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.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

28390 

Vol. 83, No. 118 

Tuesday, June 19, 2018 

1ASTM F2012 § 3.1.9. 

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 oira_submission@

omb.eop.gov. 

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: klee@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Statutory Authority 

The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA, Pub. 

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

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

of the Danny Keysar Child Product 

Safety Notification Act, requires the 

Commission to: (1) Examine and assess 

the effectiveness of voluntary consumer 

product safety standards for durable 

infant or toddler products, in 

consultation with representatives of 

consumer groups, juvenile product 

manufacturers, and independent child 

product engineers and experts; and (2) 

promulgate consumer product safety 

standards for durable infant and toddler 

products. These standards are to be 

‘‘substantially the same as’’ applicable 

voluntary standards or more stringent 

than the voluntary standard if the 

Commission concludes that more 

stringent requirements would further 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

the product. The term ‘‘durable infant or 

toddler product’’ is defined in section 

104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as ‘‘a durable 

product intended for use, or that may be 

reasonably expected to be used, by 

children under the age of 5 years.’’ 

In this document, the Commission is 

proposing a safety standard for 

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 ε1, Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Stationary 

Activity Centers (ASTM F2012–18 ε1). 

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 ε1 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules 28391 

2According 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. 

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.’’ 

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. 

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: 

• 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. 

• 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: 

Æ Forcefully striking the child, 

usually on the face 

Æ Pinching or entrapping limbs or 

extremities 

Æ Posing a laceration hazard due to 

sharp edges or surfaces 

Æ Causing gagging while mouthing 

the toy 

Æ Posing an entanglement hazard 

because of the long ribbons/strings 

attached 

Æ Posing a choking hazard due to 

small parts detaching. 

One hundred fifty-six injuries, 

including two ED-treated injuries, were 

reported in this category. 

• 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. 

• Structural integrity problems: 158 of 

the 3,488 incidents (5 percent) reported 

some problem with structural 

components such as: 

Æ Locks, which led to product 

collapse, detachment of the top and 

bottom parts of the exerciser, or failure 

of the height adjustment mechanism 

Æ Snap buttons/fasteners breaking 

during regular use, delivery, or 

assembly/disassembly 

Æ Tube/frame/post separating, 

bending, or getting damaged in some 

other manner 

Æ Various small parts (often 

unspecified) detaching 

Æ Screws/nuts/bolts loosening and 

falling out. 

Twelve injuries were reported in this 

category. 

• 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: 

Æ Tabs, used to attach the pad to the 

seat frame, breaking, tearing, or 

separating 

Æ The stitching on the pad fraying or 

tearing 

Æ The leg openings designed to be 

inadequately constrictive 

Æ Rough material used for the pad. 

Twelve injuries were reported in this 

category. 

• Stability issues: 76 of the 3,488 

incidents (2 percent) reported problems 

with flimsy and/or unstable products. 

Specifically, the incidents described: 

Æ Frame/posts/seat/unit leaning to 

one side and not sitting level 

Æ Legs lifting up during use 

Æ The product toppling over. 

Four children were reported injured 

in these incidents. 

• Electrical problems: 36 of the 3,488 

incidents (1 percent) reported leakage 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
28392 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

3Redistributing 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. 

4CPSC website link to recalled product: https:// 

www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2013/Kids-II-Recalls-BabyEinstein-Activity-Jumpers/. 

and/or corrosion in the batteries or 

failure of the circuit board on the 

product. Two injuries were reported in 

this category. 

• Design issues: 32 of the 3,488 

incidents (1 percent) reported some 

problems with the design of the 

product. There were reports of: 

Æ Limb/extremity entrapment 

between parts of the exerciser 

Æ Failure of the seat to contain the 

child within 

Æ 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. 

• Miscellaneous other issues: 22 of 

the 3,488 incidents (less than 1 percent) 

reported a variety of other general 

product-related issues, such as: 

Æ Rough surface, sharp edges, or 

protrusions 

Æ Paint/finish 

Æ Product packaging 

Æ Fall of product from an elevated 

surface 

Æ 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

IV. Other Standards and History of 

ASTM F2012–18 ε1

A. International Standards 

CPSC staff found no comparable 

international standard similar to ASTM 

F2012–18 ε1 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 ε1, was 

approved on May 18, 2018. 

ASTM F2012–00 (approved on April 

10, 2000), established performance 

requirements to address the following: 

• Latching or Locking Mechanisms— 

for SACs that fold for storage, this 

requirement helps prevent 

unintentional folding during use. 

• 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. 

• Scissoring, Shearing, Pinching— 

Dynamically assesses accessible slots to 

prevent injury from moving parts 

throughout the range of movement. 

• Exposed Coil Springs—Sets a 

requirement for the spacing between the 

coils of any accessible spring element to 

prevent entrapment. 

• Labeling—Assesses the permanency 

of labeling, as well as label removal, 

which may involve creating small parts. 

