Safety Standard for Frame Child Carriers, 11113-11122 [2015-03717]

Agencies

• Consumer Product Safety Commission

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 40 (Monday, March 2, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11113-11122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03717]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Final rule.

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

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 standards if the Commission determines 
that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of 
injury associated with the products. The Commission is issuing a safety 
standard for frame child carriers in response to the direction under 
section 104(b) of the CPSIA. In addition, the Commission is amending 
its regulations regarding third party conformity assessment bodies to 
include the mandatory standard for frame child carriers in the list of 
Notices of Requirements (NOR) issued by the Commission.

DATES: The rule will become effective on September 2, 2016. The 
incorporation by reference of the publication listed in this rule is 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 2, 
2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julio Alvarado, Compliance Officer, 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, 
MD 20814; telephone: 301-504-7418; email: jalvarado@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Statutory Authority

    The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA, Pub. L. 
110-314) was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, 
part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, 
requires the Commission to: (1) Examine and assess the effectiveness of 
voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or 
toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer 
groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product 
engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety 
standards for durable infant and toddler products. These standards are 
to be ``substantially the same as'' applicable voluntary standards or 
more stringent than the voluntary standards if the Commission 
determines that more stringent requirements would further reduce the 
risk of injury associated with the product. The term ``durable infant 
or toddler product'' is defined in section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as 
``a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably 
expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years.''
    On May 16, 2014, the Commission issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPR) for frame child carriers. 79 FR 28458. The NPR 
proposed to incorporate by reference the voluntary standard, ASTM 
F2549-14, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Frame Child 
Carriers, with one proposed substitute provision that would provide 
clear pass/fail criteria for an existing test.
    In this document, the Commission is issuing a mandatory safety 
standard for frame child carriers. As required by section 104(b)(1)(A), 
the Commission consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade 
organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and 
the public to develop this proposed standard, largely through the ASTM 
process. The rule incorporates by reference the most recent voluntary 
standard developed by ASTM International (formerly the American Society 
for Testing and Materials), ASTM F2549-14a, Standard Consumer Safety 
Specification for Frame Child Carriers. This most recent version of the 
ASTM voluntary standard includes the clear pass/fail criteria for an 
existing test that were proposed in the NPR.
    In addition, the final rule amends the list of NORs issued by the 
Commission in 16 CFR part 1112 to include the standard for frame child 
carriers. Under section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 
the Commission promulgated 16 CFR part 1112 to establish requirements 
for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or 
testing laboratories) to test for conformance with a children's product 
safety rule. Amending part 1112 adds a NOR for the frame child carrier 
standard to the list of children's product safety rules.

II. Product Description

    The scope of ASTM F2549-14a 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

[[Page 11114]]

child, in an upright position, on the back of the caregiver.'' The 
intended users of frame carriers are children who are able to sit 
upright unassisted and weigh between 16 pounds and 50 pounds. Frame 
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 closely 
resembles hiking/mountaineering backpacks not intended to be used for 
child transport.

III. Market Description

    Staff identified 16 firms supplying frame child carriers to the 
U.S. market. Typically, frame child carriers cost from $100 to around 
$300. Additional firms may supply these products to U.S. consumers.\1\ 
Most of these firms specialize in manufacturing and/or distributing 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 16 known firms are domestic (including 
five manufacturers, eight importers, and one firm whose supply source 
could not be determined). The remaining two firms are foreign 
(including one manufacturer and one firm that imports products from 
foreign companies and distributes the products from outside of the 
United States).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Since staff prepared the initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis, one importer has entered the market, another firm was 
purchased (remaining in the market), and a third has established an 
official U.S. distributor for their products.
    \2\ Staff made these determinations using information from Dun & 
Bradstreet and ReferenceUSAGov, as well as firm Web sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission expects that the frame child carriers of seven of 
these firms comply with ASTM F2549 because the firms either: (1) 
Certify their carriers through the Juvenile Products Manufacturers 
Association (JPMA) (three firms); or (2) claim compliance with the 
voluntary standard (four firms).\3\ However, some of the suppliers of 
frame child carriers do not supply any other children's products; and 
it is possible that these suppliers may be unfamiliar with the 
voluntary ASTM standards, a circumstance confirmed by one supplier that 
staff contacted during the initial regulatory flexibility analysis 
(IRFA) development. The Commission staff attempted unsuccessfully to 
obtain information from several firms whose frame child carriers do not 
claim compliance with the ASTM standard to determine the extent to 
which their carriers might not comply. Staff's testing indicates that 
some frame child carriers would not meet all provisions of the ASTM 
F2549.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ JPMA typically allows 6 months for companies with products 
in their certification program to shift to a new standard for 
testing and certification once the new standard is published. The 
version of the standard that firms currently are likely to be 
testing to is ASTM F2549-14. One revision of the standard has been 
published since then, but it will become effective for JPMA 
certification purposes before February 2015. However, many frame 
child carriers are expected to be compliant with ASTM F2549-14a 
without modification; and firms compliant with earlier versions of 
the standard are likely to remain compliant as the standard evolves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2013, the CPSC conducted a Durable Nursery Product Exposure 
Survey (DNPES) of U.S. households with children under age 6. Data from 
the DNPES indicate that an estimated 2.38 million frame child carriers 
are in U.S. households with children under the age of 6 (with 95% 
probability that the actual value is between 1.8 million and 2.95 
million). Data collected also indicate that about 54 percent of the 
frame child carriers in U.S. households with children under age 6 are 
in use (an estimated 1.28 million frame carriers, with 95% probability 
that the actual value is between about 880,000 and 1.7 million).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ These results are preliminary. While the data has undergone 
one stage of review and clean-up, this work is ongoing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Staff could not estimate annual injuries because the number of 
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) cases was 
insufficient to meet the CPSC Directorate for Epidemiology (EPI) 
publication criteria. However, given that part of the publication 
criteria is that the estimate must be 1,200 or greater over the period 
under consideration, presumably, there would be, on average, fewer than 
120 injuries annually over the approximately 10-year period considered 
by EPI staff. The recent EPI update for the final briefing package is 
consistent with this assumption.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Memorandum from Risana T. Chowdhury, Division of Hazard 
Analysis, Directorate for Epidemiology, dated November 18, 2013, 
Subject: Frame Child Carriers-Related Deaths, Injuries, and 
Potential Injuries; January 1, 2003-October 27, 2013; and memorandum 
from Risana T. Chowdhury, Division of Hazard Analysis, Directorate 
for Epidemiology, dated September 30, 2014, Subject: Frame Child 
Carrier-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Potential Injuries Reported 
Between October 28, 2013 and September 4, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Combining the maximum annual emergency department-treated injury 
estimate with the data collected for the DNPES yields less than about 
0.94 emergency department-treated injuries per 10,000 frame child 
carriers in use in U.S. households with children under age 6 annually 
((120 injuries / 1.28 million frame child carriers in use in U.S. 
households with children under age 6) x 10,000).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Using 95% confidence interval values for frame child 
carriers in use yields an annual estimate of 0.71 to 1.36 emergency 
department-treated injuries per 10,000 frame child carriers in use 
in U.S. households with children under age 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Incident Data

    The preamble to the NPR summarized the incident data reported to 
the Commission involving frame child carriers from January 1, 2003 
through October 27, 2013. 79 FR 28459-60. In the NPR, CPSC's 
Directorate for Epidemiology identified a total of 47 incidents, 
including 33 injuries and no fatalities related to frame child 
carriers. Since the NPR, the Commission has received two new reports 
involving frame child carriers from October 28, 2003 through September 
28, 2014. One reported a frame child carrier falling off of a chair 
with a 14-month-old child in the carrier. The child sustained a head 
injury. The second report was of a frame child carrier whose straps and 
buckles disintegrated, but no injury was mentioned.
    The hazards reported in the new incidents are consistent with the 
hazard patterns identified among the incidents presented in the NPR 
briefing package. Specifically, staff identified stability and 
structural integrity as the two top product-related hazards in the 
incident data presented in the NPR package. The hazard for one of the 
two new incidents is related to stability, and the other is related to 
the structural integrity of the product.

V. Overview of ASTM F2549

    ASTM F2549, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Frame Child 
Carriers, is the voluntary standard that addresses the identified 
hazard patterns associated with the use of frame child carriers and was 
first approved and published in December 2006, as ASTM F2549-06. ASTM 
has revised the voluntary standard six times since then. ASTM F2549-14a 
is the most recent version, which was approved on July 1, 2014.

A. Proposed Rule

    In the NPR, the Commission proposed to incorporate ASTM F2549-14, 
which addressed many of the hazard patterns identified for frame child 
carriers, with one addition: specifying criteria for the retention 
system performance test to provide clear pass/fail criteria for the 
frame child carrier's restraints.

B. Current ASTM Standard for Frame Child Carriers (ASTM F2549-14a)

    In May 2014, ASTM issued a ballot for ASTM F2549. That ballot 
contained language identical to the modification language proposed in 
the NPR regarding the pass/fail criteria associated with the

[[Page 11115]]

retention system test. The ASTM subcommittee approved the ballot item. 
Therefore, the current version of the voluntary standard, ASTM F2549-
14a, is identical to the requirements proposed in the NPR.
    In this rule, the Commission incorporates by reference ASTM F2549-
14a because the Commission's proposed modification in the NPR has been 
adopted in ASTM F2549-14a. Thus, ASTM F2549-14a specifies criteria for 
the retention system performance test to provide clear pass/fail 
criteria for the carrier's restraints.

VI. Response to Comments

    The Commission received two comments in response to the NPR. A 
summary of each comment topic and response is provided below.

A. Economic Factors

1. Definition of Domestic Manufacturer
    Comment: One commenter questioned the number of small domestic 
manufacturers cited by CPSC staff and believed that the term ``domestic 
manufacturer'' should mean that the product is physically manufactured 
in the United States.
    Response: CPSC staff uses U.S. Census Bureau guidelines to 
determine whether a firm is domestic and whether a firm is a 
manufacturer. Under these guidelines, domestic firms are firms filing 
tax returns in the United States. The U.S. Census uses the North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to determine the type 
of business. Under this system, a manufacturer can be a firm/
establishment that processes materials itself or a firm/establishment 
that contracts with others to process the materials. The U.S. Small 
Business Administration's guidance on the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(SBA Guidance) recommends using NAICS codes in combination with Census 
data to identify classes of small entities and estimate their 
number.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy, 
A Guide for Government Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, May 2012: 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Impact on Domestic Manufacturers
    Comment: One commenter questioned what is meant by an insignificant 
impact and asked whether staff's recommendation would be different if 
the proposed rule was found to have a significant impact on all or most 
small businesses.
    The commenter also questioned the use of gross income rather than 
net income or profit, particularly as the higher costs of manufacturing 
domestically would decrease net income and profit while leaving gross 
income unaffected. The commenter suggested that this might, in turn, 
lead to an underestimate of the significance of the proposed rule on 
firms manufacturing only in the United States.
    Response: The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not define 
``significant impact.'' As stated in the SBA Guidance, the 
determination of ``significance'' will ``vary depending on the 
economics of the industry or sector.'' The SBA Guidance also notes that 
the applicable ``agency is in the best position to gauge the small 
entity impacts of its regulations.'' Generally, CPSC staff believes 
that an insignificant impact in the context of the regulatory 
flexibility analysis means that the impact is expected to be small 
enough that changes to a firm's current business operations would be 
limited or largely unaffected.
    Section 104 of the CPSIA requires that the Commission promulgate a 
standard that is either substantially the same as the voluntary 
standard or more stringent than such voluntary standard if the 
Commission determines that the more stringent standard would further 
reduce the risk of injury associated with a product. CPSC may not 
propose a less stringent standard based on economic considerations. At 
the NPR stage, the Commission proposed adopting the voluntary standard 
with the sole addition of specifying the pass/fail criteria for the 
existing retention system performance requirement. By doing so, the 
Commission proposed adopting the least stringent rule allowed by law. 
Therefore, the Commission's proposed rule would have been the same even 
if the impact on each and every small business was found to be 
significant. The same holds true of the Commission's final rule, which 
is to adopt the current voluntary standard without modification. CPSC's 
ability to reduce the impact on small businesses is limited in this 
case to a later effective date, which would allow firms additional time 
to come into compliance, spreading out the associated costs.
    The Directorate for Economic Analysis staff typically uses the 
gross revenue measure because these data are generally available. 
Furthermore, use of gross revenues as an appropriate measure is 
consistent with the SBA Guidance.\8\ In the case of small manufacturers 
and importers of frame child carriers, no information on profits or net 
income was available; therefore, no analysis based on this information 
could be undertaken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Ibid.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Baby Products Survey
    Comment: The commenter questioned the Directorate for Economic 
Analysis's use of the American Baby Group's 2006 Baby Products Tracking 
Study, ``which could be weighted by bias'' and ``may not have been 
adjusted for income and proclivities.''
    Response: In the IRFA, staff acknowledged the bias inherent in the 
study. As noted in the IRFA, the data collected for the Baby Products 
Tracking Study do not represent an unbiased statistical sample because 
the data are drawn from American Baby magazine's mailing lists. 
However, these data were used solely to estimate annual sales of frame 
child carriers in the United States and the potential injury risk 
associated with this product. The use of the Baby Products Tracking 
Study in no way influenced staff's determination of whether the 
regulation's impact on firms would be significant or not.
4. Cost/Benefits Disproportion
    Comment: One commenter asked that the CPSC ``keep the cost-benefit 
ratio appropriate,'' noting that the lack of serious ``or near serious 
injuries . . . over the past ten years'' would mean minimal benefits 
associated with third party testing ``while such testing costs would be 
extremely expensive for small domestic businesses.'' The commenter 
requested alternatives, specifically self-certification, and noted that 
she does not consider a firm's exit from the market an acceptable 
alternative.
    Response: The CPSC did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the 
frame child carrier rule because the rule is being promulgated under 
the requirements of section 104 of the CPSIA, which does not require a 
cost-benefit analysis. Staff conducted an IRFA to assess the impact of 
the rule on small domestic businesses. Benefits are not required to be 
considered as part of an IRFA.
    As noted above, section 104 of the CPSIA requires the Commission to 
adopt a standard that is substantially the same as the voluntary 
standard or more stringent than such voluntary standard if the 
Commission determines that the more stringent standard would further 
reduce the risk of injury associated with a product. Thus, CPSC's 
ability to reduce the impact on small firms is limited to providing a 
later effective date.
    CPSC's ability to address testing costs in the context of section 
104 rulemaking

[[Page 11116]]

likewise is limited. In particular, applicable legal requirements do 
not allow CPSC to modify the voluntary standard to reduce the testing 
costs imposed by a mandatory frame child carrier standard; CPSC is 
required to adopt either the voluntary standard or a more stringent 
standard.
    The discussion in the IRFA of one small domestic manufacturer 
leaving the market was based on information supplied by the firm when 
contacted. In consideration of that concern and to allow small 
businesses additional time to prepare for the impact of the rule, the 
final rule provides an 18-month effective date. To address potential 
hazards during that 18-month period before the rule takes effect, CPSC 
could act to remove any unsafe frame child carriers from the market 
using its authorities under section 15 of the Consumer Product Safety 
Act (CPSA).

B. Availability of Testing Laboratories

    Comment: One commenter stated that she had a problem finding 
laboratories that could conduct the proposed testing.
    Response: In a follow-up phone conversation with the commenter, 
staff provided specific contacts for three laboratories. Although not 
yet accredited to test frame child carriers, all three laboratories are 
capable of testing frame child carriers to the final rule because they 
have experience testing frame child carriers to the ASTM standard 
referenced in the final rule.

C. Testing Equipment Issues

    One commenter raised several issues or questions regarding the test 
equipment specified in the ASTM standard.
1. CAMI Dummy Availability
    Comment: One commenter was unable to secure the CAMI dummy due to 
its price and the lead-time needed to order it.
    Response: Unfortunately, CAMI dummies are only available through 
the one company that makes them; thus, there are no less expensive 
versions available. However, there is no requirement for firms to 
perform testing themselves; thus, there is no requirement to purchase a 
CAMI dummy or any of the test equipment. Third party testing 
laboratories offer many services, not just certification testing. 
Testing laboratories can perform product assessments and pre-
certification testing as well.
2. CAMI Dummy Applicability
    Comment: One commenter believed the size of the test dummy required 
by the standard is not indicative of a typical user of a frame child 
carrier. In addition, the commenter noted that the test dummy does not 
take into account items such as seasonal clothing on the child, which 
could increase the overall size of the occupant.
    Response: The CAMI dummy referenced in the ASTM standard is modeled 
after the average (50th percentile) 6-month-old child, which is the 
youngest user normally specified for these carriers. The CAMI dummy is 
used in the standard to simulate the youngest user because the hazards 
being addressed (falling through leg openings, etc.) are more likely to 
occur with the youngest user. The older (larger) users are not as 
vulnerable to the specific hazards where testing requires using a CAMI 
dummy. Therefore, the test procedure uses a conservative approach and 
simulates use by the smallest (youngest) user. Adding a new test, or 
using an ``older'' dummy (or one wearing heavy clothes), would not 
capture any additional hazards and would only make the testing more 
expensive.
3. Test Sphere
    Comment: One commenter stated that she could not find the test 
sphere.
    Response: The test sphere is not an off-the-shelf product. The 
standard defines the test sphere as a sphere, 16.5 inches (419.1 mm) in 
diameter, which is fabricated from a smooth, rigid material and weighs 
7.0 pounds (3.2 kg). Those are the only design specifications. Staff is 
aware of test spheres fabricated from wood, metal, or plastic. Any 
competent machine shop or woodworking facility should be able to make 
one to the correct weight and size.
4. Test Sphere vs. CAMI Dummy
    Comment: One commenter believed the use of the test sphere for the 
leg opening test is not reasonable because the shape is different from 
a child, and a sphere cannot use a safety harness. The commenter 
requested that a CAMI dummy be used instead.
    Response: The goal of this performance requirement is to model a 
worst-case-use scenario associated with a specific hazard; i.e., an 
occupant slipping both legs and body through one leg opening. If the 
product passes a conservative, worst-case scenario test, the product 
would be safe in that particular respect for all users. For the leg-
opening test, the test sphere simulates the smallest user's hip 
dimension. The requirement is intended to address the hazard associated 
with the smallest users who may be getting both legs/body into one leg 
hole and sliding out of the frame child carrier. Thus, the worst-case 
scenario is to take into account the smallest user's hip dimensions. 
Lastly, and more importantly, using a smooth, rigid, and consistently 
dimensioned sphere is more likely to provide repeatable results. This 
means that the same frame carrier would consistently pass (or fail) the 
test, irrespective of the test laboratory or technician running the 
test. The CAMI dummy is made from canvas fabric, and with age and use, 
the flexibility and texture of the dummy changes. Thus, a frame child 
carrier tested to the leg-opening requirement might fail the 
requirement if a worn CAMI dummy were used but would pass if a brand 
new CAMI dummy were used. Thus, staff agrees with ASTM that the test 
sphere is the right test probe. Leg opening tests are used in various 
other children's product standards; and the use of test equipment, such 
as spheres and probes, to conduct these tests is common practice.

D. Pre-Certification Testing

    Comment: One commenter expected to send products to a certified 
laboratory only after having pre-tested them, which she claims would 
not be possible because of the problems associated with obtaining the 
testing equipment.
    Response: As mentioned in another response to a comment, firms are 
not required to pre-test their products before having the products 
tested by a third party laboratory for certification. It is, however, 
understandable that companies would like to be assured that their 
products will pass, before sending them out for certification testing. 
In that case, firms have multiple alternatives. They can purchase the 
equipment and undertake the testing themselves, or they can contract 
with a qualified testing laboratory to conduct the pre-testing.

E. Self-Certification

    Comment: One commenter, a registered small batch manufacturer, 
asked why CPSC cannot apply the small batch rules for registered small 
batch manufacturers to the third party testing requirements for section 
104 rules. The commenter suggested removing the third party testing 
requirement from the rule and providing small batch manufacturers with 
the alternative to self-certify. The commenter noted that CPSC has 
already allowed for exemptions from the CPSIA's third party testing 
requirements for small batch manufacturers.
    Response: Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires that all children's 
products subject to a children's product safety rule, like the rule for 
frame child

[[Page 11117]]

carriers, must be third party tested. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2). Section 
14(g)(4) of the Consumer Product Safety Act allows exceptions to third 
party testing for small batch manufacturers. However, that provision 
does not allow the Commission to provide small batch manufacturers any 
alternative requirements or exemptions for rules for durable infant and 
toddler products promulgated under section 104. Id. 2063(g)(4)(C)(ii). 
The rule for frame child carriers is promulgated under the legal 
authority in section 104 of the CPSIA. Therefore, the Commission does 
not have the legal authority to allow for self-certification for small 
batch manufacturers for the frame child carrier rule.

F. Training Opportunities

    Comment: One commenter noted that CPSC staff will be conducting 
training for buyers and sourcing professionals dealing in electrical-
electric-appliances, apparel, and toys in China. The commenter was 
concerned that similar training with respect to the mandatory rule for 
frame child carriers would give a competitive advantage to importers 
and foreign manufacturers whose products are made offshore.
    Response: CPSC staff routinely conducts industry training both 
abroad and in the United States. During fiscal year 2013, for instance, 
we conducted 12 training events for industry abroad. For the same 
period, we conducted 14 training events domestically. Moreover, the 
Office of Compliance participated in public or webcast meetings 
throughout fiscal year 2013 to discuss newly issued and existing rules 
and requirements; these materials generally are made available to the 
general public. Many of these materials are available at 
www.slideshare.net/USCPSC for download and review. Since Fiscal Year 
2012, we have uploaded 120 presentations on a variety of topic areas to 
SlideShare. The total number of these meetings was 88, the majority of 
which were domestic. Staff anticipates continuing such training 
opportunities both abroad and domestically.

G. Compliance Issues

    Comment: One commenter asked for clarification about what 
constitutes a different model of a product and what changes to the 
frame child carrier would constitute enough of a difference to require 
additional third party testing.
    Response: Guidance regarding material change testing is available 
on the CPSC Web site, which contains information about applicable 
definitions and legal requirements. It is a manufacturer's 
responsibility to determine when a product change constitutes a 
different model. How this determination is made governs whether 
different models could require third party testing and certification. A 
material change to the product's design or manufacturing process, as 
well as a new source of component parts for the product, could affect 
the product's ability to comply with the applicable children's product 
safety rule and could be considered enough of a change to require 
additional testing.
    The frame child carrier rule is a children's product safety rule 
subject to third party testing. The manufacturer only has to retest the 
product if there is a material change. If the material change only 
affects certain component parts; component part testing can be 
sufficient for that component part only, so long as the material change 
will not affect the finished product's ability to comply with the 
applicable children's product safety rules.

H. Effective Date

    Comment: One commenter agreed with the proposed 6-month effective 
date for the standard, while another commenter expressed concerns about 
whether a domestic test laboratory would be willing to perform testing 
to the mandatory frame child carrier standard if only three U.S. firms 
were requesting third party testing. A second commenter suggested that 
the rule could impose ``excessive costs,'' damaging to the commenter's 
firm.
    Response: As previously noted, the sole alternative staff can 
recommend to help minimize the impact of the mandatory standard is a 
later effective date. A later effective date would allow manufacturers 
and test laboratories additional time to prepare for the rule's 
requirements. A later effective date would reduce the economic impact 
on small firms in two ways. First, firms would be less likely to 
experience a lapse in production, which could result if firms are 
unable to develop compliant frame child carriers and third party test 
them within the required timeframe. Second, firms could spread costs 
over a longer time period, thereby reducing their annual costs and the 
present value of their total costs.
    Staff does not agree with the second commenter's concerns regarding 
the potential difficulty in securing a U.S. (or foreign) test 
laboratory accredited to test frame child carriers. Inquiries made of 
three domestic laboratories who are qualified to test frame child 
carriers indicated that these test laboratories already have the ASTM 
standard for frame child carriers in their accreditation scope. All 
three labs include the ASTM standard in their accreditation and intend 
to apply for CPSC acceptance for testing to the regulation after a 
final rule is published. Staff believes that laboratories will be able 
to complete the necessary procedures to permit testing under the new 
frame carrier rule within the 18-month period before effectiveness of 
the rule.
    However, CPSC staff cannot rule out a significant impact on small 
businesses whose frame child carriers do not comply with the final 
rule. Therefore, as discussed above, the final rule provides an 18-
month effective date to reduce the impact of the mandatory standard, to 
the extent possible, on small businesses.

VII. Final Rule

A. Final Rule for Part 1230 and Incorporation by Reference

    Section 1230.2 of the final rule provides that frame child carriers 
must comply with ASTM F2549-14a. The Office of the Federal Register 
(OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 
51. The OFR recently revised these regulations to require that, for a 
final rule, agencies must discuss in the preamble of the rule ways that 
the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably 
available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain 
the materials. In addition, the preamble of the rule must summarize the 
material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).
    In accordance with the OFR's requirements, the discussion in this 
section summarizes the provisions of ASTM F2549-14a. Interested persons 
may purchase a copy of ASTM F2549-14a from ASTM, either through ASTM's 
Web site or by mail at the address provided above and in the rule. One 
may also inspect a copy of the standard at the CPSC's Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, or at NARA, as 
discussed above. We note that the Commission and ASTM arranged for 
commenters to have ``read only'' access to ASTM F 2549-14a during the 
NPR's comment period.
    The CPSC is incorporating by reference ASTM F2549-14a because ASTM 
F2549-14a includes the Commission's proposed modification in the NPR to 
specify criteria for the retention system performance test to provide 
clear pass/fail criteria for the carrier's restraints.
    ASTM F2549-14a contains requirements covering:

 Sharp points
 small Parts
 lead in paint

[[Page 11118]]

 flammability requirements
 scissoring, shearing, pinching
 openings
 exposed coil springs
 locking and latching (for carriers that fold for storage)
 unintentional folding (for carriers with kick stands that can 
stand freely)
 labeling
 protective components
 structural integrity
 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)
 restraints (requires that all carriers have a restraint system 
and also provides a method for testing the restraints), and
 handle integrity (helps prevent the handle from breaking or 
separating when it is pulled with three times the maximum recommended 
weight).

B. Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112 To Include NOR for Frame Child 
Carriers Standard

    The final rule amends part 1112 to add a new section 1112.15(b)(38) 
that lists 16 CFR part 1230, Safety Standard for Frame Child Carriers 
as a children's products safety rule for which the Commission has 
issued an NOR. Section XIII of the preamble provides additional 
background information regarding certification of frame child carriers 
and issuance of an NOR.

VIII. Effective Date

    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the 
effective date of the rule be at least 30 days after publication of the 
final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The safety standard for frame child 
carriers and the corresponding changes to the part 1112 rule regarding 
requirements for third party conformity assessment bodies will become 
effective 18 months after publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. The rule provides an 18-month effective date to allow firms 
whose frame child carriers may not comply with the voluntary ASTM 
standard additional time to come into compliance with the mandatory 
frame child carrier rule. Of the nine supplying firms contacted, four 
provided information on the time table required for redevelopment. 
Eighteen months reflects the maximum length of time these firms 
indicated might be necessary and will allow the greatest flexibility to 
small firms that may be significantly affected by the mandatory frame 
child carrier standard.

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act

A. Introduction

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires 
agencies to consider the impact of proposed and final rules on small 
entities, including small businesses. Section 604 of the RFA requires 
that agencies prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) 
when promulgating final rules, unless the head of the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The FRFA must describe the impact of the rule 
on small entities. Specifically, the final regulatory flexibility 
analysis must contain:
     A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;
     a statement of the significant issues raised by the public 
comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a 
statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a 
statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such 
comments;
     the response of the agency to any comments filed by the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in 
response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change 
made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the 
comments;
     a description of and an estimate of the number of small 
entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such 
estimate is available;
     a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, 
and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of 
the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement 
and the type of professional skills necessary for the preparation of 
the report or record; and
     a description of the steps the agency has taken to 
minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent 
with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a 
statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the 
alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other 
significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which 
affect the impact on small entities was rejected.

B. Reason for Agency Action

    The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, section 104 
of the CPSIA, requires the CPSC to promulgate mandatory standards for 
durable infant or toddler products that are substantially the same as, 
or more stringent than, the voluntary standard. Infant carriers are 
included in the definition of ``durable infant or toddler products'' 
subject to section 104 of the CPSIA. CPSC staff worked closely with 
ASTM stakeholders to develop the requirements and the pass/fail 
criteria associated with the retention system test procedures that have 
been incorporated into ASTM F2549-14a, which forms the basis for the 
mandatory standard.

C. Other Federal Rules

    The frame child carrier mandatory standard will have implications 
for two separate, existing federal rules: (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 product safety rules, 
certify, based on third party testing, that their children's products 
comply with all applicable safety rules. Because frame child carriers 
will be subject to a mandatory rule, they will also be subject to the 
third party testing requirements when the rule becomes effective.
    In addition, section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires the third party 
testing of children's products to be conducted by CPSC-accepted 
laboratories. Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to 
publish a notice of requirements (NOR) for the accreditation of third 
party conformity assessment bodies (i.e., testing laboratories) to test 
for conformance with each children's product safety rule. These NORs 
are set forth in 16 CFR part 1112. The final rule is amending part 1112 
to include frame child carriers in the list of NORs issued by the 
Commission.

D. Impact on Small Businesses

    There are approximately 16 firms currently known to be marketing 
frame child carriers in the United States, 14 of which are domestic. 
Under SBA guidelines, a manufacturer of frame child carriers is 
categorized as small if the entity 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 11 of the identified 16 firms are small--four 
domestic

[[Page 11119]]

manufacturers, six domestic importers, and one domestic firm with an 
unknown supply source. Additional unknown small domestic frame child 
carrier suppliers operating in the U.S. market may exist.
    The impact of the final frame child carrier rule on the domestic 
manufacturers and importers considered to be small depends upon two 
factors: (1) Whether, and the degree to which, their frame child 
carriers comply with the voluntary standard; and (2) the importance of 
frame child carriers to the firm's overall product line. The effect of 
these two factors on small manufacturers and small importers is 
discussed below.
Small Manufacturers
    Aside from third party testing requirements, discussed below, the 
final rule is likely to have little or no impact on the three (of four) 
small domestic manufacturers whose frame child carriers are compliant 
with the ASTM voluntary standard currently in effect for JPMA testing 
and certification purposes (ASTM F2549-14). We anticipate these firms 
will remain compliant with the voluntary standard as the standard 
changes because the 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 F2549-14a, the voluntary standard 
that the final rule incorporates by reference as the mandatory standard 
for frame child carriers, will be in effect already for JPMA testing 
and certification purposes before the mandatory standard goes into 
effect. These firms are likely to be in compliance based on their 
history.
    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. When contacted by staff prior to the NPR, 
the firm was unaware of the ASTM standard. Based on subsequent staff 
conversations, the firm has not yet tested its products to the 
voluntary standard. Initially, the company's representative indicated 
that the firm would likely discontinue production of its frame child 
carriers, regardless of whether they complied with the frame child 
carriers rule. However, subsequent information from the company 
suggests that the company likely will stay in the market and modify its 
frame child carriers, if necessary, to meet the final rule. This firm 
produces many other products and has indicated that frame child 
carriers do not represent a large portion of the firm's product line. 
However, the extent of the changes that may be required to meet the 
mandatory standard is unknown, as is the exact percentage of revenues 
that frame child carriers constitute for the firm. Because we have no 
basis for quantifying the size of the impact, we cannot rule out a 
significant economic impact for this firm.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ It should be noted that the company representative believes 
that the impact of the rule on the firm will be significant. 
However, much of the perceived impact is due to third party testing 
costs which are considered separately later in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 18-month effective date for the final frame child carrier rule 
should help reduce the impact of the final rule on the known small 
manufacturer whose frame child carriers may not comply with the rule. 
This would give the firm additional time to develop new or modified 
products and spread costs over a longer time frame.
    Under section 14 of the CPSA, once the new frame child carrier 
requirements become effective, all manufacturers will be subject to the 
additional costs associated with the third party testing and 
certification requirements under the testing rule, Testing and Labeling 
Pertaining to Product Certification (16 CFR part 1107). Third party 
testing will include any physical and mechanical test requirements 
specified in the final frame child carrier rule; lead testing is 
already required, and testing for phthalates may also be required. 
Third party testing costs are in addition to the direct costs of 
meeting the mandatory frame child carriers standard.
    CPSC staff contacted several frame child carrier suppliers 
regarding testing costs. Two firms provided estimates that included 
both physical and mechanical testing to the current ASTM standard, as 
well as lead and phthalate testing. Firms must test for lead and may be 
required to test for phthalates regardless of any rule for frame child 
carriers. Including lead and phthalate testing, one firm estimated 
testing costs to be $800 to $1,100 per unit tested, and the other firm 
estimated the costs to be about $1,300 per unit. Estimates provided by 
durable nursery product suppliers subject to other section 104 
rulemakings indicate that around 40 percent to 50 percent of 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 the ASTM voluntary standard 
portion of the frame child carrier testing cost estimates to be $320 to 
$550 per sample tested ($800 x .4 to $1,100 x .5) and $520 to $650 per 
sample tested ($1,300 x .4 to $1,300 x .5), respectively. A third frame 
child carrier supplier provided an estimate of $500 to $750 for testing 
to the ASTM standard separately. These estimates demonstrate that 
testing costs can vary widely. Elements that can influence costs 
include where the testing is performed and whether a firm can negotiate 
rates based on volume for one or more products.
    Staff's review of the frame child carriers 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 $960 ($320 x 3) to $2,250 
($750 x 3) 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 (D&B) or ReferenceUSAGov reports, the 
impact of third party testing to ASTM F2549-14a will be significantly 
less than 1 percent of revenue for the three small domestic 
manufacturers for whom revenue data are available (i.e., testing costs 
less than 1 percent of gross revenue). Although the testing and 
labeling rule (16 CFR part 1107) is not explicit regarding the number 
of samples firms will need to test to meet the ``high degree of 
assurance'' criterion, more than 20 units per model would be required 
before the testing costs of any of the three small manufacturers with 
available revenue data would exceed 1 percent of gross revenue.\10\ 
However, testing costs could be significant for the one small 
manufacturer for which revenue data were unavailable, given that the 
entity only recently entered the frame child carriers market and 
manufactures no other products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ One of these firms commented that their actual testing 
costs will be higher than estimated in the NPR. However, even if the 
firm's testing costs were twice those estimated here, testing costs 
are unlikely to exceed 1 percent of the firm's publically reported 
gross revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small Importers
    As noted above, six small firms import frame child carriers, with 
two of them currently importing compliant carriers. Absent a mandatory 
regulation, these two small importers of frame child carriers would 
likely remain compliant with new versions of the voluntary standard. 
Given that the two small importers have developed a pattern of 
compliance with the ASTM voluntary

[[Page 11120]]

standard as the voluntary standard evolves, and that the final rule is 
a soon-to-be-effective voluntary standard for JPMA testing, ASTM F2549-
14a, the two small importers of compliant products would likely 
experience little or no direct costs if the final rule is implemented.
    The extent of the economic impact on the four small importers with 
frame child carriers that do not comply with the voluntary standard 
will depend upon the product changes required to comply and how their 
supplying firms respond. 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 their supplying firm comes into compliance, 
the importer could elect to continue importing the frame child 
carriers. Any increase in production costs experienced by their 
suppliers from changes made to meet the mandatory standard may be 
passed on to the importers. If an importer decides that it is unwilling 
or unable to accept the increased costs, or if the importer's supplier 
decides not to comply with the mandatory standard, there are three 
alternatives available. First, importers 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 
their carriers to comply with the mandatory standard. Second, firms 
could import a different product in place of their frame child 
carriers. This alternative would help mitigate the economic impact of 
the mandatory standard on these firms. Finally, importers could stop 
importing frame child carriers and make no other changes to their 
product line.
    As with manufacturers, all importers will be subject to third party 
testing and certification requirements, and consequently, will be 
subject to costs similar to those for manufacturers, if their supplying 
foreign firm(s) does not perform third party testing. These costs 
appear unlikely to exceed 1 percent of gross revenue for the two small 
domestic importers for which revenue information is available, unless 
more than 10 or 30 units per model were required to be tested to 
provide a ``high degree of assurance,'' respectively. The impact on the 
other four small importers could not be determined or quantified, and 
thus, we cannot rule out a significant economic impact.

E. Alternatives

    Section 104 of the CPSIA requires that the Commission promulgate a 
standard that is either substantially the same as the voluntary 
standard or more stringent. Therefore, the final frame child carrier 
rule (adoption of the voluntary standard, ASTM F2549-14a, with no 
modifications) is the minimum required by law. Consequently, the sole 
recommendation that staff can make to minimize (but not eliminate) the 
rule's economic impact is a later effective date. As discussed above, a 
later effective date would reduce the economic impact on small frame 
child carrier firms in two ways.
    Because the economic impact of the frame child carriers rule on 
small firms could not be determined or quantified, staff cannot rule 
out a significant impact. Therefore, the final rule has an 18-month 
effective date, which was the maximum estimated period of time that 
frame child carrier firms familiar with the ASTM standard advised staff 
the firms would need for new product development. The minimum period of 
time estimated was 6 months, but only one of the four firms that 
responded to this question supported that time estimate. Of the nine 
supplying firms that staff contacted, four provided information on the 
time table required for redevelopment. Eighteen months reflects the 
maximum length of time these firms indicated might be necessary and 
will allow the greatest flexibility to small firms that may be 
significantly affected by the mandatory frame child carriers standard.

X. Environmental Considerations

    The Commission's regulations address whether we are required to 
prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact 
statement. These regulations provide a categorical exclusion for 
certain CPSC actions that normally have ``little or no potential for 
affecting the human environment.'' Among those actions are rules or 
safety standards for consumer products. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The rule 
falls within the categorical exclusion.

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This 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). The preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 28466 through 28467) 
discussed the information collection burden of the proposed rule and 
specifically requested comments on the accuracy of our estimates. 
Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F2549-14a 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).
    OMB has assigned control number 3041-0166 to this information 
collection. The Commission did not receive any comments regarding the 
information collection burden of this proposal. However, the final rule 
makes modifications regarding the information collection burden because 
the number of estimated suppliers subject to the information collection 
burden is now estimated at 16 firms, rather than the 15 firms initially 
estimated in the proposed rule.
    Accordingly, the estimated burden of this collection of information 
is modified 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)..........................................................              16                3               48                1               48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XII. Preemption

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

[[Page 11121]]

104 of the CPSIA will invoke the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of 
the CPSA when the rule becomes effective.

XIII. Certification and Notice of Requirements (NOR)

    Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the requirement that products 
subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a 
similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other Act enforced 
by the Commission, must be certified as complying with all applicable 
CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Section 14(a)(2) of the 
CPSA requires that certification of children's products subject to a 
children's product safety rule be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-
accepted third party conformity assessment body. Section 14(a)(3) of 
the CPSA requires the Commission to publish a NOR for the accreditation 
of third party conformity assessment bodies (or laboratories) to assess 
conformity with a children's product safety rule to which a children's 
product is subject. The ``Safety Standard for Frame Child Carriers,'' 
to be codified at 16 CFR part 1230, is a children's product safety rule 
that requires the issuance of an NOR.
    The Commission published a final rule, Requirements Pertaining to 
Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), 
which is codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (referred to here as part 1112). 
This rule became effective on June 10, 2013. Part 1112 establishes 
requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment 
bodies (or laboratories) to test for conformance with a children's 
product safety rule in accordance with section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA. 
Part 1112 also codifies a list of all of the NORs that the CPSC had 
published at the time part 1112 was issued. All NORs issued after the 
Commission published part 1112, such as the standard for frame child 
carriers, require the Commission to amend part 1112. Accordingly, the 
Commission is now amending part 1112 to include the standard for frame 
child carriers in the list of other children's product safety rules for 
which the CPSC has issued NORs.
    Laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third party 
conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for frame child 
carriers would be required to meet the third party conformity 
assessment body accreditation requirements in 16 CFR part 1112, 
Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies. 
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 its scope of accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed for 
the laboratory on the CPSC Web site at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.
    CPSC staff conducted a FRFA as part of the process of promulgating 
the part 1112 rule (78 FR 15836, 15855-58), as required by the RFA. 
Briefly, the FRFA concluded that the accreditation requirements would 
not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small 
laboratories because no requirements were imposed on laboratories that 
did not intend to provide third party testing services. The only 
laboratories 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.
    Based on similar reasoning, amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include 
the NOR for the frame child carrier standard will not have a 
significant adverse impact on small laboratories. Based upon the 
relatively small number of laboratories in the United States that have 
applied for CPSC acceptance of the accreditation to test for 
conformance to other juvenile product standards, we expect that only a 
few laboratories will seek CPSC acceptance of their accreditation to 
test for conformance with the frame child carrier standard. Most of 
these laboratories will have already been accredited to test for 
conformance to other juvenile product standards, and the only costs to 
them would be the cost of adding the frame child carrier standard to 
their scope of accreditation. Costs should be negligible, as these 
laboratories are already familiar with the requirements for CPSC 
accreditation under 16 CFR part 1112 and have experience with this 
process for other durable nursery products under section 104 of the 
CPSIA. As a consequence, the Commission could certify that the NOR for 
the frame child carriers standard will not have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects

16 CFR Part 1112

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

16 CFR Part 1230

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends 
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.

    Each frame child carrier must comply with all applicable provisions 
of ASTM F2549-14a, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Frame 
Child Carriers, approved on July 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. 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/

[[Page 11122]]

federal_register/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html.

Alberta E. Mills,
Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-03717 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P