104(b) of the CPSIA.

DATES: Submit comments by September 4, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of 
the marking, labeling, and instructional literature of the proposed 
rule should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or emailed to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6f00061d0e301c1a0d02061c1c0600012f00020d410a001f41080019"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f29d9b8093ad8187909f9b81819b9d9cb29d9f90dc979d82dc959d84">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Other comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2018-0015, may be 
submitted electronically or in writing:
    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept 
comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through 
www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic 
comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.
    Written Submissions: Submit written submissions in the following 
way: Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM 
submissions), preferably in five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this proposed rulemaking. All comments received 
may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, 
contact information, or other personal information provided, to: http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, 
trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information 
that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at 
all, such information should be submitted in writing.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the 
docket number, CPSC-2018-0015, into the ``Search'' box, and follow the 
prompts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Lee, Project Manager, Mechanical 
Engineer, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 301-987-
2486; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c1aaada4a481a2b1b2a2efa6aeb7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0dbdcd5d5f0d3c0c3d39ed7dfc6">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Statutory Authority

    The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA, Pub. L. 
110-314) was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, 
part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, 
requires the Commission to: (1) Examine and assess the effectiveness of 
voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or 
toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer 
groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product 
engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety 
standards for durable infant and toddler products. These standards are 
to be ``substantially the same as'' applicable voluntary standards or 
more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes 
that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of 
injury associated with the product. The term ``durable infant or 
toddler product'' is defined in section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as ``a 
durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to 
be used, by children under the age of 5 years.''
    In this document, the Commission is proposing a safety standard for 
stationary activity centers (SACs). ``Stationary Activity Centers'' are 
specifically identified in section 104(f)(2)(G) of the CPSIA as a 
durable infant or toddler product. Pursuant to Section 104(b)(1)(A), 
the Commission consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade 
organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and 
members of the public in the development of this proposed standard, 
largely through the ASTM process. The proposed rule is based on the 
voluntary standard developed by ASTM International (formerly the 
American Society for Testing and Materials), ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\, 
Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Stationary Activity Centers 
(ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\).
    The ASTM standard is copyrighted, but it can be viewed as a read-
only document during the comment period on this proposal, at: http://www.astm.org/Standards/F833.htm, by permission of ASTM.

II. Product Description

A. Definition of ``Stationary Activity Center''

    ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ defines a SAC as ``a freestanding product 
intended to remain stationary that enables a sitting or standing 
occupant whose torso is completely surrounded by the product to walk, 
rock, play, spin or bounce, or all of these, within a limited range of 
motion.'' \1\ The intended users of SACs are children who have not yet 
reached the developmental milestone of walking. The product is intended 
for children who are able to hold up their heads unassisted. SACs vary 
in style and design complexity, but typically consist of a seating area 
that is suspended from a frame by springs, or

[[Page 28391]]

supported from the bottom by a fixed base. The updated standard 
includes a definition of a ``spring-supported SAC,'' which is described 
as ``a stationary activity center in which the sitting or standing 
platform is supported from below or suspended from above by springs (or 
equivalent resilient members).'' For spring-supported SACs, children 
should not be able to have their feet flat on the ground when using the 
product. Doorway jumpers are not included in the definition of 
``stationary activity centers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ASTM F2012 Sec.  3.1.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Market Description

    SACs typically range in price from $30 to $150, with spring-
supported SACs typically ranging from $50 to $150. Some manufacturers 
produce multiple models and several produce models that are similar in 
design, but with different accessories. SACs typically accommodate 
children who weigh less than 25 pounds and have a maximum height of 32 
inches.
    There were approximately 7.5 million (95% confidence interval (CI) 
between 6.2 million and 8.8 million) SACs in national households with 
children under the age of 5 in 2013, according to CPSC's 2013 Durable 
Nursery Product Exposure Survey (DNPES). However, based on the same 
data, only about 4.1 million of these were actually in use (95% CI 
between 3.1 million and 5.2 million).

III. Incident Data

    The Commission is aware of a total of 3,488 reported incidents 
related to SACs that occurred between January 1, 2013 and September 30, 
2017. The characterization of the deaths, injuries, and types of 
hazards is based on incident reports received by CPSC staff. 
Information on 92 percent (3,217 out of 3,488) of the incidents was 
based solely on reports submitted to CPSC by manufacturers and 
retailers through CPSC's ``Retailer Reporting Program.'' Because 
reporting is ongoing, the number of reported incidents may change. The 
number of emergency department-treated injuries associated with SACs, 
for the timeframe covered, was insufficient to derive any reportable 
national estimates.\2\ Consequently, CPSC staff is not providing injury 
estimates. However, the emergency department-treated injuries are 
included in the total count of reported incidents presented in this 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ According to the NEISS publication criteria, an estimate 
must be 1,200 or greater, the sample size must be 20 or greater, and 
the coefficient of variation must be 33 percent or smaller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Fatalities

    CPSC does not have any reports of fatalities associated with the 
use of SACs occurring between January 1, 2013 and September 30, 2017.

B. Nonfatalities

    The Commission is aware of a total of 304 nonfatal injury incidents 
related to SACs that reportedly occurred between January 1, 2013 and 
September 30, 2017.
    Twenty-four children were reported to have been treated at, and 
released from, a hospital emergency department (ED). A majority of them 
suffered a fall, resulting in head injuries, limb fractures, and 
contusions. A few children treated in hospital EDs suffered unexplained 
foot/leg/pelvic bruising, fractures, and/or swelling while jumping in 
the product. One child had an allergic reaction to the product's finish 
or materials, while two children suffered from limb entrapments when 
using the product.
    Among the remaining 280 injury reports, some specifically mentioned 
the type of injury, while others only mentioned an injury, but provided 
no specifics about the injury. Fractures, head injuries, concussions, 
teeth injury, abrasions, contusions, and lacerations were among some of 
the commonly reported injuries.
    The remaining 3,184 incidents reported that no injury had occurred 
or provided no information about any injury. However, many of the 
descriptions indicated the potential for a serious injury.

C. Hazard Pattern Identification

    CPSC staff considered all 3,488 reported incidents to identify 
hazard patterns associated with the use of SACs. Most of the reported 
problems were product-related issues. In order of descending frequency, 
the problems were as follows:
    <bullet> Spring support issues: In 1,617 of the 3,488 incidents (46 
percent), there was a report of some sort of a problem with the springs 
that suspend the seat from the product's frame. In most cases, the 
springs were reported to have broken, twisted, outstretched, or failed 
in some other manner. Twenty-seven injuries, including one ED-treated 
injury, were reported in this category.
    <bullet> Problems with toy accessories: 1,075 of the 3,488 
incidents (31 percent) reported problems with toy accessories attached 
to the product. The problems were with toys:
    [cir] Forcefully striking the child, usually on the face
    [cir] Pinching or entrapping limbs or extremities
    [cir] Posing a laceration hazard due to sharp edges or surfaces
    [cir] Causing gagging while mouthing the toy
    [cir] Posing an entanglement hazard because of the long ribbons/
strings attached
    [cir] Posing a choking hazard due to small parts detaching.
    One hundred fifty-six injuries, including two ED-treated injuries, 
were reported in this category.
    <bullet> Support strap issues: 306 of the 3,488 incidents (9 
percent) reported straps that tore, frayed, twisted, or detached. The 
strap system on a SAC is typically the primary means by which most 
spring-suspended activity centers are supported. If the strap (to which 
a support spring is attached) fails, the activity center is often left 
unsupported on one side and typically results in a fall of the child. 
Thirty injuries were reported in this category.
    <bullet> Structural integrity problems: 158 of the 3,488 incidents 
(5 percent) reported some problem with structural components such as:
    [cir] Locks, which led to product collapse, detachment of the top 
and bottom parts of the exerciser, or failure of the height adjustment 
mechanism
    [cir] Snap buttons/fasteners breaking during regular use, delivery, 
or assembly/disassembly
    [cir] Tube/frame/post separating, bending, or getting damaged in 
some other manner
    [cir] Various small parts (often unspecified) detaching
    [cir] Screws/nuts/bolts loosening and falling out.
    Twelve injuries were reported in this category.
    <bullet> Problems with seats/seat pads: 122 of the 3,488 incidents 
(4 percent) reported problems specific to the seat or the seat pad. 
Examples include:
    [cir] Tabs, used to attach the pad to the seat frame, breaking, 
tearing, or separating
    [cir] The stitching on the pad fraying or tearing
    [cir] The leg openings designed to be inadequately constrictive
    [cir] Rough material used for the pad.
    Twelve injuries were reported in this category.
    <bullet> Stability issues: 76 of the 3,488 incidents (2 percent) 
reported problems with flimsy and/or unstable products. Specifically, 
the incidents described:
    [cir] Frame/posts/seat/unit leaning to one side and not sitting 
level
    [cir] Legs lifting up during use
    [cir] The product toppling over.
    Four children were reported injured in these incidents.
    <bullet> Electrical problems: 36 of the 3,488 incidents (1 percent) 
reported leakage

[[Page 28392]]

and/or corrosion in the batteries or failure of the circuit board on 
the product. Two injuries were reported in this category.
    <bullet> Design issues: 32 of the 3,488 incidents (1 percent) 
reported some problems with the design of the product. There were 
reports of:
    [cir] Limb/extremity entrapment between parts of the exerciser
    [cir] Failure of the seat to contain the child within
    [cir] Poor choice for the placement of structural components that 
made it easier for a child to get hurt during routine use.
    There were 20 injuries, including two treated in a hospital ED, in 
this category.
    <bullet> Miscellaneous other issues: 22 of the 3,488 incidents 
(less than 1 percent) reported a variety of other general product-
related issues, such as:
    [cir] Rough surface, sharp edges, or protrusions
    [cir] Paint/finish
    [cir] Product packaging
    [cir] Fall of product from an elevated surface
    [cir] Sales of recalled or modified products at a consignment store 
or a garage sale.
    Thirteen injuries, including four treated at hospital EDs, were 
reported in this category.
    <bullet> Multiple problems from among the above-listed categories: 
20 of the 3,488 incidents (less than 1 percent) reported two or more 
problems from the preceding product-related issues.\3\ CPSC staff could 
not determine if there was any priority (e.g., primary, secondary) 
among the order in which issues were reported. Five injuries were 
reported in this category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Redistributing these 20 complaints among the other pertinent 
categories already listed does not alter the ranking of the listed 
categories. However, the redistribution would result in the incident 
numbers adding up to more than the total number of reported 
incidents. To prevent that, the 20 incidents were grouped in this 
category separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Unspecified/Unknown issues: 24 of the 3,488 incident 
reports (less than 1 percent) provided incomplete or unclear 
descriptions of the scenario; as such, CPSC staff was unable to 
identify the problem. Twenty-three injuries, mostly falls, were 
reported in this category; 15 of these injuries were treated in a 
hospital ED.

D. Product Recalls

    Compliance staff reviewed recalls involving SACs from January 2013 
to March 2018. During that period, one consumer-level recall occurred 
involving a Kids II, Inc., stationary activity center.\4\ A recall was 
initiated because one of the toy attachments on the SAC posed an impact 
hazard when it rebounded. The recall involved 400,000 units. The firm 
received 100 reports of incidents, including 61 reported injuries from 
the hazard. The injuries included bruises and lacerations to the face; 
in addition, a 7-month-old sustained a lineal skull fracture, and an 
adult suffered a chipped tooth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CPSC website link to recalled product: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2013/Kids-II-Recalls-Baby-Einstein-Activity-Jumpers/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Other Standards and History of ASTM F2012-18 [egr]\1\

A. International Standards

    CPSC staff found no comparable international standard similar to 
ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ that addresses SACs.

B. History of Voluntary Standard--ASTM F2012

    The voluntary standard for SACs was first approved and published in 
April 2000, as ASTM F2012-00, Standard Consumer Safety Specification 
for Stationary Activity Centers. The standard has been revised nine 
times since its publication. The current version, ASTM F2012-18 
[epsiv]\1\, was approved on May 18, 2018.
    ASTM F2012-00 (approved on April 10, 2000), established performance 
requirements to address the following:
    <bullet> Latching or Locking Mechanisms--for SACs that fold for 
storage, this requirement helps prevent unintentional folding during 
use.
    <bullet> Openings--Assesses the accessibility of slots or cracks in 
the unit to ensure that the occupant's extremities (fingers, toes) 
cannot be caught or trapped while not in motion.
    <bullet> Scissoring, Shearing, Pinching--Dynamically assesses 
accessible slots to prevent injury from moving parts throughout the 
range of movement.
    <bullet> Exposed Coil Springs--Sets a requirement for the spacing 
between the coils of any accessible spring element to prevent 
entrapment.
    <bullet> Labeling--Assesses the permanency of labeling, as well as 
label removal, which may involve creating small parts.
    <bullet> Structural Integrity--Includes dynamic and static loading, 
to determine any collapsing or failure modes that may occur during the 
lifecycle of the unit.
    <bullet> Occupant Retention--Evaluates the leg openings of the 
activity center to prevent entrapment of the torso, neck, or head.
    <bullet> Stability--Assesses the stability of a seated occupant 
leaning outside of the unit.
    <bullet> Protective Components--Determines whether a child can 
grasp/bite and remove, protective caps, shields, sleeves, and plugs. If 
so, determine if a hazard exists (i.e., small parts, sharp edges, sharp 
points, or entrapments).
    Later versions of the standard added other requirements, such as: 
Protective components for open-base SACs and SACs that do and do not 
rotate around a central stationary post.
    ASTM F2012-18 (approved on March 1, 2018):
    <bullet> Added a definition of ``closed-base stationary activity 
center'';
    <bullet> added definition of ``spring-supported stationary activity 
center'';
    <bullet> added section requiring that spring-supported stationary 
activity centers have a redundant system in place, to prevent the seat 
from falling should any spring component fail. Upon failure, the 
redundant system must keep the child in place at a rest angle no more 
than 25[deg] from horizontal.
    ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\, approved on May 18, 2018, corrected 
errors and made editorial revisions to the standard.

V. Adequacy of ASTM F2012-18 [egr]\1\ Requirements

    The Commission concludes that the current voluntary standard, ASTM 
F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\, sufficiently addresses many of the general hazards 
associated with the use of SACs, such as sharp points, small parts, 
lead in paint, scissoring, shearing, pinching, openings, exposed coil 
springs, locking and latching, unintentional folding, labeling, 
protective components, flammability, and toy accessories that are sold 
with the carrier, given the low frequency and low severity of incidents 
and injuries reported.
    This section discusses the four primary hazard patterns that 
account for the majority of the reported incidents and injuries; 
Springs--46 percent, Toy Accessories--31 percent, Straps--9 percent; 
Structural integrity--5 percent, and how each is addressed in the 
current voluntary standard, ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\.

A. Spring Support Failure

    This hazard is associated with 46 percent of the reported incidents 
(9 percent of injuries). Reports of support spring failures typically 
involved a common type of SAC scenario, in which the child and activity 
tray are suspended by springs from multiple points. These hazards often 
involve the failure of one or more members of the

[[Page 28393]]

spring system, which causes the occupant to dynamically tilt, tip, 
topple, or lean from the manufacturer's recommended-use position, which 
can result in the occupant falling out of the activity center. The 2018 
version of the voluntary standard (ASTM F2012-2018 [epsiv]\1\) 
addressed spring failures with a performance requirement that support 
springs withstand 100 drops from a 33-lb. weight from a height of at 
least 1 inch. CPSC staff presented the incident data to the voluntary 
standards committee and suggested a secondary support for load bearing 
springs. Consequently, ASTM F2012-2018 [epsiv]\1\ also requires a 
redundant system to prevent the seat from falling should the spring 
fail. Because this support strap would function as a fail-safe if 
springs break, including springs not identified during the dynamic load 
and life-cycle tests, the Commission concludes that this change will 
address the hazard pattern identified.

B. Problems With Toy Accessories

    This hazard pattern is associated with 31 percent of the reported 
incidents and 51 percent of the injuries. The majority of the incidents 
involved pinching, laceration, choking/gagging, and entanglement 
injuries. ASTM F2012-2018 [epsiv]\1\ addresses hazards associated with 
toys, by requiring that toy accessories meet the relevant requirements 
of ASTM F963-2017, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toy 
Safety. The Commission believes that the majority of the hazards 
related to toy accessories are adequately addressed by ASTM F963; 
therefore, the Commission believes that the current voluntary standard 
for stationary activity centers, ASTM F2012-2018 [epsiv]\1\ adequately 
addresses this hazard.

C. Support Strap Failure

    This hazard pattern is associated with 9 percent of the reported 
incidents and 10 percent of the injuries, and it includes straps that 
break, twist, fray, or detach. The strap system on a SAC is typically 
the primary means by which most spring-suspended activity centers are 
supported (see Figure 1). Upon failure of the occupant support strap, 
the activity center is often left unsupported on one side, and this 
typically results in the child falling.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JN18.003

    There are no specific requirements for support straps, although 
ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ requires dynamic and static loading at the 
seat of the product to evaluate the durability of the support 
structures for the seat. This testing also stresses the structural 
integrity components of the product, which include support straps; and 
the standard requires that the product shows no seam failure, breakage 
of materials, or changes of adjustments that could cause the product 
not to support the child fully. The severity of injury produced by this 
potential hazard is relatively low.
    While preparing the briefing package for this notice of proposed 
rulemaking, CPSC staff learned of an additional failure mode of the 
occupant support strap. The additional information suggested that some 
occupant support strap failures have resulted from abrasions of a strap 
against a metal buckle during normal use. Staff determined that this 
scenario is not addressed by the requirements in ASTM F2012-18 
[epsiv]\1\. On April 27, 2018, staff sent a letter to ASTM asking ASTM 
to consider modifying the standard, as indicated below (underlining 
indicates language staff suggests added):

    6.1 Structural Integrity--All tests that cover static and 
dynamic loading, and occupant retention, are to be performed on the 
same product, sequentially and without refurbishing or repositioning 
of adjustment, if any. At test conclusion, there shall be no 
fraying, tearing, or failure of textile materials, such as seams or 
straps; breakage of materials;, or changes of adjustments that

[[Page 28394]]

could cause the product to not fully support the child or create a 
hazardous condition as defined in Section 5. Maximum slippage of 
adjustable features, if any, is 1 in. (25 mm).

ASTM set up a task group, of which CPSC will be a part, to look into 
strap-related failures. The Commission invites comments from the public 
on the necessity of these modifications to the structural integrity 
requirements.

D. Structural Integrity

    This hazard pattern is associated with 5 percent of the reported 
incidents and 4 percent of the injuries. Incidents involve failure of 
structural components, such as locking mechanisms, fasteners, and frame 
tubing. There are no specific requirements for the structural 
components of a SAC, but ASTM F2012-2018 [epsiv]\1\ requires dynamic 
and static loading at the seat of the product to evaluate the 
durability of the support structures for the seat. This testing also 
stresses the structural integrity components of the product, and the 
standard requires that the product show no failure of seams, breakage 
of materials, or changes of adjustments that could cause the product 
not to fully support the child.
    Because of the relatively low frequency of this potential hazard, 
as well as the minor injury severity produced, the Commission believes 
that the current voluntary standard adequately addresses the structural 
integrity of stationary activity centers.

E. Warnings

    Before publishing the current version of ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\, 
typical warning labels on SACs were composed of paragraph-form messages 
on a black and white label. Although the labels met the voluntary 
standard requirements for warning statements at the time, the labels 
were not conspicuous or consistent in format with other juvenile 
product warning labels.
    Several subcommittee members associated with the ASTM F15 juvenile 
product/durable nursery products raised concerns about inconsistency 
among various durable nursery product rules, and ASTM formed an Ad Hoc 
Wording Task Group to harmonize the wording and language used across 
nursery product standards. CPSC staff worked closely with the Ad Hoc 
Task Group to develop recommendations that are based largely on the 
requirements of ANSI Z535.4, American National Standard for Product 
Safety Signs and Labels.
    In October 2016, the Ad Hoc Task Group published a working document 
titled, ``Ad Hoc Wording--October 16, 2016.'' Since then, the juvenile 
product subcommittees have been incorporating the formatting 
recommendations into their standards. The latest version of the 
``Recommended Language Approved by Ad Hoc Task Group, Revision C'' 
document is dated November 10, 2017, and it is published in the 
``Committee Documents' section of the Committee F15 ASTM website. In 
August 2017, new requirements for formatting warning labels were 
balloted and accepted by the F15.17 subcommittee for Stationary 
Activity Centers, and these new requirements are reflected in F2012-18 
[epsiv]\1\.
    The work of the Ad Hoc Task Group resulted in permanent, 
conspicuous, and consistently formatted warning labels across juvenile 
products. On-product warning labels that meet the requirements in ASTM 
F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ will address numerous warning format issues related 
to capturing consumer attention, improving readability, and increasing 
hazard perception and avoidance behavior. The Commission concludes that 
the warnings adequately inform consumers of the fall and strangulation 
hazards, the consequences of those hazards, and instructions on how to 
reduce the risks of injury and death due to falls and strangulation.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    The Commission is proposing to incorporate by reference ASTM F2012-
18 [epsiv]\1\, without change. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) 
has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. 
These regulations require that, for a proposed rule, agencies discuss 
in the preamble to the NPR ways that the materials the agency proposes 
to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested 
persons, or explain how the agency worked to make the materials 
reasonably available. In addition, the preamble to the proposed rule 
must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(a).
    In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section IV.B of this 
preamble summarizes the provisions of ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ that the 
Commission proposes to incorporate by reference. ASTM F2012-18 
[epsiv]\1\ is copyrighted. By permission of ASTM, the standard can be 
viewed as a read-only document during the comment period on this NPR, 
at http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. Interested persons may also purchase a 
copy of ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ 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; http://www.astm.org. 
Alternatively, interested parties may inspect a copy of the standard at 
CPSC's Office of the Secretary.

VII. Effective Date

    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the 
effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of the 
final rule (5 U.S.C 553(d)). The Commission proposes that the standard 
become effective 6 months after publication of a final rule in the 
Federal Register. Barring evidence to the contrary, CPSC generally 
considers 6 months to be sufficient time for suppliers to come into 
compliance with a new standard, and this is typical for other CPSIA 
section 104 rules. Six months is also the period that the Juvenile 
Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) typically allows for products 
in their certification program to shift to a new standard once that new 
standard is published. The Commission is not aware of any information 
suggesting that 6 months is not an appropriate time frame for suppliers 
to come into compliance. Therefore, juvenile product manufacturers are 
accustomed to adjusting to new standards within this time frame.

VIII. Assessment of Small Business Impact

A. Introduction

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that proposed rules 
be reviewed for their potential economic impact on small entities, 
including small businesses. Section 603 of the RFA requires that 
agencies prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and 
make it available to the public for comment when the general notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPR) is published, unless the head of the agency 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. The Commission certifies that 
this rule incorporating by reference ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ as a CPSC 
standard will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities involved in the manufacturing or importing of SACs.

B. Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply

    The Commission identified 11 U.S. manufacturers of SACs. The U.S. 
Small Business Administration (SBA) size guidelines for this category 
identifies any manufacturer as ``small'' if it employs fewer than 500 
employees. Based on this definition, seven out of the 11 U.S. 
manufacturers of SACs would be considered small. For

[[Page 28395]]

importers, SBA guidelines consider an importer under the NAICS category 
423920 (Toy and Hobby Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers) with 
fewer than 150 employees to be small. The Commission did not identify 
any small importers of SACs per SBA guidelines.

C. Costs of Proposed Rule That Would Be Incurred by Small Manufacturers

    In addition to any costs associated with modifying a product to 
comply with ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\, which includes the integration of 
the redundant strap, mandating the standard under Section 104 of the 
CPSIA would also require manufacturers to certify that their SACs 
comply with the standard, based on tests conducted by third party 
conformity assessment bodies. The Commission believes that all seven 
small domestic manufacturers of SACs are currently certified by the 
Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA), meaning that their 
products comply with ASTM F2012-16 and the companies are already 
conducting some third party testing on their SACs.
    The additional requirements of ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ may require 
a minor modification for manufacturers of spring-supported SACs. Of the 
three such manufacturers, we have confirmed that two have already 
integrated a redundant strap, a new requirement of ASTM F2012-18 
[epsiv]\1\. If the third manufacturer has not yet integrated a 
redundant strap, we believe that the cost to do so would be less than 
50 cents per unit.
    Additional costs that small manufacturers would incur as a result 
of the proposed rule, if finalized, include incremental costs 
associated with meeting the third party testing requirements. This 
would apply to those that manufacture any type of SAC, not just spring-
supported SACs. If the ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ requirements become 
effective as a CPSC children's product safety rule, all manufacturers 
of SACs will be subject to the third party testing and certification 
requirements under section 14 of CPSA and the Testing and Labeling 
Pertaining to Product Certification rule (16 CFR part 1107) (1107 
rule). Third party testing will include any physical and mechanical 
test requirements specified in the final SAC rule. The Commission found 
that all seven small manufacturers of SACs are certified by JPMA and 
are currently conducting third party testing. Those that manufacture 
spring-supported SACs will need to have the redundant strap tested to 
the standard, which we do not estimate will be a significant cost.
    Generally, CPSC considers impacts that exceed 1 percent of a firm's 
revenue to be potentially significant. Because all seven manufactures 
are JPMA certified, we believe that the only costs that may be 
introduced with this standard are for the integration of a redundant 
strap for one firm and the testing of that strap for all three firms 
that manufacture spring-supported SACs. Because the smallest 
manufacturer of spring-supported SACs has annual revenues of 
approximately $4 million, we do not expect that the added costs 
associated with this rule will reach the 1 percent threshold for any of 
the producers of SACs. However, at this time, CPSC has not considered 
any potential impact on firms resulting from modifying the current 
voluntary standard to address the potential for abrasion on the support 
straps that might cause them to fray or break. Staff intends to work 
with ASTM on this modification. Any changes to the voluntary standard 
and/or proposed regulation will be assessed before completing a final 
rule.

IX. Environmental Considerations

    The Commission's regulations address whether we are required to 
prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact 
statement. 16 CFR part 1021. Those regulations state that certain 
categories of CPSC actions normally have ``little or no potential for 
affecting the human environment,'' and therefore, do not require an 
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. 16 CFR 
1021.5(c)(1). Rules or safety standards that provide design or 
performance requirements for products are among the listed exempt 
actions. Thus, the proposed rule falls within the categorical 
exemption.

X. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains information-collection requirements 
that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In this document, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 
3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth:
    <bullet> A title for the collection of information;
    <bullet> a summary of the collection of information;
    <bullet> a brief description of the need for the information and 
the proposed use of the information;
    <bullet> a description of the likely respondents and proposed 
frequency of response to the collection of information;
    <bullet> an estimate of the burden that shall result from the 
collection of information; and
    <bullet> notice that comments may be submitted to the OMB.
    Title: Safety Standard for Stationary Activity Centers.
    Description: The proposed rule would require each stationary 
activity center to comply with ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\, Standard 
Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Stationary Activity 
Centers. Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ contain 
requirements for marking, labeling, and instructional literature. These 
requirements fall within the definition of ``collection of 
information,'' as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).
    Description of Respondents: Persons who manufacture or import 
stationary activity centers.
    Estimated Burden: We estimate the burden of this collection of 
information, as follows:

                                                       Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Number of       Frequency of     Total annual      Hours per       Total burden
                           16 CFR section                              respondents       responses        responses         response          hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1238...............................................................              11                4               44                1               44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our estimates are based on the following:
    Section 8.1.1 of ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ requires that the name 
and the place of business (city, state, mailing address, including zip 
code, or telephone number) of the manufacturer, distributor, or seller 
be marked clearly and legibly on each product and its retail package. 
Section 8.1.2 of ASTM F833-13 requires a code mark or other means that 
identifies the date (month and year, as a minimum) of manufacture.

[[Page 28396]]

    There are 11 known entities supplying stationary activity centers 
to the U.S. market. These entities may need to modify their existing 
labels to comply with ASTM 2012-18 [epsiv]\1\. CPSC estimates that the 
time required to make these modifications is about 1 hour per model. 
Each entity supplies an average of four different models of stationary 
activity centers; therefore, the estimated burden associated with 
labels is 1 hour per model x 11 entities x 4 models per entity = 44 
hours. CPSC estimates 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,'' Sep. 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 to industry associated with the proposed labeling 
requirements is $1,505 ($34.21 per hour x 44 hours = $1,505). There are 
no operating, maintenance, or capital costs associated with the 
collection.
    Section 9.1 of ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ requires instructions to be 
supplied with stationary activity centers. Stationary activity centers 
generally require use and assembly instructions. As such, products sold 
without use and assembly instructions would not compete successfully 
with products supplying this information. Under OMB's regulations, the 
time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a 
collection of information incurred by persons in the ``normal course of 
their activities'' are excluded from a burden estimate when an agency 
demonstrates that the disclosure activities required are ``usual and 
customary.'' 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). CPSC is unaware of stationary activity 
centers that generally require use or assembly instructions but lack 
such instructions. Therefore, CPSC estimates that no burden hours are 
associated with section 9.1 of ASTM F2012-18, [epsiv]\1\ because any 
burden associated with supplying instructions with stationary activity 
centers would be ``usual and customary,'' and thus, excluded from 
``burden'' estimates under OMB's regulations. Based on this analysis, 
the proposed standard for stationary activity centers would impose a 
burden to industry of 44 hours at a cost of $1,505 annually.
    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), we have submitted the information-collection requirements of 
this rule to OMB for review. Interested persons are requested to submit 
comments regarding information collection by July 19, 2018, to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see the ADDRESSES 
section at the beginning of this notice).
    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), we invite comments on:
    <bullet> Whether the collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the CPSC's functions, including whether the 
information will have practical utility;
    <bullet> the accuracy of the CPSC's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    <bullet> ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected;
    <bullet> ways to reduce the burden of the collection of information 
on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques, 
when appropriate, and other forms of information technology; and the 
estimated burden hours associated with label modification, including 
any alternative estimates.

XI. Preemption

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

XII. Certification and Notice of Requirements (NOR)

    Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the requirement that products 
subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a 
similar rule, ban, standard or regulation under any other act enforced 
by the Commission, must be certified as complying with all applicable 
CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Section 14(a)(2) of the 
CPSA requires that certification of children's products subject to a 
children's product safety rule be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-
accepted third party conformity assessment body. Section 14(a)(3) of 
the CPSA requires the Commission to publish a notice of requirements 
(NOR) for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies 
(or laboratories) to assess conformity with a children's product safety 
rule to which a children's product is subject. The proposed rule for 16 
CFR part 1238, ``Safety Standard for Stationary Activity Centers,'' 
when issued as a final rule, will be a children's product safety rule 
that requires the issuance of an NOR.
    The Commission published a final rule, Requirements Pertaining to 
Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), 
which is codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (referred to here as Part 1112). 
This rule took effect June 10, 2013. Part 1112 establishes requirements 
for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or 
laboratories) to test for conformance with a children's product safety 
rule in accordance with Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA. The final rule 
also codifies all of the NORs that the CPSC had published to date. All 
new NORs, such as the stationary activity center standard, require an 
amendment to part 1112. Accordingly, in this document we propose to 
amend part 1112 to include the stationary activity center standard 
along with the other children's product safety rules for which the CPSC 
has issued NORs.
    Laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third party 
conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for stationary 
activity centers would be required to meet the third party conformity 
assessment body accreditation requirements in part 1112. When a 
laboratory meets the requirements as a CPSC-accepted third party 
conformity assessment body, it can apply to the CPSC to have 16 CFR 
part 1238, Safety Standard for Stationary Activity Centers, included in 
its scope of accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed for the 
laboratory on the CPSC website at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.
    In connection with the part 1112 rulemaking, CPSC staff conducted 
an analysis of the potential impacts on small entities of the proposed 
rule establishing accreditation requirements, 77 FR 31086, 31123-26 
(May 24, 2012), as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and 
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). The IRFA 
concluded that the requirements would not have a significant adverse 
impact on a substantial number of small laboratories because no 
requirements are imposed on laboratories that do not intend to provide 
third party testing services under section 14(a)(2) of the

[[Page 28397]]

CPSA. The only laboratories that are expected to provide such services 
are those that anticipate receiving sufficient revenue from providing 
the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a 
business decision. Laboratories that do not expect to receive 
sufficient revenue from these services to justify accepting these 
requirements would not likely pursue accreditation for this purpose. 
Similarly, amending the part 1112 rule to include the NOR for 
stationary activity centers would not have a significant adverse impact 
on small laboratories. Moreover, based upon the number of laboratories 
in the United States that have applied for CPSC acceptance of the 
accreditation to test for conformance to other juvenile product 
standards, we expect that only a few laboratories will seek CPSC 
acceptance of their accreditation to test for conformance with the 
stationary activity center standard. Most of these laboratories will 
have already been accredited to test for conformance to other juvenile 
product standards and the only costs to them would be the cost of 
adding the stationary activity center standard to their scope of 
accreditation. As a consequence, the Commission certifies that the 
proposed notice requirements for the stationary activity center 
standard will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

XIII. Request for Comments

    This proposed rule begins a rulemaking proceeding under section 
104(b) of the CPSIA to issue a consumer product safety standard for 
stationary activity centers. We invite all interested persons to submit 
comments on any aspect of the proposed rule.
    In particular, the Commission invites comments on the necessity of 
additional requirements pertaining to the potential fraying of the 
support straps on SACs.
    Comments should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in 
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.

List of Subjects

16 CFR Part 1112

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

16 CFR Part 1238

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes 
to amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

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

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  1112.15 by adding paragraphs (b)(45) through (47) to 
read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) The CPSC has published the requirements for accreditation for 
third party conformity assessment bodies to assess conformity for the 
following CPSC rules or test methods:
* * * * *
    (45) [Reserved]
    (46) [Reserved]
    (47) 16 CFR part 1238, Safety Standard for Stationary Activity 
Centers.
* * * * *
0
3. Add part 1238 to read as follows:

PART 1238--SAFETY STANDARD FOR STATIONARY ACTIVITY CENTERS

Sec.
1238.1 Scope.
1238.2 Requirements for stationary activity centers.

    Authority: Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (15 U.S.C. 
2056a).


Sec.  1238.1  Scope.

    This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for 
stationary activity centers.


Sec.  1238.2  Requirements for stationary activity centers.

    Each stationary activity center must comply with all applicable 
provisions of ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\, Standard Consumer Safety 
Specification for Stationary Activity Centers, approved on May 18, 
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/cpsc.htm. 
You may inspect a copy at the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923, or at the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of 
this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html.


Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-13024 Filed 6-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6355-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>