Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30837 

where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), 

good cause exists for making some 

SIAPs effective in less than 30 days. 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. It, therefore—(1) is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979) ; and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. For the same 

reason, the FAA certifies that this 

amendment will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 

Air traffic control, Airports, 

Incorporation by reference, Navigation 

(air). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 15, 

2018. 

John S. Duncan, 

Executive Director, Flight Standards Service. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 

CFR part 97) is amended by 

establishing, amending, suspending, or 

removing Standard Instrument 

Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle Departure 

Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the 

dates specified, as follows: 

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT 

APPROACH PROCEDURES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 97 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 

40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 

44701, 44719, 44721–44722. 

■ 2. Part 97 is amended to read as 

follows: 

Effective 19 July 2018 

Kokhanok, AK, Kokhanok, RNAV (GPS) RWY 

7, Amdt 1 

Kokhanok, AK, Kokhanok, RNAV (GPS) RWY 

25, Amdt 1 

Kokhanok, AK, Kokhanok, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 

Fayette, AL, Richard Arthur Field, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 

Mountain View, CA, Moffett Federal Afld, 

RNAV (GPS) RWY 14L, Orig 

Mountain View, CA, Moffett Federal Afld, 

RNAV (GPS) RWY 14R, Orig 

Mountain View, CA, Moffett Federal Afld, 

RNAV (GPS) RWY 32L, Orig 

Upland, CA, Cable, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, 

Amdt 1B 

Rangely, CO, Rangely, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, 

Orig 

Rangely, CO, Rangely, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, 

Orig 

New Haven, CT, Tweed-New Haven, ILS OR 

LOC RWY 2, Amdt 18 

New Haven, CT, Tweed-New Haven, VOR 

RWY 2, Amdt 23, CANCELED 

Boca Raton, FL, Boca Raton, RNAV (GPS) Y 

RWY 23, Amdt 1B 

Boca Raton, FL, Boca Raton, RNAV (RNP) Z 

RWY 23, Orig-B 

Boca Raton, FL, Boca Raton, VOR–A, Amdt 

1B 

Athens, GA, Athens/Ben Epps, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 9, Amdt 2 

Atlanta, GA, Newnan Coweta County, ILS OR 

LOC RWY 32, Orig-A 

Donalsonville, GA, Donalsonville Muni, 

RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1C 

Donalsonville, GA, Donalsonville Muni, 

RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1B 

Donalsonville, GA, Donalsonville Muni, 

VOR–A, Amdt 3B 

Savannah, GA, Savannah/Hilton Head Intl, 

RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 28, Amdt 2 

Iowa City, IA, Iowa City Muni, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 25, Amdt 1 

Iowa City, IA, Iowa City Muni, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 30, Amdt 1 

Iowa City, IA, Iowa City Muni, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4 

Champaign/Urbana, IL, University Of 

Illinois-Willard, ILS OR LOC RWY 32R, 

Amdt 13A 

Plymouth, IN, Plymouth Muni, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 28, Orig-A 

Plymouth, MA, Plymouth Muni, ILS OR LOC 

RWY 6, Amdt 1F 

Plymouth, MA, Plymouth Muni, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 6, Amdt 1D 

Plymouth, MA, Plymouth Muni, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 15, Orig-A 

Plymouth, MA, Plymouth Muni, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 24, Orig-C 

Plymouth, MA, Plymouth Muni, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 33, Orig 

Hattiesburg, MS, Hattiesburg Bobby L Chain 

Muni, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 13, Amdt 1B 

Omaha, NE, Eppley Airfield, RNAV (RNP) Z 

RWY 32R, Amdt 1A 

Manchester, NH, Manchester, ILS OR LOC 

RWY 6, Amdt 3 

Manchester, NH, Manchester, ILS OR LOC 

RWY 17, Amdt 3 

Manchester, NH, Manchester, ILS OR LOC 

RWY 35, ILS RWY 35 SA CAT I, ILS RWY 

35 CAT II, ILS RWY 35 CAT III, Amdt 3 

Olean, NY, Cattaraugus County-Olean, LOC 

RWY 22, Amdt 7 

Olean, NY, Cattaraugus County-Olean, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 2 

Olean, NY, Cattaraugus County-Olean, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 2 

Watertown, NY, Watertown Intl, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 7, Amdt 3 

Watertown, NY, Watertown Intl, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 10, Amdt 1 

Toledo, OH, Toledo Executive, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 4, Amdt 1 

Toledo, OH, Toledo Executive, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 32, Amdt 2 

Toledo, OH, Toledo Executive, VOR RWY 4, 

Amdt 9D, CANCELED 

Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, COPTER LOC 

RWY 26, Amdt 2 

Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, COPTER VOR 

RWY 8, Orig 

Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, COPTER VOR/ 

DME OR GPS 066, Amdt 1, CANCELED 

Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, ILS RWY 26, Amdt 

3B 

Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 

8, Amdt 1 

Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 

26, Amdt 1 

Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, VOR RWY 8, Amdt 

12A 

Meadville, PA, Port Meadville, LOC RWY 25, 

Amdt 6E 

Meadville, PA, Port Meadville, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 7, Amdt 1D 

Meadville, PA, Port Meadville, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 25, Amdt 1E 

Meadville, PA, Port Meadville, VOR RWY 7, 

Amdt 8B, CANCELED 

Brownwood, TX, Brownwood Rgnl, LOC 

RWY 17, Amdt 4B 

Brownwood, TX, Brownwood Rgnl, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1A 

Brownwood, TX, Brownwood Rgnl, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1A 

Brownwood, TX, Brownwood Rgnl, VOR 

RWY 35, Amdt 1C 

San Antonio, TX, Boerne Stage Field, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1B 

San Antonio, TX, Boerne Stage Field, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A 

Wharton, TX, Wharton Rgnl, NDB RWY 14, 

Orig-A 

Wharton, TX, Wharton Rgnl, NDB RWY 32, 

Orig-A 

Wharton, TX, Wharton Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 14, Orig-A 

Wharton, TX, Wharton Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 32, Orig-A 

Milwaukee, WI, Lawrence J Timmerman, 

VOR RWY 4L, Amdt 9C, CANCELED 

Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, ILS Z OR LOC Z 

RWY 19, Orig-B 

RESCINDED: On June 5, 2018 (83 FR 

25909), the FAA published an Amendment 

in Docket No. 31195, Amdt No. 3801, to Part 

97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations under 

section 97.33. The following entry for 

Oakland, CA, effective July 19, 2018, is 

hereby rescinded in its entirety: 

Oakland, CA, Metropolitan Oakland Intl, 

RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 12, Amdt 2 

[FR Doc. 2018–13934 Filed 6–29–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1237 

[CPSC Docket No. 2017–0023] 

Safety Standard for Booster Seats 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Consumer 

Product Safety Improvement Act of 

2008 (CPSIA), the U.S. Consumer 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
30838 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1Staff’s May 3, 2017 Briefing Package for the NPR 

(Staff’s NPR Briefing Package) is available at: 

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Notice%20of

%20Proposed%20Rulemaking%20-%20Booster

%20Seats%20-%20May%203%202017.pdf?97

pmoM5UAGyQBBPFtTPyvFu_RjCZMAwL. 

2Tabs B and C of the June 20, 2018 Staff’s Draft 

Final Rule for Booster Seats Under the Danny 

Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act 

(Staff’s Final Rule Briefing Package) explain and 

assess the new warning statement and the 

performance and testing requirements in the 

standard. The Staff’s Final Rule Briefing Package is 

available at https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ 

Final%20Rule%20-%20Safety%20Standard%20for

%20Booster%20Seats%20-%20June%2020

%202018.pdf?cCIgKaAyOt3nn.yeNTa5f8

rpH7DsJB0v. 

Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is 

issuing this final rule establishing a 

safety standard for booster seats. The 

Commission is also amending its 

regulations regarding third party 

conformity assessment bodies to include 

the safety standard for booster seats in 

the list of notices of requirements 

(NORs). 

DATES: This rule will become effective 

January 2, 2020. The incorporation by 

reference of the publication listed in 

this rule is approved by the Director of 

the Federal Register as January 2, 2020. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keysha Walker, Lead Compliance 

Officer, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: 301– 

504–6820; email: kwalker@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Statutory Authority 

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. Standards issued under 

section 104 of the CPSIA are to be 

‘‘substantially the same as’’ the 

applicable voluntary standards or more 

stringent than the voluntary standard, if 

the Commission determines 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,’’ and 

the statute specifies 12 categories of 

products that are included in the 

definition, including various types of 

children’s chairs. Section 104(f)(2)(C) of 

the CPSIA specifically identifies 

‘‘booster chairs’’ as a durable infant or 

toddler product. Additionally, the 

Commission’s regulation requiring 

product registration cards defines 

‘‘booster seats’’ as a durable infant or 

toddler product subject to the 

registration card rule. 74 FR 68668 (Dec. 

29, 2009); 16 CFR 1130.2(a)(3). 

As required by section 104(b)(1)(A) of 

the CPSIA, the Commission consulted 

with manufacturers, retailers, trade 

organizations, laboratories, consumer 

advocacy groups, consultants, and the 

public to develop this rule, largely 

through the ASTM process. On May 19, 

2017, the Commission issued a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPR) for booster 

seats.1 82 FR 22925. The NPR proposed 

to incorporate by reference the 

voluntary standard, without 

modification, developed by ASTM 

International, ASTM F2640–17ε1, 

Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Booster Seats (ASTM 

F2640–17ε1). 

In this document, the Commission is 

issuing a final mandatory consumer 

product safety standard for booster 

seats. Since the NPR published, ASTM 

approved (April 1, 2018) and published 

(April, 2018) the current version of the 

voluntary standard for booster seats, 

ASTM F2640–18, Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Booster Seats 

(ASTM F2640–18), with three changes 

from the previous version: 

• New performance and testing 

requirements for a new type of booster 

seat that hangs from the back of an adult 

chair; 

• Clarification of the installation 

position for measuring a booster seat on 

an adult chair; and 

• New warning statement in the 

instructional literature to address 

booster seats that do not have a reclined 

position. 

As set forth in section IV.C.2 of this 

preamble, the Commission finds that 

each of these changes enhances the 

safety of booster seats.2 Accordingly, 

after the Commission’s review and 

consideration of the revised ASTM 

standard and the comments on the NPR, 

the final rule incorporates by reference, 

without modification, the most recent 

voluntary standard for booster seats, 

ASTM F2640–18. 

Additionally, the final rule amends 

the list of notices of requirements 

(NORs) issued by the Commission in 16 

CFR part 1112 to include the standard 

for booster seats. Under section 14 of the 

CPSA, the Commission promulgated 16 

CFR part 1112 to establish requirements 

for accreditation of third party 

conformity assessment bodies (or testing 

laboratories) to test for conformity with 

a children’s product safety rule. 

Amending part 1112 adds an NOR for 

the booster seat standard to the list of 

children’s product safety rules. 

II. Product Information 

A. Definition of ‘‘Booster Seat’’ 

ASTM F2640–18 defines a ‘‘booster 

seat’’ as: 

a juvenile chair, which is placed on an adult 

chair to elevate a child to standard dining 

table height. The booster seat is made for the 

purpose of containing a child, up to 5 years 

of age, and normally for the purposes of 

feeding or eating. A booster seat may be 

height adjustable and include a reclined 

position. 

Booster seats may be constructed from 

a wide variety of materials, including 

wood, plastic, fabric, metal, and/or 

foam. Most booster seats, notably those 

intended for home use, have removable 

trays, allowing a table to be used as an 

alternative eating surface. Some booster 

seats are intended to double as floor 

seats for toddlers, and others are high 

chair/booster seat combination 

products. The ASTM standard covers 

combination products when the product 

is in a booster seat configuration. 

The definition of ‘‘booster seat’’ in 

ASTM F2640–18 is broad and includes 

within the scope of the standard booster 

seats that are designed specifically for 

use in restaurants. Several suppliers sell 

these ‘‘food-service’’ booster seats 

directly to restaurants or through 

restaurant supply companies. 

Consumers also may purchase some of 

these products directly, for example, 

through online third parties that act as 

brokers between buyers and sellers. 

Consequently, consumers use foodservice booster seats in homes and in 

restaurant establishments open to the 

public. The Commission agrees with the 

scope of ASTM F2640–18, and is not 

excluding food-service booster seats 

from the final rule. 

The final rule for booster seats does 

not cover children’s seats intended for 

use in motor vehicles, which are also 

sometimes referred to as ‘‘booster seats.’’ 

B. Market Description 

CPSC staff identified 44 domestic 

firms supplying booster seats to the U.S. 

market. Thirty-four (34) domestic firms 

market their booster seats exclusively to 

consumers, while ten (10) domestic 

firms sell booster seats exclusively to 

restaurant or restaurant supply stores 

(usually through regional distributors or 

an internal portal). Sixteen of the 34 

domestic firms that sell exclusively to 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30839 

3Staff made determinations using information 

from Dun & Bradstreet and ReferenceUSAGov, as 

well as firm websites. 

4These reported deaths and incidents do not 

provide a complete count of all that occurred 

during this time period. However, they do provide 

a minimum number of incidents occurring during 

this period and illustrate the circumstances 

involved in the incidents related to booster seats. 

5The NPR described incidents reported to have 

occurred from January 1, 2008 through September 

30, 2016. A detailed description of these data can 

be found in Tab A of the Staff’s NPR Briefing 

Package. 

Tab A of the Staff’s Final Rule Briefing Package 

provides a detailed description of the 45 newly 

reported incidents (collected between October 1, 

2016 and October 31, 2017). Fifty-three percent of 

the 45 newly reported incidents were reported to 

have occurred between October 2016 and October, 

2017 (i.e., post-NPR timeframe). The remaining 47 

percent of newly reported incidents occurred 

during the timeframe covered in the NPR. 

consumers are compliant with the 

current voluntary standard for booster 

seats. Of the 10 domestic firms selling 

food-service booster seats, none are 

compliant with the ASTM voluntary 

standard. Of the 44 known domestic 

suppliers, 29 are domestic 

manufacturers (10 large and 19 small), 

14 are domestic importers (five large 

and nine small), and one is a small 

domestic firm whose supply source staff 

could not determine.3

Staff identified two foreign 

manufacturers selling directly to the 

United States. Other foreign booster 

seats are entering the U.S. market in a 

variety of ways as well. Staff found that 

online storefronts and online retailers, 

acting as brokers between buyers and 

sellers, are the source of a large number 

of booster seat products, particularly 

from Asia and Europe. Products 

purchased through these websites are 

sometimes shipped by the individual 

sellers. Often, staff cannot determine 

whether an online seller is located in 

the United States, or overseas, or 

whether the seller is a manufacturer, 

retailer, or importer, which makes it 

difficult for staff to categorize these 

companies for analysis. Staff found that 

European booster seats are also entering 

the U.S. market through foreign retailers 

who are willing to ship directly to the 

United States. Booster seats available 

online from foreign suppliers are less 

likely to be compliant with the ASTM 

voluntary standard. 

III. Incident Data 

A. CPSRMS Data 

The data discussed in this section 

come from CPSC’s Consumer Product 

Safety Risk Management System 

(CPSRMS), which collects data from 

consumer reports, medical examiners, 

other state and local authorities, retailer 

reports, newspaper clippings, death 

certificates, and follow-up CPSC InDepth Investigations of reported 

incidents.4 From the CPSRMS, CPSC is 

aware of a total of 912 incidents (2 fatal 

and 152 nonfatal injuries) related to 

booster seats reported to have occurred 

from January 1, 2008 through October 

31, 2017.5 The 912 booster seat 

incidents include 45 new booster seatrelated incidents reported since 

publication of the NPR (collected 

between October 1, 2016 and October 

31, 2017). None of the 45 newly 

reported incidents is a fatality. All of the 

newly reported incidents fall within the 

same hazard patterns identified in the 

NPR. Retailers and manufacturers 

reporting through the CPSC’s ‘‘Retailer 

Reporting Program’’ account for 93 

percent of the newly reported incidents 

(42 out of 45 incidents). CPSC received 

the remaining three incident reports 

from consumers using 

SaferProducts.gov. CPSC Field staff 

conducted an In-Depth Investigation on 

one of the newly reported incidents. 

1. Fatalities 

CPSC received reports of two fatalities 

associated with the use of a booster seat. 

Both incidents occurred in 2013 and 

were described in the NPR: 

D In one incident, a 22-month-old 

female, sitting on a booster seat attached 

to an adult chair, pushed off from the 

table and tipped the adult chair 

backwards into a glass panel of a china 

cabinet behind her. The cause of death 

was listed as ‘‘exsanguination due to 

hemorrhage from incised wound.’’ 

D In the other incident, a 4-year-old 

male fell from a booster seat to the floor; 

he seemed uninjured at the time, but 

later that evening while riding his bike, 

the child fell, became unresponsive, and 

later died. The cause of death was 

multiple blunt force trauma. 

2. Nonfatalities 

CPSC is aware of 152 booster seat 

nonfatal injury incidents occurring 

between January 1, 2008 and October 

31, 2017 (146 incidents reported in the 

NPR and 6 newly reported incidents). A 

majority of these incidents involved 

children 18 months and younger. The 

severity of the injury types among the 

152 reported injuries are described 

below: 

D Five children required a hospital 

admission. The injuries were skull 

fractures, concussions, and other head 

injuries. 

D Another 22 children were treated 

and released from a hospital emergency 

department (ED) for injuries resulting 

mostly from falls. 

D The remaining incidents primarily 

involved contusions, abrasions, and 

lacerations, due to falls or entrapment of 

limbs/extremities. 

No injury occurred, or the report did 

not mention an injury occurring, for the 

remaining 758 incident reports (719 

incidents reported in the NPR and 39 

newly reported incidents). However, 

CPSC staff’s review of these incident 

report descriptions indicates the 

potential for a serious injury or even 

death. 

B. Hazard Pattern Identification 

CPSC considered all 912 reported 

incidents to identify the following 

hazard patterns associated with booster 

seats: 

1. Restraint/Attachment Problems 

(37%): 339 incidents (317 incidents 

reported in the NPR and 22 newly 

reported incidents) involved the 

mechanism for attaching a booster seat 

to an adult chair, or the restraint system 

that contains the child within the 

booster seat. Issues with the attachment 

mechanism included anchor buckles/ 

clasps/straps breaking, tearing, fraying, 

detaching or releasing. Restraint-system 

problems included: buckles/prongs 

breaking, jamming, releasing too easily, 

or separating from straps; straps tearing 

or fraying, pinching, or coming undone; 

and general inadequacy or 

ineffectiveness of restraints in 

containing the child in place. In 21 

incident reports, staff could not 

determine from the report if the buckle 

or strap referred to in the report meant 

the restraint or the attachment system. 

In eight of the incident reports, both 

systems were reported to have failed. 

Thirty-seven injuries (all reported in the 

NPR) are included in this category, of 

which seven were treated at a hospital 

ED. 

2. Seat-Related Issues (28%): 255 

incidents (254 incidents reported in the 

NPR and 1 newly reported incident) 

involved seat-related issues. These 

incidents included failure of the lock/ 

latch that controls the seat-recline 

function; tearing, cracking, and/or 

peeling seat pads; detaching seat backs; 

failure of seat height adjustment lock/ 

latches; and seats detaching from the 

base of certain models. Twenty-two 

injuries are included in this category: 

Three resulting in hospitalization and 

five ED-treated injuries. The newly 

reported incident involved the booster 

seatback detaching altogether, allowing 

the child to fall and sustain multiple 

skull fractures, requiring 

hospitalization. 

3. Tray-Related Issues (21%): 189 

incidents (171 incidents reported in the 

NPR and 18 newly reported incidents) 

involved issues related to booster seat 

trays. These incidents included tray 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
30840 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

6NEISS injury data are gathered from EDs of 

hospitals selected as a probability sample of all the 

U.S. hospitals with EDs open 24 hours a day that 

have at least six beds. The surveillance data 

gathered from the sample hospitals enable the CPSC 

staff to make timely national estimates of the 

number of injuries associated with specific 

consumer products. 

Staff extracted all data coded under product code 

1556 (Attachable high chairs including booster 

seats) for patients aged under 5 years. Staff 

considered certain records out-of-scope for the 

purposes of this memorandum. For example, staff 

excluded hook-on chair-related incidents that are 

also covered under product code 1556 or car 

booster seats incorrectly coded as 1556; and also 

considered out-of-scope a sibling or a pet knocking 

over the adult chair holding the booster seat 

containing the child. Staff excluded these records 

prior to deriving the statistical injury estimates. 

7According 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. 

paint finish peeling off, trays failing to 

lock/stay locked, trays with sharp 

protrusions on the underside, trays too 

tight/difficult to release, and trays 

pinching fingers. These incidents also 

included complaints about broken toy 

accessories, which are usually attached 

to the tray (or tray insert). Thirty-eight 

injuries are included in this category, 

including one that required ED 

treatment. 

4. Design Problems (3.8%): 35 

incidents (33 discussed in the NPR and 

2 newly reported) involved a potential 

entrapment hazard due to the design of 

the booster seat. Most of these incidents 

involved limbs, fingers, and toes 

entrapped in spaces/openings between 

the armrest and seat back/tray, between 

the passive crotch-restraint bar and the 

seat/tray, between the tray inserts, or in 

toy accessories. Sixteen injuries were 

included in this category, two requiring 

ED treatment. 

5. Stability-Related Issues (3.4%): 31 

incidents, discussed in the NPR, 

involved booster seat stability. Most of 

these incidents (27 of 31) concerned the 

adult chair to which the booster seat 

was attached tipping back or tipping 

over. Some of these incidents resulted 

from the child pushing back from the 

table or counter. Twenty-two injuries 

(including two hospitalizations and five 

ED-treated injuries) and one fatality are 

included in this category. 

6. Armrest Problems (2.6%): 24 

incidents, discussed in the NPR, 

involved booster seat armrests cracking 

or breaking. In a few cases, the armrest 

reportedly arrived broken inside the 

booster seat packaging. One injury is 

included in this category. 

7. Miscellaneous Product Issues 

(1.9%): 17 miscellaneous incidents (16 

incidents reported in the NPR and 1 

newly reported incidents) involved a 

variety of product-related issues, 

including unclear assembly 

instructions, poor quality construction, 

odor, rough surface, rough edges, 

breakage, or loose hardware at 

unspecified sites. One incident report 

alleged that the poor design of the 

booster seat failed to contain/support 

the child and led to a fall injury. Ten 

injuries were included in this category, 

including two ED-treated injuries. 

8. Combination of Multiple Issues 

(1.9%): 17 incidents, discussed in the 

NPR, involved a combination of the 

product hazards listed above. Four 

injuries were included in this category. 

9. Unknown Issues (0.5%): Five 

incidents involved unknown issues (4 

incidents reported in the NPR and 1 

newly reported incident). In these 

incidents, CPSC staff had insufficient 

information to determine how the 

incidents occurred. One incident in this 

category, a fatality, reported 

confounding factors that likely 

contributed to the death. Two other 

injuries were reported in this category, 

including a fall injury. 

C. NEISS Data 

The National Electronic Injury 

Surveillance System (NEISS), a 

statistically valid injury surveillance 

system,6 is the source of the injury 

estimates discussed in this section. 

Since the NPR, new ED-treated injury 

data have become available for 2016. 

However, the estimates for 2016 are not 

reportable per NEISS publication 

criteria.7 As such, the Commission 

presents the injury estimates and injury 

characteristics for the aggregate data 

from 2008 through 2016. 

CPSC staff estimates a total of 12,000 

injuries (sample size = 455, coefficient 

of variation = 0.10) related to booster 

seats were treated in U.S. hospital EDs 

over the 9-year period from 2008 

through 2016. NEISS data for 2017 is 

not complete at this point in time. 

Similar to 2016, staff cannot report 

injury estimates for some of the other 

individual years because of the NEISS 

publication criteria. Note, however, that 

staff did not observe any trend over the 

9-year period regarding injuries 

increasing or decreasing. 

No deaths were reported through the 

NEISS. About 64 percent of the injured 

were younger than 2 years of age; among 

the remaining, 24 percent, 8 percent, 

and 4 percent were 2-year-olds, 3-yearolds, and 4-year-olds, respectively. For 

the ED-treated injuries related to booster 

seats reported in the 9-year period, the 

following characteristics occurred most 

frequently: 

• Hazard—falls out of the booster seat 

(97 percent). Most of the falls were due 

to: 

Æ Unspecified circumstances (55 

percent). 

Æ Unspecified tip overs (18 percent); 

tip overs due to child pushing back or 

rocking in seat (6 percent). 

Æ Booster seat attachment or childrestraint mechanism failure/defeat/nonuse (8 percent). 

• Injured body part—head (58 

percent), face (22 percent), and mouth (7 

percent). 

• Injury type—internal organ injury 

(40 percent), lacerations (24 percent), 

and contusions/abrasions (19 percent). 

• Disposition—treated and released 

(about 98 percent). 

Incidents in a Restaurant Setting. For 

the NPR, CPSC staff noted that although 

most of the incidents occurred in home 

settings, one incident report explicitly 

mentioned a restaurant where an infant 

was using a booster seat provided by the 

establishment. Among the new 

incidents that staff analyzed, none 

occurred at a restaurant. 

Among the NEISS ED-treated injury 

data, from 2008 to 2016, 31 injury 

reports explicitly mentioned that the 

injury occurred in a restaurant setting. 

Although these 31 reports are included 

in the larger sample that yielded the 

total estimated number of injuries of 

12,000, a national injury estimate for 

restaurant injuries only does not meet 

the NEISS publication criteria and is not 

presented here. Staff reviewed the 

injury characteristics in these reports, 

which indicated that all of the injuries 

resulted from falls, but the 

circumstances were unspecified for the 

most part. Staff cannot discern from the 

injury reports whether the booster seats 

involved were provided by the 

establishment. 

D. Product Recalls 

Compliance staff reviewed recalls of 

booster seats that occurred from January 

1, 2008 to May 30, 2018. During that 

time, two consumer-level recalls 

involved booster seats. Both recalls 

involved a fall hazard. One recalled 

product was associated with a fall 

hazard when the stitching on the 

booster seat’s restraint straps loosened, 

allowing the straps to separate from the 

seat and the child to fall out of the seat. 

Another recall involved the booster seat 

restraint buckle, which opened 

unexpectedly, allowing a child to fall 

from the chair and be injured. 

IV. Overview and Assessment of ASTM 

F2640 

A. Overview of ASTM F2640 

The voluntary standard for booster 

seats, ASTM F2640, Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Booster Seats, is 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30841 

8Assessment of ASTM F2640–17ε1 in the NPR is 

at 82 FR 22928–29, and in Tab B of Staff’s NPR 

Briefing Package. 

intended to minimize the risk of injury 

or death to infants in booster seats 

associated with falls from booster seats, 

tipping over or out of booster seats, 

restraint disengagement or lack of a 

restraint system, tray disengagement, 

booster seats stability while attached to 

an adult chair, entrapments in booster 

seats, and other hazards such as cuts, 

bruises, and lacerations. ASTM F2640 

was first approved and published in 

2007, as ASTM F2640–07, Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for 

Booster Seats. ASTM has since revised 

the voluntary standard 11 times. Tab C 

of Staff’s Final Rule Briefing Package 

includes a description of each revision 

through 2018. 

The current version of the standard, 

ASTM F2640–18, was approved on 

April 1, 2018, and published in April 

2018. ASTM F2640–18 includes three 

changes from the version of the standard 

proposed in the NPR, ASTM F2640– 

17ε1: 

• New performance and testing 

requirements for a new type of booster 

seat that hangs from the back of an adult 

chair; 

• Clarification of the installation 

position for measuring a booster seat on 

an adult chair; and 

• New warning statement in 

Instructional Literature to address 

booster seats that do not have a recline 

position. 

In section IV.C below, we describe 

and assess each change. 

B. Description of ASTM F2640–18 

ASTM F2640–18 includes these key 

provisions: Scope, terminology, general 

requirements, performance 

requirements, test methods, marking 

and labeling, and instructional 

literature. 

Scope. This section describes what 

constitutes a ‘‘booster seat.’’ As stated in 

section II.A. of this preamble, the Scope 

section describes a booster seat as ‘‘a 

juvenile chair, which is placed on an 

adult chair to elevate a child to standard 

dining table height.’’ The description 

further specifies appropriate ages for 

children using a booster seat, stating, a 

‘‘booster seat is made for the purpose of 

containing a child, up to 5 years of age, 

and normally for the purposes of 

feeding or eating.’’ 

Terminology. This section defines 

terms specific to this standard. 

General Requirements. This section 

addresses numerous hazards with 

several general requirements; most of 

these general requirements are also 

found in the other ASTM juvenile 

product standards. The general 

requirements included in this section 

are: 

D Sharp points or edges; 

D Small parts; 

D Wood parts; 

D Lead in paint; 

D Scissoring, shearing, and pinching; 

D Openings; 

D Exposed coil springs; 

D Protective components; 

D Labeling; and 

D Toys. 

Performance Requirements and Test 

Methods. These sections contain 

performance requirements specific to 

booster seats (discussed here) and the 

required test methods to assess 

conformity with such requirements. 

D Tray impact test: This test assesses 

the tray’s resistance to breaking into 

small pieces or creating sharp points/ 

edges when dropped from a specified 

height. 

D Tray engagement test: This test 

assesses the tray’s ability to remain 

engaged to the booster seat when 

subjected to a specified force 

horizontally and vertically. 

D Static load test: This test assesses 

whether the booster seat can support its 

maximum recommended weight, by 

gradually applying a static load on the 

center of the seating surface for a 

specified amount of time. 

D Restraint system test: This test 

assesses whether the restraint system 

can secure a child in the manufacturer’s 

recommended-use positions. 

D Seat attachment test: This test 

specifies that a booster seat must have 

a means of attaching a booster seat to an 

adult chair and assesses the booster 

seat’s ability to remain fastened to the 

adult chair when force is applied. 

D Structural integrity (dynamic load): 

This requirement assesses the durability 

of the booster seat, including locking/ 

latching devices which prevent folding 

or adjustment of the booster seat. 

D Maximum booster seat dimensions: 

This requirement assesses how large a 

booster seat can be in relation to the 

adult chair dimensions specified on the 

booster seat’s packaging. 

Marking and Labeling. This section 

contains various requirements related to 

warnings, labeling, and required 

markings for booster seats, and it 

prescribes various substance, format, 

and prominence requirements for this 

information. 

Instructional Literature. This section 

requires that easily readable and 

understandable instructions be provided 

with booster seats. Additionally, the 

section contains requirements related to 

instructional literature contents and 

format. 

C. Assessment of ASTM F2640–18 

CPSC staff identified 912 incidents 

(including two fatalities) related to the 

use of booster seats. CPSC staff 

examined the incident data, identified 

hazard patterns in the data, and worked 

with ASTM to develop and update the 

performance requirements in ASTM 

F2640. The incident data and identified 

hazard patterns formed the basis for 

ASTM to develop ASTM F2640–18 with 

CPSC staff’s support throughout the 

process.8 The following section 

discusses how each of the identified 

product-related issues or hazard 

patterns listed in section III.C. of this 

preamble is addressed by the current 

voluntary standard, and it also describes 

and assesses each of the three changes 

included in ASTM F2640–18. 

1. Adequacy of ASM F2640–18 To 

Address Hazard Patterns 

a. Restraint/Attachment Problems 

Restraint system and attachment 

problems included buckles/prongs 

breaking, jamming, releasing too easily, 

or separating from straps; straps tearing 

or fraying, pinching, or coming undone; 

and inadequacy or ineffectiveness of 

restraints in containing the child in 

place, Similarly, complaints about the 

seat attachment system involved anchor 

buckles/clasps/straps breaking, tearing, 

fraying, detaching, or releasing. The 

Commission has reviewed CPSC staff’s 

evaluation of the attachment and 

restraint system tests in ASTM F2640– 

18, and concludes that these tests 

adequately address the identified 

hazards. 

Section 6.5 of ASTM F2640–18 

requires that a booster seat must have a 

means of ‘‘attaching’’ to an adult chair, 

and be able to withstand a specified 

force without becoming detached from 

the adult chair. Booster seats may 

employ several methods to secure to an 

adult chair, including straps, suction, 

and anti-skid bottoms or grip feet that 

minimize slippage on the chair by 

means of friction. However, because 

‘‘grip feet’’ and ‘‘friction bottoms’’ do 

not actually attach (i.e., fasten) the 

booster seat to an adult chair, the ASTM 

standard does not consider these to be 

a means of securing or attaching booster 

seats to an adult chair. The Commission 

agrees. Conversely, because suction 

physically fastens the booster seat to an 

adult chair, the ASTM standard 

considers suction to be a means of 

attachment under Section 6.5 of the 

current ASTM standard. The 

Commission agrees with this as well. 

Accordingly, the final rule requires any 

booster seat using suction as a means of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
30842 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

attachment to pass the attachment test 

to be compliant. 

b. Seat-Related Issues 

Seat-related issues included failure of 

the lock/latch that controls the seatrecline function; seat pads tearing, 

cracking, and/or peeling; seat backs 

detaching altogether; seat height 

adjustment lock/latch failures; and seat 

detachment from the base that is 

available for certain models. The 

Commission has reviewed CPSC staff’s 

evaluation of the static load and 

dynamic booster seat tests in ASTM 

F2640–18, and concludes that these 

tests adequately address these hazards. 

c. Tray-Related Issues 

Tray-related issues included trays 

with paint finish peeling off, trays 

failing to lock/stay locked, trays with 

sharp protrusions on the underside, 

trays that were too tight/difficult to 

release, and trays pinching fingers. The 

Commission has reviewed CPSC staff’s 

evaluation of the standard, and 

concludes that the general requirements 

section of F2640–18 adequately 

addresses peeling paint, sharp 

protrusions, and pinching hazards, and 

the standard’s tray engagement test 

adequately address the tray locking 

failures. 

d. Design Problems 

Booster seat design problems resulted 

in limbs, fingers, and toes entrapped in 

spaces/openings between the armrest 

and seat back/tray, between a passive 

crotch restraint bar and seat/tray, 

between tray inserts, or in toy 

accessories. The Commission has 

reviewed CPSC staff’s evaluation of the 

general requirements of ASTM 2640–18 

(namely requirements relating to 

scissoring, shearing, and pinching, 

openings, and toys) and concludes that 

the ASTM standard adequately 

addresses the identified hazards. 

e. Stability-Related Issues 

Stability-related incidents included 

instances where the adult chair, to 

which the booster seat was attached, 

tipped back or tipped over. Addressing 

the stability of the booster seat while 

attached to an adult chair is difficult in 

a standard for booster seats because 

stability depends on the adult chair. The 

ASTM booster seat subcommittee and 

CPSC staff worked diligently to find an 

effective requirement to adequately 

address stability without specifying 

requirements for the adult chair. 

Although ASTM F2640–18 does not 

contain a performance requirement to 

address this hazard, it does contain a 

labeling provision, requiring that 

booster seats must contain a cautionary 

statement: ‘‘Never allow a child to push 

away from table.’’ Moreover, ASTM 

F2640–18 requires a booster seat to 

identify on the booster seat packaging 

the size of adult chair on which the 

booster seat can fit, thereby allowing 

consumers to make a more informed 

purchasing choice. 

f. Armrest Problems 

Armrest problems included booster 

seat armrests cracking, and in a few 

cases, the armrest arriving to the 

consumer broken in the packaging. The 

Commission has reviewed CPSC staff’s 

evaluation of the static and dynamic 

load tests contained in ASTM F2640– 

18, and concludes that those tests 

adequately address armrest-related 

hazards. 

g. Miscellaneous Product-Related Issues 

Miscellaneous product-related issues 

included unclear assembly instructions, 

poor quality construction, odor, rough 

surfaces, breakage, or loose hardware at 

unspecified sites. The Commission has 

reviewed CPSC staff’s evaluation of the 

general requirements section, as well as 

the instructional literature requirements 

of ASTM F2640–18, and concludes that 

those requirements adequately address 

this hazard. 

2. Description and Assessment of 

Changes in ASTM F2640–18 

Below we describe each of the three 

changes in the voluntary standard since 

publication of the NPR, as reflected in 

ASTM F2640–18. The Commission 

finds that each of these requirements 

enhances the safety of booster seats and 

strengthens the standard incorporated as 

the final rule for booster seats. 

a. New Performance and Testing 

Requirements for a New Type of Booster 

Seat That Hangs From the Back of an 

Adult Chair 

The new style of booster seat attaches 

to the adult chair fundamentally 

differently than typical booster seats. 

This new design can fold and is 

marketed as a travel booster seat. 

Typical booster seats are placed on the 

seat of the chair and usually attached to 

the seat and back with straps. Thus, the 

typical booster seat rests on the chair 

seat and the adult chair seat bears all of 

the booster seat’s weight. The new style 

of booster seat has a frame that hangs 

over the top of the adult chair seat back, 

usually with umbrella style hooks, and 

has feet that rest on the seat of the adult 

chair. The child’s seating area is 

attached to the frame. Tab C of Staff’s 

Final Rule Briefing Package contains a 

picture of this design. 

Section 6.7 of ASTM F2640–18 

addresses this style of booster seat and 

has two requirements. The first 

requirement states that, when in all 

manufacturer’s recommended use 

positions, the booster seat must not tilt 

forward more than 10 degrees from the 

horizontal. This requirement was added 

because a seat that is tilted forward too 

far may result in a child falling out of 

the seat. The second requirement states 

that the backrest support contact must 

contact the top of the adult chair 

backrest and extend over and below the 

top rear edge of the adult chair backrest. 

This requirement was added to ensure 

that the booster seat is reasonably secure 

to the adult chair backrest so that the 

booster seat does not fall off the adult 

chair. 

Section 6.8 of ASTM F2640–18 

addresses the maximum booster seat 

dimensions. The previous version, 

ASTM F2640–17ε1, also had a section 

addressing maximum dimensions, but it 

did not include requirements for the 

new, over-the-backrest-style booster 

seats. The latest version incorporates the 

previous requirements, but it also 

includes the requirements specific to 

this new style of booster seat. 

b. Clarification of the Installation 

Position for Measuring a Booster Seat on 

an Adult Chair 

Section 7.10.1.1 of ASTM F2640–18 

explains how to measure the maximum 

booster seat dimension for both 

traditional and over-the-backrest style 

booster seats and includes a diagram of 

a test fixture to be used for over-thebackrest seats and a diagram of their 

proper installation. This test protocol 

was added to provide clarity and ensure 

that testing labs are performing the tests 

consistently. 

c. New Warning Statement in 

Instructional Literature To Address 

Booster Seats That Do Not Have a 

Recline Position 

Section 9 (Instructional Literature) of 

F2640–18 contains a new requirement, 

Section 9.5, stating that if the booster 

seat has no recline feature, the 

instructions shall contain a statement 

addressing that the product is only for 

children capable of sitting upright 

unassisted. 

D. International Standards for Booster 

Seats 

The Commission is aware of one 

international voluntary standard 

pertaining to booster seats, BS EN16120 

Child Use and Care Articles—Chair 

Mounted Seat. CPSC staff compared the 

performance requirements of ASTM 

F2640–18 to the performance 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30843 

requirements of BS EN16120, which is 

intended for a similar product category, 

and identified several differences. 

Primarily, the scope of ASTM F2640–18 

includes products intended for children 

up to 5 years of age, while EN 16120 is 

intended for products up to an age of 36 

months, or a maximum weight of 15 kg 

(33 lbs.). 

Staff found that some individual 

requirements in the BS EN16120 

standard are more stringent than ASTM 

F2640–18. For example, BS EN16120 

includes requirements for head 

entrapment, lateral protection, surface 

chemicals, cords/ribbons, material 

shrinkage, packaging film, and 

monofilament threads. Staff did not 

identify any hazard patterns in CPSC’s 

incident data that such provisions could 

address. Conversely, some individual 

requirements in ASTM F2640–18 are 

more stringent than those found in EN 

16120. For example, ASTM F2640–18 

includes requirements for tray 

performance and toy accessories. 

Currently, CPSC is not aware of any 

technically feasible method to test for 

the most prevalent and dangerous 

hazard pattern, falls resulting from 

tipping over in an adult chair. However, 

CPSC staff will continue to monitor 

hazard patterns and recommend future 

changes to the Commission, if 

necessary. 

V. Response to Comments 

CPSC received eight comments on the 

NPR. Four commenters generally 

supported the NPR. Two commenters 

requested that CPSC wait to finalize the 

rule to include the next version of the 

voluntary standard, which would 

include two open ASTM ballot items, 

including a new booster seat design that 

attaches to an adult chair by hooking 

over the top back of the chair. Two 

commenters stated that booster seats 

manufactured for food-service 

establishments should be exempt from 

the mandatory standard, or be subject to 

a different standard. Below we 

summarize and respond to each 

significant issue raised by the 

commenters. 

Comment 1: Two commenters stated 

that the Commission should not issue a 

final rule until ASTM approves the next 

version of ASTM F2640. The 

commenters stated that the 2018 version 

would clarify the intent of the 

maximum booster seat dimension test 

and would address the new hook on 

booster seat design. 

Response 1: The Commission agrees 

with these commenters. The final rule 

incorporates by reference the latest 

version of the voluntary standard, 

ASTM F2640–18. 

Comment 2: Two manufacturer 

commenters contended that food-service 

booster seats should not be covered 

under ASTM F2640, with one 

commenter proposing that a separate 

commercial standard be developed. 

These commenters stated that foodservice booster seats have simple 

designs intended solely to be positioned 

easily alongside a dining table, and 

raised to a height for a child to eat. 

Commenters noted several elements that 

make food-service booster seats different 

from home-use booster seats, including: 

(1) Less-confined designs to 

accommodate bulky outerwear; (2) 

generally smaller size; (3) tray-less; (4) 

not adjustable (no swiveling or 

reclining); and (5) typically use 

attachment methods like anti-skid pads 

or raised rubber feet that can 

accommodate restaurant seating, such as 

booths and benches, which belts and 

straps cannot. 

One manufacturer-commenter noted 

that the level of supervision over 

children in restaurants is greater than in 

homes, where children may be left 

unattended while eating. The 

commenter stated that this makes foodservice booster seat designs, which are 

completely appropriate for restaurant 

use, potentially risky in home settings. 

Rather than addressing this under the 

current regulation, however, the 

commenter suggested a separate 

regulation for food-service booster seats 

that focuses on elements that ensure 

proper use, such as more stringent 

warnings and instructional literature (in 

particular not using food-service booster 

seats outside of commercial settings, 

and not leaving children unsupervised 

during use), as well as educating end 

users and wait staff. 

Consumer advocate-commenters 

agreed with the NPR that food-service 

booster seats should be included under 

the mandatory standard because these 

products are available for sale to 

consumers and consumers use the 

products in restaurants, and these 

products should provide the same 

measure of safety. 

Response 2: The Commission 

recognized in the NPR that food-service 

booster seats vary in design and where 

they will be used, and that the 

attachment requirement in ASTM F2640 

may require a design change for some 

food-service booster seats. Accordingly, 

the NPR invited commenters to provide 

information on the effects of making 

ASTM F2640–17ε1’s attachment 

requirements mandatory on booster 

seats that currently use grip feet/friction 

bottoms to secure the booster to the 

surface upon which it sits. Additionally, 

the NPR solicited comments regarding 

the capability of suction cups to comply 

with performance requirements. 

Although the Commission agrees that 

some differences exist between foodservice booster seats and booster seats 

intended for home-use, the commenters 

did not provide sufficient, specific 

information to support the assertion that 

food-service booster seats should not be 

covered under ASTM F2640; nor did 

they provide cost estimates for varying 

designs, other than generally stating that 

the process of compliance would be 

costly and time intensive. Accordingly, 

despite CPSC staff’s interviews with 

affected parties, and after careful review 

of the comments, the Commission has 

not identified any inherent differences 

between the two products that would 

prevent food-service booster seats from 

meeting the mandatory standard and 

remaining fundamentally the same 

product. For example, although no foodservice booster seats have trays, trays 

are not required to meet the booster seat 

final rule. If a booster seat does not have 

a tray, the requirements, tests, warnings, 

and instructions related to trays are not 

required. As another example, although 

it is true that anti-skid pads and raised 

rubber feet would not be considered 

attachment methods under the 

mandatory standard, they may still be 

used in addition to an attachment 

method like a belt, strap, or suction cup. 

Food-service booster seats can likely 

meet the new standard by adding a belt, 

for example, while retaining the antislip mechanism they were using 

already. 

Section 6.5 of ASTM F2640 (2017ε1

and 2018 versions) requires a 

mechanism of attaching a booster seat to 

an adult chair, but it does not require 

the attachment mechanism to be a strap. 

Although a strap attachment would not 

work on a bench or booth, non-strap 

attachment methods, such as suction 

cups, could be used to secure a booster 

to a bench. Additionally, ASTM F2640 

does not state any specific requirements 

for booster seats used on a booth or 

bench-type seating. Under the standard, 

booster seats are tested on an adult 

chair. The standard requires the 

attachment method to withstand force 

requirements. Although ‘‘grip feet’’ or 

‘‘friction bottoms’’ are not a sufficient 

means of fastening a booster seat to an 

adult chair, some suction cups can be 

sufficient to withstand the force 

required in the standard. 

Based on the foregoing, the 

Commission rejects the assertion that 

food-service booster seats should solely 

rely on warnings to prevent falls in 

food-service booster seats. In a foodservice environment, booster seats are 

used on adult chairs and bench-style 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
30844 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

seating. Adhering to the mandatory 

standard for booster seats will ensure 

that food-service booster seats remain 

attached to adult chairs under the 

testing protocol, but not impede using 

grip feet on bench seating, if that is how 

manufacturers choose to address this 

issue. Additionally, nothing in the final 

rule would prevent food-service booster 

seat suppliers from providing additional 

warnings and instructions, if they 

believe such information will improve 

the safety their products. 

Section 104 of the CPSIA requires the 

Commission to promulgate a booster 

seat standard that is either 

‘‘substantially the same as’’ the 

voluntary standard or ‘‘more stringent 

than’’ the voluntary standard if the more 

stringent requirements would further 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

the product. Accordingly, CPSC’s 

mandatory standard could only provide 

requirements for food-service booster 

seats that differ from the ASTM 

standard, if those different requirements 

strengthen the standard and further 

reduce the risk of injury. The 

commenters have not provided any 

safety rationale for excluding foodservice booster seats from the final rule. 

None of the suggestions presented by 

commenters would result in a standard 

that is ‘‘more stringent than’’ the 

voluntary standard. Therefore, the 

Commission is not modifying the 

booster seat requirements for foodservice booster seats as part of the 

mandatory standard. However, as 

explained below, in response to 

Comment 6, the final rule provides 

additional time to comply with the new 

standard. 

Comment 3: One commenter stated 

that to comply with the standard, 

booster seats using suction as a means 

of attachment should be required to pass 

the attachment test in ASTM F2640– 

17ε1. 

Response 3: The Commission agrees 

that regardless of the means of 

attachment, all booster seats must meet 

the requirements in section 6.5 of the 

current voluntary standard, ASTM 

F2640–18. These requirements include: 

Not allowing the booster seat to fall off 

the adult chair and break, and 

remaining functional after applying a 

45-pound force horizontally to the 

center of the front of the booster seat 

five times. The requirements do not 

prescribe how the seat should be 

attached to the adult chair. 

Comment 4: One commenter 

questioned the applicability of placing 

warning labels on commercial booster 

seats because of size constraints on 

restaurant style-booster seats. The 

commenter indicated that the distance 

from the seat surface to the top of the 

side walls of the seat range from 3 

inches to 5 inches, which restricts the 

space for labeling, and requests 

conspicuous labeling to include the seat 

surface. 

Response 4: The most recent version 

of the voluntary standard applicable to 

booster seats, ASTM F2640–18, requires 

the warning label to be conspicuous. A 

‘‘conspicuous label’’ is defined in the 

standard as a ‘‘label which is visible, 

when the product is in the 

manufacturer’s recommended use 

position, to a person standing at the 

sides or front of the booster seat’’ 

(ASTM F2640–18, section 3.1.1). 

Accordingly, the definition of 

‘‘conspicuous’’ in the standard does not 

preclude use of the seat surface for the 

warning label placement, because the 

seat surface is visible to a person 

standing at the sides or front of the 

booster seat. 

Additionally, to address comments 

that a side wall height range of 3 inches 

to 5 inches would restrict warning 

placement, staff generated mock 

warning labels that meet the ASTM 

F2640–18 requirement for signal word 

and font size in section 8.4.5. Tab B of 

Staff’s Final Rule Briefing Package 

provides pictures of these mock warning 

labels. Staff’s mock-ups show that the 

label can be placed on products with 

limited side wall space. Accordingly, 

manufacturers have the flexibility to 

place the warning label on seat surface 

or on the seat vertical wall. 

Comment 5: One commenter urged 

CPSC to work with manufacturers to use 

design and visual cues, such as 

pictograms, to ensure warnings are 

conveyed effectively to those with 

limited or no English literacy. 