• Structural Integrity—Includes 

dynamic and static loading, to 

determine any collapsing or failure 

modes that may occur during the 

lifecycle of the unit. 

• Occupant Retention—Evaluates the 

leg openings of the activity center to 

prevent entrapment of the torso, neck, 

or head. 

• Stability—Assesses the stability of a 

seated occupant leaning outside of the 

unit. 

• 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): 

• Added a definition of ‘‘closed-base 

stationary activity center’’; 

• added definition of ‘‘springsupported stationary activity center’’; 

• added section requiring that springsupported 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° 

from horizontal. 

ASTM F2012–18 ε1, approved on May 

18, 2018, corrected errors and made 

editorial revisions to the standard. 

V. Adequacy of ASTM F2012–18 ε1

Requirements 

The Commission concludes that the 

current voluntary standard, ASTM 

F2012–18 ε1, 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 ε1. 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 ε1) 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 ε1

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 ε1 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 ε1 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. 

There are no specific requirements for 

support straps, although ASTM F2012– 

18 ε1 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 ε1. 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALSEP19JN18.003</GPH>
28394 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 straprelated 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 ε1 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 ε1, 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 ε1. 

The work of the Ad Hoc Task Group 

resulted in permanent, conspicuous, 

and consistently formatted warning 

labels across juvenile products. Onproduct warning labels that meet the 

requirements in ASTM F2012–18 ε1 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 ε1, 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 ε1 that the Commission 

proposes to incorporate by reference. 

ASTM F2012–18 ε1 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 ε1 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 ε1 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 ε1, 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 ε1 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 ε1. 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 ε1 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 springsupported 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: 

• A title for the collection of 

information; 

• a summary of the collection of 

information; 

• a brief description of the need for 

the information and the proposed use of 

the information; 

• a description of the likely 

respondents and proposed frequency of 

response to the collection of 

information; 

• an estimate of the burden that shall 

result from the collection of 

information; and 

• notice that comments may be 

submitted to the OMB. 

Title: Safety Standard for Stationary 

Activity Centers. 

Description: The proposed rule would 

require each stationary activity center to 

comply with ASTM F2012–18 ε1, 

Standard Consumer Safety Performance 

Specification for Stationary Activity 

Centers. Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM 

F2012–18 ε1 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

16 CFR section Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

responses 

Total annual 

responses 

Hours per 

response 

Total burden 

hours 

1238 ..................................................................................... 11 4 44 1 44 

Our estimates are based on the 

following: 

Section 8.1.1 of ASTM F2012–18 ε1

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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
28396 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 ε1. 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 × 11 entities × 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 × 44 hours = 

$1,505). There are no operating, 

maintenance, or capital costs associated 

with the collection. 

Section 9.1 of ASTM F2012–18 ε1

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, ε1

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: 

• Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the CPSC’s functions, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; 

• the accuracy of the CPSC’s estimate 

of the burden of the proposed collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

• ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; 

• ways to reduce the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques, when 

appropriate, and other forms of 

information technology; and the 

estimated burden hours associated with 

label modification, including any 

alternative estimates. 

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 CPSCaccepted third party conformity 

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

CPSA requires the Commission to 

publish a notice of requirements (NOR) 

for the accreditation of third party 

conformity assessment bodies (or 

laboratories) to assess conformity with a 

children’s product safety rule to which 

a children’s product is subject. The 

proposed rule for 16 CFR part 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 

■ 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). 

■ 2. Amend § 1112.15 by adding 

paragraphs (b)(45) through (47) 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) 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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). 

§ 1238.1 Scope. 

This part establishes a consumer 

product safety standard for stationary 

activity centers. 

§ 1238.2 Requirements for stationary 

activity centers. 

Each stationary activity center must 

comply with all applicable provisions of 

ASTM F2012–18 ε1, 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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–131186–17] 

RIN 1545–BO05 

Proposed Removal of Temporary 

Regulations on a Partner’s Share of a 

Partnership Liability for Disguised Sale 

Purposes 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

public hearing; partial withdrawal of 

notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

proposed regulations concerning how 

partnership liabilities are allocated for 

disguised sale purposes. The proposed 

regulations, if finalized, would replace 

existing temporary regulations with 

final regulations that were in effect prior 

to the temporary regulations. This 

document also partially withdraws 

proposed regulations cross-referencing 

the temporary regulations. These 

regulations affect partnerships and their 

partners. Finally, this document 

provides notice of a public hearing on 

these proposed regulations. 

DATES: Written or electronic comments 

must be received by July 19, 2018. 

A public hearing will be held at 10:00 

a.m. on August 21, 2018. Outlines of 

topics to be discussed at the public 

hearing must be received by August 3, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: 

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–131186–17), Room 

5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. 

Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, 

Washington, DC 20044. Submissions 

may be hand-delivered Monday through 

Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 

4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–131186– 

17), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue 

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC, or sent electronically, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS