Review of the Safety Standards for Full-Size Baby Cribs and Non-Full-Size Baby Cribs, 5587-5589 [2020-01832]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2020 / Proposed Rules
(i) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD,
contact Kirk Gustafson, Aerospace Engineer,
Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803; phone: 781–
238–7190; fax: 781–238–7199; email:
kirk.gustafson@faa.gov.
(2) Refer to European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2019–0004,
dated January 11, 2019 (corrected on January
17, 2019), for more information. You may
examine the EASA AD in the AD docket on
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA–2019–0760.
(3) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation, Customer Service Engineering,
124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611;
telephone 1–800-Winged-S or 203–416–4299;
email: wcs_cust_service_eng.gr-sik@
lmco.com; Thales AVS France SAS, 75–77
Avenue Marcel Dassault, 33700 Me´rignac—
France, Tel: +33 (0)5 24 44 77 40,
www.thalesgroup.com; or ATR–GIE Avions
de Transport Re´gional, 1, Alle´e Pierre Nadot,
31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33
(0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18;
email continued.airworthiness@atraircraft.com. You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA, Engine and
Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 781–238–7759.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on
January 27, 2020.
Robert J. Ganley,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–01706 Filed 1–30–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
16 CFR Parts 1219, 1220
[Docket No. CPSC–2010–0075]
Review of the Safety Standards for
Full-Size Baby Cribs and Non-Full-Size
Baby Cribs
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Section 610 review and request
for comments.
AGENCY:
The Consumer Product Safety
Commission (Commission or CPSC) is
conducting a review of the safety
standards for full-size baby cribs and
non-full-size baby cribs under section
610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA). That section requires the CPSC to
review, within 10 years after their
issuance, mandatory standards that have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The CPSC seeks comment to determine
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Jan 30, 2020
Jkt 250001
whether, consistent with the CPSC’s
statutory obligations, these standards
should be maintained without change or
modified to minimize significant impact
of the rule on a substantial number of
small entities.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted by March 31, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. CPSC–2010–
0075, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit
electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
CPSC does not accept comments
submitted by electronic mail (email),
except through www.regulations.gov.
CPSC encourages you to submit
electronic comments by using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, as
described above.
Mail/hand delivery/courier
Submissions: Submit comments by
mail/hand delivery/courier to: Division
of the Secretariat, 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 notice. 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 electronically confidential
business information, trade secret
information, or other sensitive or
protected information that you do not
want to be available to the public. If you
wish to submit such information, please
submit it according to the instructions
for written submissions.
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–2010–0075, into
the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the
prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Proper, Directorate for Economic
Analysis, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 4330 East West Highway,
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301)
504–7628; email: sproper@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Section 104 of the Consumer Product
Safety Improvement Act
On December 28, 2010, the CPSC
issued the Safety Standards for Full-Size
Baby Cribs (16 CFR part 1219) and NonFull-Size Baby Cribs (16 CFR part 1220)
under section 104(c) of the Consumer
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5587
Product Safety Improvement Act of
2008 (CPSIA), Public Law 110–314) (75
FR 81766). Section 104(c) of the CPSIA
stated that the crib standards would
apply to certain persons (such as those
owning or operating child care facilities
and places of public accommodation),
in addition to persons usually subject to
consumer product safety rules.1 In the
initial rule, the Commission determined
that both crib standards would have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities, including
manufacturers, importers, small
retailers, and child care centers (75 FR
81782–86).
On August 12, 2011, in Public Law
112–28, Congress amended section 104
and specifically addressed potential
revisions of the crib standards, stating
that any revision after their initial
promulgation ‘‘shall apply only to a
person that manufactures or imports
cribs,’’ unless the Commission
determines that application to any
others covered by the initial crib
standards is ‘‘necessary to protect
against an unreasonable risk to health or
safety.’’ If the Commission applies a
revised crib standard to additional
persons, the statute requires the
Commission to provide at least 12
months for those persons to come into
compliance. The Commission has not
expanded the applicability of the crib
standards to any additional persons in
subsequent revisions to the standards.2
B. The Crib Standards
The full-size baby crib standard
currently incorporates ASTM F1169–19,
Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Full-Size Baby Cribs,
approved on March 15, 2019, as the
mandatory CPSC standard. ASTM
F1169–19 specifies performance
requirements and test procedures to
determine the structural integrity of fullsize cribs. It also contains design
requirements addressing entanglement
on crib corner post extensions, and
1 Under section 104(c) of the CPSIA, the initial
crib standards applied to any person that
(A) Manufactures, distributes in commerce, or
contracts to sell cribs;
(B) Based on the person’s occupation, holds itself
out as having knowledge of skill peculiar to cribs,
including child care facilities and family child care
homes;
(C) Is in the business of contracting to sell or
resell, lease, sublet, or otherwise place cribs in the
stream of commerce; or
(D) Owns or operates a place of accommodation
affecting commerce.
2 The full-size crib standard was revised on July
31, 2012 (77 FR 45242), December 9, 2013 (78 FR
73692), and July 23, 2019 (84 FR 35293); the nonfull-size crib standard was revised on June 6, 2018
(83 FR 26206) and October 23, 2019 (84 FR 56684).
E:\FR\FM\31JAP1.SGM
31JAP1
5588
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2020 / Proposed Rules
requirements for warning labels and
instructional material.
The non-full-size baby crib standard
currently incorporates ASTM F406–17,
Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Non-Full-Size Baby
Cribs/Play Yards, approved on
December 1, 2017, as the mandatory
CPSC standard. ASTM 406–17 specifies
the testing requirements for structural
integrity and performance requirements
for non-full-size cribs/play yards. It also
provides requirements for labeling and
instructional material.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Review Under Section 610 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Section 610(a) of the RFA requires
agencies to review regulations that have
a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities within 10 years
of the date of their publication. 5 U.S.C.
610(a). Because the crib standards were
promulgated in 2010, the Commission is
now commencing its section 610
review. The purpose of the review is to
determine whether such rule should be
continued without change, or should be
amended, consistent with the stated
objectives of applicable statutes to
minimize any significant impact of the
rules on a substantial number of small
entities. The RFA lists several factors
that the agency shall consider when
reviewing rules under section 610.
These factors are:
• The continued need for the rule;
• The nature of complaints or
comments received concerning the rule
from the public;
• The complexity of the rule;
• The extent to which the rule
overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with
other Federal rules, and, to the extent
feasible, with State and local
governmental rules; and
• The length of time since the rule
has been evaluated or the degree to
which technology, economic conditions,
or other factors have changed in the area
affected by the rule.
5 U.S.C. 610(b)
The need for the safety standards for
full-size baby cribs and non-full-size
baby cribs has been established by
statutory mandate under section 104 of
the CPSIA. However, the Commission
seeks comment to evaluate the other
factors and to determine whether the
ongoing impact of the rules is
significant for a substantial number of
small entities. An important step in the
review process involves gathering and
analyzing information from affected
persons about their experience with the
rules and any material changes in
circumstances since issuance of the
rules. The Commission requests written
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Jan 30, 2020
Jkt 250001
comments on the adequacy or
inadequacy of the rules, their small
business impacts, and other relevant
issues. In addition to the specific
questions below, the Commission
welcomes comments on any other issues
raised by section 610 of the RFA.
Safety and Effectiveness
1. Are there any recent technological
developments that would improve the
effectiveness of the full-size or non-fullsize crib standards? Would any of these
potential improvements have an impact
on suppliers, and if so, would the
impact be different for small suppliers
and large suppliers?
2. Are there any sections of the fullsize and/or non-full-size crib standards
that could be improved without
reducing the stringency of the standards
or reducing the safety of the resulting
cribs? How would these changes affect
suppliers, particularly small suppliers?
Explain your response, and provide
supporting data, if possible.
Costs and Impacts—Suppliers
1. Are there any requirements of the
full-size or non-full size crib standards
that are especially or unnecessarily
costly and/or burdensome, particularly
to small suppliers? Which ones? Are
any of the requirements
disproportionately burdensome for
small entities? How might the
requirements of either standard be
modified to reduce the costs or burdens
on small suppliers without reducing the
safety provided by the standards or
making the standards less stringent?
Please explain your response, and
provide supporting data.
2. What percent of the time and cost
of crib construction does complying
with the full-size and/or non-full-size
crib standards represent? Do these
percentages vary significantly
depending on the geographical location,
size of firm, or other factors? Which
requirements in the full-size or non-fullsize crib standards have the greatest
impact on cost of production? The
lowest impact on cost of production?
We are primarily interested in small
firms, but understanding how impact
varies based on firm size would be
helpful. Please explain your response,
and provide supporting data, if possible.
3. What modifications did
manufacturers or others have to make to
full-size and/or non-full-size crib
models to comply with the requirements
of CPSC’s crib standards? What was the
cost of these modifications in terms of
labor, materials, and research and
development? Are these costs ongoing,
or were they one-time expenditures?
Please explain, and provide supporting
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
data, if possible. Are the costs
comparable for large and small firms?
4. Have any manufacturers or
importers entered the market for fullsize and/or non-full-size cribs since the
standards went into effect? Did the
standards present any specific
challenges for new entrants, particularly
small suppliers?
5. Have any manufacturers or
importers reduced the number of
models in their full-size and/or non-fullsize crib product lines or dropped the
product lines entirely because of the
requirements of the crib rules? If so,
which requirements were the most
burdensome, and were they more, less,
or equally burdensome for small firms?
Why?
6. Did the longer effective date for
childcare facilities significantly reduce
the impact? Please explain why or why
not.
7. Do the full-size and non-full-size
crib standards affect any small entities
not mentioned in the questions above?
If so, what entities are affected and
how? Please explain your response, and
provide supporting data, if possible.
Recordkeeping and Third Party Testing
1. What percent of the time and cost
of complying with the full-size and nonfull-size crib standards does testing
represent? How much of that testing is
conducted by third parties, and how
much is additional, internal testing? Do
these percentages vary significantly
depending on the type of crib,
geographical location, size of firm, or
other factors? Which requirements in
the full-size and non-full-size crib
standards have the greatest impact on
testing costs? Which requirements have
the lowest impact on testing costs? We
are especially interested in any
differential impact of the testing
requirements on small businesses.
Explain your response, and provide
supporting data, if possible.
2. Are the recordkeeping requirements
associated with third party testing for
conforming to the crib standards
adequate, inadequate, or overly
burdensome? If they are overly
burdensome, are they more or less
burdensome for small firms? Are there
recordkeeping requirements that could
be applied to cribs as a product class
that would reduce the recordkeeping
cost on suppliers, in particular small
suppliers, without reducing safety?
Please explain your response.
3. How frequently do suppliers
submit samples of their full-size and
non-full-size cribs to third party
conformity assessment bodies for testing
to compliance with the full-size or nonfull-size crib standards or other crib
E:\FR\FM\31JAP1.SGM
31JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2020 / Proposed Rules
standards? Do small suppliers submit
them more, less, or with equal
frequency as large suppliers? How many
samples of each model are submitted for
testing to maintain certification? Do the
number of samples submitted vary
depending on the size of the submitting
supplier? What is the cost of the testing,
and to what extent, if any, does cost
vary, based on the size of the submitting
firm? Did the cost of testing for
conformance with standards (whether
third party, internal, or both) increase
after the rules became mandatory? If so,
by how much, and did that increase
vary, based on firm size?
4. To what extent have the third party
testing requirements replaced other
testing that suppliers, particularly small
suppliers, conducted, thereby not
imposing any additional burden? Please
explain your response.
5. Have suppliers, particularly small
suppliers, been able to make use of the
flexibilities provided in the component
part rule (16 CFR part 1109) to reduce
their third party testing costs (e.g.,
relying upon third party testing
provided by a supplier to certify
products or relying on third party
testing of a component used in more
than one model for certification
purposes)? If so, in what way? Can you
provide estimates of the cost savings
provided by the component part testing
rule?
6. Could changes be made in the third
party testing procedures or the third
party testing rules that would reduce the
burden on crib suppliers, particularly
small crib suppliers, and still be
consistent with assuring compliance
with the crib standards? If so, how?
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Clarity and Duplication
1. Is there any aspect of the full-size
and/or non-full-size crib standards that
is unclear, needlessly complex, or
duplicative?
2. Do any portions of the standards
overlap, duplicate, or conflict with other
federal, state, or local government rules?
Outreach and Advocacy
1. Are the requirements in CPSC’s
full-size and non-full-size crib standards
known to firms that manufacture or
import cribs for the United States,
particularly small firms and firms that
build or import cribs infrequently or in
small lots? How could the requirements
of the standard be communicated more
effectively to such firms?
2. Are there any cribs at small child
care facilities or places of public
accommodation that do not meet the
full-size or non-full-size crib standard?
What can CPSC do to improve
awareness of the standards’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Jan 30, 2020
Jkt 250001
requirements among owners of these
businesses? Please explain.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2020–01832 Filed 1–30–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Parts 3280, 3282, and 3285
[Docket No. FR–6149–P–01]
RIN 2502–AJ49
Manufactured Home Construction and
Safety Standards
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing
Commissioner, HUD.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This proposed rule would
amend the Federal Manufactured Home
Construction and Safety Standards (the
Construction and Safety Standards) by
adopting recommendations made to
HUD by the Manufactured Housing
Consensus Committee (MHCC). The
National Manufactured Housing
Construction and Safety Standards Act
of 1974 (the Act) requires HUD to
publish in the Federal Register any
proposed revised Construction and
Safety Standard submitted by the
MHCC. The MHCC has prepared and
submitted to HUD its third group of
recommendations to improve various
aspects of the Construction and Safety
Standards. HUD has reviewed those
proposals and has made editorial
revisions to several and HUD proposes
correlating additions for several of the
proposals. HUD has decided not to go
forward in this proposed rule with
certain revisions recommended by the
MHCC due to pending regulations for
improving energy efficiency in
manufactured homes currently being
prepared by the Department of Energy.
In addition, HUD has decided not to
move forward with a new proposal to
add requirements for draftstopping to
the Manufactured Home Construction
and Safety Standards.
As agreed, these recommendations are
being published to provide notice of the
proposed revisions and an opportunity
for public comment.
DATES: Comment Due Date: March 31,
2020.
SUMMARY:
Interested persons are
invited to submit comments responsive
to this proposed rule to the Office of
General Counsel, Regulations Division,
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5589
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room
10276, Washington, DC 20410–0001. All
submissions should refer to the above
docket number and title. Submission of
public comments may be carried out by
hard copy or electronic submission.
1. Submission of Hard Copy
Comments. Comments may be
submitted by mail or hand delivery.
Each commenter submitting hard copy
comments, by mail or hand delivery,
should submit comments to the above
address to the attention of the
Regulations Division. Due to security
measures at all Federal agencies,
submission of comments by mail often
results in delayed delivery. To ensure
timely receipt of comments, HUD
recommends that any comments
submitted by mail be submitted at least
2 weeks in advance of the public
comment deadline. All hard copy
comments received by mail or hand
delivery are a part of the public record
and will be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov without change.
2. Electronic Submission of
Comments. Interested persons may
submit comments electronically through
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. HUD
strongly encourages commenters to
submit comments electronically.
Electronic submission of comments
allows the commenter maximum time to
prepare and submit a comment, ensures
timely receipt by HUD, and enables
HUD to make comments immediately
available to the public. Comments
submitted electronically through the
https://www.regulations.gov website can
be viewed by other commenters and
interested members of the public.
Commenters should follow instructions
provided on that site to submit
comments electronically.
No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile
(fax) comments are not acceptable.
Public Inspection of Comments. All
comments submitted to HUD regarding
this rule will be available, without
charge, for public inspection and
copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
weekdays, at the above address. Due to
security measures at the HUD
Headquarters building, an advance
appointment to review the public
comments must be scheduled by calling
the Regulations Division at 202–708–
3055 (this is not a toll-free number).
Individuals with speech or hearing
impairments may access this number
through TTY by calling the Federal
Relay Service at 800–877–8339 (this is
a toll-free number). Copies of all
comments submitted are available for
inspection and downloading at https://
www.regulations.gov.
E:\FR\FM\31JAP1.SGM
31JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5587-5589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01832]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Parts 1219, 1220
[Docket No. CPSC-2010-0075]
Review of the Safety Standards for Full-Size Baby Cribs and Non-
Full-Size Baby Cribs
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Section 610 review and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) is
conducting a review of the safety standards for full-size baby cribs
and non-full-size baby cribs under section 610 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA). That section requires the CPSC to review, within
10 years after their issuance, mandatory standards that have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The CPSC seeks comment to determine whether, consistent with the CPSC's
statutory obligations, these standards should be maintained without
change or modified to minimize significant impact of the rule on a
substantial number of small entities.
DATES: Written comments should be submitted by March 31, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2010-
0075, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. CPSC does not accept comments
submitted by electronic mail (email), except through
www.regulations.gov. CPSC encourages you to submit electronic comments
by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.
Mail/hand delivery/courier Submissions: Submit comments by mail/
hand delivery/courier to: Division of the Secretariat, 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 notice. 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 electronically confidential business
information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected
information that you do not want to be available to the public. If you
wish to submit such information, please submit it according to the
instructions for written submissions.
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-2010-0075, into the ``Search'' box, and follow the
prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Proper, Directorate for Economic
Analysis, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway,
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 504-7628; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act
On December 28, 2010, the CPSC issued the Safety Standards for
Full-Size Baby Cribs (16 CFR part 1219) and Non-Full-Size Baby Cribs
(16 CFR part 1220) under section 104(c) of the Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), Public Law 110-314) (75 FR 81766).
Section 104(c) of the CPSIA stated that the crib standards would apply
to certain persons (such as those owning or operating child care
facilities and places of public accommodation), in addition to persons
usually subject to consumer product safety rules.\1\ In the initial
rule, the Commission determined that both crib standards would have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, including
manufacturers, importers, small retailers, and child care centers (75
FR 81782-86).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under section 104(c) of the CPSIA, the initial crib
standards applied to any person that
(A) Manufactures, distributes in commerce, or contracts to sell
cribs;
(B) Based on the person's occupation, holds itself out as having
knowledge of skill peculiar to cribs, including child care
facilities and family child care homes;
(C) Is in the business of contracting to sell or resell, lease,
sublet, or otherwise place cribs in the stream of commerce; or
(D) Owns or operates a place of accommodation affecting
commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 12, 2011, in Public Law 112-28, Congress amended section
104 and specifically addressed potential revisions of the crib
standards, stating that any revision after their initial promulgation
``shall apply only to a person that manufactures or imports cribs,''
unless the Commission determines that application to any others covered
by the initial crib standards is ``necessary to protect against an
unreasonable risk to health or safety.'' If the Commission applies a
revised crib standard to additional persons, the statute requires the
Commission to provide at least 12 months for those persons to come into
compliance. The Commission has not expanded the applicability of the
crib standards to any additional persons in subsequent revisions to the
standards.\2\
B. The Crib Standards
The full-size baby crib standard currently incorporates ASTM F1169-
19, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Full-Size Baby Cribs,
approved on March 15, 2019, as the mandatory CPSC standard. ASTM F1169-
19 specifies performance requirements and test procedures to determine
the structural integrity of full-size cribs. It also contains design
requirements addressing entanglement on crib corner post extensions,
and
[[Page 5588]]
requirements for warning labels and instructional material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The full-size crib standard was revised on July 31, 2012 (77
FR 45242), December 9, 2013 (78 FR 73692), and July 23, 2019 (84 FR
35293); the non-full-size crib standard was revised on June 6, 2018
(83 FR 26206) and October 23, 2019 (84 FR 56684).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The non-full-size baby crib standard currently incorporates ASTM
F406-17, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Non-Full-Size Baby
Cribs/Play Yards, approved on December 1, 2017, as the mandatory CPSC
standard. ASTM 406-17 specifies the testing requirements for structural
integrity and performance requirements for non-full-size cribs/play
yards. It also provides requirements for labeling and instructional
material.
C. Review Under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Section 610(a) of the RFA requires agencies to review regulations
that have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities within 10 years of the date of their publication. 5 U.S.C.
610(a). Because the crib standards were promulgated in 2010, the
Commission is now commencing its section 610 review. The purpose of the
review is to determine whether such rule should be continued without
change, or should be amended, consistent with the stated objectives of
applicable statutes to minimize any significant impact of the rules on
a substantial number of small entities. The RFA lists several factors
that the agency shall consider when reviewing rules under section 610.
These factors are:
The continued need for the rule;
The nature of complaints or comments received concerning
the rule from the public;
The complexity of the rule;
The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or
conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with
State and local governmental rules; and
The length of time since the rule has been evaluated or
the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors
have changed in the area affected by the rule.
5 U.S.C. 610(b)
The need for the safety standards for full-size baby cribs and non-
full-size baby cribs has been established by statutory mandate under
section 104 of the CPSIA. However, the Commission seeks comment to
evaluate the other factors and to determine whether the ongoing impact
of the rules is significant for a substantial number of small entities.
An important step in the review process involves gathering and
analyzing information from affected persons about their experience with
the rules and any material changes in circumstances since issuance of
the rules. The Commission requests written comments on the adequacy or
inadequacy of the rules, their small business impacts, and other
relevant issues. In addition to the specific questions below, the
Commission welcomes comments on any other issues raised by section 610
of the RFA.
Safety and Effectiveness
1. Are there any recent technological developments that would
improve the effectiveness of the full-size or non-full-size crib
standards? Would any of these potential improvements have an impact on
suppliers, and if so, would the impact be different for small suppliers
and large suppliers?
2. Are there any sections of the full-size and/or non-full-size
crib standards that could be improved without reducing the stringency
of the standards or reducing the safety of the resulting cribs? How
would these changes affect suppliers, particularly small suppliers?
Explain your response, and provide supporting data, if possible.
Costs and Impacts--Suppliers
1. Are there any requirements of the full-size or non-full size
crib standards that are especially or unnecessarily costly and/or
burdensome, particularly to small suppliers? Which ones? Are any of the
requirements disproportionately burdensome for small entities? How
might the requirements of either standard be modified to reduce the
costs or burdens on small suppliers without reducing the safety
provided by the standards or making the standards less stringent?
Please explain your response, and provide supporting data.
2. What percent of the time and cost of crib construction does
complying with the full-size and/or non-full-size crib standards
represent? Do these percentages vary significantly depending on the
geographical location, size of firm, or other factors? Which
requirements in the full-size or non-full-size crib standards have the
greatest impact on cost of production? The lowest impact on cost of
production? We are primarily interested in small firms, but
understanding how impact varies based on firm size would be helpful.
Please explain your response, and provide supporting data, if possible.
3. What modifications did manufacturers or others have to make to
full-size and/or non-full-size crib models to comply with the
requirements of CPSC's crib standards? What was the cost of these
modifications in terms of labor, materials, and research and
development? Are these costs ongoing, or were they one-time
expenditures? Please explain, and provide supporting data, if possible.
Are the costs comparable for large and small firms?
4. Have any manufacturers or importers entered the market for full-
size and/or non-full-size cribs since the standards went into effect?
Did the standards present any specific challenges for new entrants,
particularly small suppliers?
5. Have any manufacturers or importers reduced the number of models
in their full-size and/or non-full-size crib product lines or dropped
the product lines entirely because of the requirements of the crib
rules? If so, which requirements were the most burdensome, and were
they more, less, or equally burdensome for small firms? Why?
6. Did the longer effective date for childcare facilities
significantly reduce the impact? Please explain why or why not.
7. Do the full-size and non-full-size crib standards affect any
small entities not mentioned in the questions above? If so, what
entities are affected and how? Please explain your response, and
provide supporting data, if possible.
Recordkeeping and Third Party Testing
1. What percent of the time and cost of complying with the full-
size and non-full-size crib standards does testing represent? How much
of that testing is conducted by third parties, and how much is
additional, internal testing? Do these percentages vary significantly
depending on the type of crib, geographical location, size of firm, or
other factors? Which requirements in the full-size and non-full-size
crib standards have the greatest impact on testing costs? Which
requirements have the lowest impact on testing costs? We are especially
interested in any differential impact of the testing requirements on
small businesses. Explain your response, and provide supporting data,
if possible.
2. Are the recordkeeping requirements associated with third party
testing for conforming to the crib standards adequate, inadequate, or
overly burdensome? If they are overly burdensome, are they more or less
burdensome for small firms? Are there recordkeeping requirements that
could be applied to cribs as a product class that would reduce the
recordkeeping cost on suppliers, in particular small suppliers, without
reducing safety? Please explain your response.
3. How frequently do suppliers submit samples of their full-size
and non-full-size cribs to third party conformity assessment bodies for
testing to compliance with the full-size or non-full-size crib
standards or other crib
[[Page 5589]]
standards? Do small suppliers submit them more, less, or with equal
frequency as large suppliers? How many samples of each model are
submitted for testing to maintain certification? Do the number of
samples submitted vary depending on the size of the submitting
supplier? What is the cost of the testing, and to what extent, if any,
does cost vary, based on the size of the submitting firm? Did the cost
of testing for conformance with standards (whether third party,
internal, or both) increase after the rules became mandatory? If so, by
how much, and did that increase vary, based on firm size?
4. To what extent have the third party testing requirements
replaced other testing that suppliers, particularly small suppliers,
conducted, thereby not imposing any additional burden? Please explain
your response.
5. Have suppliers, particularly small suppliers, been able to make
use of the flexibilities provided in the component part rule (16 CFR
part 1109) to reduce their third party testing costs (e.g., relying
upon third party testing provided by a supplier to certify products or
relying on third party testing of a component used in more than one
model for certification purposes)? If so, in what way? Can you provide
estimates of the cost savings provided by the component part testing
rule?
6. Could changes be made in the third party testing procedures or
the third party testing rules that would reduce the burden on crib
suppliers, particularly small crib suppliers, and still be consistent
with assuring compliance with the crib standards? If so, how?
Clarity and Duplication
1. Is there any aspect of the full-size and/or non-full-size crib
standards that is unclear, needlessly complex, or duplicative?
2. Do any portions of the standards overlap, duplicate, or conflict
with other federal, state, or local government rules?
Outreach and Advocacy
1. Are the requirements in CPSC's full-size and non-full-size crib
standards known to firms that manufacture or import cribs for the
United States, particularly small firms and firms that build or import
cribs infrequently or in small lots? How could the requirements of the
standard be communicated more effectively to such firms?
2. Are there any cribs at small child care facilities or places of
public accommodation that do not meet the full-size or non-full-size
crib standard? What can CPSC do to improve awareness of the standards'
requirements among owners of these businesses? Please explain.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2020-01832 Filed 1-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P