Response 5: The Commission 

acknowledges that well-designed 

graphics, such as pictograms, can be 

useful for consumers with limited or no 

English literacy. However, the design of 

effective graphics can be difficult. Some 

seemingly obvious graphics are poorly 

understood and can give rise to 

interpretations that are the opposite of 

the intended meaning (so-called 

‘‘critical confusions’’). To avoid 

confusion, a warning pictogram should 

be developed with an empirical study 

and should also be well-tested on the 

target audience. Thus far, pictograms 

have not been developed for boosterseat warning labels. In the future, if 

CPSC staff advises that graphic symbols 

are needed to reduce the risk of injury 

associated with these products, the 

Commission can consider updating the 

mandatory standard to include 

pictograms. 

Comment 6: The Commission 

received four comments on CPSC’s 

proposed 12-month effective date for the 

booster seats mandatory standard. One 

comment, submitted by three consumer 

advocacy groups, supported a 6-month 

effective date (which they seem to 

believe mistakenly was the 

Commission’s proposal). Two 

commenters, a juvenile product 

manufacturers’ association and a private 

citizen, supported the proposed 12- 

month effective date, although the 

private citizen said that they would also 

support an even longer effective date to 

reduce the economic impact on small 

firms. A fourth commenter, a small 

manufacturer of food-service booster 

seats, suggested a 2-year effective date to 

allow additional time for product 

development. The commenter stated: 

‘‘compliance may require the costly and 

time intensive process of developing 

and building new tooling to comply 

with the Standard.’’ 

In a follow-up call with Commission 

staff (a phone log is in regulations.gov), 

the fourth commenter elaborated on the 

request for a 2-year effective date, 

stating that for their booster seats to 

come into compliance with the revised 

ASTM standard, they will need to 

design and test new plastic molds. 

Creating a new mold includes 

researching and developing a new 

design, initial tool-building to 

implement the design, and then testing 

the resulting product. The commenter 

stated that the entire process takes 

longer for firms like theirs because their 

mold-maker is located overseas. 

Consequently, if changes to the mold are 

required after testing the new product, 

the turnaround time is longer than if all 

the work were conducted in the United 

States. According to the commenter, if 

the design process goes perfectly, with 

no required changes, then their booster 

seats could be redesigned in time to 

meet the 12-month effective date. The 

commenter stated that the request for a 

2-year effective date was based on the 

design process for plastic molds and the 

potential need to create and test several 

iterative designs. 

Response 6: The Commission 

recognizes that longer effective dates 

minimize the impact on affected firms. 

The initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(IRFA) found that a significant 

economic impact could not be ruled out 

for 69 percent of the small firms 

operating in the U.S. market. Staff 

advised that many of those firms might 

not be aware of the ASTM voluntary 

standard or the CPSC booster seats 

rulemaking, particularly food-service 

booster seat suppliers, which make up 

one-third of the small suppliers for 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30845 

which a significant impact could not be 

ruled out. The information supplied by 

the fourth commenter on the time and 

cost involved in designing and 

producing new plastic molds is 

consistent with information supplied by 

CPSC engineers, as is the longer time 

frame required for firms conducting 

some of their redesign overseas. Staff 

engineers have also indicated that foam 

products would require new molds as 

well, which likely require similar cost 

and time investments. 

Based on this information, the 

Commission concludes that a 12-month 

effective date likely represents a ‘‘bestcase’’ scenario for many affected firms, 

and that 2 years likely represents a 

‘‘worst-case’’ scenario for firms required 

to come into compliance. Firms 

designing and/or testing their molds in 

the United States should be able to meet 

shorter timelines, both in ‘‘best-case’’ 

and ‘‘worst-case’’ scenarios. After 

considering the information provided by 

commenters, the Commission is 

providing an 18-month effective date for 

all firms to come into compliance with 

the final rule. An 18-month effective 

date balances the need for improved 

consumer safety, with reducing the 

impact of the final rule on small firms. 

Although some firms using molds 

may require iterative designs to meet the 

standard, the 2-year time estimate for 

product redesign using molds applies in 

cases where a mold must be modified 

several times, and the mold-redesign 

work is conducted overseas. Not all 

firms use molds, not all firms have 

molds made overseas, and not all firms 

will encounter sufficient difficulty with 

their molds to require a full 2 years to 

make their iterative changes. 

Additionally, not all products will 

require a full redesign. Some products 

already meet the ASTM voluntary 

standard and the anticipated product 

modifications (straps and/or more 

secure means of attachment) in those 

cases are not complex and should not 

fall within the ‘‘worst-case’’ scenario of 

a 2-year design process. 

Moreover, providing additional time 

for firms to come into compliance 

reduces burden by allowing firms the 

time: (1) To spread out design and 

testing costs over a longer period; (2) to 

come into compliance if they are 

currently unaware of the voluntary 

standard or the rulemaking; and (3) to 

redesign a plastic or foam product to 

accommodate the design, tooling, and 

testing adjustments that may be required 

during the product redesign process. 

VI. Mandatory Standard for Booster 

Seats 

As discussed in the previous section, 

the Commission concludes that ASTM 

F2640–18 adequately addresses the 

hazards associated with booster seats. 

Thus, the final rule incorporates by 

reference ASTM F2640–18, without 

modification, as the mandatory safety 

standard for booster seats. 

VII. Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112 to 

Include NOR for Booster Seats 

Standard 

The CPSA establishes certain 

requirements for product certification 

and testing. 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). Certification of 

children’s products subject to a 

children’s product safety rule must be 

based on testing conducted by a CPSCaccepted third party conformity 

assessment body. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2). 

The Commission must publish an NOR 

for the accreditation of third party 

conformity assessment bodies to assess 

conformity with a children’s product 

safety rule to which a children’s product 

is subject. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(3). The 

Safety Standard for Booster Seats, to be 

codified at 16 CFR part 1237, is 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). Part 1112 became 

effective on June 10, 2013 and 

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. Part 1112 

also codifies a list of all of the NORs 

that the CPSC had published at the time 

part 1112 was issued. All NORs issued 

after the Commission published part 

1112, such as the safety standard for 

booster seats, require the Commission to 

amend part 1112. Accordingly, the 

Commission is now amending part 1112 

to include the safety standard for 

booster seats in the list of 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 booster seats are 

required to meet the third party 

conformity assessment body 

accreditation requirements in part 1112. 

When a laboratory meets the 

requirements as a CPSC-accepted thirdparty conformity assessment body, the 

laboratory can apply to the CPSC to 

have 16 CFR part 1237, Safety Standard 

for Booster Seats, included in its scope 

of accreditation of CPSC safety rules 

listed for the laboratory on the CPSC 

website at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch. 

VIII. Incorporation by Reference 

Section 1237.2 of the final rule 

provides that booster seats must comply 

with applicable sections of ASTM 

F2640–18. The OFR has regulations 

concerning incorporation by reference. 1 

CFR part 51. These regulations require 

that, for a final rule, agencies must 

discuss in the preamble to the rule the 

way in which materials that the agency 

incorporates by reference are reasonably 

available to interested persons, and how 

interested parties can obtain the 

materials. Additionally, the preamble to 

the rule must summarize the material. 1 

CFR 51.5(b). 

In accordance with the OFR’s 

requirements, the discussion in section 

IV of this preamble summarizes the 

required provisions of ASTM F2640–18. 

Interested persons may purchase a copy 

of ASTM F2640–18 from ASTM, either 

through ASTM’s website, or by mail at 

the address provided in the rule. A copy 

of the standard may also be inspected at 

the CPSC’s Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

Note that the Commission and ASTM 

arranged for commenters to have ‘‘readonly’’ access to ASTM F2640–17ε1

during the NPR’s comment period. 

IX. 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). Typically, the 

Commission provides a 6-month 

effective date for final rules issued for 

durable infant or toddler products under 

section 104 of the CPSIA. However, in 

the NPR, the Commission proposed that 

the booster seat rule be effective 12 

months after publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register, to allow 

booster seat manufacturers additional 

time to bring their products into 

compliance. 

CPSC received several comments on 

the effective date of the final rule, which 

are summarized in section V of this 

preamble, comment 6. As explained 

there, the remolding process for plastic 

and foam booster seats could take in 

‘‘best-case scenarios’’ 12 months, but in 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
30846 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

9Tab D of Staff’s Final Rule Briefing Package 

contains the complete Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis for this final rule. 

10The Juvenile Products Manufacturers 

Association (JPMA) has certification programs for 

several durable infant products with voluntary 

ASTM standards. Typically, JPMA’s certification 

program has a 6-month delay between the 

publication of a new ASTM voluntary standard and 

its adoption for compliance testing under their 

program. Published in March 2017, ASTM F2640– 

17ε1 went into effect for JPMA-testing purposes in 

September 2017. 

11These cost estimates are for testing compliance 

with the physical or mechanical requirements in 

the standard only. Manufacturers and importers of 

booster seats are already subject to third party 

testing requirements with respect to lead content. 

12The Juvenile Products Manufacturers 

Association (JPMA) has certification programs for 

several durable infant products with voluntary 

ASTM standards. Typically, JPMA’s certification 

program has a 6-month delay between publication 

of a new ASTM voluntary standard and its adoption 

for compliance testing under their program. 

Published in March 2017, ASTM F2640–17ε1 went 

into effect, for JPMA testing purposes, in September 

2017. ASTM F2640–18 will be in effect for JPMA 

testing before the mandatory booster seat standard 

goes into effect. Therefore, compliant firms are 

expected to remain compliant. 

13 In this case, four of the firms with compliant 

booster seats are part of JPMA’s certification 

program, while the other four firms claim 

‘‘worst-case scenarios’’ the process 

could take up to 2 years. Recognizing 

that worst-case scenarios are likely to be 

rare, the Commission is providing an 

18-month effective date for the final 

rule. Moreover, as explained in the next 

section of the preamble, the additional 

time reduces the impact of the rule on 

small businesses. 

X. Regulatory Flexibility Act 9

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires that agencies 

review a proposed rule and a final rule 

for the rule’s potential economic impact 

on small entities, including small 

businesses. Section 604 of the RFA 

generally requires that agencies prepare 

a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) when promulgating final rules, 

unless the head of the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. For booster 

seats, staff cannot rule out a significant 

economic impact for 19 of the 29 (66 

percent) known small domestic 

suppliers of booster seats to the U.S. 

market. Accordingly, staff prepared a 

FRFA that is available at Tab D of the 

Staff’s Final Rule Briefing Package. We 

provide a summary of the FRFA below. 

The Commission is aware of 29 small 

firms, including 19 domestic 

manufacturers, nine domestic importers, 

and one firm of unknown type, 

currently marketing booster seats in the 

United States. The Commission 

concludes that it is unlikely that there 

would be a significant economic impact 

on the eight small manufacturers and 

two small importers of booster seats that 

comply with the current voluntary 

standard for Juvenile Products 

Manufacturer’s Association-(JPMA) 

testing purposes, ASTM F2640–17ε1.10

However, the Commission cannot rule 

out a significant economic impact for 19 

of the suppliers of noncompliant booster 

seats (11 manufacturers, seven 

importers, and one unknown type). 

A. The Product 

Section II.A of this preamble defines 

‘‘booster seats’’ and discussed booster 

seat combination products. The final 

rule would cover these products when 

they are in their booster seat 

configuration. Some suppliers produce 

booster seats intended predominately 

for restaurant use. As discussed in 

sections II.A and V (comment 2), the 

Commission will include food-service 

booster seats in the final rule with the 

same requirements as home-use booster 

seats. The prices for food-service and 

home-use booster seats are similar, 

averaging $44 to $60. Not surprisingly, 

combination high chair/booster seat 

products tend to be more expensive, 

ranging in price from $50 to $250. 

B. Final Rule Requirements and Third 

Party Testing 

All booster seats manufactured after 

the final rule’s effective date must meet 

the requirements of the final rule 

(ASTM F2640–18 with no 

modification). They will also need to be 

third party tested, as described below. 

Under section 14 of the CPSA, once 

the new booster seat requirements 

become effective as a consumer product 

safety standard, all suppliers will be 

subject to the third party testing and 

certification requirements under the 

CPSA and the Testing and Labeling 

Pertaining to Product Certification rule 

(16 CFR part 1107) (1107 rule), which 

require manufacturers and importers to 

certify that their products comply with 

the applicable children’s product safety 

standards, based on third party testing, 

and subject their products to third party 

testing periodically. Third party testing 

costs are in addition to the costs of 

modifying the booster seats to meet the 

standard. For booster seats, the third 

party testing costs are expected to be 

$500 to $1,000 per sample tested, with 

the higher cost being more applicable to 

the smallest suppliers.11 As the 

component part testing rule allows (16 

CFR part 1109), importers may rely 

upon third party tests obtained by their 

suppliers, which could reduce the 

impact on importers. The incremental 

costs would also be lower for suppliers 

of compliant booster seats if they are 

already obtaining third party tests to 

assure conformance with the voluntary 

standard. 

C. IRFA Issues Raised in the Public 

Comments 

The IRFA requested public feedback 

on three questions: 

1. What actions might firms take to 

bring their booster seats into compliance 

with the proposed rule? What costs 

might be associated with those actions? 

2. What are the differences between 

food-service and home-use booster seats 

and their typical use environments 

(restaurants and homes)? How might the 

safety risks vary between the two use 

environments? Are there any alternative 

requirements that might address these 

risk variations and make booster seats 

safer in both use environments? 

3. What is the appropriate effective 

date for the proposed rule? 

CPSC did not receive public comment 

in response to question one. CPSC did 

receive comments on questions 2 and 3. 

Comment summaries and the 

Commission’s responses appear in 

section V of this preamble. 

D. The Market for Booster Seats 

The market for booster seats was 

outlined in section II.B. Under U.S. 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

guidelines, a manufacturer of booster 

seats is considered small if it has 500 or 

fewer employees; and importers are 

considered small if they have 100 or 

fewer employees. CPSC limited its 

regulatory flexibility analysis to 

domestic firms because SBA guidelines 

and definitions pertain to U.S.-based 

entities. Based on these guidelines, 29 of 

44 domestic firms are small—19 

domestic manufacturers, 9 domestic 

importers, and 1 domestic firm whose 

supply source could not be categorized. 

Additional small domestic booster seat 

suppliers may be operating in the U.S. 

market, possibly including some of the 

firms operating online storefronts. As 

discussed in the FRFA, staff expects 

impacts of the final rule to be small for 

online suppliers that staff could not 

readily identify as domestic; therefore, 

they are not included in the analysis. 

E. Impact on Small Businesses 

1. Small Manufacturers 

a. Small Manufacturers With Compliant 

Booster Seats 

Of the 19 small manufacturers, eight 

produce booster seats that comply with 

the ASTM voluntary standard currently 

in effect for testing purposes (ASTM 

F2640–17ε1).12 13 ASTM F2640– 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30847 

compliance based on testing performed to the 

ASTM standard performed outside of the JPMA 

certification program. 

18, the version of the voluntary standard 

upon which the final rule is based, for 

JPMA certification testing purposes, will 

be in effect in November 2018. The new 

version of the standard (ASTM F2640– 

18) addresses booster seats that hang 

from the back of the adult chair and 

ensures that the maximum booster seat 

dimensions test is performed while in 

the manufacturer’s recommended 

installation configuration. In general, 

the Commission expects that small 

manufacturers whose booster seats 

already comply with the voluntary 

standard currently in effect for testing 

purposes will remain compliant with 

the voluntary standard as it evolves, 

because they follow, and in five cases, 

actively participate in, the development 

of the ASTM voluntary standard. 

Therefore, for these small 

manufacturers, compliance with the 

voluntary standard is part of an 

established business practice. As such, 

the Commission does not expect the 

final rule to have a significant impact on 

any of the eight small manufacturers 

with booster seats expected to meet the 

requirements of the voluntary standard. 

Additionally, because these firms 

already test to the ASTM standard, the 

Commission expects that any third party 

testing costs will be minimal. 

b. Small Manufacturers With 

Noncompliant Booster Seats 

Eleven small manufacturers produce 

booster seats that do not comply with 

the voluntary standard, five of which 

produce food-service booster seats, and 

six that produce booster seats for home 

use. CPSC staff cannot determine the 

extent of the changes and the cost of the 

changes required for the booster seats of 

these 11 firms to come into compliance 

with the final rule. For all 11 small 

manufacturing firms producing booster 

seats that do not meet the voluntary 

standard, the cost of redesigning the 

products could exceed 1 percent of the 

firm’s revenue. Overall, staff cannot rule 

out a significant economic impact on 

any of the 11 small manufacturers 

producing noncompliant booster seats. 

Additionally, of 11 firms, staff estimates 

that the impact of third party testing 

could result in significant costs for six 

firms. 

2. Small Importers 

a. Small Importers With Compliant 

Booster Seats 

Staff identified two booster seat 

importers currently in compliance with 

the voluntary standard. Staff expects 

that small importers, like manufacturers 

whose booster seats already comply 

with the voluntary standard currently in 

effect for testing purposes, will remain 

compliant with the voluntary standard 

as it evolves, because these small 

importers follow the standard 

development process. Therefore, these 

firms are likely already to be in 

compliance, and the final rule should 

not have a significant impact on either 

of the small importers with compliant 

booster seats. Any third party testing 

costs for importers of compliant booster 

seats would be limited to the 

incremental costs associated with third 

party testing beyond their current 

testing regime. Staff does not expect 

significant impacts to result from 

incremental testing costs. 

b. Small Importers With Noncompliant 

Booster Seats 

Staff does not have sufficient 

information to rule out a significant 

impact from the final rule for any of the 

seven importers with noncompliant 

booster seats. The economic impact on 

importers depends on the extent of the 

changes required to come into 

compliance and the responses of their 

supplying firms, which staff cannot 

generally determine for noncompliant 

importers. Third party testing and 

certification to the final rule could 

impose significant costs for three of the 

seven firms with booster seats believed 

not to comply with the ASTM standard. 

However, third party testing costs are 

unlikely to be greater than 1 percent of 

the firms’ gross revenues for the 

remaining four firms. 

3. Small Unknown Firm Type With 

Noncompliant Booster Seats 

For one firm identified as a supplier 

of noncompliant booster seats in the 

U.S. market, staff is unable to determine 

whether the firm is a manufacturer or an 

importer, and thus, staff does not have 

sufficient information to rule out the 

possibility that modifications required 

to come into compliance with the rule 

could result in a significant impact (i.e., 

greater than 1 percent of revenues) on 

this small noncompliant firm. 

4. Summary of Impacts 

The Commission is aware of 29 small 

firms, including 19 domestic 

manufacturers, nine domestic importers, 

and one firm of unknown type, 

currently marketing booster seats in the 

United States. Based on the foregoing, 

the Commission concludes that it is 

unlikely that there would be a 

significant economic impact on the 

eight small manufacturers and two 

small importers of compliant booster 

seats. However, the Commission cannot 

rule out a significant economic impact 

for any of the 19 suppliers of 

noncompliant booster seats (11 

manufacturers, seven importers, and 

one unknown type). 

F. Efforts To Minimize the Impact on 

Small Entities 

The NPR proposed an effective date 

12 months after the publication of the 

final rule in the Federal Register. CPSC 

received two comments requesting a 

later effective date, including one from 

a food-service booster seat manufacturer 

who requested a 2-year effective date, 

stating they needed more time to 

develop and build the new tooling that 

would be required to meet the 

mandatory standard. As discussed in 

sections V (comment 6) and IX of this 

preamble, the Commission agrees that a 

later effective date would reduce the 

economic impact of the final rule on 

firms. Firms would have more time to 

adjust their designs and tooling and 

thus, less likely to experience a lapse in 

production/importation, which could 

result if they were unable to produce or 

locate suppliers within the required 

timeframe. Additionally, firms could 

spread these costs of compliance over a 

longer time period, thereby reducing 

their annual costs, as well as the present 

value of their total costs. To help reduce 

the impact on all small firms, as well as 

specifically reduce the potential burden 

on firms using molds that may require 

iterative designs to meet the standard, 

particularly where some work is 

conducted overseas, the final rule 

provides an 18-month effective date. 

