Safety Standard for Frame Child Carriers, 28458-28467 [2014-11193]
Download as PDF
28458
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 79, No. 95
Friday, May 16, 2014
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL
PROTECTION
12 CFR Part 1005
[Docket No. CFPB–2014–0008]
RIN 3170–AA45
Electronic Fund Transfers (Regulation
E)
Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection.
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of
comment period.
AGENCY:
On April 25, 2014, the Bureau
of Consumer Financial Protection
(Bureau) published in the Federal
Register a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking proposing amendments to
certain requirements set forth in subpart
B of Regulation E related to remittance
transfers (Remittance Proposal). The
Remittance Proposal allowed a 30-day
comment period that will end on May
27, 2014. To allow interested persons
additional time to consider and submit
their responses, the Bureau has
determined that an extension of the
comment period until June 6, 2014, is
appropriate.
SUMMARY:
The comment period for the
Remittance Proposal published April
25, 2014, at 79 FR 23233, is extended.
Responses must now be received on or
before June 6, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. CFPB–2014–
0008 or RIN 3170–AA45, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier:
Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive
Secretary, Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20552.
Instructions: All submissions should
include the agency name and docket
number or Regulatory Information
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking.
Because paper mail in the Washington,
EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
DC area and at the Bureau is subject to
delay, commenters are encouraged to
submit comments electronically. In
general, all comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov. In addition,
comments will be available for public
inspection and copying at 1700 G Street
NW., Washington, DC 20552, on official
business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You can
make an appointment to inspect the
documents by telephoning (202) 435–
7275.
All comments, including attachments
and other supporting materials, will
become part of the public record and
subject to public disclosure. Sensitive
personal information, such as account
numbers or Social Security numbers,
should not be included. Comments
generally will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general inquiries, submission process
questions, or any additional
information, please contact Monica
Jackson, Office of the Executive
Secretary, 202–435–7275.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April
15, 2014, the Bureau issued the
Remittance Proposal. The Remittance
Proposal was published in the Federal
Register on April 25, 2014. The
Remittance Proposal seeks comment,
data and information from the public
about proposed amendments to certain
disclosure and error resolution
requirements set forth in subpart B of
Regulation E, which implements the
Electronic Fund Transfers Act. Among
other clarifying amendments and
technical corrections, the Remittance
Proposal would extend a temporary
provision that permits insured
institutions to estimate certain pricing
disclosures pursuant to section 1073 of
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act. Absent
further action by the Bureau, that
exception expires on July 21, 2015.
The comment period on the
Remittance Proposal was to close on
May 27, 2014.
The Bureau has received a number of
oral and written requests from industry
trade groups asking that the Bureau
extend the Remittance Proposal
comment period. The requests indicated
that additional time would enable
interested parties to more thoroughly
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
evaluate and respond to the specific
issues raised in the proposal.
The Bureau balances interested
parties’ desire to have additional time to
consider the issues raised in the
Remittance Proposal, gather data, and
prepare their responses, with the need
to provide industry and consumers with
certainty and ample time to plan in
advance of July 21, 2015, the date by
which, absent further action by the
Bureau, the temporary exception is set
to expire. Accordingly, the Bureau
determines an extension of the comment
period is appropriate and is extending
the period allotted for comments
received pursuant to the Remittance
Proposal for 10 additional days. The
comment period will now close on June
6, 2014.
Dated: May 12, 2014.
Richard Cordray,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection.
[FR Doc. 2014–11421 Filed 5–15–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1230
[Docket No. CPSC–2014–0011]
Safety Standard for Frame Child
Carriers
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Danny Keysar Child
Product Safety Notification Act, section
104 of the Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA),
requires the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission
(Commission or CPSC) to promulgate
consumer product safety standards for
durable infant or toddler products.
These standards are to be ‘‘substantially
the same as’’ applicable voluntary
standards or more stringent than the
voluntary standard if the Commission
concludes that more stringent
requirements would further reduce the
risk of injury associated with the
product. The Commission is proposing
a safety standard for frame child carriers
in response to the direction under
section 104(b) of the CPSIA. In addition,
the Commission is proposing an
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM
16MYP1
EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules
amendment to the list of Notice of
Requirements (NOR) issued by the
Commission.
DATES: Submit comments by July 30,
2014.
ADDRESSES: Comments related to the
Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the
marking, labeling, and instructional
literature of the proposed mandatory
standard for frame child carriers should
be directed to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, the Office of
Management and Budget, Attn: CPSC
Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–6974, or
emailed to oira_submission@
omb.eop.gov.
Other comments, identified by Docket
No. CPSC–2014–0011, may be
submitted electronically or in writing:
Electronic Submissions: Submit
electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
The Commission does not accept
comments submitted by electronic mail
(email), except through
www.regulations.gov. The Commission
encourages you to submit electronic
comments by using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, as described above.
Written Submissions: Submit written
submissions in the following way: Mail/
Hand delivery/Courier, preferably in
five copies, to: Office of the Secretary,
Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Room 820, 4330 East-West Highway,
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301)
504–7923.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this proposed
rulemaking. All comments received may
be posted without change, including
any personal identifiers, contact
information, or other personal
information provided, to: https://
www.regulations.gov. Do not submit
confidential business information, trade
secret information, or other sensitive or
protected information that you do not
want to be available to the public. If
furnished at all, such information
should be submitted in writing.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to: https://
www.regulations.gov, and insert the
docket number, CPSC–2014–0011, into
the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the
prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia L. Edwards, Project Manager,
Directorate for Engineering Sciences,
U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 5 Research Place,
Rockville, MD 20850; email: pedwards@
cpsc.gov.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Statutory Authority
The CPSIA was enacted on August 14,
2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, part
of the Danny Keysar Child Product
Safety Notification Act, requires the
Commission to: (1) Examine and assess
the effectiveness of voluntary consumer
product safety standards for durable
infant or toddler products, in
consultation with representatives of
consumer groups, juvenile product
manufacturers, and independent child
product engineers and experts; and (2)
promulgate consumer product safety
standards for durable infant and toddler
products. Standards issued under
section 104 are to be ‘‘substantially the
same as’’ the applicable voluntary
standards or more stringent than the
voluntary standard if the Commission
concludes that more stringent
requirements would further reduce the
risk of injury associated with the
product.
The term ‘‘durable infant or toddler
product’’ is defined in section 104(f)(1)
of the CPSIA as ‘‘a durable product
intended for use, or that may be
reasonably expected to be used, by
children under the age of 5 years.’’
Section 104(f)(2)(I) of the CPSIA
specifically identifies ‘‘infant carriers’’
as a durable infant or toddler product.
The category of infant carriers covers a
variety of products. The Commission
has previously issued rules under
section 104 for other infant carriers:
specifically, for hand-held infant
carriers and for soft infant and toddler
carriers.
Pursuant to section 104(b)(1)(A), the
Commission consulted with
manufacturers, retailers, trade
organizations, laboratories, consumer
advocacy groups, consultants, and
members of the public in the
development of this proposed standard,
largely through the ASTM process. The
proposed rule is based on the voluntary
standard developed by ASTM
International (formerly the American
Society for Testing and Materials),
ASTM F2549–14, Standard Consumer
Safety Specification for Frame Child
Carriers, with one proposed
modification to specify requirements for
the retention system performance test to
provide clear pass/fail criteria for the
carrier’s restraints.
The ASTM standard is copyrighted,
but the standard can be viewed as a
read-only document during the
comment period on this proposal only,
at: https://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm, by
permission of ASTM.
The testing and certification
requirements of section 14(a) of the
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28459
Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)
apply to the standards promulgated
under section 104 of the CPSIA. Section
14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the
Commission to publish an NOR for the
accreditation of third party conformity
assessment bodies (test laboratories) to
assess conformity with a children’s
product safety rule to which a children’s
product is subject. The proposed rule
for frame child carriers, if issued as a
final rule, will be a children’s product
safety rule that requires the issuance of
an NOR. To meet the requirement that
the Commission issue an NOR for the
frame child carriers standard, the draft
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR)
proposes to amend 16 CFR part 1112.
II. Product Description
A. Definition of Frame Child Carrier
The scope section of ASTM F2549–14
defines a ‘‘frame child carrier’’ as ‘‘a
product normally of sewn fabric
construction on a tubular metal or other
frame, which is designed to carry a
child, in an upright position, on the
back of the caregiver.’’ The intended
occupants of frame child carriers are
children who are able to sit upright
unassisted and weigh between 16 and
50 pounds. Frame child carriers are
intended to be worn on the back and
suspended from both shoulders of the
caregiver’s body in a forward- or rearfacing position. This type of carrier is
often used for hiking and typically
closely resembles hiking/
mountaineering backpacks not intended
to be used for transporting children.
B. Market Description
CPSC staff is aware of 15 firms
currently supplying frame child carriers
to the U.S. market, although additional
firms may supply these products to U.S.
consumers. Most of these firms
specialize in the manufacture and/or
distribution of one of two distinct types
of products: (1) Children’s products,
including durable nursery products; or
(2) outdoor products, such as camping
and hiking gear. The majority of the 15
known firms are domestic (including
four manufacturers, seven importers,
and one firm whose supply source
could not be determined). The
remaining three firms are foreign
(including two manufacturers and one
firm that imports products from foreign
companies and distributes them from
outside of the United States).
III. Incident Data
CPSC’s Directorate for Epidemiology,
Division of Hazard Analysis, is aware of
a total of 47 frame child carrier-related
incidents reported to CPSC that
E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM
16MYP1
28460
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules
occurred between January 1, 2003 and
October 27, 2013. Although there were
no fatalities in the 47 incidents, 33
injuries were reported. Twenty-eight of
the reports were received through the
National Electronic Injury Surveillance
System (NEISS). According to reports,
the oldest child involved in an incident
was 3 years old. For some incidents, the
age of the child was not reported
because no injury was involved, or the
age of the child was unknown.
A. Fatalities
The incident data did not include any
reports of fatalities.
EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Nonfatalities
Among the 33 reported nonfatal
injuries, there were no hospitalizations.
More than half of these incidents
reported a serious injury, such as a
closed-head injury1 or a fracture of the
leg or face. The other reported injuries
ranged from head/facial lacerations, to
dislocated arms and contusions and
abrasions.
A majority of the injuries resulted
from falls from the frame child carrier.
Many of the falls occurred when
children slipped out of the frame child
carrier through leg openings; in other
scenarios, children fell out when
carriers, placed on elevated surfaces,
toppled over, or when caregivers fell
when carrying the infant in the carrier.
For other falls, the specifics of the
circumstances were not reported.
Certain non-fall injuries occurred when
the frame child carrier tipped over due
to instability when the carrier was
placed upright on the floor, or from
caregiver errors in placing/removing the
child in or from the carrier. The
remaining 14 incident reports indicated
that no injury had occurred or else
provided no information about any
injury. However, many of the 14
incident reports described scenarios that
CPSC staff believes presented the
potential for a serious injury or even
death.
C. Hazard Pattern Identification
CPSC staff reviewed all 47 reported
incidents (33 with injuries and 14
without injuries) to identify hazard
patterns associated with frame child
carriers. Subsequently, CPSC staff
considered each pattern when reviewing
the adequacy of ASTM F2549–14.
Staff grouped the incidents into three
broad categories of hazard patterns
(product-related, non-product-related,
1 According to staff from the Directorate for
Health Sciences, a closed head injury is a head
injury where the skull remained intact but it can
range in severity from a minor bump to a severe
life-threatening traumatic brain injury.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
and unknown); staff then further
classified the incidents within each
category. In order of frequency of
incident reports, the hazard patterns are
described below:
1. Product Related: Twenty-nine of
the 47 incidents, including 15 of the 33
injuries, were attributed to productrelated issues. The specific productrelated issues were:
• Structural integrity of the frame
child carrier was identified as a problem
in 11 (23 percent) of the 47 incidents.
Reported problems included:
Æ Failure of caregiver’s attachment
components;
Æ Poor quality stitching on straps;
Æ Detachment of the cloth component
from the frame; and
Æ Loose screws or breakage of the
frame, which resulted in an abrasion
injury.
A review of the data shows that each
of the 11 incidents involved carriers
manufactured before the initial
publication of ASTM F2549 in 2006.
• Stability problems of the frame
child carrier were reported in nine
incidents (19 percent); all nine incidents
resulted in an injury to the head/face of
the child. In some cases, when the
carrier was placed on an elevated
surface, the infant fell out of the carrier
as the carrier toppled over. In other
cases, when the carrier was at ground
level, the infant fell along with the
carrier when the carrier tipped over. All
nine incidents were from NEISS reports;
and thus, information about the carrier
and details about the incident are
unknown. Three of the nine incidents
occurred before 2006, and thus,
involved carriers that were
manufactured before the initial
publication of ASTM F2549.
• Leg opening problems were
reported in seven incidents (15 percent).
In these cases, the leg holes were large
enough to allow the child to slip out or
almost slip out of the carrier. In a few
of these incidents, the consumer also
expressed concern about the potential
risk of strangulation if the child were to
get trapped in the process of slipping
out through the opening. This category
includes four injuries to the head and/
or face due to a fall. Three of the seven
incidents involved carriers
manufactured after ASTM F2549 was
first published.
• Restraint inadequacy was reported
in two incidents (4 percent); one was a
NEISS incident that occurred in 2005,
and the other incident occurred in 2009.
In both cases, the caregiver bent over,
and the restraints somehow failed to
prevent the child from sliding out from
the top. One injury is included in this
category.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2. Non-Product-Related: Nine
incidents (19 percent) involving nine
injuries were not attributable to any
product-related failure or defect. Five of
the incidents resulted in arm dislocation
injuries during the placement/removal
of the child in or out of the frame child
carrier. The remaining four incidents
resulted in injuries (leg fracture, closedhead injury, and facial laceration, for
example) when the caregiver slipped or
tripped and fell, with the child in the
carrier.
3. Unknown: There were nine NEISS
incidents (19 percent) reported that
provided very few scenario-specific
details. Staff could not determine
whether there was any product
involvement or any hazardous external
circumstances. All of the incidents
resulted in injuries to the head and/or
face due to falls.
D. Product Recalls
There have been two product recalls
involving frame child carriers from
January 1, 2003 to October 27, 2013.
One recall involved 4,000 units, and the
other recall involved 40 units.
IV. Other Relevant Standards
A. International Standards
CPSC is aware of one international
standard, EN 13209–1:2004, European/
British Standard for Child use and care
articles—Baby carriers—Safety
requirements and test methods—Part 1:
Framed back carriers, which addresses
frame child carriers in a fashion similar
to ASTM F2549–14. Although there are
differences between the two standards,
CPSC believes that the ASTM standard
is more stringent in most areas and
addresses most of the hazard patterns
seen in the CPSC incident data. The
exception is the test requirement for the
occupant retention system (known as
the child-restraint system in the EN
standard). The EN standard has clear
pass/fail requirements for restraint
performance, and the ASTM standard
does not. Both standards include a test
procedure that rotates the carrier a full
360 degrees when occupied by a
surrogate dummy. In addition, both
standards include procedures that apply
forces to the retention straps,
attachment points, and the dummy legs.
The EN standard requirement states that
the dummy shall not fall completely out
of the restraint system and that the
attachment of the restraint system shall
not break, deform, work loose, or
become torn/displaced. Additionally,
the EN standard requires that fasteners
shall not be released or have suffered
damage that impairs their operation and
function. The ASTM standard does not
E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM
16MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules
contain any of this language, and
therefore, as discussed in section V of
the preamble, and as reflected in the
language of the proposed
§ 1230.2(b)(1)(i), the Commission’s
proposed standard includes a
modification to ASTM F2549 that
would specify test criteria similar to
those provided in the EN standard.
B. Voluntary Standard—ASTM F2549
EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. History of ASTM F2549
The voluntary standard for frame
child carriers was first approved and
published in December 2006, as ASTM
F2549–06, Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Frame Child Carriers.
ASTM has revised the voluntary
standard five times since then. The
current version, ASTM F2549–14, was
approved on January 1, 2014.
The original version, ASTM F2549–
06, contained requirements to address
the following issues:
• Sharp points
• Small parts
• Lead in paint
• Wood parts
• Scissoring, shearing, pinching
• Openings
• Exposed coil springs
• Locking and latching (for carriers that
fold for storage, this requirement
helps prevent unintentional folding)
• Unintentional folding (for carriers
with kick stands that can stand freely,
this requirement helps prevent the
unintentional folding of the kick
stand)
• Labeling
• Protective components
• Leg openings (to help prevent smaller
occupants from falling out of the
carrier through a single leg opening)
• Dynamic strength (tests the frame,
fasteners, and seams/stitching under
dynamic conditions to help prevent
breakage or separation)
• Static load (ensures the carrier can
hold three times the maximum
recommended weight)
• Stability (for carriers that can stand
freely, this helps prevent an occupied
carrier from tipping over during
normal use)
• Restraints (requires that all carriers
have a restraint system and also
provides a method for testing the
restraints)
• Handle integrity (helps prevent the
handle from breaking or separating
when it is pulled with three times the
maximum recommended weight)
ASTM F2549–08 (approved
November 1, 2008) addressed the
following issues:
• New flammability requirements for
carriers
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
• New toy accessory requirements
• A revised unintentional folding test
procedure, adding a weight load to
mimic an occupant in the carrier.
ASTM F2549–09 (approved April 1,
2009) addressed the following issue:
• A revised dynamic strength test
procedure because some carrier designs
could not be tested using the old
method.
ASTM F2549–09a (approved July 1,
2009) addressed the following issue:
• Change of the reference to the
flammable solids requirement [16 CFR
1500.3(C)(6)(vi)] to correct an editorial
error.
ASTM F2549–13 (approved
November 1, 2013) addressed the
following issues:
• A revised leg opening test
procedure to reflect the use of the
product better and explain what is
happening in incident reports where
children were slipping through a leg
opening.
• A revised scope to include carriers
rated for weights up to 50 pounds,
which reflects the existing market for
frame child carriers.
ASTM F2549–14 (approved January 1,
2014) addressed the following issue:
• A revised dynamic strength test to
accommodate the greater weight rating
(which was changed in version F2549–
13).
2. Description of the Current Voluntary
Standard—ASTM F2549–14
We believe that the current voluntary
standard, ASTM F2549–14, sufficiently
addresses the primary hazard patterns
identified in the incident data. The
following section discusses how each of
the identified hazard patterns listed
above is addressed by the current
voluntary standard, ASTM F2549–14.
Structural Integrity
ASTM F2549–14 uses a dynamic
strength test and a static load test to
assess the structural integrity of frame
child carriers. We are aware of 11
reported incidents associated with the
structural integrity of carriers that
occurred before the first publication of
ASTM F2549 in 2006. No incidents
have been reported involving carriers
manufactured since 2006. Thus, we
believe that the combination of the
dynamic strength and static load tests
are adequate to address the issues
associated with structural integrity.
Stability Problems
A total of nine tip-over incidents were
reported to CPSC, all through hospital
emergency departments with very few
scenario-specific details. CPSC staff’s
review of these incident reports shows
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28461
that three incidents involved carriers
falling from elevated surfaces. The fall
hazard and recommendations to
mitigate this hazard, including not
placing the carrier on counter tops,
tables, or other elevated surfaces, are
specified in a warning label
requirement. The standard requires this
warning label to be in a conspicuous
location, visible to the caregiver each
time the occupant is placed in the
carrier, or when the caregiver places the
product on his or her body.
In addition to the warning label
requirement, the current voluntary
standard includes a stability
requirement and associated test
procedure so that carriers that use a
kickstand can remain in an upright
position and are stable. When used
correctly, a kickstand is designed to
make the carrier stable so that the child
can remain safely in the carrier just
before and immediately after being
carried by the caregiver. CPSC considers
the stability test in the ASTM standard
to be strong, and thus, we view the test
as capable of discerning stable versus
unstable carriers.
Based on the reasons outlined above,
CPSC believes that ASTM F2549–14
adequately addresses stability issues
through the use of both a warning label
and a strong test requirement and
associated test procedure. Thus, CPSC is
not proposing any modifications to the
ASTM standard to address this hazard
pattern.
Leg Opening Problems
Leg opening problems were reported
in seven incidents. In those cases, the
carrier’s leg holes were large enough to
allow the child to slip out or almost slip
out of the carrier. In a few of these
incidents, the consumer also expressed
concern about the potential risk of
strangulation if the child slipped out
through the opening. This category of
incidents includes four head/face
injuries from falls. A closer look
revealed that four of the seven incidents
occurred before the standard was
published. After initial publication of
the standard in October 2006, no other
leg opening incidents were reported
until 2012. During a 6-month period
between August 2012 and January 2013,
three new leg opening incidents
occurred.
Because of the new incidents, CPSC
staff began working with ASTM in
spring 2013, to update the leg opening
test in ASTM F2549–09a. CPSC staff
collected 10 carriers from a variety of
suppliers, including the carrier involved
in the three incidents, and staff tested
each carrier to the leg opening
requirement in ASTM F2549–09a. This
E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM
16MYP1
28462
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules
V. Proposed Change to ASTM F2549–14
in the Proposed Mandatory Standard
ASTM juvenile product standards
generally include sections that provide
performance requirements and test
methods. The performance requirement
section spells out the pass/fail criteria
associated with various requirements,
while the test method section outlines
the procedures for conducting the tests
that need to be performed to determine
whether the product meets the pass/fail
criteria. Although some performance
requirements do not have an associated
test method, all test methods must have
an associated performance (or general)
requirement.
ASTM F2549–14 contains a
performance requirement and a test
procedure intended to address the
hazard patterns associated with frame
child carriers. However, CPSC
concludes that a change to the ASTM
standard’s performance requirement is
needed to address restraint hazards
adequately. The current performance
requirement associated with the
retention (restraint) system for frame
child carriers states:
Restraints
EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
test requires the carrier to be adjusted to
the smallest leg opening; and then a 7pound, 16.5-inch circumference test
sphere 2 is placed in the carrier. Next,
the carrier is tilted until the leg opening
is horizontal, and then the carrier is
held in that position for an additional
minute. The test is repeated for the
other leg opening. To pass the test, the
sphere must not pass through either leg
opening. CPSC staff found that all 10
carriers that were tested passed the
requirement specified in ASTM F2549–
09a.
CPSC staff, with the help of an ASTM
task group, developed a more stringent
test method that addressed the recent
incidents. Instead of being adjusted to
the smallest leg opening, carriers were
fitted around a CAMI Infant Dummy
Mark II (modeled after a 50th percentile
6-month old child). Four of the 10
carriers failed the modified leg-opening
test. Notably, one of the carriers that
failed the modified test was associated
with the recent incident reports of
children falling through leg openings.
In fall 2013, ASTM balloted a revised
test procedure for leg openings that was
developed by CPSC staff and the ASTM
task group. This ballot item passed and
was included in the revised standard,
F2549–13. With the inclusion of this
recently revised leg-opening test
method, CPSC believes that the current
voluntary standard is now adequate to
address leg-opening hazards.
Although we believe the current
standard adequately addresses the three
hazard patterns described above, we
will continue to monitor incidents and
work with ASTM to make any necessary
future changes.
The retention system test procedure
(section 7.5 of the standard) has three
parts. Under the first part, a 45-lbf
(pound-force) is applied to a single
attachment point of the retention
system. The second part of the test
procedure requires a CAMI Infant
Dummy Mark II to be placed in the
carrier with the restraint system
secured. Then, a 45-lbf is applied
horizontally on the centerline of either
leg of the dummy and repeated five
times. For the third part of the test
procedure, the carrier, containing the
CAMI dummy, is lifted and rotated
backwards 360° about the axis of the
intersection of the seat back and bottom.
The carrier is then rotated 360° around
the axis of the side edge of the seat
bottom.
CPSC believes that the purpose of the
first two parts of the test procedure is to
help ensure that the retention system
and all buckles do not break, disengage,
There were two reported incidents of
restraint inadequacy. One was a NEISS
report of a child falling out of a carrier
when the caregiver leaned forward. This
report contained no information
regarding whether the restraints were
used properly or how the restraints were
involved. The other incident involved
an 8-month-old child who stood up and
almost fell out of the carrier while the
caregiver was leaning forward. In the
latter incident, we do not know what
happened to the shoulder straps, but the
report mentioned that the restraints
might have been adjusted to be too
loose. There was no report that the
restraints broke in any way or became
loose on their own.
2 The
test sphere size is based on the hip
circumference of the smallest child likely to use the
frame child carrier (3 to 5 months of age).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
6.5 Retention System:
6.5.1 A retention system, including a
shoulder restraint, shall be provided to
secure the occupant in a seated position in
any of the manufacturer’s recommended use
positions when tested in accordance with
7.5.
6.5.2 Before shipment, the manufacturer
shall attach the retention system in such a
manner that it will not detach in normal
usage.
6.5.3 If the retention system includes a
crotch restraint designed to work with a lap
belt, it shall be designed such that its use is
mandatory when the retention system is in
use.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
or separate at any seams. In addition,
CPSC believes the purpose of the third
part of the test procedure is to help
ensure that the CAMI dummy does not
fall out of the carrier. Therefore, CPSC
concludes that the standard should
express these goals as criteria to
determine whether restraint systems
comply with the performance
requirements. However, these pass/fail
criteria are not mentioned explicitly in
the performance requirement section of
ASTM F2549–14. CPSC believes the
frame child carriers standard should
include explicit pass/fail criteria.
Without this change to the standard, a
frame child carrier that is undergoing
testing could fail the intended criteria
but still be deemed to comply with the
standard. Thus, correcting the standard
prevents this from happening and, in
effect, makes the standard more
stringent. Staff consulted with
representatives from two test
laboratories and the ASTM
subcommittee chairman about the lack
of explicit pass/fail criteria in the ASTM
standard’s requirements for retention
systems. Test laboratory personnel
reported that they likely had not tested
any frame child carriers that should
have failed the purpose of the
requirement; otherwise, the test
laboratory personnel would have noted
the lack of stated criteria previously.
Both the consulted test laboratory
representatives and the ASTM
subcommittee chairman agreed that the
requirement should be revised so that
the purpose of the restraint performance
test is expressed clearly. With the help
of the test laboratory personnel, staff
developed a revised requirement using
language found in similar requirements
in the EN standard and the ASTM high
chair and stroller standards. CPSC staff
suggested language to explicitly require
that buckles shall not break, disengage,
or separate and that all fasteners cannot
become damaged to the point that the
restraint system will not function as a
result of the test. In addition, staff
suggested language that requires that the
CAMI dummy not fall out of the carrier.
In February 2014, staff wrote a letter to
the ASTM subcommittee chairman,3
outlining the suggested new language,
and asking that the matter be discussed
at the next ASTM meeting. During the
April 9, 2014 ASTM subcommittee
meeting, the letter (including the
recommended language) was shared
with the subcommittee. The
subcommittee agreed to ballot the
3 https://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Regulations-Lawsand-Standards/Voluntary-Standards/VoluntaryStandards-Reports/Frame%20Infant%20Carriers/
LetterToASTMFrameCarriers21014.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM
16MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules
EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
proposed language for inclusion in the
next revision of the standard.
Accordingly, proposed
§ 1230.2(b)(1)(i)(D) includes a
modification to the ASTM standard’s
retention system performance
requirement in section 6.5, by adding a
new section 6.5.4 that would require
that when the frame child carrier
restraints are tested in accordance with
section 7.5 of the voluntary standard,
the restraint system and its closing
means (for example, a buckle) shall not
break, disengage or separate at any seam
and all fasteners shall not release or
suffer damage that impairs the operation
and function of the restraint system.
Additionally, at the end of the tests, the
CAMI dummy shall not be released fully
or fall out of the carrier.
VI. Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112 To
Include NOR for Frame Child Carriers
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. Id. 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. Id. 2063(a)(3). Thus, the
proposed rule for 16 CFR part 1230,
Safety Standard for Frame Child
Carriers, if issued as a final rule, would
be a children’s product safety rule that
requires the issuance of an NOR.
The Commission published a final
rule, Requirements Pertaining to Third
Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78
FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), codified at
16 CFR part 1112 (referred to here as
part 1112) and effective on June 10,
2013, that establishes requirements for
accreditation of third party conformity
assessment bodies 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 all of the NORs that have been
issued previously by the Commission.
All new NORs for new children’s
product safety rules, such as the frame
child carriers standard, require an
amendment to part 1112. To meet the
requirement that the Commission issue
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
an NOR for the proposed frame child
carriers standard, as part of this NPR,
the Commission proposes to amend the
existing rule that codifies the list of all
NORs issued by the Commission to add
frame child carriers to the list of
children’s product safety rules for
which the CPSC has issued an NOR.
Test laboratories applying for
acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third
party conformity assessment body to
test to the new standard for frame child
carriers would be required to meet the
third party conformity assessment body
accreditation requirements in part 1112.
When a laboratory meets the
requirements as a CPSC-accepted third
party conformity assessment body, the
laboratory can apply to the CPSC to
have 16 CFR part 1230, Safety Standard
for Frame Child Carriers, included in
the laboratory’s scope of accreditation of
CPSC safety rules listed for the
laboratory on the CPSC Web site at:
www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.
VII. Effective Date
The Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) generally requires that the
effective date of a rule be at least 30
days after publication of the final rule.
5 U.S.C. 553(d). The Commission is
proposing an effective date of six
months after publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register. Without
evidence to the contrary, CPSC
generally considers six months to be
sufficient time for suppliers to come
into compliance with a new standard,
and a six-month effective date is typical
for other CPSIA section 104 rules. Six
months is also the period that the
Juvenile Products Manufacturers
Association (JPMA) typically allows for
products in the JPMA certification
program to transition to a new standard
once that standard is published. The
Commission does not expect the
modification proposed for frame child
carriers to cause any changes to existing
products.
We also propose a six-month effective
date for the amendment to part 1112.
We ask for comments on the proposed
six-month effective date.
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
A. Introduction
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
requires that agencies review a proposed
rule for the rule’s potential economic
impact on small entities, including
small businesses. Section 603 of the
RFA generally requires that agencies
prepare an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) and make the analysis
available to the public for comment
when the agency publishes a notice of
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28463
proposed rulemaking. The IRFA must
describe the impact of the proposed rule
on small entities and identify any
alternatives that may reduce the impact.
Specifically, the IRFA must contain:
• A description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities to which the proposed
rule will apply;
• a description of the reasons why
action by the agency is being
considered;
• a succinct statement of the
objectives of, and legal basis for, the
proposed rule;
• a description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the
proposed rule, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities subject to
the requirements and the types of
professional skills necessary for the
preparation of reports or records; and
• an identification, to the extent
possible, of all relevant federal rules
which may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed rule.
B. Market Description
CPSC is aware of 15 firms currently
supplying frame child carriers to the
U.S. market, although additional firms
may supply these products to U.S.
customers. Most of these firms
specialize in the manufacture and/or
distribution of one of two distinct types
of products: (1) children’s products,
including durable nursery products; or
(2) outdoor products, such as camping
and hiking gear. The majority of the 15
known firms are domestic (including
four manufacturers, seven importers,
and one firm whose supply source
could not be determined). The
remaining three firms are foreign
(including two manufacturers and one
firm that imports products from foreign
companies and distributes the products
from outside of the United States).4
According to a 2005 survey conducted
by the American Baby Group (2006
Baby Products Tracking Study),5 32
percent of new mothers owned a frame
child carrier. Approximately 32 percent
of those carriers were handed down or
purchased secondhand,6 and about 68
4 Staff made these determinations using
information from Dun & Bradstreet and
ReferenceUSAGov, as well as firm Web sites.
5 The data collected for the Baby Products
Tracking Study do not represent an unbiased
statistical sample. The sample of 3,600 new and
expectant mothers is drawn from American Baby
magazine’s mailing lists. Additionally, because the
most recent survey information is from 2005, the
data may not reflect the current market.
6 The data on secondhand products for new
mothers were not available. Instead, data for new
mothers and expectant mothers were combined and
E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM
Continued
16MYP1
28464
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules
percent were new when acquired. This
information suggests annual sales of
around 870,000 frame child carriers (.32
× .68 × 4 million births per year),7
typically costing from $100 to around
$300.
C. Reason for Agency Action and Legal
Basis for the Proposed Rule
The Danny Keysar Child Product
Safety Notification Act, section 104 of
the CPSIA, requires the CPSC to
promulgate a mandatory standard that is
substantially the same as, or more
stringent than, the voluntary standard
for a durable infant or toddler product.
The proposed rule implements that
congressional direction.
EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Other Federal Rules
There are two federal rules that would
interact with the frame child carriers
mandatory standard: (1) Testing and
Labeling Pertaining to Product
Certification (16 CFR part 1107); and (2)
Requirements Pertaining to Third Party
Conformity Assessment Bodies (16 CFR
part 1112).
The testing and labeling rule (16 CFR
part 1107) requires that manufacturers
of children’s products subject to
children’s product safety rules certify,
based on third party testing, that the
manufacturers’ children’s products
comply with all applicable children’s
product safety rules. If a final children’s
product safety rule for frame child
carriers is adopted by the Commission,
frame child carriers will be subject to
the third party testing requirements,
including record keeping, when such a
final frame child carriers rule becomes
effective.
In addition, the 16 CFR part 1107 rule
requires the third party testing of
children’s products to be conducted by
CPSC-accepted test laboratories. Section
14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the
Commission to publish an NOR for the
accreditation of third party conformity
assessment bodies to test for
conformance with each children’s
product safety rule. Existing NORs that
have been issued by the Commission are
listed in 16 CFR part 1112.
Consequently, the Commission proposes
to amend 16 CFR part 1112 to add the
frame child carriers rule to the list of
broken into data for first-time mothers and data for
experienced mothers. Data for first-time mothers
and experienced mothers have been averaged to
calculate the approximate percentage of products
that were handed down or purchased secondhand.
7 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital
Statistics System, ‘‘Births: Final Data for 2010,’’
National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 61,
Number 1 (August 28, 2012): Table 1. The number
of births in 2010 is rounded from 3,999,386.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
rules for which the Commission has
issued an NOR.
E. Impact of Proposed 16 CFR Part 1230
on Small Businesses
We are aware of approximately 15
firms currently marketing frame child
carriers in the United States, 12 of
which are domestic firms. Under U.S.
Small Business Administration (SBA)
guidelines, a manufacturer of frame
child carriers is categorized as small if
the firm has 500 or fewer employees,
and importers and wholesalers are
considered small if they have 100 or
fewer employees. We limited our
analysis to domestic firms because SBA
guidelines and definitions pertain to
U.S.-based entities. Based on these
guidelines, about nine of the identified
15 firms are small—three domestic
manufacturers, five domestic importers,
and one domestic firm with an
unknown supply source. There may be
additional unknown small domestic
frame child carrier suppliers operating
in the U.S. market.
Prior to the preparation of a regulatory
flexibility analysis, staff conducts a
screening analysis in order to determine
whether a regulatory flexibility analysis
or a certification statement of no
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities is appropriate
for a proposed rule. The SBA gives
considerable flexibility in defining the
threshold for ‘‘no significant economic
impact.’’ However, staff typically uses 1
percent of gross revenue as a threshold;
unless the impact is expected to fall
below the 1 percent threshold for the
small businesses evaluated, staff
prepares a regulatory flexibility
analysis. Because staff was unable to
demonstrate that the proposed rule
would impose an economic impact less
than 1 percent of gross revenue for the
affected firms, staff conducted an IRFA.
Small Manufacturers. Of the three
small domestic manufacturers, the
proposed rule is likely to have little or
no impact on the two firms whose frame
child carriers comply with the ASTM
voluntary standard currently in effect
for JPMA testing and certification
purposes (ASTM F2549–09a). We
anticipate that these firms will remain
compliant with the voluntary standard
as the standard changes because these
firms follow, and in at least one case,
participate actively in the voluntary
standard development process.
Therefore, compliance with the evolving
voluntary standard is part of an
established business practice. ASTM
F2549–14, the version of the voluntary
standard upon which the proposed rule
is based, will be in effect already for
JPMA testing and certification purposes,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
before a mandatory standard becomes
final, should one be issued by the
Commission; and these firms are likely
to be in compliance based on their
history. Because the proposed
modification to the retention system
requirement consists of specifying pass/
fail criteria already used by test
laboratories, we do not expect the
modification to have an impact on
firms.
The remaining small manufacturer
would experience some economic
impacts of unknown size. Based on
discussions with a company
representative, this firm does not know
whether its products comply with the
voluntary standard, having been
previously unaware of the standard’s
existence. However, the firm indicated
that it might elect to discontinue
production of its frame child carriers,
even if the firm’s frame child carriers
prove to be compliant with the
proposed CPSC standard. The company
believes that the burden associated with
the testing and record-keeping
requirements triggered by a mandatory
frame child carriers standard might
exceed the value of continuing
production. Although this firm
produces many other products, which
should lessen the economic impact, and
indicated that frame child carriers do
not represent a large portion of the
firm’s product line, the firm did not
convey the precise percentage of
revenues that frame child carriers
constitutes for this firm and thus, staff
could not rule out a significant
economic impact on this firm.
Under section 14 of the CPSA, should
the Commission adopt the new frame
child carriers requirements as a final
rule, once the requirements become
effective, all manufacturers will be
subject to the additional costs associated
with the third party testing and
certification requirements under the
testing and labeling rule (16 CFR part
1107). Third party testing will include
any physical and mechanical test
requirements specified in the final
frame child carriers rule that may be
issued; lead and phthalates testing are
already required. Third party testing
costs are in addition to the direct costs
of meeting the frame child carriers
standard.
Several firms were contacted
regarding testing costs and one
estimated that chemical and structural
testing of one unit of a frame child
carrier costs around $1,300. No other
firms were willing or able to supply the
requested testing cost information.
Estimates provided by suppliers for
other section 104 rulemakings indicate
that around 40 percent to 50 percent of
E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM
16MYP1
EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules
testing costs can be attributed to
structural requirements, with the
remaining 50 percent to 60 percent
resulting from chemical testing (e.g.,
lead and phthalates). Therefore, staff
estimates that testing to the ASTM
voluntary standard could cost about
$520 to $650 per sample tested ($1,300
× .4 to $1,300 × .5). These costs are
consistent with testing cost estimates for
products with standards of similar
complexity.
Staff’s review of the frame child
carrier market shows that on average,
each small domestic manufacturer
supplies three different models of frame
child carriers to the U.S. market
annually. Therefore, if third party
testing were conducted every year, third
party testing costs for each manufacturer
would be about $1,560 to $1,950
annually, if only one sample were tested
for each model. Based on an
examination of each small domestic
manufacturer’s revenues from recent
Dun & Bradstreet or Reference USAGov
reports, the impact of third party testing
to ASTM F2549–14 is unlikely to be
economically significant for the three
small domestic manufacturers (i.e.,
testing costs less than one percent of
gross revenue). Although the testing and
labeling rule (16 CFR part 1107) does
not set forth a specific number of
samples firms will need to test to meet
the ‘‘high degree of assurance’’ criterion,
more than 100 units per model would
be required to make testing costs
economically significant for the two
firms with available revenue data. As
described above, the third manufacturer
has already indicated that the firm may
exit the market because of the testing
costs, even if the company’s frame child
carriers meet the requirements of the
voluntary standard.
Small Importers. As noted above,
there are five small importers of frame
child carriers, with three of them
currently importing compliant carriers.
In the absence of a mandatory
regulation, these three small importers
of frame child carriers would likely
remain in compliance with new
versions of the standard. Given that the
three small importers have developed a
pattern of compliance with the ASTM
voluntary standard as the standard
evolves and that the proposed rule does
not differ substantively from the
voluntary standard, ASTM F2549–14, as
applied by test laboratories, the three
small importers of compliant products
would likely experience little or no
direct costs under the proposed rule.
Whether there is a significant
economic impact on the two small
importers with noncompliant frame
child carriers will depend upon the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
extent of the changes required to come
into compliance and the response of
their supplying firms. Because no small
importers with noncompliant frame
child carriers responded to requests for
information, staff cannot estimate the
precise economic impact on these firms.
However, in general, if an importer’s
supplying firm supplies products that
comply with the new standard, the
importer could elect to continue
importing the frame child carriers. Any
increase in production costs
experienced by the importer’s suppliers
as a result of changes made to meet the
mandatory standard may be passed on
to the importer. If an importer is
unwilling or unable to accept the
increased costs, or if the importer’s
supplier decides not to comply with the
mandatory standard, at least three
alternative courses of action are
available. First, the importer could find
another supplier of frame child carriers.
This could result in increased costs as
well, depending, for example, on
whether the alternative supplier must
modify its carriers to comply with the
mandatory standard. Second, the
importer could import a different
product in place of frame child carriers.
This alternative would help mitigate the
economic impact of the mandatory
standard on these firms. Finally, the
importer could stop importing frame
child carriers and make no other
changes to its product line. As with
manufacturers, all importers are subject
to third party testing and certification
requirements. Consequently, if the
Commission adopts a final mandatory
standard for frame child carriers,
importers will be subject to costs similar
to those for manufacturers, if the
importer’s supplying foreign firm(s)
does not perform third party testing. It
does not appear likely that these costs
would have a significant economic
impact on the two small domestic
importers for which revenue
information is available, unless around
20 units per model were required to be
tested to provide a ‘‘high degree of
assurance’’ (i.e., at 20 units tested per
model, testing costs will exceed one
percent of gross revenue for each of
these firms, even if testing costs are
estimated at the lowest level of $520).
The impact on the other three small
importers is unknown.
Alternatives. Under the Danny Keysar
Child Product Safety Notification Act,
one alternative that generally reduces
the impact on small entities is to make
the voluntary standard mandatory with
no modifications. However, in the case
of frame child carriers, no difference in
impact would be expected because the
CPSC proposed modification articulates
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28465
the current standard practice of test
laboratories. Thus, only products that
cannot meet the requirement without
the modification would fail the
requirement with the modification.
Another way that the Commission
could reduce the economic impact of
any proposed regulation, including the
proposed frame child carriers rule, is to
allow for a later effective date. The
Commission proposes a 6-month
effective date, which is the least amount
of time frame child carrier firms familiar
with the applicable ASTM standard
have indicated they would need for new
product development (1.5 years was the
longest estimate, with most firms
suggesting a 6-month to 1-year time
frame). Product redevelopment might be
necessary for some noncompliant firms
to meet the requirements of ASTM
F2549–14; although staff does not
believe that complete redesigns will be
necessary based on preliminary product
testing. In particular, no product
modifications should be necessary to
meet the proposed pass/fail criteria for
the retention system performance
requirement because, as already
mentioned, the proposed requirement
only clarifies what the test laboratories
are already performing. A later effective
date, more in line with the longest
estimate of time required for product
redevelopment, could reduce the
economic impact in two ways. One,
firms are less likely to experience a
lapse in production, which could result
if they are unable to comply within the
required timeframe. Two, firms could
spread costs over a longer time period,
thereby reducing their annual costs, as
well as the present value of their total
costs. In the case of frame child carrier
firms, a longer effective date would
primarily benefit firms with
noncompliant products.
F. Impact of Proposed 16 CFR Part 1112
Amendment on Small Businesses
As required by the RFA, staff
conducted a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA) when the Commission
issued the part 1112 rule (78 FR 15836,
15855–58). Briefly, the FRFA concluded
that the accreditation requirements
would not have a significant adverse
impact on a substantial number of small
test laboratories because no
requirements were imposed on test
laboratories that did not intend to
provide third party testing services. The
only test laboratories that were expected
to provide such services were those that
anticipated receiving sufficient revenue
from the mandated testing to justify
accepting the requirements as a business
decision. Moreover, a test laboratory
would only choose to provide such
E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM
16MYP1
28466
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules
services if it anticipated receiving
revenues sufficient to cover the costs of
the requirements.
Based on similar reasoning, amending
16 CFR part 1112 to include the NOR for
the frame child carriers standard will
not have a significant adverse impact on
small test laboratories. Moreover, based
upon the number of test laboratories in
the United States that have applied for
CPSC acceptance of accreditation to test
for conformance to other mandatory
juvenile product standards, we expect
that only a few test laboratories will
seek CPSC acceptance of their
accreditation to test for conformance
with the frame child carriers standard.
Most of these test laboratories will have
already been accredited to test for
conformance to other mandatory
juvenile product standards, and the only
costs to them would be the cost of
adding the frame child carriers standard
to their scope of accreditation. As a
consequence, the Commission certifies
that the NOR amending 16 CFR part
1112 to include the frame child carriers
standard will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
IX. 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, a rule that has
‘‘little or no potential for affecting the
human environment,’’ is categorically
exempt from this requirement. 16 CFR
1021.5(c)(1). The proposed rule falls
within the categorical exemption.
X. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains
information collection requirements that
are subject to public comment and
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3521). In this document, pursuant to 44
U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth:
• A title for the collection of
information;
• a summary of the collection of
information;
• a brief description of the need for
the information and the proposed use of
the information;
• a description of the likely
respondents and proposed frequency of
response to the collection of
information;
• an estimate of the burden that shall
result from the collection of
information; and
• notice that comments may be
submitted to the OMB.
Title: Safety Standard for Frame Child
Carriers
Description: The proposed rule would
require each frame child carrier to
comply with ASTM F2549–14,
Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Frame Child Carriers.
Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F2549–14
contain requirements for marking,
labeling, and instructional literature.
These requirements fall within the
definition of ‘‘collection of
information,’’ as defined in 44 U.S.C.
3502(3).
Description of Respondents: Persons
who manufacture or import frame child
carriers.
Estimated Burden: We estimate the
burden of this collection of information
as follows:
TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN
Number of
respondents
Frequency of
responses
Total annual
responses
Hours per
response
Total burden
hours
1230.2(a) ..............................................................................
EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16 CFR Section
15
3
45
1
45
Estimates are based on the following:
Section 8.1.1 of ASTM F2549–14
requires that the name and the place of
business (city, state, and mailing
address, including zip code) or
telephone number of the manufacturer,
distributor, or seller be marked clearly
and legibly on each product and its
retail package. Section 8.1.2 of ASTM
F2549–14 requires a code mark or other
means that identifies the date (month
and year, as a minimum) of
manufacture.
There are 15 known entities
supplying frame child carriers to the
U.S. market that might 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. Based on an
evaluation of supplier product lines,
each entity supplies an average of three
different models of frame child
carriers; 8 therefore, the estimated
burden associated with labels is 1 hour
8 This number was derived during the market
research phase of the initial regulatory flexibility
analysis by dividing the total number of frame
carriers supplied by all frame child carrier suppliers
by the total number of frame child carrier suppliers.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
per model × 15 entities × 3 models per
entity = 45 hours. We estimate the
hourly compensation for the time
required to create and update labels is
$27.71 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
‘‘Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation,’’ September 2013, Table
9, total compensation for all sales and
office workers in goods-producing
private industries: https://www.bls.gov/
ncs/). Therefore, the estimated annual
cost to industry associated with the
labeling requirements is $1,246.95
($27.71 per hour × 45 hours =
$1,246.95). There are no operating,
maintenance, or capital costs associated
with the collection.
Section 9.1 of ASTM F2549–14
requires instructions to be supplied
with the product. Frame child carriers
are complicated products that generally
require use and assembly instructions.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
disclosure activities required to comply
are ‘‘usual and customary.’’ Therefore,
because we are unaware of frame child
carriers that generally require use
instructions, but lack such instructions,
we tentatively estimate that there are no
burden hours associated with section
9.1 of ASTM F2549–14 because any
burden associated with supplying
instructions with frame child carriers
would be ‘‘usual and customary’’ and
not within the definition of ‘‘burden’’
under the OMB’s regulations.
Based on this analysis, the proposed
standard for frame child carriers would
impose a burden to industry of 45 hours
at a cost of $1,246.95 annually.
In compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we have submitted the
information collection requirements of
this rule to the OMB for review.
Interested persons are requested to
submit comments regarding information
collection by June 16, 2014, to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB (see the ADDRESSES section at the
beginning of this notice).
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A),
we invite comments on:
E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM
16MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules
• Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the CPSC’s functions,
including whether the information will
have practical utility;
• the accuracy of the CPSC’s estimate
of the burden of the proposed collection
of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
• ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected;
• ways to reduce the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of
information technology; and
• the estimated burden hours
associated with label modification,
including any alternative estimates.
XI. Preemption
Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2075(a), provides that 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 would apply to a rule issued
under section 104.
EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
XII. Request for Comments
This NPR begins a rulemaking
proceeding under section 104(b) of the
CPSIA to issue a consumer product
safety standard for frame child carriers,
and to amend part 1112 to add frame
child carriers to the list of children’s
product safety rules for which the CPSC
has issued an NOR. We invite all
interested persons to submit comments
on any aspect of the proposed
mandatory safety standard for frame
child carriers and on the proposed
amendment to part 1112. Specifically,
the Commission requests comments on
the costs of compliance with, and
testing to, the proposed frame child
carriers safety standard, the proposed
six-month effective date for the new
mandatory frame child carriers safety
standard, and the amendment to part
1112.
Comments should be submitted in
accordance with the instructions in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of
this notice.
List of Subjects
16 CFR Part 1112
Administrative practice and
procedure, Audit, Consumer protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Third party conformity
assessment body.
16 CFR Part 1230
Consumer protection, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Infants and
children, Labeling, Law enforcement,
and Toys.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Commission proposes to
amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 1112—REQUIREMENTS
PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY
CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT BODIES
1. The authority citation for part 1112
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2063; Pub. L. 110–
314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008).
2. Amend § 1112.15 by adding
paragraph (b)(38) 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) (38) 16 CFR part 1230, Safety
Standard for Frame Child Carriers.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Add part 1230 to read as follows:
PART 1230—SAFETY STANDARD FOR
FRAME CHILD CARRIERS
Sec.
1230.1 Scope.
1230.2 Requirements for Frame Child
Carriers.
Authority: The Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110–314,
§ 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Pub.
L. 112–28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).
§ 1230.1
Scope.
This part establishes a consumer
product safety standard for frame child
carriers.
§ 1230.2 Requirements for Frame Child
Carriers.
(a) Each frame child carrier must
comply with all applicable provisions of
ASTM F2549–14, Standard Consumer
Safety Specification for Frame Child
Carriers, approved on January 1, 2014.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
28467
from ASTM International, 100 Bar
Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428; https://
www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may
inspect a copy at the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330
East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD
20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at
the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal
regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) Comply with ASTM F2549–14
standard with the following exception:
(1) Instead of complying with section
6.5 of ASTM F2549–14, comply with
the following:
(i) 6.5 Retention System:
(A) 6.5.1 A retention system,
including a shoulder restraint, shall be
provided to secure the occupant in a
seated position in any of the
manufacturer’s recommended use
positions.
(B) 6.5.2 Before shipment, the
manufacturer shall attach the retention
system in such a manner that it will not
detach in normal usage.
(C) 6.5.3 If the retention system
includes a crotch restraint designed to
work with a lap belt, it shall be designed
such that its use is mandatory when the
retention system is in use.
(D) 6.5.4 When tested in accordance
with 7.5, the restraint system and its
closing means (for example, a buckle)
shall not break, disengage or separate at
any seam and all fasteners shall not
release or suffer damage that impairs the
operation and function of the restraint
system. At the end of the tests, the
CAMI dummy shall not be released fully
or fall out of the carrier.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) [Reserved]
Dated: May 12, 2014.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014–11193 Filed 5–15–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM
16MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 95 (Friday, May 16, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28458-28467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11193]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1230
[Docket No. CPSC-2014-0011]
Safety Standard for Frame Child Carriers
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act,
section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008
(CPSIA), requires the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission
(Commission or CPSC) to promulgate consumer product safety standards
for durable infant or toddler products. These standards are to be
``substantially the same as'' applicable voluntary standards or more
stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that
more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury
associated with the product. The Commission is proposing a safety
standard for frame child carriers in response to the direction under
section 104(b) of the CPSIA. In addition, the Commission is proposing
an
[[Page 28459]]
amendment to the list of Notice of Requirements (NOR) issued by the
Commission.
DATES: Submit comments by July 30, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of
the marking, labeling, and instructional literature of the proposed
mandatory standard for frame child carriers should be directed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Office of Management
and Budget, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or emailed to
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.
Other comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2014-0011, may be
submitted electronically or in writing:
Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept
comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through
www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic
comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.
Written Submissions: Submit written submissions in the following
way: Mail/Hand delivery/Courier, preferably in five copies, to: Office
of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330
East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this proposed rulemaking. All comments received
may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers,
contact information, or other personal information provided, to: https://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information,
trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information
that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at
all, such information should be submitted in writing.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to: https://www.regulations.gov, and insert the
docket number, CPSC-2014-0011, into the ``Search'' box, and follow the
prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia L. Edwards, Project Manager,
Directorate for Engineering Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; email:
pedwards@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Statutory Authority
The CPSIA was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the
CPSIA, part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act,
requires the Commission to: (1) Examine and assess the effectiveness of
voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or
toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer
groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product
engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety
standards for durable infant and toddler products. Standards issued
under section 104 are to be ``substantially the same as'' the
applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary
standard if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements
would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.
The term ``durable infant or toddler product'' is defined in
section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as ``a durable product intended for use,
or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the
age of 5 years.'' Section 104(f)(2)(I) of the CPSIA specifically
identifies ``infant carriers'' as a durable infant or toddler product.
The category of infant carriers covers a variety of products. The
Commission has previously issued rules under section 104 for other
infant carriers: specifically, for hand-held infant carriers and for
soft infant and toddler carriers.
Pursuant to section 104(b)(1)(A), the Commission consulted with
manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, laboratories, consumer
advocacy groups, consultants, and members of the public in the
development of this proposed standard, largely through the ASTM
process. The proposed rule is based on the voluntary standard developed
by ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and
Materials), ASTM F2549-14, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for
Frame Child Carriers, with one proposed modification to specify
requirements for the retention system performance test to provide clear
pass/fail criteria for the carrier's restraints.
The ASTM standard is copyrighted, but the standard can be viewed as
a read-only document during the comment period on this proposal only,
at: https://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm, by permission of ASTM.
The testing and certification requirements of section 14(a) of the
Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) apply to the standards promulgated
under section 104 of the CPSIA. Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires
the Commission to publish an NOR for the accreditation of third party
conformity assessment bodies (test laboratories) to assess conformity
with a children's product safety rule to which a children's product is
subject. The proposed rule for frame child carriers, if issued as a
final rule, will be a children's product safety rule that requires the
issuance of an NOR. To meet the requirement that the Commission issue
an NOR for the frame child carriers standard, the draft notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) proposes to amend 16 CFR part 1112.
II. Product Description
A. Definition of Frame Child Carrier
The scope section of ASTM F2549-14 defines a ``frame child
carrier'' as ``a product normally of sewn fabric construction on a
tubular metal or other frame, which is designed to carry a child, in an
upright position, on the back of the caregiver.'' The intended
occupants of frame child carriers are children who are able to sit
upright unassisted and weigh between 16 and 50 pounds. Frame child
carriers are intended to be worn on the back and suspended from both
shoulders of the caregiver's body in a forward- or rear-facing
position. This type of carrier is often used for hiking and typically
closely resembles hiking/mountaineering backpacks not intended to be
used for transporting children.
B. Market Description
CPSC staff is aware of 15 firms currently supplying frame child
carriers to the U.S. market, although additional firms may supply these
products to U.S. consumers. Most of these firms specialize in the
manufacture and/or distribution of one of two distinct types of
products: (1) Children's products, including durable nursery products;
or (2) outdoor products, such as camping and hiking gear. The majority
of the 15 known firms are domestic (including four manufacturers, seven
importers, and one firm whose supply source could not be determined).
The remaining three firms are foreign (including two manufacturers and
one firm that imports products from foreign companies and distributes
them from outside of the United States).
III. Incident Data
CPSC's Directorate for Epidemiology, Division of Hazard Analysis,
is aware of a total of 47 frame child carrier-related incidents
reported to CPSC that
[[Page 28460]]
occurred between January 1, 2003 and October 27, 2013. Although there
were no fatalities in the 47 incidents, 33 injuries were reported.
Twenty-eight of the reports were received through the National
Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). According to reports,
the oldest child involved in an incident was 3 years old. For some
incidents, the age of the child was not reported because no injury was
involved, or the age of the child was unknown.
A. Fatalities
The incident data did not include any reports of fatalities.
B. Nonfatalities
Among the 33 reported nonfatal injuries, there were no
hospitalizations. More than half of these incidents reported a serious
injury, such as a closed-head injury\1\ or a fracture of the leg or
face. The other reported injuries ranged from head/facial lacerations,
to dislocated arms and contusions and abrasions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to staff from the Directorate for Health Sciences,
a closed head injury is a head injury where the skull remained
intact but it can range in severity from a minor bump to a severe
life-threatening traumatic brain injury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A majority of the injuries resulted from falls from the frame child
carrier. Many of the falls occurred when children slipped out of the
frame child carrier through leg openings; in other scenarios, children
fell out when carriers, placed on elevated surfaces, toppled over, or
when caregivers fell when carrying the infant in the carrier. For other
falls, the specifics of the circumstances were not reported. Certain
non-fall injuries occurred when the frame child carrier tipped over due
to instability when the carrier was placed upright on the floor, or
from caregiver errors in placing/removing the child in or from the
carrier. The remaining 14 incident reports indicated that no injury had
occurred or else provided no information about any injury. However,
many of the 14 incident reports described scenarios that CPSC staff
believes presented the potential for a serious injury or even death.
C. Hazard Pattern Identification
CPSC staff reviewed all 47 reported incidents (33 with injuries and
14 without injuries) to identify hazard patterns associated with frame
child carriers. Subsequently, CPSC staff considered each pattern when
reviewing the adequacy of ASTM F2549-14.
Staff grouped the incidents into three broad categories of hazard
patterns (product-related, non-product-related, and unknown); staff
then further classified the incidents within each category. In order of
frequency of incident reports, the hazard patterns are described below:
1. Product Related: Twenty-nine of the 47 incidents, including 15
of the 33 injuries, were attributed to product-related issues. The
specific product-related issues were:
Structural integrity of the frame child carrier was
identified as a problem in 11 (23 percent) of the 47 incidents.
Reported problems included:
[cir] Failure of caregiver's attachment components;
[cir] Poor quality stitching on straps;
[cir] Detachment of the cloth component from the frame; and
[cir] Loose screws or breakage of the frame, which resulted in an
abrasion injury.
A review of the data shows that each of the 11 incidents involved
carriers manufactured before the initial publication of ASTM F2549 in
2006.
Stability problems of the frame child carrier were
reported in nine incidents (19 percent); all nine incidents resulted in
an injury to the head/face of the child. In some cases, when the
carrier was placed on an elevated surface, the infant fell out of the
carrier as the carrier toppled over. In other cases, when the carrier
was at ground level, the infant fell along with the carrier when the
carrier tipped over. All nine incidents were from NEISS reports; and
thus, information about the carrier and details about the incident are
unknown. Three of the nine incidents occurred before 2006, and thus,
involved carriers that were manufactured before the initial publication
of ASTM F2549.
Leg opening problems were reported in seven incidents (15
percent). In these cases, the leg holes were large enough to allow the
child to slip out or almost slip out of the carrier. In a few of these
incidents, the consumer also expressed concern about the potential risk
of strangulation if the child were to get trapped in the process of
slipping out through the opening. This category includes four injuries
to the head and/or face due to a fall. Three of the seven incidents
involved carriers manufactured after ASTM F2549 was first published.
Restraint inadequacy was reported in two incidents (4
percent); one was a NEISS incident that occurred in 2005, and the other
incident occurred in 2009. In both cases, the caregiver bent over, and
the restraints somehow failed to prevent the child from sliding out
from the top. One injury is included in this category.
2. Non-Product-Related: Nine incidents (19 percent) involving nine
injuries were not attributable to any product-related failure or
defect. Five of the incidents resulted in arm dislocation injuries
during the placement/removal of the child in or out of the frame child
carrier. The remaining four incidents resulted in injuries (leg
fracture, closed-head injury, and facial laceration, for example) when
the caregiver slipped or tripped and fell, with the child in the
carrier.
3. Unknown: There were nine NEISS incidents (19 percent) reported
that provided very few scenario-specific details. Staff could not
determine whether there was any product involvement or any hazardous
external circumstances. All of the incidents resulted in injuries to
the head and/or face due to falls.
D. Product Recalls
There have been two product recalls involving frame child carriers
from January 1, 2003 to October 27, 2013. One recall involved 4,000
units, and the other recall involved 40 units.
IV. Other Relevant Standards
A. International Standards
CPSC is aware of one international standard, EN 13209-1:2004,
European/British Standard for Child use and care articles--Baby
carriers--Safety requirements and test methods--Part 1: Framed back
carriers, which addresses frame child carriers in a fashion similar to
ASTM F2549-14. Although there are differences between the two
standards, CPSC believes that the ASTM standard is more stringent in
most areas and addresses most of the hazard patterns seen in the CPSC
incident data. The exception is the test requirement for the occupant
retention system (known as the child-restraint system in the EN
standard). The EN standard has clear pass/fail requirements for
restraint performance, and the ASTM standard does not. Both standards
include a test procedure that rotates the carrier a full 360 degrees
when occupied by a surrogate dummy. In addition, both standards include
procedures that apply forces to the retention straps, attachment
points, and the dummy legs. The EN standard requirement states that the
dummy shall not fall completely out of the restraint system and that
the attachment of the restraint system shall not break, deform, work
loose, or become torn/displaced. Additionally, the EN standard requires
that fasteners shall not be released or have suffered damage that
impairs their operation and function. The ASTM standard does not
[[Page 28461]]
contain any of this language, and therefore, as discussed in section V
of the preamble, and as reflected in the language of the proposed Sec.
1230.2(b)(1)(i), the Commission's proposed standard includes a
modification to ASTM F2549 that would specify test criteria similar to
those provided in the EN standard.
B. Voluntary Standard--ASTM F2549
1. History of ASTM F2549
The voluntary standard for frame child carriers was first approved
and published in December 2006, as ASTM F2549-06, Standard Consumer
Safety Specification for Frame Child Carriers. ASTM has revised the
voluntary standard five times since then. The current version, ASTM
F2549-14, was approved on January 1, 2014.
The original version, ASTM F2549-06, contained requirements to
address the following issues:
Sharp points
Small parts
Lead in paint
Wood parts
Scissoring, shearing, pinching
Openings
Exposed coil springs
Locking and latching (for carriers that fold for storage, this
requirement helps prevent unintentional folding)
Unintentional folding (for carriers with kick stands that can
stand freely, this requirement helps prevent the unintentional folding
of the kick stand)
Labeling
Protective components
Leg openings (to help prevent smaller occupants from falling
out of the carrier through a single leg opening)
Dynamic strength (tests the frame, fasteners, and seams/
stitching under dynamic conditions to help prevent breakage or
separation)
Static load (ensures the carrier can hold three times the
maximum recommended weight)
Stability (for carriers that can stand freely, this helps
prevent an occupied carrier from tipping over during normal use)
Restraints (requires that all carriers have a restraint system
and also provides a method for testing the restraints)
Handle integrity (helps prevent the handle from breaking or
separating when it is pulled with three times the maximum recommended
weight)
ASTM F2549-08 (approved November 1, 2008) addressed the following
issues:
New flammability requirements for carriers
New toy accessory requirements
A revised unintentional folding test procedure, adding a
weight load to mimic an occupant in the carrier.
ASTM F2549-09 (approved April 1, 2009) addressed the following
issue:
A revised dynamic strength test procedure because some
carrier designs could not be tested using the old method.
ASTM F2549-09a (approved July 1, 2009) addressed the following
issue:
Change of the reference to the flammable solids
requirement [16 CFR 1500.3(C)(6)(vi)] to correct an editorial error.
ASTM F2549-13 (approved November 1, 2013) addressed the following
issues:
A revised leg opening test procedure to reflect the use of
the product better and explain what is happening in incident reports
where children were slipping through a leg opening.
A revised scope to include carriers rated for weights up
to 50 pounds, which reflects the existing market for frame child
carriers.
ASTM F2549-14 (approved January 1, 2014) addressed the following
issue:
A revised dynamic strength test to accommodate the greater
weight rating (which was changed in version F2549-13).
2. Description of the Current Voluntary Standard--ASTM F2549-14
We believe that the current voluntary standard, ASTM F2549-14,
sufficiently addresses the primary hazard patterns identified in the
incident data. The following section discusses how each of the
identified hazard patterns listed above is addressed by the current
voluntary standard, ASTM F2549-14.
Structural Integrity
ASTM F2549-14 uses a dynamic strength test and a static load test
to assess the structural integrity of frame child carriers. We are
aware of 11 reported incidents associated with the structural integrity
of carriers that occurred before the first publication of ASTM F2549 in
2006. No incidents have been reported involving carriers manufactured
since 2006. Thus, we believe that the combination of the dynamic
strength and static load tests are adequate to address the issues
associated with structural integrity.
Stability Problems
A total of nine tip-over incidents were reported to CPSC, all
through hospital emergency departments with very few scenario-specific
details. CPSC staff's review of these incident reports shows that three
incidents involved carriers falling from elevated surfaces. The fall
hazard and recommendations to mitigate this hazard, including not
placing the carrier on counter tops, tables, or other elevated
surfaces, are specified in a warning label requirement. The standard
requires this warning label to be in a conspicuous location, visible to
the caregiver each time the occupant is placed in the carrier, or when
the caregiver places the product on his or her body.
In addition to the warning label requirement, the current voluntary
standard includes a stability requirement and associated test procedure
so that carriers that use a kickstand can remain in an upright position
and are stable. When used correctly, a kickstand is designed to make
the carrier stable so that the child can remain safely in the carrier
just before and immediately after being carried by the caregiver. CPSC
considers the stability test in the ASTM standard to be strong, and
thus, we view the test as capable of discerning stable versus unstable
carriers.
Based on the reasons outlined above, CPSC believes that ASTM F2549-
14 adequately addresses stability issues through the use of both a
warning label and a strong test requirement and associated test
procedure. Thus, CPSC is not proposing any modifications to the ASTM
standard to address this hazard pattern.
Leg Opening Problems
Leg opening problems were reported in seven incidents. In those
cases, the carrier's leg holes were large enough to allow the child to
slip out or almost slip out of the carrier. In a few of these
incidents, the consumer also expressed concern about the potential risk
of strangulation if the child slipped out through the opening. This
category of incidents includes four head/face injuries from falls. A
closer look revealed that four of the seven incidents occurred before
the standard was published. After initial publication of the standard
in October 2006, no other leg opening incidents were reported until
2012. During a 6-month period between August 2012 and January 2013,
three new leg opening incidents occurred.
Because of the new incidents, CPSC staff began working with ASTM in
spring 2013, to update the leg opening test in ASTM F2549-09a. CPSC
staff collected 10 carriers from a variety of suppliers, including the
carrier involved in the three incidents, and staff tested each carrier
to the leg opening requirement in ASTM F2549-09a. This
[[Page 28462]]
test requires the carrier to be adjusted to the smallest leg opening;
and then a 7-pound, 16.5-inch circumference test sphere \2\ is placed
in the carrier. Next, the carrier is tilted until the leg opening is
horizontal, and then the carrier is held in that position for an
additional minute. The test is repeated for the other leg opening. To
pass the test, the sphere must not pass through either leg opening.
CPSC staff found that all 10 carriers that were tested passed the
requirement specified in ASTM F2549-09a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The test sphere size is based on the hip circumference of
the smallest child likely to use the frame child carrier (3 to 5
months of age).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPSC staff, with the help of an ASTM task group, developed a more
stringent test method that addressed the recent incidents. Instead of
being adjusted to the smallest leg opening, carriers were fitted around
a CAMI Infant Dummy Mark II (modeled after a 50th percentile 6-month
old child). Four of the 10 carriers failed the modified leg-opening
test. Notably, one of the carriers that failed the modified test was
associated with the recent incident reports of children falling through
leg openings.
In fall 2013, ASTM balloted a revised test procedure for leg
openings that was developed by CPSC staff and the ASTM task group. This
ballot item passed and was included in the revised standard, F2549-13.
With the inclusion of this recently revised leg-opening test method,
CPSC believes that the current voluntary standard is now adequate to
address leg-opening hazards.
Although we believe the current standard adequately addresses the
three hazard patterns described above, we will continue to monitor
incidents and work with ASTM to make any necessary future changes.
Restraints
There were two reported incidents of restraint inadequacy. One was
a NEISS report of a child falling out of a carrier when the caregiver
leaned forward. This report contained no information regarding whether
the restraints were used properly or how the restraints were involved.
The other incident involved an 8-month-old child who stood up and
almost fell out of the carrier while the caregiver was leaning forward.
In the latter incident, we do not know what happened to the shoulder
straps, but the report mentioned that the restraints might have been
adjusted to be too loose. There was no report that the restraints broke
in any way or became loose on their own.
V. Proposed Change to ASTM F2549-14 in the Proposed Mandatory Standard
ASTM juvenile product standards generally include sections that
provide performance requirements and test methods. The performance
requirement section spells out the pass/fail criteria associated with
various requirements, while the test method section outlines the
procedures for conducting the tests that need to be performed to
determine whether the product meets the pass/fail criteria. Although
some performance requirements do not have an associated test method,
all test methods must have an associated performance (or general)
requirement.
ASTM F2549-14 contains a performance requirement and a test
procedure intended to address the hazard patterns associated with frame
child carriers. However, CPSC concludes that a change to the ASTM
standard's performance requirement is needed to address restraint
hazards adequately. The current performance requirement associated with
the retention (restraint) system for frame child carriers states:
6.5 Retention System:
6.5.1 A retention system, including a shoulder restraint, shall
be provided to secure the occupant in a seated position in any of
the manufacturer's recommended use positions when tested in
accordance with 7.5.
6.5.2 Before shipment, the manufacturer shall attach the
retention system in such a manner that it will not detach in normal
usage.
6.5.3 If the retention system includes a crotch restraint
designed to work with a lap belt, it shall be designed such that its
use is mandatory when the retention system is in use.
The retention system test procedure (section 7.5 of the standard)
has three parts. Under the first part, a 45-lbf (pound-force) is
applied to a single attachment point of the retention system. The
second part of the test procedure requires a CAMI Infant Dummy Mark II
to be placed in the carrier with the restraint system secured. Then, a
45-lbf is applied horizontally on the centerline of either leg of the
dummy and repeated five times. For the third part of the test
procedure, the carrier, containing the CAMI dummy, is lifted and
rotated backwards 360[deg] about the axis of the intersection of the
seat back and bottom. The carrier is then rotated 360[deg] around the
axis of the side edge of the seat bottom.
CPSC believes that the purpose of the first two parts of the test
procedure is to help ensure that the retention system and all buckles
do not break, disengage, or separate at any seams. In addition, CPSC
believes the purpose of the third part of the test procedure is to help
ensure that the CAMI dummy does not fall out of the carrier. Therefore,
CPSC concludes that the standard should express these goals as criteria
to determine whether restraint systems comply with the performance
requirements. However, these pass/fail criteria are not mentioned
explicitly in the performance requirement section of ASTM F2549-14.
CPSC believes the frame child carriers standard should include explicit
pass/fail criteria. Without this change to the standard, a frame child
carrier that is undergoing testing could fail the intended criteria but
still be deemed to comply with the standard. Thus, correcting the
standard prevents this from happening and, in effect, makes the
standard more stringent. Staff consulted with representatives from two
test laboratories and the ASTM subcommittee chairman about the lack of
explicit pass/fail criteria in the ASTM standard's requirements for
retention systems. Test laboratory personnel reported that they likely
had not tested any frame child carriers that should have failed the
purpose of the requirement; otherwise, the test laboratory personnel
would have noted the lack of stated criteria previously.
Both the consulted test laboratory representatives and the ASTM
subcommittee chairman agreed that the requirement should be revised so
that the purpose of the restraint performance test is expressed
clearly. With the help of the test laboratory personnel, staff
developed a revised requirement using language found in similar
requirements in the EN standard and the ASTM high chair and stroller
standards. CPSC staff suggested language to explicitly require that
buckles shall not break, disengage, or separate and that all fasteners
cannot become damaged to the point that the restraint system will not
function as a result of the test. In addition, staff suggested language
that requires that the CAMI dummy not fall out of the carrier. In
February 2014, staff wrote a letter to the ASTM subcommittee
chairman,\3\ outlining the suggested new language, and asking that the
matter be discussed at the next ASTM meeting. During the April 9, 2014
ASTM subcommittee meeting, the letter (including the recommended
language) was shared with the subcommittee. The subcommittee agreed to
ballot the
[[Page 28463]]
proposed language for inclusion in the next revision of the standard.
Accordingly, proposed Sec. 1230.2(b)(1)(i)(D) includes a modification
to the ASTM standard's retention system performance requirement in
section 6.5, by adding a new section 6.5.4 that would require that when
the frame child carrier restraints are tested in accordance with
section 7.5 of the voluntary standard, the restraint system and its
closing means (for example, a buckle) shall not break, disengage or
separate at any seam and all fasteners shall not release or suffer
damage that impairs the operation and function of the restraint system.
Additionally, at the end of the tests, the CAMI dummy shall not be
released fully or fall out of the carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Regulations-Laws-and-Standards/Voluntary-Standards/Voluntary-Standards-Reports/Frame%20Infant%20Carriers/LetterToASTMFrameCarriers21014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112 To Include NOR for Frame Child
Carriers 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 CPSC-accepted third
party conformity assessment body. Id. 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. Id. 2063(a)(3). Thus,
the proposed rule for 16 CFR part 1230, Safety Standard for Frame Child
Carriers, if issued as a final rule, would be a children's product
safety rule that requires the issuance of an NOR.
The Commission published a final rule, Requirements Pertaining to
Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013),
codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (referred to here as part 1112) and
effective on June 10, 2013, that establishes requirements for
accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies 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 all of the NORs
that have been issued previously by the Commission.
All new NORs for new children's product safety rules, such as the
frame child carriers standard, require an amendment to part 1112. To
meet the requirement that the Commission issue an NOR for the proposed
frame child carriers standard, as part of this NPR, the Commission
proposes to amend the existing rule that codifies the list of all NORs
issued by the Commission to add frame child carriers to the list of
children's product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued an NOR.
Test laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third
party conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for frame
child carriers would be required to meet the third party conformity
assessment body accreditation requirements in part 1112. When a
laboratory meets the requirements as a CPSC-accepted third party
conformity assessment body, the laboratory can apply to the CPSC to
have 16 CFR part 1230, Safety Standard for Frame Child Carriers,
included in the laboratory's scope of accreditation of CPSC safety
rules listed for the laboratory on the CPSC Web site at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.
VII. Effective Date
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the
effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of the
final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The Commission is proposing an effective
date of six months after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. Without evidence to the contrary, CPSC generally considers
six months to be sufficient time for suppliers to come into compliance
with a new standard, and a six-month effective date is typical for
other CPSIA section 104 rules. Six months is also the period that the
Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) typically allows for
products in the JPMA certification program to transition to a new
standard once that standard is published. The Commission does not
expect the modification proposed for frame child carriers to cause any
changes to existing products.
We also propose a six-month effective date for the amendment to
part 1112.
We ask for comments on the proposed six-month effective date.
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
A. Introduction
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that agencies review
a proposed rule for the rule's potential economic impact on small
entities, including small businesses. Section 603 of the RFA generally
requires that agencies prepare an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) and make the analysis available to the public for
comment when the agency publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking. The
IRFA must describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities
and identify any alternatives that may reduce the impact. Specifically,
the IRFA must contain:
A description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the
number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
a description of the reasons why action by the agency is
being considered;
a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis
for, the proposed rule;
a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping,
and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities subject to the requirements
and the types of professional skills necessary for the preparation of
reports or records; and
an identification, to the extent possible, of all relevant
federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule.
B. Market Description
CPSC is aware of 15 firms currently supplying frame child carriers
to the U.S. market, although additional firms may supply these products
to U.S. customers. Most of these firms specialize in the manufacture
and/or distribution of one of two distinct types of products: (1)
children's products, including durable nursery products; or (2) outdoor
products, such as camping and hiking gear. The majority of the 15 known
firms are domestic (including four manufacturers, seven importers, and
one firm whose supply source could not be determined). The remaining
three firms are foreign (including two manufacturers and one firm that
imports products from foreign companies and distributes the products
from outside of the United States).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Staff made these determinations using information from Dun &
Bradstreet and ReferenceUSAGov, as well as firm Web sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to a 2005 survey conducted by the American Baby Group
(2006 Baby Products Tracking Study),\5\ 32 percent of new mothers owned
a frame child carrier. Approximately 32 percent of those carriers were
handed down or purchased secondhand,\6\ and about 68
[[Page 28464]]
percent were new when acquired. This information suggests annual sales
of around 870,000 frame child carriers (.32 x .68 x 4 million births
per year),\7\ typically costing from $100 to around $300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The data collected for the Baby Products Tracking Study do
not represent an unbiased statistical sample. The sample of 3,600
new and expectant mothers is drawn from American Baby magazine's
mailing lists. Additionally, because the most recent survey
information is from 2005, the data may not reflect the current
market.
\6\ The data on secondhand products for new mothers were not
available. Instead, data for new mothers and expectant mothers were
combined and broken into data for first-time mothers and data for
experienced mothers. Data for first-time mothers and experienced
mothers have been averaged to calculate the approximate percentage
of products that were handed down or purchased secondhand.
\7\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health
Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, ``Births: Final Data
for 2010,'' National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 61, Number 1
(August 28, 2012): Table 1. The number of births in 2010 is rounded
from 3,999,386.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Reason for Agency Action and Legal Basis for the Proposed Rule
The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, section 104
of the CPSIA, requires the CPSC to promulgate a mandatory standard that
is substantially the same as, or more stringent than, the voluntary
standard for a durable infant or toddler product. The proposed rule
implements that congressional direction.
D. Other Federal Rules
There are two federal rules that would interact with the frame
child carriers mandatory standard: (1) Testing and Labeling Pertaining
to Product Certification (16 CFR part 1107); and (2) Requirements
Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies (16 CFR part
1112).
The testing and labeling rule (16 CFR part 1107) requires that
manufacturers of children's products subject to children's product
safety rules certify, based on third party testing, that the
manufacturers' children's products comply with all applicable
children's product safety rules. If a final children's product safety
rule for frame child carriers is adopted by the Commission, frame child
carriers will be subject to the third party testing requirements,
including record keeping, when such a final frame child carriers rule
becomes effective.
In addition, the 16 CFR part 1107 rule requires the third party
testing of children's products to be conducted by CPSC-accepted test
laboratories. Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to
publish an NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity
assessment bodies to test for conformance with each children's product
safety rule. Existing NORs that have been issued by the Commission are
listed in 16 CFR part 1112. Consequently, the Commission proposes to
amend 16 CFR part 1112 to add the frame child carriers rule to the list
of rules for which the Commission has issued an NOR.
E. Impact of Proposed 16 CFR Part 1230 on Small Businesses
We are aware of approximately 15 firms currently marketing frame
child carriers in the United States, 12 of which are domestic firms.
Under U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines, a
manufacturer of frame child carriers is categorized as small if the
firm has 500 or fewer employees, and importers and wholesalers are
considered small if they have 100 or fewer employees. We limited our
analysis to domestic firms because SBA guidelines and definitions
pertain to U.S.-based entities. Based on these guidelines, about nine
of the identified 15 firms are small--three domestic manufacturers,
five domestic importers, and one domestic firm with an unknown supply
source. There may be additional unknown small domestic frame child
carrier suppliers operating in the U.S. market.
Prior to the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis,
staff conducts a screening analysis in order to determine whether a
regulatory flexibility analysis or a certification statement of no
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities is
appropriate for a proposed rule. The SBA gives considerable flexibility
in defining the threshold for ``no significant economic impact.''
However, staff typically uses 1 percent of gross revenue as a
threshold; unless the impact is expected to fall below the 1 percent
threshold for the small businesses evaluated, staff prepares a
regulatory flexibility analysis. Because staff was unable to
demonstrate that the proposed rule would impose an economic impact less
than 1 percent of gross revenue for the affected firms, staff conducted
an IRFA.
Small Manufacturers. Of the three small domestic manufacturers, the
proposed rule is likely to have little or no impact on the two firms
whose frame child carriers comply with the ASTM voluntary standard
currently in effect for JPMA testing and certification purposes (ASTM
F2549-09a). We anticipate that these firms will remain compliant with
the voluntary standard as the standard changes because these firms
follow, and in at least one case, participate actively in the voluntary
standard development process. Therefore, compliance with the evolving
voluntary standard is part of an established business practice. ASTM
F2549-14, the version of the voluntary standard upon which the proposed
rule is based, will be in effect already for JPMA testing and
certification purposes, before a mandatory standard becomes final,
should one be issued by the Commission; and these firms are likely to
be in compliance based on their history. Because the proposed
modification to the retention system requirement consists of specifying
pass/fail criteria already used by test laboratories, we do not expect
the modification to have an impact on firms.
The remaining small manufacturer would experience some economic
impacts of unknown size. Based on discussions with a company
representative, this firm does not know whether its products comply
with the voluntary standard, having been previously unaware of the
standard's existence. However, the firm indicated that it might elect
to discontinue production of its frame child carriers, even if the
firm's frame child carriers prove to be compliant with the proposed
CPSC standard. The company believes that the burden associated with the
testing and record-keeping requirements triggered by a mandatory frame
child carriers standard might exceed the value of continuing
production. Although this firm produces many other products, which
should lessen the economic impact, and indicated that frame child
carriers do not represent a large portion of the firm's product line,
the firm did not convey the precise percentage of revenues that frame
child carriers constitutes for this firm and thus, staff could not rule
out a significant economic impact on this firm.
Under section 14 of the CPSA, should the Commission adopt the new
frame child carriers requirements as a final rule, once the
requirements become effective, all manufacturers will be subject to the
additional costs associated with the third party testing and
certification requirements under the testing and labeling rule (16 CFR
part 1107). Third party testing will include any physical and
mechanical test requirements specified in the final frame child
carriers rule that may be issued; lead and phthalates testing are
already required. Third party testing costs are in addition to the
direct costs of meeting the frame child carriers standard.
Several firms were contacted regarding testing costs and one
estimated that chemical and structural testing of one unit of a frame
child carrier costs around $1,300. No other firms were willing or able
to supply the requested testing cost information. Estimates provided by
suppliers for other section 104 rulemakings indicate that around 40
percent to 50 percent of
[[Page 28465]]
testing costs can be attributed to structural requirements, with the
remaining 50 percent to 60 percent resulting from chemical testing
(e.g., lead and phthalates). Therefore, staff estimates that testing to
the ASTM voluntary standard could cost about $520 to $650 per sample
tested ($1,300 x .4 to $1,300 x .5). These costs are consistent with
testing cost estimates for products with standards of similar
complexity.
Staff's review of the frame child carrier market shows that on
average, each small domestic manufacturer supplies three different
models of frame child carriers to the U.S. market annually. Therefore,
if third party testing were conducted every year, third party testing
costs for each manufacturer would be about $1,560 to $1,950 annually,
if only one sample were tested for each model. Based on an examination
of each small domestic manufacturer's revenues from recent Dun &
Bradstreet or Reference USAGov reports, the impact of third party
testing to ASTM F2549-14 is unlikely to be economically significant for
the three small domestic manufacturers (i.e., testing costs less than
one percent of gross revenue). Although the testing and labeling rule
(16 CFR part 1107) does not set forth a specific number of samples
firms will need to test to meet the ``high degree of assurance''
criterion, more than 100 units per model would be required to make
testing costs economically significant for the two firms with available
revenue data. As described above, the third manufacturer has already
indicated that the firm may exit the market because of the testing
costs, even if the company's frame child carriers meet the requirements
of the voluntary standard.
Small Importers. As noted above, there are five small importers of
frame child carriers, with three of them currently importing compliant
carriers. In the absence of a mandatory regulation, these three small
importers of frame child carriers would likely remain in compliance
with new versions of the standard. Given that the three small importers
have developed a pattern of compliance with the ASTM voluntary standard
as the standard evolves and that the proposed rule does not differ
substantively from the voluntary standard, ASTM F2549-14, as applied by
test laboratories, the three small importers of compliant products
would likely experience little or no direct costs under the proposed
rule.
Whether there is a significant economic impact on the two small
importers with noncompliant frame child carriers will depend upon the
extent of the changes required to come into compliance and the response
of their supplying firms. Because no small importers with noncompliant
frame child carriers responded to requests for information, staff
cannot estimate the precise economic impact on these firms.
However, in general, if an importer's supplying firm supplies
products that comply with the new standard, the importer could elect to
continue importing the frame child carriers. Any increase in production
costs experienced by the importer's suppliers as a result of changes
made to meet the mandatory standard may be passed on to the importer.
If an importer is unwilling or unable to accept the increased costs, or
if the importer's supplier decides not to comply with the mandatory
standard, at least three alternative courses of action are available.
First, the importer could find another supplier of frame child
carriers. This could result in increased costs as well, depending, for
example, on whether the alternative supplier must modify its carriers
to comply with the mandatory standard. Second, the importer could
import a different product in place of frame child carriers. This
alternative would help mitigate the economic impact of the mandatory
standard on these firms. Finally, the importer could stop importing
frame child carriers and make no other changes to its product line. As
with manufacturers, all importers are subject to third party testing
and certification requirements. Consequently, if the Commission adopts
a final mandatory standard for frame child carriers, importers will be
subject to costs similar to those for manufacturers, if the importer's
supplying foreign firm(s) does not perform third party testing. It does
not appear likely that these costs would have a significant economic
impact on the two small domestic importers for which revenue
information is available, unless around 20 units per model were
required to be tested to provide a ``high degree of assurance'' (i.e.,
at 20 units tested per model, testing costs will exceed one percent of
gross revenue for each of these firms, even if testing costs are
estimated at the lowest level of $520). The impact on the other three
small importers is unknown.
Alternatives. Under the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety
Notification Act, one alternative that generally reduces the impact on
small entities is to make the voluntary standard mandatory with no
modifications. However, in the case of frame child carriers, no
difference in impact would be expected because the CPSC proposed
modification articulates the current standard practice of test
laboratories. Thus, only products that cannot meet the requirement
without the modification would fail the requirement with the
modification.
Another way that the Commission could reduce the economic impact of
any proposed regulation, including the proposed frame child carriers
rule, is to allow for a later effective date. The Commission proposes a
6-month effective date, which is the least amount of time frame child
carrier firms familiar with the applicable ASTM standard have indicated
they would need for new product development (1.5 years was the longest
estimate, with most firms suggesting a 6-month to 1-year time frame).
Product redevelopment might be necessary for some noncompliant firms to
meet the requirements of ASTM F2549-14; although staff does not believe
that complete redesigns will be necessary based on preliminary product
testing. In particular, no product modifications should be necessary to
meet the proposed pass/fail criteria for the retention system
performance requirement because, as already mentioned, the proposed
requirement only clarifies what the test laboratories are already
performing. A later effective date, more in line with the longest
estimate of time required for product redevelopment, could reduce the
economic impact in two ways. One, firms are less likely to experience a
lapse in production, which could result if they are unable to comply
within the required timeframe. Two, firms could spread costs over a
longer time period, thereby reducing their annual costs, as well as the
present value of their total costs. In the case of frame child carrier
firms, a longer effective date would primarily benefit firms with
noncompliant products.
F. Impact of Proposed 16 CFR Part 1112 Amendment on Small Businesses
As required by the RFA, staff conducted a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) when the Commission issued the part 1112
rule (78 FR 15836, 15855-58). Briefly, the FRFA concluded that the
accreditation requirements would not have a significant adverse impact
on a substantial number of small test laboratories because no
requirements were imposed on test laboratories that did not intend to
provide third party testing services. The only test laboratories that
were expected to provide such services were those that anticipated
receiving sufficient revenue from the mandated testing to justify
accepting the requirements as a business decision. Moreover, a test
laboratory would only choose to provide such
[[Page 28466]]
services if it anticipated receiving revenues sufficient to cover the
costs of the requirements.
Based on similar reasoning, amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include
the NOR for the frame child carriers standard will not have a
significant adverse impact on small test laboratories. Moreover, based
upon the number of test laboratories in the United States that have
applied for CPSC acceptance of accreditation to test for conformance to
other mandatory juvenile product standards, we expect that only a few
test laboratories will seek CPSC acceptance of their accreditation to
test for conformance with the frame child carriers standard. Most of
these test laboratories will have already been accredited to test for
conformance to other mandatory juvenile product standards, and the only
costs to them would be the cost of adding the frame child carriers
standard to their scope of accreditation. As a consequence, the
Commission certifies that the NOR amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include
the frame child carriers standard will not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
IX. 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, a rule that has ``little or no
potential for affecting the human environment,'' is categorically
exempt from this requirement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The proposed rule
falls within the categorical exemption.
X. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains information collection requirements
that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In this document, pursuant to 44 U.S.C.
3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth:
A title for the collection of information;
a summary of the collection of information;
a brief description of the need for the information and
the proposed use of the information;
a description of the likely respondents and proposed
frequency of response to the collection of information;
an estimate of the burden that shall result from the
collection of information; and
notice that comments may be submitted to the OMB.
Title: Safety Standard for Frame Child Carriers
Description: The proposed rule would require each frame child
carrier to comply with ASTM F2549-14, Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Frame Child Carriers. Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F2549-
14 contain requirements for marking, labeling, and instructional
literature. These requirements fall within the definition of
``collection of information,'' as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).
Description of Respondents: Persons who manufacture or import frame
child carriers.
Estimated Burden: We estimate the burden of this collection of
information as follows:
Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Frequency of Total annual Hours per Total burden
16 CFR Section respondents responses responses response hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1230.2(a).......................................................... 15 3 45 1 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates are based on the following:
Section 8.1.1 of ASTM F2549-14 requires that the name and the place
of business (city, state, and mailing address, including zip code) or
telephone number of the manufacturer, distributor, or seller be marked
clearly and legibly on each product and its retail package. Section
8.1.2 of ASTM F2549-14 requires a code mark or other means that
identifies the date (month and year, as a minimum) of manufacture.
There are 15 known entities supplying frame child carriers to the
U.S. market that might 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. Based on an evaluation of
supplier product lines, each entity supplies an average of three
different models of frame child carriers; \8\ therefore, the estimated
burden associated with labels is 1 hour per model x 15 entities x 3
models per entity = 45 hours. We estimate the hourly compensation for
the time required to create and update labels is $27.71 (U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,''
September 2013, Table 9, total compensation for all sales and office
workers in goods-producing private industries: https://www.bls.gov/ncs/
). Therefore, the estimated annual cost to industry associated with the
labeling requirements is $1,246.95 ($27.71 per hour x 45 hours =
$1,246.95). There are no operating, maintenance, or capital costs
associated with the collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ This number was derived during the market research phase of
the initial regulatory flexibility analysis by dividing the total
number of frame carriers supplied by all frame child carrier
suppliers by the total number of frame child carrier suppliers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 9.1 of ASTM F2549-14 requires instructions to be supplied
with the product. Frame child carriers are complicated products that
generally require use and assembly instructions. Under the OMB's
regulations (5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)), the time, effort, and financial
resources necessary to comply with a collection of information that
would be incurred by persons in the ``normal course of their
activities'' are excluded from a burden estimate, where an agency
demonstrates that the disclosure activities required to comply are
``usual and customary.'' Therefore, because we are unaware of frame
child carriers that generally require use instructions, but lack such
instructions, we tentatively estimate that there are no burden hours
associated with section 9.1 of ASTM F2549-14 because any burden
associated with supplying instructions with frame child carriers would
be ``usual and customary'' and not within the definition of ``burden''
under the OMB's regulations.
Based on this analysis, the proposed standard for frame child
carriers would impose a burden to industry of 45 hours at a cost of
$1,246.95 annually.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we have submitted the information collection requirements of
this rule to the OMB for review. Interested persons are requested to
submit comments regarding information collection by June 16, 2014, to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see the
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice).
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), we invite comments on:
[[Page 28467]]
Whether the collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the CPSC's functions, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
the accuracy of the CPSC's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
ways to reduce the burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques,
when appropriate, and other forms of information technology; and
the estimated burden hours associated with label
modification, including any alternative estimates.
XI. Preemption
Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that 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 would apply to a rule issued under section 104.
XII. Request for Comments
This NPR begins a rulemaking proceeding under section 104(b) of the
CPSIA to issue a consumer product safety standard for frame child
carriers, and to amend part 1112 to add frame child carriers to the
list of children's product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued
an NOR. We invite all interested persons to submit comments on any
aspect of the proposed mandatory safety standard for frame child
carriers and on the proposed amendment to part 1112. Specifically, the
Commission requests comments on the costs of compliance with, and
testing to, the proposed frame child carriers safety standard, the
proposed six-month effective date for the new mandatory frame child
carriers safety standard, and the amendment to part 1112.
Comments should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.
List of Subjects
16 CFR Part 1112
Administrative practice and procedure, Audit, Consumer protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Third party conformity
assessment body.
16 CFR Part 1230
Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants
and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, and Toys.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes
to amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 1112--REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY CONFORMITY
ASSESSMENT BODIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 1112 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2063; Pub. L. 110-314, section 3, 122 Stat.
3016, 3017 (2008).
0
2. Amend Sec. 1112.15 by adding paragraph (b)(38) to read as follows:
Sec. 1112.15 When can a third party conformity assessment body apply
for CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule and/or test method?
* * * * *
(b) (38) 16 CFR part 1230, Safety Standard for Frame Child
Carriers.
* * * * *
0
3. Add part 1230 to read as follows:
PART 1230--SAFETY STANDARD FOR FRAME CHILD CARRIERS
Sec.
1230.1 Scope.
1230.2 Requirements for Frame Child Carriers.
Authority: The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008,
Pub. L. 110-314, Sec. 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Pub.
L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).
Sec. 1230.1 Scope.
This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for frame
child carriers.
Sec. 1230.2 Requirements for Frame Child Carriers.
(a) Each frame child carrier must comply with all applicable
provisions of ASTM F2549-14, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for
Frame Child Carriers, approved on January 1, 2014. 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; https://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may inspect a copy at the
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room
820, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-
7923, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) Comply with ASTM F2549-14 standard with the following
exception:
(1) Instead of complying with section 6.5 of ASTM F2549-14, comply
with the following:
(i) 6.5 Retention System:
(A) 6.5.1 A retention system, including a shoulder restraint, shall
be provided to secure the occupant in a seated position in any of the
manufacturer's recommended use positions.
(B) 6.5.2 Before shipment, the manufacturer shall attach the
retention system in such a manner that it will not detach in normal
usage.
(C) 6.5.3 If the retention system includes a crotch restraint
designed to work with a lap belt, it shall be designed such that its
use is mandatory when the retention system is in use.
(D) 6.5.4 When tested in accordance with 7.5, the restraint system
and its closing means (for example, a buckle) shall not break,
disengage or separate at any seam and all fasteners shall not release
or suffer damage that impairs the operation and function of the
restraint system. At the end of the tests, the CAMI dummy shall not be
released fully or fall out of the carrier.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) [Reserved]
Dated: May 12, 2014.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-11193 Filed 5-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P