Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates, 16635-16636 [2022-06223]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
the text ‘‘Regional Coastal Observing
System (RCOS)’’;
■ c. Remove the text ‘‘a RICE’’ wherever
it appears and add in its place the text
‘‘an RCOS’’;
■ d. Remove the text ‘‘RICE’’ wherever
it appears and add in its place the text
‘‘RCOS’’; and
■ e. Remove the text ‘‘U.S. IOOS
Program Office’’ wherever it appears
and add in its place the text ‘‘U.S. IOOS
Office’’.
■ 3. In § 997.11, revise paragraph (b) to
read as follows:
§ 997.11
Application process.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Submission shall be made to
NOAA at the following address, or to
such other address as may be indicated
in the future: Director U.S. IOOS Office,
NOAA, 1315 East West Hwy., Suite
3000, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Submissions may also be made online at
https://www.ioos.noaa.gov/certification.
[FR Doc. 2022–06196 Filed 3–23–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–JE–P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1307
[Docket No. CPSC–2014–0033]
Prohibition of Children’s Toys and
Child Care Articles Containing
Specified Phthalates
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Request for comments.
AGENCY:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Consumer Product Safety
Commission (Commission or CPSC) is
publishing this document following a
Federal court opinion remanding the
Commission’s final phthalates rule to
allow the Commission to address two
procedural deficiencies found by the
court. This document seeks public
comment regarding the justification for
the phthalates final rule and the staff’s
cost-benefit analysis for continuing the
interim prohibition on DINP.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted by May 9, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. CPSC–2014–
0033, 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.
The CPSC does not accept comments
submitted by electronic mail (email),
except through https://
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Mar 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
www.regulations.gov and as described
below. The 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) 504–7479.
Alternatively, as a temporary option
during the COVID–19 pandemic, you
can email such submissions to: cpsc-os@
cpsc.gov.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this notice. CPSC
may post all comments 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–2014–0033, into
the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the
prompts.
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:
I. Background
Section 108(b)(3) of the Consumer
Product Safety Improvement Act of
2008 (CPSIA) required the Commission
to promulgate a final rule addressing
children’s toys and child care articles
containing certain phthalates not later
than 180 days after the Commission
received a final Chronic Hazard
Advisory Panel (CHAP) report.1 The
Commission was required to
‘‘determine, based on such report,
whether to continue in effect the
[interim] prohibition’’ on children’s toys
that can be placed in a child’s mouth
and child care articles ‘‘in order to
ensure a reasonable certainty of no harm
to children, pregnant women, or other
1 The Commission voted 4–0 to approve this
notice.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16635
susceptible individuals with an
adequate margin of safety.’’ 15 U.S.C.
2057c (b)(3)(A). Additionally, the
Commission was required to ‘‘evaluate
the findings and recommendations of
the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel and
declare any children’s product
containing any phthalates to be a
banned hazardous product under
section 8 of the Consumer Product
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2057), as the
Commission determines necessary to
protect the health of children.’’ 15
U.S.C. 2057c (b)(3)(B).
On December 30, 2014, the
Commission published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register. 79 FR 78324. The
Commission published a final rule on
October 27, 2017, with an effective date
of April 25, 2018. 82 FR 49938. The
final rule was substantially the same as
the proposed rule. The preambles of the
NPRM and final rule provide more
detailed discussions of the CHAP report
and staff’s technical analysis and
findings in support of the rule.
In December 2017, the Texas
Association of Manufacturers and others
petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit for a review of the
CPSC’s final phthalates rule. In March
2021, the court remanded without
vacating the phthalates final rule to the
CPSC to address two procedural
deficiencies found by the court. Tex.
Ass’n of Mfrs. v. United States
Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 989
F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2021). As relevant
here, the court held that the final rule
had failed to: (1) Provide adequate
notice and comment regarding a change
in the primary justification from the
proposed rule to the final rule; and (2)
consider the costs and benefits of
continuing the interim prohibition on
DINP. This document is being published
to address these two procedural
deficiencies. We note that the court did
not vacate the final rule, and thus the
rule remains in effect.
II. Request for Comments
A. Phthalates Final Rule Justification
The Fifth Circuit held that the
phthalates final rule did not provide
adequate notice and comment regarding
a change in the primary justification
between the proposed rule and the final
rule. The court remanded the rule to
allow CPSC to seek public comment on
the justification for the final rule. The
Commission’s justification for the
proposed rule was based on data
demonstrating that 10 percent of
pregnant women had a Hazard Index
(HI) greater than one, which exceeded
the acceptable risk, and that the average
E:\FR\FM\24MRR1.SGM
24MRR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
16636
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
HI was five at the 95th percentile. See
79 FR 78328–32. The Commission’s
justification for the proposed rule was
based on available data showing that a
statistically stable, non-zero percentage
of the women studied had an HI greater
than one and that an HI less than or
equal to one is necessary ‘‘to ensure a
reasonable certainty of no harm to
children, pregnant women, or other
susceptible individuals with an
adequate margin of safety.’’ See 79 FR
78334–35.
After publication of the proposed
rule, the Commission examined new
data using the CHAP’s original
methodology. Based on the new data,
the Commission determined that
phthalate exposures had changed over
time and that there were too few
samples in the study with an HI above
one to make a statistically reliable
estimate for the population of the
number or percentage of women of
reproductive age with an HI greater than
one. No new data on infants were
available, so risk estimates for this
population did not change in the
updated analysis. Based on the new data
for women of reproductive age, the
Commission found that the risk of
antiandrogenic effects had decreased,
and that the HI at the 95th percentile
had decreased from five to less than
one. 82 FR 49958. Based on the new
data, the Commission could not
determine exactly what percentage of
the women studied had an HI greater
than one but did state that ‘‘between
two and nine real women from the
sample of 538 [women of reproductive
age] had an HI greater than one.’’ Id. The
Commission’s justification for the final
rule was based on the facts that between
two and nine individual samples had HI
levels greater than one and not the 10
percent of women who had exposures
described in the proposed rule, and that
no new data on infants were available.
For details regarding the respective
justifications, potential commenters are
directed to the preamble of the
respective Federal Register notices for
the proposed and final rule.
The court of appeals held that the
Commission did not provide adequate
notice and comment when it changed
the justification for the prohibitions in
the proposed rule to the final rule.
Accordingly, the Commission is
publishing this notice to request public
comment regarding the justification for
the final rule.
B. Request for Comment on Cost-Benefit
Analysis of Continuing Interim DINP
Prohibition
The Fifth Circuit held that the final
phthalates rule was deficient because it
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Mar 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
did not consider the costs and benefits
of continuing the interim prohibition on
DINP. Specifically, the court found that
the Commission was required at least to
consider the cost, as well as the effect
on utility and availability of products
containing DINP, to determine whether
to continue the interim prohibition.
The staff of the Directorate for
Economic Analysis has conducted a
cost-benefit analysis regarding
continuing the interim prohibition on
DINP in the final rule. The staff
memorandum ‘‘Cost-Benefit Analysis of
Continuing the Interim DINP
Prohibition in the Final Rule: 16 CFR
part 1307 ‘Prohibition of Children’s
Toys and Child Care Articles Containing
Specified Phthalates’ ’’ can be found
here. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/
CostBenefitAnalysisDINPinPhthalates
FinalRule.pdf?VersionId=4dQErAhY2c
QdvQpf1I8rAqTNCjinie_h. The
Commission requests public comment
regarding the cost-benefit analysis of
continuing the interim prohibition on
DINP in the final rule.
III. Submission of Comments
We request comments on two issues:
The rationale for the final rule in section
II.A; and the cost-benefit analysis of
continuing the DINP interim prohibition
discussed in section II.B of this
document. Only comments submitted
regarding the rationale for the final rule
and/or the cost-benefit analysis of
continuing the DINP interim prohibition
will be considered. Comments
submitted on any other issues are out of
scope and will not be considered.
Finally, untimely submitted comments
will not be considered.
Information regarding the court
decision is available on the CPSC
website or https://www.regulations.gov,
under Docket No. CPSC–2014–0033,
Supporting and Related Materials.
Alternatively, interested parties may
obtain a copy of the court decision by
writing or calling the Division of the
Secretariat, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 4330 East West Highway,
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301)
504–6833.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022–06223 Filed 3–23–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 22
[Public Notice: 11649]
RIN 1400–AF48
Schedule of Fees for Consular
Services—Elimination of the ‘‘Return
Check Processing Fee’’
Department of State.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of State (the
Department) is adjusting the Schedule
of Fees for Consular Services (Schedule)
by removing Item Number 74, a $25
return check processing fee.
Domestically, the Bureau of Consular
Affairs, Office of Passport Services (CA/
PPT), has charged customers this fee
when the instruments they have used to
submit payment for a passport
application could not be processed due
to insufficient funds, closed accounts,
stop payments, and altered/fictious
checks or money orders. A recent
review of the Department’s Cost of
Service Model (CoSM) established that
the costs associated with attempts to
recover on non-viable instruments are
now captured within the passport
application fee. The Department
therefore stopped charging this fee on
December 13, 2021, and will remove
this fee from the Schedule.
DATES: This rule is effective March 24,
2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Johanna Cruz, Management Analyst,
Office of the Comptroller, Bureau of
Consular Affairs, Department of State;
phone: 202–485–8915, email: fees@
state.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
This rule makes changes to the
Schedule of Fees in 22 CFR 22.1 by
removing Item Number 74, the $25
return check processing fee, from the
Schedule of Fees. This fee was added to
the Schedule in 1991 to recoup the cost
of time spent by passport office
personnel attempting to recover on bad
checks applicants had submitted to the
Department. According to the Passport
Directorate’s research, in FY 1989 there
were approximately 8,800 bad checks
and money orders, which required an
estimated 5,400 staff hours to process.
This fee has only been charged
domestically; overseas posts do not
accept personal checks and have not
charged the fee. A recent review of the
Department’s CoSM established that the
costs associated with the return check
processing fee are now captured within
E:\FR\FM\24MRR1.SGM
24MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16635-16636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06223]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1307
[Docket No. CPSC-2014-0033]
Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing
Specified Phthalates
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) is
publishing this document following a Federal court opinion remanding
the Commission's final phthalates rule to allow the Commission to
address two procedural deficiencies found by the court. This document
seeks public comment regarding the justification for the phthalates
final rule and the staff's cost-benefit analysis for continuing the
interim prohibition on DINP.
DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 9, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2014-
0033, 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. The CPSC does not accept comments
submitted by electronic mail (email), except through https://www.regulations.gov and as described below. The 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) 504-7479. Alternatively, as a temporary option
during the COVID-19 pandemic, you can email such submissions to: [email protected].
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this notice. CPSC may post all comments 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-2014-0033, 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:
I. Background
Section 108(b)(3) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of
2008 (CPSIA) required the Commission to promulgate a final rule
addressing children's toys and child care articles containing certain
phthalates not later than 180 days after the Commission received a
final Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) report.\1\ The Commission
was required to ``determine, based on such report, whether to continue
in effect the [interim] prohibition'' on children's toys that can be
placed in a child's mouth and child care articles ``in order to ensure
a reasonable certainty of no harm to children, pregnant women, or other
susceptible individuals with an adequate margin of safety.'' 15 U.S.C.
2057c (b)(3)(A). Additionally, the Commission was required to
``evaluate the findings and recommendations of the Chronic Hazard
Advisory Panel and declare any children's product containing any
phthalates to be a banned hazardous product under section 8 of the
Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2057), as the Commission
determines necessary to protect the health of children.'' 15 U.S.C.
2057c (b)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Commission voted 4-0 to approve this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 30, 2014, the Commission published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register. 79 FR 78324. The Commission
published a final rule on October 27, 2017, with an effective date of
April 25, 2018. 82 FR 49938. The final rule was substantially the same
as the proposed rule. The preambles of the NPRM and final rule provide
more detailed discussions of the CHAP report and staff's technical
analysis and findings in support of the rule.
In December 2017, the Texas Association of Manufacturers and others
petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for a review
of the CPSC's final phthalates rule. In March 2021, the court remanded
without vacating the phthalates final rule to the CPSC to address two
procedural deficiencies found by the court. Tex. Ass'n of Mfrs. v.
United States Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n, 989 F.3d 368 (5th Cir.
2021). As relevant here, the court held that the final rule had failed
to: (1) Provide adequate notice and comment regarding a change in the
primary justification from the proposed rule to the final rule; and (2)
consider the costs and benefits of continuing the interim prohibition
on DINP. This document is being published to address these two
procedural deficiencies. We note that the court did not vacate the
final rule, and thus the rule remains in effect.
II. Request for Comments
A. Phthalates Final Rule Justification
The Fifth Circuit held that the phthalates final rule did not
provide adequate notice and comment regarding a change in the primary
justification between the proposed rule and the final rule. The court
remanded the rule to allow CPSC to seek public comment on the
justification for the final rule. The Commission's justification for
the proposed rule was based on data demonstrating that 10 percent of
pregnant women had a Hazard Index (HI) greater than one, which exceeded
the acceptable risk, and that the average
[[Page 16636]]
HI was five at the 95th percentile. See 79 FR 78328-32. The
Commission's justification for the proposed rule was based on available
data showing that a statistically stable, non-zero percentage of the
women studied had an HI greater than one and that an HI less than or
equal to one is necessary ``to ensure a reasonable certainty of no harm
to children, pregnant women, or other susceptible individuals with an
adequate margin of safety.'' See 79 FR 78334-35.
After publication of the proposed rule, the Commission examined new
data using the CHAP's original methodology. Based on the new data, the
Commission determined that phthalate exposures had changed over time
and that there were too few samples in the study with an HI above one
to make a statistically reliable estimate for the population of the
number or percentage of women of reproductive age with an HI greater
than one. No new data on infants were available, so risk estimates for
this population did not change in the updated analysis. Based on the
new data for women of reproductive age, the Commission found that the
risk of antiandrogenic effects had decreased, and that the HI at the
95th percentile had decreased from five to less than one. 82 FR 49958.
Based on the new data, the Commission could not determine exactly what
percentage of the women studied had an HI greater than one but did
state that ``between two and nine real women from the sample of 538
[women of reproductive age] had an HI greater than one.'' Id. The
Commission's justification for the final rule was based on the facts
that between two and nine individual samples had HI levels greater than
one and not the 10 percent of women who had exposures described in the
proposed rule, and that no new data on infants were available. For
details regarding the respective justifications, potential commenters
are directed to the preamble of the respective Federal Register notices
for the proposed and final rule.
The court of appeals held that the Commission did not provide
adequate notice and comment when it changed the justification for the
prohibitions in the proposed rule to the final rule. Accordingly, the
Commission is publishing this notice to request public comment
regarding the justification for the final rule.
B. Request for Comment on Cost-Benefit Analysis of Continuing Interim
DINP Prohibition
The Fifth Circuit held that the final phthalates rule was deficient
because it did not consider the costs and benefits of continuing the
interim prohibition on DINP. Specifically, the court found that the
Commission was required at least to consider the cost, as well as the
effect on utility and availability of products containing DINP, to
determine whether to continue the interim prohibition.
The staff of the Directorate for Economic Analysis has conducted a
cost-benefit analysis regarding continuing the interim prohibition on
DINP in the final rule. The staff memorandum ``Cost-Benefit Analysis of
Continuing the Interim DINP Prohibition in the Final Rule: 16 CFR part
1307 `Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing
Specified Phthalates' '' can be found here. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CostBenefitAnalysisDINPinPhthalatesFinalRule.pdf?VersionId=4dQErAhY2cQdvQpf1I8rAqTNCjinie_h. The Commission requests public comment regarding
the cost-benefit analysis of continuing the interim prohibition on DINP
in the final rule.
III. Submission of Comments
We request comments on two issues: The rationale for the final rule
in section II.A; and the cost-benefit analysis of continuing the DINP
interim prohibition discussed in section II.B of this document. Only
comments submitted regarding the rationale for the final rule and/or
the cost-benefit analysis of continuing the DINP interim prohibition
will be considered. Comments submitted on any other issues are out of
scope and will not be considered. Finally, untimely submitted comments
will not be considered.
Information regarding the court decision is available on the CPSC
website or https://www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. CPSC-2014-0033,
Supporting and Related Materials. Alternatively, interested parties may
obtain a copy of the court decision by writing or calling the Division
of the Secretariat, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-6833.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022-06223 Filed 3-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