G. Small Business Impacts of the 

Accreditation Requirements for Testing 

Laboratories 

In accordance with section 14 of the 

CPSA, all children’s products that are 

subject to a children’s product safety 

rule must be tested by a CPSC-accepted 

third party conformity assessment body 

(i.e., testing laboratory) for compliance 

with applicable children’s product 

safety rules. Testing laboratories that 

want to conduct this testing must meet 

the notice of requirements (NOR) 

pertaining to third party conformity 

testing. NORs have been codified for 

existing rules at 16 CFR part 1112 (1112 

rule). Consequently, the Commission 

will amend the 1112 rule to establish 

the NOR for testing laboratories that 

want accreditation to test for 

compliance with the booster seats final 

rule. This section assesses the impact of 

the amendment on small laboratories. 

The Commission certified in the NPR 

that the proposed NOR would not have 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
30848 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small laboratories because: 

• No requirements were imposed on 

laboratories that did not intend to 

provide third party testing services; 

• Only firms that anticipated 

receiving sufficient revenue from the 

mandated testing to justify accepting the 

requirements would provide testing 

services; and 

• Most of these laboratories will 

already be accredited to test for 

conformance to other juvenile product 

standards, and the only costs to them 

would be the cost of adding the 

children’s booster seats standard to their 

scope of accreditation. 

No substantive changes in these facts 

have occurred since the NPR was 

published, and CPSC did not receive 

any comments regarding the NOR. 

Therefore, for the final rule, the 

Commission continues to certify that 

amending part 1112 to include the NOR 

for the booster seats final rule will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small 

laboratories. 

XI. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations address 

whether the agency is required to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

an environmental impact statement. 

Under these regulations, certain 

categories of CPSC actions normally 

have ‘‘little or no potential for affecting 

the human environment,’’ and therefore, 

they do not require an environmental 

assessment or an environmental impact 

statement. Safety standards providing 

requirements for products come under 

this categorical exclusion. 16 CFR 

1021.5(c)(1). The final rule for booster 

seats falls within the categorical 

exclusion. 

XII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The final rule for booster seats 

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. 3501–3520). The preamble to 

the proposed rule (82 FR 22932–33) 

discussed the information collection 

burden of the proposed rule and 

specifically requested comments on the 

accuracy of our estimates. OMB has not 

yet assigned a control number for this 

information collection. We did not 

receive any comment regarding the 

information collection burden of the 

proposal. However, the final rule makes 

modifications regarding the information 

collection burden because the number 

of estimated manufacturers subject to 

the information collection burden is 

now estimated at 46 manufacturers, 

rather than the 49 manufacturers 

initially estimated in the proposed rule, 

and the number of models tested has 

increased from two models in the NPR, 

to three models for the final rule. 

Accordingly, the estimated burden of 

this collection of information is 

modified 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 

1237 ..................................................................................... 46 3 138 1 138 

Our estimate is based on the 

following: 

Section 8.1 of ASTM F640–18 

requires that all booster seats and their 

retail packaging be permanently marked 

or labeled as follows: The manufacturer, 

distributor, or seller name, place of 

business (city, state, mailing address, 

including zip code), and telephone 

number; and a code mark or other 

means that identifies the date (month 

and year as a minimum) of manufacture. 

CPSC is aware of 46 firms that supply 

booster seats in the U.S. market. For 

PRA purposes, we assume that all 46 

firms use labels on their products and 

on their packaging already. All firms 

will need to make some modifications to 

their existing labels. We estimate that 

the time required to make these 

modifications is about 1 hour per 

model. Each of the 46 firms supplies, on 

average, test slightly more than 2.5 

different models of booster seats per 

year. Accordingly, for this estimate we 

round the number of models to three. 

Therefore, we estimate the burden hours 

associated with labels to be 138 hours 

annually (1 hour × 46 firms × 3 models 

per firm = 138 hours annually). 

We estimate the hourly compensation 

for the time required to create and 

update labels is $32.47 (U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, ‘‘Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation,’’ December 

2017, Table 9, total compensation for all 

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

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

estimate the annual cost to industry 

associated with the labeling 

requirements in the final rule to be 

approximately $4,481 ($32.47 per hour 

× 138 hours = $4,480.86). This 

collection of information does not 

require operating, maintenance, or 

capital costs. 

Section 9.1 of ASTM F2640–18 

requires instructions to be supplied 

with the product. Under the OMB’s 

regulations (5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)), the 

time, effort, and financial resources 

necessary to comply with a collection of 

information that would be incurred by 

persons in the ‘‘normal course of their 

activities’’ are excluded from a burden 

estimate, where an agency demonstrates 

that the disclosure activities required to 

comply are ‘‘usual and customary.’’ We 

are unaware of booster seats that 

generally require use instructions but 

lack such instructions. Therefore, we 

estimate that no burden hours are 

associated with section 9.1 of ASTM 

F2640–18, because any burden 

associated with supplying instructions 

with booster seats would be ‘‘usual and 

customary’’ and not within the 

definition of ‘‘burden’’ under the OMB’s 

regulations. 

In compliance with the Paperwork 

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

3507(d)), we have submitted the 

information collection requirements of 

this final rule to the OMB. 

XIII. Preemption 

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

2075(a), provides that when 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.’’ Therefore, the 

preemption provision of section 26(a) of 

the CPSA applies to this final rule 

issued under section 104. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30849 

1 81 FR 54520. https://www.federalregister.gov/ 

documents/2016/08/16/2016-19384/revisions-torules-of-conduct-and-standards-of-responsibilityfor-appointed-representatives. 

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 1237 

Consumer protection, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Infants and 

children, Labeling, Law enforcement, 

and Toys. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Commission amends 16 

CFR parts 1112 and 1237 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 

paragraph (b)(47) to read as follows: 

§ 1112.15 When can a third party 

conformity assessment body apply for 

CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule 

and/or test method? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(47) 16 CFR part 1237, Safety 

Standard for Booster Seats. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Add part 1237 to read as follows: 

PART 1237—SAFETY STANDARD FOR 

BOOSTER SEATS 

Sec. 

1237.1 Scope. 

1237.2 Requirements for booster seats. 

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

Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Sec. 3, Pub. L. 

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

§ 1237.1 Scope. 

This part establishes a consumer 

product safety standard for booster 

seats. 

§ 1237.2 Requirements for booster seats. 

Each booster seat must comply with 

all applicable provisions of ASTM 

F2640–18, Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Booster Seats 

(approved on April 1, 2018). The 

Director of the Federal Register 

approves this incorporation by reference 

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

1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy 

from ASTM International, 100 Bar 

Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://

www.astm.org. You may inspect a copy 

at the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Room 820, 4330 East-West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone: 301– 

504–7923, or at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

For information on the availability of 

this material at NARA, call 202–741– 

6030, or go to: www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

Alberta E. Mills, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14133 Filed 6–29–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 

[Docket No. SSA–2013–0044] 

RIN 0960–AH63 

Rules of Conduct and Standards of 

Responsibility for Appointed 

Representatives 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Final rules. 

SUMMARY: We are revising our rules of 

conduct and standards of responsibility 

for representatives. We are also 

updating and clarifying the procedures 

we use when we bring charges against 

a representative for violating these rules 

and standards. These changes are 

necessary to better protect the integrity 

of our administrative process and to 

further clarify representatives’ existing 

responsibilities in their conduct with 

us. The revisions should not be 

interpreted to suggest that any specific 

conduct was permissible under our 

rules prior to these changes; instead, we 

seek to ensure that our rules of conduct 

and standards of responsibility are 

clearer as a whole and directly address 

a broader range of inappropriate 

conduct. 

DATES: These final rules will be effective 

August 1, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Taheri, Office of Appellate 

Operations, Social Security 

Administration, 5107 Leesburg Pike, 

Falls Church, VA 22041, (703) 605– 

7100. For information on eligibility or 

filing for benefits, call our national tollfree number, 1–800–772–1213 or TTY 

1–800–325–0778, or visit our internet 

site, Social Security Online, at http://

www.socialsecurity.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Although the vast majority of 

representatives conducting business 

before us on behalf of Social Security 

beneficiaries and claimants ethically 

and conscientiously assist their clients, 

we are concerned that some 

representatives are using our processes 

in a way that undermines the integrity 

of our programs and harms claimants. 

Accordingly, we are clarifying that 

certain actions are prohibited, and we 

are providing additional means to 

address representative actions that do 

not serve the best interests of claimants. 

On August 16, 2016,1 we published a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

in the Federal Register in which we 

proposed clarifications and revisions to 

our rules of conduct for representatives. 

To the extent that we adopt a proposed 

change as final without revision, and we 

already discussed at length the reason 

for and details of the proposal, we will 

not repeat that information here. 

In response to the NPRM, we received 

154 timely submitted comments that 

addressed issues within the scope of our 

proposed rules. Based on those 

comments, we are modifying some of 

our proposed changes to address 

concerns that commenters raised. We 

have also made editorial changes 

consistent with plain language writing 

requirements. We made conforming 

changes in other sections not originally 

edited in the NPRM. Finally, we made 

changes to ensure correct paragraph 

punctuation in §§ 404.1740 and 

416.1540; a nomenclature change to 

reflect the organization of our agency in 

§§ 404.1765(b)(1) and 416.1565(b)(1); 

and updated a cross-reference in 

§§ 404.1755 and 416.1555 that refers to 

§§ 404.1745 and 416.1545, sections 

reorganized and rewritten in the NPRM 

and codified in the final rule. 

Public Comments and Discussion 

Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that our proposed rules would 

deter potential representatives from 

representing claimants in Social 

Security matters. 

Response: These rules reflect our 

interest in protecting claimants and 

ensuring the integrity of our 

administrative process, and they do not 

impose unreasonable standards of 

conduct. These additional rules of 

conduct should not deter competent, 

knowledgeable, and principled 

representatives. 

Comment: Some commenters objected 

to the provision in proposed 

§ 404.1705(b)(4) and 416.1505(b)(4), 

which includes ‘‘persons convicted of a 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES