42724 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified this proposed rule, when 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 

Section 106, describes the authority for 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of the airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it would 

modify controlled airspace at Lampson 

Field, Lakeport, CA. 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1E, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposes to 

amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

Part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 8, 2013, and effective 

September 15, 2013 is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

AWP CA E5 Lakeport, CA [Amended] 

Lampson Field, CA 

(Lat. 38°59′26′′ N., long. 122°54′03′′ W.) 

Sutter Lakeside Hospital Heliport, CA Point 

in Space Coordinates 

(Lat. 39°06′09′′ N., long. 122°53′19′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 4-mile radius 

of Lampson Field, and within a 5-mile radius 

of the Point in Space serving the Sutter 

Lakeside Hospital Heliport. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 17, 

2014. 

Christopher Ramirez, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

Western Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17371 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1228 

[Docket No. CPSC–2014–0018] 

Safety Standard for Sling Carriers 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Danny Keysar Child 

Product Safety Notification Act, Section 

104 of the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), 

requires the United States Consumer 

Product Safety Commission 

(Commission or CPSC) to promulgate 

consumer product safety standards for 

durable infant or toddler products. 

These standards are to be ‘‘substantially 

the same as’’ applicable voluntary 

standards or more stringent than the 

voluntary standard if the Commission 

concludes that more stringent 

requirements would further reduce the 

risk of injury associated with the 

product. The Commission is proposing 

a safety standard for sling carriers in 

response to the direction under Section 

104(b) of the CPSIA. 

DATES: Submit comments by October 6, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

related to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) aspects of the marking, labeling, 

and instructional literature of the 

proposed rule to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 

202–395–6974, or emailed to: oira_

submission@omb.eop.gov. 

You may submit other comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2014– 

0018, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

The Commission does not accept 

comments submitted by electronic mail 

(email), except through 

www.regulations.gov. The Commission 

encourages you to submit electronic 

comments by using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal, as described above. 

Written Submissions: Submit written 

submissions by mail/hand delivery/

courier to: Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 

504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this notice. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided, to: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

that you do not want to be available to 

the public. If furnished at all, such 

information should be submitted in 

writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: http://

www.regulations.gov, and insert the 

docket number CPSC–2014–0018, into 

the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the 

prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hope E J. Nesteruk, Project Manager, 

Division of Human Factors, Directorate 

for Engineering Sciences, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 5 Research 

Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 

301–987–2579; email: hnesteruk@

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 42725 

voluntary standards or more stringent 

than the voluntary standard if the 

Commission concludes that more 

stringent requirements would further 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

the product. Section 104(f)(1) of the 

CPSIA defines the term ‘‘durable infant 

or toddler product’’ as ‘‘a durable 

product intended for use, or that may be 

reasonably expected to be used, by 

children under the age of 5 years.’’ 

Section 104(f)(1)(H) provides that the 

term ‘‘durable infant or toddler 

product’’ includes ‘‘infant carriers.’’ 

Section 104 also requires 

manufacturers of durable infant or 

toddler products to comply with a 

registration program that the 

Commission establishes. Section 104(d). 

In this document, the Commission is 

proposing a safety standard for sling 

carriers. Section 104(f)(2)(H) of the 

CPSIA lists ‘‘infant carriers’’ as one of 

the categories of durable infant or 

toddler products identified for purposes 

of section 104. As indicated by a review 

of ASTM’s standards and retailers’ Web 

sites, the category of ‘‘infant carriers’’ 

includes hand-held infant carriers, soft 

infant carriers, frame backpack carriers, 

and sling carriers. The Commission has 

issued final rules for hand-held infant 

carriers (78 FR 73415 (December 6, 

2013)) and soft infant carriers (78 FR 

20511 (April 5, 2013)) and a proposed 

rule on frame backpack carriers (79 FR 

28458 (May 16, 2014)). In the 

Commission’s product registration card 

rule identifying additional products that 

the Commission considered durable 

infant or toddler products necessitating 

compliance with the product 

registration card requirements, the 

Commission specifically identified 

infant slings, or sling carriers, as a 

durable infant or toddler product. 76 FR 

68668 (December 29, 2009). The 

durability of infant slings is discussed 

in section II.B. of this document. 

Because the voluntary standard on 

infant slings, ASTM 2907–14a, 

‘‘Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Sling Carriers,’’ refers 

to ‘‘infant slings’’ as ‘‘sling carriers,’’ the 

notice of proposed rulemaking refers to 

infant slings as ‘‘sling carriers.’’ The 

terms are intended to be interchangeable 

and have the same meaning. 

Pursuant to Section 104(b)(1)(A), the 

Commission consulted with 

manufacturers, retailers, trade 

organizations, laboratories, consumer 

advocacy groups, consultants, and 

members of the public in the 

development of this proposed standard, 

largely through the ASTM process. 

CPSC staff participated in the ASTM 

sling carrier subcommittee meetings and 

task group meetings and worked with 

the ASTM sling carrier task groups to 

develop ballot language for revisions to 

the sling carrier voluntary standard. The 

proposed rule is based on the voluntary 

standard developed by ASTM 

International (formerly the American 

Society for Testing and Materials), 

ASTM F2907–14a, ‘‘Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Sling Carriers’’ 

(ASTM F2907–14a), without change. 

The ASTM standard is copyrighted, 

but the standard is available as a readonly document during the comment 

period on this proposal only, at: http:// 

www.astm.org/cpsc, by permission of 

ASTM. 

II. Product Description 

A. Definition of Sling Carrier 

ASTM F2907–14a ‘‘Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for Sling 

Carriers’’ defines a ‘‘sling carrier’’ as ‘‘a 

product of fabric or sewn fabric 

construction, which is designed to 

contain a child in an upright or reclined 

position while being supported by the 

caregiver’s torso.’’ These products 

generally are intended for children 

starting at full-term birth until a weight 

of about 35 pounds. The designs of 

infant slings vary, but the designs 

generally range from unstructured 

hammock-shaped products that suspend 

from the caregiver’s body, to long 

lengths of material or fabric that are 

wrapped around the caregiver’s body. 

Infant slings normally are worn with the 

infant positioned on the front, hip, or 

back of the consumer, and with the 

infant facing toward or away from the 

consumer. As stated in the sling carrier 

definition, these products generally 

allow the infant to be placed in an 

upright or reclined position. However, 

the reclined position is intended to be 

used only when the infant is worn on 

the front of the consumer. The ability to 

carry the infant in a reclined position is 

the primary feature that distinguishes 

sling carriers from soft infant and 

toddler carriers, another subset of sling 

carriers. 

The Commission identified three 

broad classes of sling carrier products 

available in the United States: 

• Ring slings are hammock-shaped 

fabric products, in which one runs 

fabric through two rings to adjust and 

tighten the sling. 

• Pouch slings are similar to ring 

slings but do not use rings for 

adjustment. Many pouch slings are 

sized rather than designed to be 

adjustable. Other pouch slings are more 

structured and use buckles or other 

fasteners to adjust the size. 

• Wrap slings are generally composed 

of a long length of fabric, upwards of six 

yards long, and up to two feet wide. A 

wrap sling is completely unstructured 

with no fasteners or other means of 

structure; instead, the caregiver uses 

different methods of wrapping the 

material around the caregiver’s body 

and the child’s body to support the 

child. Wrap-like slings mimic the 

manner in which a wrap supports the 

child but use fabric in other manners, 

such as loops, to reduce the need for 

caregivers to learn wrapping methods. 

Ring slings, modifications of wraps and 

pouch slings, and other products that 

meet the definition of a sling carrier 

contain parts that are also considered 

durable from an engineering perspective 

and suggest they were selected for longterm use. In addition, the test methods 

in ASTM F2907–14a combine to ensure 

that slings meet a minimum level of 

durability. 

ASTM F2907 does not distinguish 

among the type of slings. The voluntary 

standard’s requirements apply equally 

to all slings. 

B. Sling Carrier Use 

ASTM F2907–14a states that sling 

carriers generally are intended for 

children starting at full-term birth, until 

a weight of about 35 pounds (15.9 kg). 

According to the data tables used to 

produce the 2000 Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) U.S. 

growth charts, the median (50th 

percentile) weight of a child does not 

exceed 35 pounds until about 46 

months for boys and 49 months for girls 

(CDC, 2000). Moreover, the 5th 

percentile bodyweight of a child does 

not exceed 35 pounds until about 65 

months for boys and 69 months for girls. 

This means that more than half of all 3- 

year-olds are likely to be at or below the 

maximum weight of 35 pounds, and that 

even some 5-year-olds are likely to be at 

or below this upper weight limit. 

Although the Commission believes that 

sling carriers are most likely to be used 

with infants, it seems reasonably 

foreseeable that some portion of the user 

population will use these carriers with 

preschool-aged children. 

Evidence suggests that sling carriers 

are often reused for multiple children. 

For example, according to a 2005 survey 

conducted by the American Baby Group 

(2006 Baby Products Tracking Study), 

nearly one-third (31 percent) of mothers 

who own slings had a sling that was 

handed down or purchased 

secondhand. Preliminary data from 

CPSC’s Durable Nursery Products 

Exposure Survey found that 21 percent 

of sling owners acquired the sling used. 

The Survey also found that after the 

owner discontinued use of the sling, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42726 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

only 4 percent threw away the sling; 96 

percent of owners stored the sling for 

future use, sold the sling, gave the sling 

away, or returned the sling to the 

original owner. These results suggest 

that most sling owners at least perceive 

sling carriers to have a future useful life, 

even if the sling had been used 

previously. 

The Commission is aware of several 

online Web sites, forums, and 

‘‘babywearing’’ groups dedicated to 

buying, selling, and trading previously 

used sling carriers. (‘‘Babywearing’’ is 

commonly used to describe the wearing 

or carrying of a baby in a sling or similar 

carrier.) For example, a simple search of 

sold listings for a used ‘‘baby sling’’ on 

eBay resulted in more than 1,700 

listings during a roughly 3-month 

period. Although some of the products 

in these ads do not meet the definition 

of a ‘‘sling carrier,’’ a brief examination 

of the most recent 200 sales suggests 

that a very large percentage of these 

products would be considered a sling 

carrier. Thus, many consumers appear 

to be purchasing slings secondhand. 

C. Market Description 

The Commission has identified 47 

suppliers to the U.S. market, but there 

may be hundreds more suppliers that 

produce small quantities of slings. (The 

Commission made these determinations 

using information from Dun & 

Bradstreet and Reference USAGov, as 

well as firm Web sites.) Web sites such 

as Etsy show thousands of listings for 

artisans producing slings and wraps 

(although each firm may have multiple 

listings), which accounts for additional 

suppliers who are not among the 47 

suppliers identified. Sling carriers are 

distributed by a variety of methods, 

such as mass merchandisers, small 

specialty juvenile products stores, and 

Internet-only distributors. 

Of the 47 sling carrier suppliers 

identified, 33 companies are based in 

the United States: 25 are manufacturers, 

and four are importers. Available 

information does not identify the supply 

source for four firms. There are also 14 

foreign companies that export directly 

to the United States via Internet sales or 

directly to U.S. retailers. 

A sling carrier is an uncomplicated 

product to produce, typically requiring 

only fabric, thread, rings (and in some 

cases, fasteners), and a sewing machine. 

A common scenario for a sling 

manufacturer starts with a mother using 

various slings or soft carriers and then 

deciding to make her own design in her 

home. Some of these home businesses 

grow into larger businesses that become 

more specialized and sophisticated, 

typically designing and marketing their 

own products but having the product 

manufactured overseas. However, the 

newer home businesses may be 

relatively unsophisticated and may not 

be aware of the sling carrier voluntary 

standard effort or know that sling 

carriers may be subject to existing 

federal regulations on children’s 

products. 

According to a the 2006 Baby 

Products Tracking Study, 17 percent of 

new mothers own sling carriers. As 

noted previously, approximately 31 

percent of sling carriers were handed 

down or purchased secondhand. Thus, 

about 69 percent of sling carriers were 

acquired new. (The data collected for 

the Baby Products Tracking Study do 

not represent an unbiased statistical 

sample. American Baby Products 

surveyed potential respondents from its 

mailing lists to generate a sample of 

3,600 new and expectant mothers. 

Additionally, because the most recent 

survey information is from 2005, the 

data may not reflect the current market.) 

This information suggests annual sales 

of about 471,000 sling carriers (.17 × .69 

× 4 million births per year), with prices 

ranging from $30 to around $150. (U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC), National Center 

for Health Statistics, National Vital 

Statistics System, ‘‘Births: Final Data for 

2009,’’ National Vital Statistics Reports 

Volume 61, Number 1 (August 28, 

2012): Table I. Number of births in 2010 

is rounded from 3,999,386.) 

However, this sales estimate may be a 

substantial underestimate for two 

reasons: (1) Industry sources state that 

slings have increased in popularity 

since the survey was done in 2005; and 

(2) other products like wraps, pouches, 

and some soft carriers, which fall under 

the standard, may not have been 

included in the Baby Products Tracking 

study. Based on discussions with an 

industry representative, sales of these 

other products that fall under the 

proposed rule for sling carriers could 

increase the Commission’s sales 

estimate to about 600,000 to 1 million 

units annually. 

III. Incident Data 

The Commission is aware of a total of 

122 incidents (16 fatal and 106 nonfatal) 

related to sling carriers, which were 

reported to have occurred from January 

1, 2003 through October 27, 2013. 

Because reporting is ongoing, the 

number of reported fatalities, nonfatal 

injuries, and non-injury incidents may 

change in the future. Given that 

reporting is incomplete, the 

Commission strongly discourages 

drawing inferences based on the year-toyear increase or decrease shown in the 

reported data. (The CPSC databases 

searched were the In-Depth 

Investigation (INDP) file, the Injury or 

Potential Injury Incident (IPII) file, the 

Death Certificate (DTHS) file, and the 

National Electronic Injury Surveillance 

System (NEISS). These reported deaths 

and incidents do not provide a complete 

count of all deaths and incidents that 

occurred during that time period. 

However, they do provide a minimum 

number of deaths and incidents 

occurring during this time period and 

illustrate the circumstances involved in 

the incidents related to sling carriers.) 

Among the incidents in which age 

was reported, all but one of the children 

were 12 months old or younger; the age 

of the oldest child was reported to be 3 

years. Some incident reports did not 

indicate the age because there was no 

injury involved or age was unknown. 

Table 1 provides the age breakdown as 

reported in the 122 incidents. 

TABLE 1—AGE DISTRIBUTION AS REPORTED IN SLING CARRIER-RELATED INCIDENTS

[01/01/03–10/27/13] 

Age of Child 

All Incidents Fatal and Nonfatal Injuries 

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage 

Unreported* ..................................................................................................... 31 25 1 1 

One—Three Months ........................................................................................ 70 57 54 77 

Four—Six Months ............................................................................................ 11 9 8 11 

Seven—Nine Months ...................................................................................... 7 6 4 6 

Ten—Twelve Months ...................................................................................... 2 2 2 3 

Three Years ..................................................................................................... 1 1 1 1 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 42727 

TABLE 1—AGE DISTRIBUTION AS REPORTED IN SLING CARRIER-RELATED INCIDENTS—Continued 

[01/01/03–10/27/13] 

Age of Child 

All Incidents Fatal and Nonfatal Injuries 

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage 

Total ......................................................................................................... 122 100 70 100 

Source: CPSC epidemiological databases IPII, INDP, DTHS, and NEISS. 

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. 

*: Age was unknown or the incident reported no injury. 

A. Fatalities 

CPSC received reports of 16 fatalities 

associated with the use of a sling carrier 

that occurred during the period from 

January 1, 2003 through October 27, 

2013. Eleven of the 16 decedents were 

1-month olds; the remaining five were 

between 3- and 5-months old. Nine of 

the decedents were described as having 

died of smothering, (also known as 

‘‘suffocation,’’ or ‘‘positional 

asphyxia.’’) Suffocation can occur when 

babies are contained entirely within the 

pouch of a sling. Infants who are placed 

with their heads below the rim of the 

sling are likely to stay in the same 

position because they are surrounded by 

unyielding fabric under the tension of 

their weight, and are tightly confined 

within the product, typically with their 

faces directed towards or held against 

the parent’s body. The highest risk of 

suffocation occurs when the infant’s 

face (nose and mouth) is pressed against 

the mother’s body, blocking the infant’s 

breathing, and rapidly suffocating the 

baby within a few minutes. The cause 

of death was undetermined for the 

remaining decedents. 

One fatal victim was 5 months old. 

The age range of the remaining 15 fatal 

victims was from birth to 3 months; 11 

infants were ages 1 month and younger, 

and the remaining four were 3 months 

old. Infants younger than 4 months old 

are at a high risk for suffocation because 

they have relatively immature 

physiological systems controlling 

breathing and arousal. 

B. Nonfatalities 

Of the 106 sling carrier-related 

nonfatal incidents that were reported to 

have occurred from January 1, 2003 

through October 27, 2013, 54 reports 

reflected an injury to the infant during 

use of the product. Age was unreported 

for one of the injured, and one report 

stated that a 3-year-old was injured. For 

the rest of the incidents, the child’s age 

ranged from 1 month to 11 months. 

Among the 54 reported nonfatal 

injuries, nine were reported as involving 

hospitalizations. Among the 

hospitalizations, one injury was 

described as a permanent brain injury 

due to breathing difficulties suffered by 

the infant. The rest of the 

hospitalizations were serious head 

injuries, such as a fracture and/or brain 

hemorrhage, which resulted from 

infants falling from the carrier. Eleven 

additional skull/face/wrist fracture 

injuries were reported, but none of these 

incidents was reported to involve 

hospitalizations. The remaining nonhospitalized injuries included closedhead injuries, contusions/abrasions, 

lacerations/scratches, among others. (A 

closed head injury is a head injury 

where the skull remained intact. A 

closed head injury can range from a 

minor bump to the head to a severe life 

threatening traumatic brain injury.) A 

majority of the injuries resulted from 

falls from the carrier; most of these falls 

resulted from the caregiver slipping, 

tripping, or bending over while carrying 

the infant in the sling. The remaining 

injuries were due to miscellaneous 

product-related issues or other caregiver 

missteps, such as the caregiver not 

allowing enough safety clearance for the 

child in the sling carrier while the 

caregiver performed daily activities. 

The remaining 52 incident reports 

stated that no injury had occurred or 

provided no information about any 

injury. 

C. Hazard Pattern Identification 

The Commission considered all 122 

reported incidents (16 fatal and 106 

nonfatal) to identify hazard patterns 

associated with sling carriers. In order 

of frequency of incident reports, the 

Commission grouped the hazard 

patterns into the following categories: 

1. Problems with the positioning of 

the infant in the sling carrier: Thirty-one 

of the 122 reported incidents (25 

percent) were in this category. Among 

them were nine deaths due to 

smothering, one permanent brain 

impairment injury due to breathing 

difficulty, and two other injuries—one 

related to breathing difficulty and the 

other related to blood-circulation in the 

infant’s leg. The rest of the incidents 

reported that the infant suffered 

breathing problems while in the carrier 

or that the caregiver had difficulty safely 

positioning the infant in the sling carrier 

to avoid the potential for suffocation. 

2. Caregiver missteps: Twenty of the 

28 incidents (23 percent) in this 

category were reported to have occurred 

when the caregiver slipped, tripped, or 

bent over, causing the infant in the sling 

to either fall with the caregiver or fall 

out of the carrier. Eight additional 

incidents among the 28 reported in this 

category occurred when caregivers 

dropped the infant during placement 

into/removal out of the carrier or failed 

to provide enough safety clearance for 

the infant in the carrier as the caregivers 

conducted their daily activities. 

Examples of the latter scenario include 

an infant getting struck by a door or a 

falling object, or an infant hitting a wall. 

Although these 28 incidents did not 

involve any fatalities, all but one 

incident resulted in an injury to the 

infant. These incidents included 11 

reports of skull fractures and one report 

of bleeding in the brain. Other injuries 

included closed-head injuries, 

contusions of the head/leg/back, and a 

finger laceration. 

3. Undetermined or unspecified 

cause: Twenty five reported incidents 

(20 percent) included seven fatalities, 

two hospitalized injuries, and 13 nonhospitalized injuries, with very little 

information available on the 

circumstances leading to the incidents. 

The official reports did not indicate a 

specific cause of death. Among the 

injuries, which included fractures of the 

skull/wrist, as well as other serious 

head injuries, most were reported 

through hospital emergency 

departments with very little scenariospecific information. 

4. Problems with buckles: Twelve of 

the 122 incidents (10 percent) reported 

buckles releasing, slipping, or breaking, 

causing infants to fall or nearly fall. 

There was one hospitalization for a 

skull fracture and two non-hospitalized 

injuries. There were no fatalities in this 

category. 

5. Miscellaneous product-related 

issues: There were nine incident reports 

(seven percent) in which consumers 

complained of a design flaw posing a 

possible strangulation hazard, a broken 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42728 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

component, rough fabric, or a sharp 

surface; or consumers indicated an 

unspecified product failure. Although 

these reports did not include any 

fatalities, there were six injuries 

reported in this category, including one 

skull fracture. 

6. Consumer comments: There were 

17 non-event reports (14 percent) of 

consumer comments or observations of 

perceived safety hazards. In most of 

these cases, the consumer did not own 

the sling carrier in question. None of 

these reports indicates that any event 

actually occurred. 

D. Product Recalls 

Since January 1, 2003, the CPSC has 

issued five consumer-level recalls 

involving sling carriers. All five recalls 

were for product defects that created a 

substantial product hazard and resulted 

in the recall of about 1.1 million sling 

carriers. Two of the recalled products 

posed a suffocation hazard, while three 

recalls were related to structural 

integrity and fall or potential fall 

hazards. 

IV. Other Standards 

A. International Standards 

The Commission identified one 

European standard that covers fabric 

carriers without rigid structure. In 

addition, a guideline for sling carriers is 

under development in Europe. 

1. British Standard EN13209–2:2005, 

Child Use and Care Articles—Baby 

Carriers—Safety Requirements and Test 

Methods—Part 2: Soft Carriers (27 

September 2005), is the European 

standard for soft, fabric carriers. 

However, EN13209 specifically states 

that the scope is intended for a ‘‘product 

[that] has holes designed to 

accommodate the child’s legs.’’ Sling 

carriers do not have holes through 

which a child’s legs pass. Although 

some individual requirements in the 

EN13209 standard may be more 

stringent than those in F2907–14a, the 

reported incidents do not suggest that 

these are prevalent hazard patterns 

associated with sling carriers. Therefore, 

the Commission does not believe that 

incorporating these more stringent 

requirements would further reduce the 

risk of injury associated with sling 

carriers. 

2. CEN/TR 16512, Child use and care 

articles—Guidelines for the safety of 

children’s slings, is a guideline that is 

under development in Europe. 

However, because this guideline, once 

completed would not be a standard, 

CEN/TR 16512 is not an option for 

consideration. The Commission expects 

that this guideline, when published, 

will contain recommendations similar 

to EN13209, but with recommendations 

adapted for the unique attributes of 

sling carriers. 

The Commission notes that the ASTM 

F15.21 subcommittee has worked to 

make F2907 the most appropriate 

standard for the unique nature of sling 

carriers by harmonizing with other 

standards (e.g., EN13209 and ASTM 

F2236), when appropriate, but also 

addressing the uniqueness of sling 

carriers, when needed. The Commission 

believes that ASTM F2907–14a is the 

most comprehensive standard that 

addresses the incident hazard patterns 

and that F2907–14a adequately 

addresses the hazards identified to date. 

Voluntary Standard—ASTM F2907 

1. Description of Standard 

ASTM F2907, ‘‘Standard Consumer 

Safety Performance Specification for 

Sling Carriers,’’ establishes safety 

performance requirements, test 

methods, and labeling requirements to 

minimize the hazards to children 

presented by sling carriers. ASTM first 

published a consumer product safety 

standard for sling carriers in 2012. 

ASTM has revised the voluntary 

standard five times since then. The 

current version, ASTM F2907–14a, was 

approved on February 15, 2014, and 

published in March 2014. ASTM F15.21 

subcommittee issued a ballot on May 

16, 2014, that proposed a modification 

in the occupant retention test pass/fail 

criteria. According to the ballot, ‘‘the 

current Occupant Retention test criteria 

(section 6.3) are not accurately 

separating good ring slings from poorlyconstructed ring slings.’’ The 

modification ASTM has proposed 

would increase from 1 inch to 3 inches 

the amount the ring sling attachment 

system may slip while still passing the 

standard. At the time of writing, the 

Commission does not have sufficient 

information to assess this change. Staff 

welcomes comments on the issue. 

The current version of the sling 

carrier standard, ASTM F2907–14a, 

contains requirements to address the 

following issues: 

• Laundering; 

• Hazardous sharp points or edges; 

• Small parts; 

• Lead in paint; 

• Wood parts; 

• Locking and latching; 

• Openings; 

• Scissoring, shearing, and pinching; 

• Monofilament threads; 

• Flammability; 

• Marking and labeling; and 

• Instructional literature. 

In addition, F2907–14a includes 

construction, quality, and durability test 

methods that are specific to sling 

carriers in the static, dynamic, occupant 

retention, and restraint system tests. 

These test methods combine to ensure 

that slings meet a minimum level of 

durability. 

• Static load test: This test checks 

that the sling can support the sling’s 

maximum recommended weight with a 

safety factor of three, by gradually 

applying a weight of three times the 

manufacturer’s maximum recommended 

weight, or 60 lbs., whichever is greater, 

in the support area of the sling, and 

maintain the weight for one minute. 

• Dynamic load test: This test 

assesses the durability of the sling and 

proper functioning of the sling’s 

fasteners by dropping a 35-lb. load into 

the sling’s support area in each 

recommended carrying position every 4 

seconds for up to 1,000 cycles. 

• Occupant retention test: This test 

assesses whether the sling retains the 

occupant as the caregiver moves about. 

The test also assesses the sling’s 

durability. The sling is attached to a test 

torso, and a test mass is placed in the 

sling. The test torso will move up and 

down at a rate of two times per second 

(approximately a brisk walking speed). 

The sling is tested to determine whether 

the adjustment mechanisms (e.g. rings, 

knots) release. 

• Restraint system test: This test 

assesses whether any child restraints 

used by the sling are sufficient. Each 

restraint system is tested with a 45-lb. 

force on the restraint and again with a 

CAMI dummy. The anchorages for the 

restraint system are not to separate from 

their attachment points during or after 

testing. 

2. Adequacy of Requirements in 

Addressing Identifiable Hazard Patterns 

Positioning. The Commission 

identified positioning as the primary 

hazard pattern in 31 cases. This 

includes nine deaths due to smothering, 

one permanent brain impairment injury 

due to breathing difficulty, and two 

other injuries—one related to breathing 

difficulty and the other related to blood 

circulation in the infant’s leg. 

As noted previously, the Commission 

identified suffocation/asphyxia related 

to positioning as a risk associated with 

sling carriers. Suffocation can occur 

when babies are contained entirely 

within the pouch of a sling. The highest 

risk of suffocation occurs when the 

infant’s face (nose and mouth) is 

pressed against the mother’s body, 

blocking the infant’s breathing and 

rapidly suffocating a baby within a few 

minutes. Furthermore, because of its 

shape and lack of support, a sling carrier 

can facilitate an infant being positioned 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 42729 

within the confines of the sling in a 

manner that causes acute neck hyperflexion (chin touching the chest). Infants 

found in this compromised position are 

likely to stay in the position because 

infant neck muscles are too weak to 

support the weight of their head. Infants 

who stay for prolonged periods of time 

in this position can experience 

compromised airflow to the lungs, 

resulting in an inadequate supply of 

oxygen to the brain. Oxygen deprivation 

to the brain can lead to loss of 

consciousness and death. 

Although there is no performance test 

for positioning in ASTM F2907–14a, 

ASTM F2907–14a requires statements in 

the warnings and instructions for sling 

carriers to caution against the hazards 

identified by the Commission through 

examination of the sling carrier 

incidents. Section 8.3.3 of F2907–14a 

specifies the warnings that must appear 

on each sling and addresses each of the 

hazard patterns the Commission found 

in the suffocation data. In short, all sling 

carriers must: (1) Include a safety alert 

symbol 

and the signal word ‘‘WARNING,’’ (2) 

warn that failure to follow the 

manufacturer’s instructions can result in 

‘‘death or serious injury,’’ (3) state the 

minimum and maximum recommended 

weights for the sling, and (4) warn about 

the potential suffocation and fall 

hazards associated with sling carriers. 

More specifically, according to ASTM 

F2097–14a, the warnings that pertain to 

suffocation and positioning must 

address: 

• the risk of suffocation to infants 

younger than 4 months if the infant’s 

face is pressed against the caregiver’s 

body within the confines of the sling 

and the increased risk of suffocation to 

infants born prematurely or those with 

respiratory problems; 

• the need to check often to make 

sure that the infant’s face remains 

uncovered, clearly visible to the 

caregiver, and away from the caregiver’s 

body at all times; 

• the importance of making sure that 

the infant does not curl into a position 

with the chin resting on or near the 

infant’s chest, which can interfere with 

breathing even when nothing is 

covering the nose or mouth; 

• the need to reposition the infant 

after nursing so the infant’s face is not 

pressed against the caregiver’s body; 

and 

• the importance of never using the 

sling with infants smaller than 8 

pounds, without seeking the advice of a 

healthcare professional. 

Lastly, the warning label prescribed by 

ASTM F2907–14a must include a 

pictogram that illustrates proper and 

improper infant positioning within the 

sling. ASTM F2907–14a includes an 

example of the type of pictogram sought 

but does not specify a particular design. 

Section 9 of ASTM F2907–14a 

specifies what instructional literature 

must be provided with the sling. This 

section requires that the instructions 

contain an image of each manufacturer’s 

recommended carrying position, 

include all of the warning statements 

that are required to appear on the sling, 

and provide several additional 

instructions. 

ASTM subcommittees for other 

durable nursery product standards have 

also tried to address positioning hazards 

related to a C-shaped curl in an infant’s 

head, neck, and torso area; however, 

there has been no repeatable 

performance test identified. The 

Commission attempted to address the 

positioning hazard associated with sling 

carriers in a new manner, based on the 

recognition that a sling carrier is worn 

by the caregiver and involves direct 

contact with the caregiver, thereby 

allowing for the possibility of the 

caregiver seeing a child who is in 

distress. Specifically, the Commission 

explored a ‘‘face exposure’’ test that, at 

a minimum, could keep a sling from 

preventing the caregiver from observing 

the infant’s face. The Commission 

pursued this possible test with the 

ASTM task group but found that the 

available anthropomorphic mannequins, 

e.g., CAMI dummies, do not accurately 

represent the manner in which a child 

sits in a sling, and that the variable 

nature of sling products makes the 

repeatability of a test questionable. 

Together with the ASTM task group, the 

Commission concluded that a test to 

address positioning hazards is 

technically infeasible at this point. 

Ultimately, the Commission 

concluded that warning requirements 

about proper and improper infant 

positioning present in ASTM F2907–14a 

is the only feasible hazard-mitigation 

strategy at this time. The Commission 

will continue to consider possible 

performance requirements pertaining to 

this issue and will pursue such an 

approach with the ASTM Subcommittee 

in the future, if an approach becomes 

feasible. Because there is no feasible 

performance test and because the 

warning statements in ASTM F2907 

were developed considering both 

known hazard patterns for sling carriers 

and established practices for warning 

labels, the Commission believes that the 

warnings and instructions published in 

ASTM F2907–14a are adequate to 

inform caregivers about how to reduce 

the likelihood of positioning incidents. 

Caregiver Missteps. Incidents 

involving caregiver missteps included 

11 reports of skull fractures and one 

episode of bleeding in the brain. Other 

injuries included closed head injuries, 

contusions of the head/leg/back, and a 

finger laceration. The Commission 

determined that these incidents were 

related directly to the actions, often 

accidental, of the caregiver. Examples 

include a caregiver slipping or tripping 

while wearing the sling carrier with the 

child inside, or incidental contact 

occurring between the child and an 

object, such as a door or wall. Although 

these types of incidents cannot be 

addressed directly through a 

performance test, the standard addresses 

these incidents by alerting caregivers of 

the hazard and making sure that the 

sling contains the infant. ASTM F2907– 

14a requires the following statement to 

appear on the on-product label to 

address the fall hazard to infants 

associated with ‘‘caregiver missteps,’’ 

such as tripping or bending over: 

FALL HAZARD—Leaning, bending 

over, or tripping can cause baby to fall. 

Keep one hand on baby while moving. 

In addition, the occupant retention 

test in ASTM F2907–14a is intended to 

reduce the likelihood that the child will 

fall out of the sling due to a caregiver 

misstep. ASTM F2907–14a requires the 

test mass to be contained within the 

sling for the duration of the test. 

Buckles. Twelve of the incidents 

involved buckles releasing, slipping, or 

breaking, and included a hospitalization 

for a skull fracture and two nonhospitalized injuries. ASTM F2907–14a 

addresses this hazard in several ways, 

using the static, dynamic, occupant 

retention, and restraint system tests. For 

the reasons described previously, the 

Commission believes that the 

performance tests in F2907–14a 

adequately address hazards associated 

with buckle failure. 

V. Effective Date 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) 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 Commission generally 

considers 6 months sufficient time for 

suppliers to come into compliance with 

a proposed durable infant and toddler 

product rule. Six months is the period 

the Juvenile Products Manufacturers 

Association (JPMA) typically allows for 

products in JPMA’s certification 

program to shift to a new voluntary 

standard once that new voluntary 

standard is published. Therefore, 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP23JY14.002</GPH>
42730 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

juvenile product manufacturers are 

accustomed to adjusting to new 

standards with this time frame. 

However, in this instance, a large 

number of very small suppliers 

potentially will experience significant 

economic impacts complying with the 

rule. In addition, because ASTM F2907 

has only been in existence for 

approximately 2 years, there is 

relatively little information regarding 

compliance with the voluntary 

standard. Thus, the Commission is 

proposing a 12-month effective date. 

The Commission invites comment on 

whether 12 months is an appropriate 

length of time for sling carrier 

manufacturers to come into compliance 

with the rule. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

requires agencies to review proposed 

rules for a rule’s potential economic 

impact on small entities, including 

small businesses. Section 603 of the 

RFA generally requires that agencies 

prepare an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) and make the analysis 

available to the public for comment 

when the agency publishes a general 

notice of proposed rulemaking. The 

IRFA must describe the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities and 

identify any alternatives that may 

reduce the impact. Specifically, the 

IRFA must contain: 

• a description of, and where feasible, 

an estimate of the number of small 

entities to which the proposed rule will 

apply; 

• a description of the reasons why 

action by the agency is being 

considered; 

• a succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

proposed rule; 

• a description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of 

the classes of small entities subject to 

the requirements and the types of 

professional skills necessary for the 

preparation of reports or records; and 

• identification, to the extent 

possible, of all relevant federal rules 

which may duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed rule. 

1. Reason for Agency Action and Legal 

Basis for the Proposed Rule 

The Danny Keysar Child Product 

Safety Notification Act, section 104 of 

the CPSIA, requires the CPSC to 

promulgate mandatory standards for 

nursery products that are substantially 

the same as, or more stringent than, the 

voluntary standard. The Commission 

worked closely with ASTM to develop 

the new requirements and test 

procedures that have been incorporated 

into ASTM F2907–14a, which the 

Commission proposes to incorporate by 

reference. 

2. Compliance Requirements of the 

Proposed Rule 

The Commission is incorporating by 

reference the current voluntary 

standard, with no revision, to form the 

proposed rule. Some of the more 

significant requirements of the current 

voluntary standard for sling carriers 

(ASTM F2907–14a) include static and 

dynamic load testing to verify the 

structural integrity of the sling carriers 

and occupant retention testing to help 

ensure that the child is not ejected from 

the sling carrier. The ASTM standard 

requires that the buckles, fasteners, and 

knots that secure the sling carrier 

remain in position before and after these 

three performance tests. There is also a 

separate restraint system test to help 

ensure that any restraints used by the 

sling do not release while in use. 

The voluntary standard also includes: 

• requirements for several features to 

prevent cuts (hazardous sharp points or 

edges, and wood parts); 

• small parts; 

• marking and labeling requirements; 

• flammability requirements; 

• requirements for the permanency 

and adhesion of labels; and 

• requirements for instructional 

literature. 

The updated warning statements 

provide additional details of the fall and 

suffocation hazards and are intended to 

address the primary fatality risk 

associated with infant slings, 

suffocation. 

3. Other Federal Rules 

Section 14(a)(2) of the Consumer 

Product Safety Act (CPSA) requires 

every manufacturer and private labeler 

of a children’s product that is subject to 

a children’s product safety rule to 

certify, based on third party testing 

conducted by a CPSC-accepted 

laboratory, that the product complies 

with all applicable children’s product 

safety rules. Section 14(i)(2) of the CPSA 

requires the Commission to establish 

protocols and standards by rule for, 

among other things, making sure that a 

children’s product is tested periodically 

and when there has been a material 

change in the product, and safeguarding 

against the exercise of undue influence 

by a manufacturer or private labeler 

against a conformity assessment body. A 

final rule implementing sections 

14(a)(2) and 14(i)(2) of CPSA, Testing 

and Labeling Pertaining to Product 

Certification (16 CFR part 1107), became 

effective on February 13, 2013 (the 1107 

rule). When the sling carrier rule is 

finalized, sling carriers will be subject to 

a mandatory children’s product safety 

rule. Accordingly, sling carriers will 

also be subject to the third party testing 

requirements of section 14 of the CPSA 

and the 1107 rule. Slings are already 

subject to lead and phthalates testing 

under the 1107 Rule. This rule adds 

certain mechanical tests and other 

requirements to the third party testing 

requirement. 

In addition, the 1107 rule requires 

certifiers to use CPSC-accredited 

laboratories to conduct the third party 

testing of children’s products. Section 

14(a)(3) of the CPSA required the 

Commission to publish a notice of 

requirements (NOR) for the 

accreditation of third party conformance 

assessment bodies (i.e., testing 

laboratories) to test for conformance 

with each children’s product safety rule. 

The NORs for existing rules are set forth 

in 16 CFR part 1112. Consequently the 

Commission is proposing an 

amendment to 16 CFR part 1112 that 

would establish the requirements for the 

accreditation of testing laboratories to 

test for compliance with the sling carrier 

final rule. 

4. Impact on Small Businesses 

Of the 47 identified suppliers of sling 

carriers to the U.S. market, 33 are 

domestic firms. (We limit our analysis 

to domestic firms because U.S. Small 

Business Administration (SBA) 

guidelines pertain to U.S.-based 

entities.) Under SBA guidelines, a 

manufacturer of sling carriers is small if 

it has 500 or fewer employees, and 

importers and wholesalers are small if 

the importers or wholesalers have 100 

or fewer employees. Based on these 

guidelines, 31 of the domestic firms 

supplying sling carriers to the U.S. 

market appear to be small businesses. 

These businesses consist of 23 

manufacturers, four importers, and four 

firms with unknown supply sources. 

Additionally, as noted previously, an 

unquantified number of producers 

supply baby slings to the U.S. market 

via Web sites such as Etsy. Although we 

have no information on these suppliers, 

based on the general nature of suppliers 

selling products on Etsy and similar 

markets, we assume that these suppliers 

are well within SBA criteria for small 

business. For purposes of analysis, we 

refer to these suppliers as ‘‘very small 

manufacturers’’ to distinguish them 

from the more established 

manufacturers, but this is not an official 

SBA designation. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 42731 

Before preparation of a regulatory 

flexibility analysis, the Commission 

conducts a screening analysis to 

determine whether a regulatory 

flexibility analysis or a certification 

statement of no significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities is 

appropriate for a proposed rule. The 

SBA gives considerable flexibility in 

defining the threshold for ‘‘no 

significant economic impact.’’ However, 

the Commission typically uses 1 percent 

of gross revenue as a threshold; unless 

the impact is expected to fall below the 

1 percent threshold for the small 

businesses evaluated, the Commission 

prepares a regulatory flexibility 

analysis. 

Because we were unable to 

demonstrate that the draft proposed rule 

would impose an economic impact less 

than 1 percent of gross revenue for the 

affected firms, the Commission did not 

prepare a certification statement, but 

conducted an IRFA. 

Small Manufacturers 

JPMA and the Baby Carrier Industry 

Alliance (BCIA) have advised some 

manufacturers of F2907–12, F2907–13a, 

F2907–13b, and F2907–14. These 

organizations are offering assistance to 

member manufacturers on testing and 

compliance with the ASTM sling carrier 

standards. However, the ASTM sling 

carrier standards are relatively new, and 

there is no established history of 

compliance among manufacturers. 

As of January 2014, only two of the 

23 known small manufacturers of sling 

carriers are listed on the JPMA Web site 

as certified compliant. Based on our 

review of small firm Web sites and a 

conversation with a small ring sling 

manufacturer, we have identified three 

additional firms (not JPMA certified) 

that have conducted testing to some 

version of the ASTM standard, for a 

total of five firms that have conducted 

testing to some version of the ASTM 

standard. These firms may have already 

experienced the impacts of the proposed 

rule and may not experience any 

additional impacts. The remaining firms 

are likely to incur some cost associated 

with the proposed rule. 

Due to the nature of the product and 

the relative ease of production, the 

Commission believes that most of the 

physical changes needed to meet the 

standard, such as changing fabrics, 

changing stitching, adding 

reinforcements, changing buckles, 

changing rings, changing labels, and 

changing instructions, are unlikely to be 

costly. Because sling carriers are largely 

made of fabric, tooling costs are not 

usually a large factor. 

Some manufacturers of ring slings are 

having difficulties with their products 

passing the occupant retention tests 

consistently. The problem appears to be 

variation in testing results based on how 

the sling is positioned on the test 

fixture. At this time, the precise cost of 

changes necessary to satisfy testing 

under the ASTM standard is unknown; 

and we cannot rule out the potential for 

costs high enough to lead to significant 

economic impacts, especially for the 

very small manufacturers. 

According to one manufacturer, 

changes to warning labels required 

under the proposed rule may have an 

impact on very small suppliers. We do 

not have sufficient data to determine 

whether this impact is expected to be 

economically significant. For example, 

if the cost of printing and sewing in the 

labels is 30 cents per sling, then the 

impact would be 1 percent of the sales 

price for a $30 sling. CPSC staff 

contacted a representative from the 

BCIA to obtain label prices but has no 

independent estimate at this time. An 

additional consideration is that the 

labels are relatively large and may 

reduce the appeal of the product if they 

cannot be readily concealed. However, 

this impact will apply to all sling 

manufacturers. 

Another manufacturer also expressed 

concerns that minor deviations from the 

font sizes required by the standard on 

the labels could force manufacturers to 

redo portions of the testing. This 

phenomenon may diminish as 

businesses become familiar with the 

requirements. Testing costs are 

discussed below. 

The majority of the costs associated 

with the proposed standard will 

probably be related to testing. Few of 

the sling carrier manufacturers have the 

technical capability or the equipment to 

conduct any testing in house; and most 

small and very small manufacturers 

probably will have to rely on third party 

testing during product development. 

Some small and very small 

manufacturers could experience 

significant costs simply testing to find 

out initially whether their products 

comply with the proposed standard and 

with any additional testing necessary to 

develop complying products. 

In addition, under section 14 of the 

CPSA, sling carriers are subject to third 

party testing and certification. Once the 

new 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). This will include any physical 

and mechanical test requirements 

specified in the final rule; lead and 

phthalates testing, if applicable, are 

already required; hence, lead and 

phthalates testing are not included in 

this discussion. 

According to a BCIA representative, 

third party testing to the ASTM sling 

carrier voluntary standard could cost 

around $500¥$1,050 per model sample, 

with $700 as an average cost. Third 

party testing consists of two costs: the 

testing costs unique to F2907 associated 

with the dynamic load test, the static 

load test, the occupant retention test, 

and the restraints test; and the general 

testing costs associated with testing for 

flammability, small parts, sharp edges, 

instructions, and labels. The testing 

costs unique to sling carriers vary 

widely, from $210 to $650, depending 

on whether the testing is done in China 

or the United States and whether a 

discount, such as the discount 

negotiated by the BCIA for its members, 

is applied. The general testing costs may 

amount to $300 to $400. The very small 

firms that manufacture in the United 

States will probably also test in the 

United States to avoid logistical 

difficulties, thus incurring higher costs. 

The $700 estimate for average testing 

costs includes all the required testing, 

such as flammability, sharp edges, etc. 

If a very small manufacturer with one 

model only needed to conduct one third 

party test annually, the costs of testing 

would amount to $700. A very small 

manufacturer producing 20 to 30 lowpriced slings a month might have 

annual revenues of $10,800 (30 slings 

per month × 12 months × $30 per sling). 

Testing one sample at $700 would 

amount to 6.5 percent ($700/$10,800) of 

annual revenue for this hypothetical 

very small manufacturer, which we 

would clearly classify as a significant 

economic impact. Even if this 

manufacturer could sell its slings for 

$150, testing one sample at $700 would 

amount to 1.3 percent of annual revenue 

of $54,000 (360 slings*$150 per sling). 

As a comparison, third party testing 

costs for soft infant and toddler carriers 

(SITCs) were estimated at $500¥$600 

per sample for the SITC standard, 

ASTM F2236–14. However, the higher 

testing costs for slings could reflect 

additional testing for occupant 

retention, which is not part of the SITC 

standard. 

Based upon the previous example, 

even in the unlikely case that very small 

sling manufacturers are able to develop 

a complying product without incurring 

significant economic impacts, very 

small sling manufacturers are still likely 

to incur significant economic impacts 

complying with section 14 of the CPSA. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42732 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

These types of impacts would apply to 

the very small producers marketing 

their products primarily via Etsy and 

other Web sites. 

Although information on sales 

revenue is limited to half of all 

manufacturers, we estimate that most of 

the 23 small domestic manufacturers 

have substantially larger sales volumes 

than the example above, with annual 

sales ranging between $200,000 and $16 

million. Thus, product development 

and testing costs would be a lower 

percentage of sales revenue than the 

example above. At the lower range of 

$200,000 in revenues, significant 

economic impacts would occur if the 

producer had to test three models per 

year. Firms with revenues closer to the 

upper end of the range, $16 million, 

would need to test more than 200 

models per year to experience 

significant economic impacts from 

testing. The number of tests needed for 

product development purposes or to 

meet the ‘‘high degree of assurance’’ 

criteria under section 14 of the CPSA is 

not known. 

About a third of firms (8 of 23) also 

have other product lines, which may 

cushion the impact of design changes 

and increased testing costs for sling 

carriers. These other products may be 

similar products, such as mei tais (a 

traditional Asian unstructured soft 

carrier falling under the SITC standard) 

or SITCs, or these other products may be 

completely unrelated juvenile products. 

Small Importers 

At this time, only one of the four 

importers identified is in compliance 

with F2907–12, F2907–13a or F2907– 

13b. Depending upon the costs of 

coming into compliance incurred by the 

importers’ suppliers and whether the 

importers’ suppliers are able to pass on 

the costs, the other three importers 

could experience a significant economic 

impact. Three of the four importers are 

owned by foreign parent companies that 

supply the importers’ slings. These 

parent companies must make the 

business decision to comply or to 

discontinue U.S. operations. Two of the 

four importers could respond by simply 

discontinuing their sling product line 

altogether because these importers have 

varied product lines. 

As is the case with manufacturers, all 

importers will be subject to third party 

testing and certification requirements. 

Consequently, these importers will 

experience the associated costs of 

compliance. The resulting costs could 

have a significant impact on these small 

importers. 

As mentioned previously, four of the 

small domestic firms have unknown 

supply sources, and none of these 

supply sources has claimed compliance 

with any version of F2907. However, 

two firms have varied product lines and 

may be in a better position to comply 

without incurring significant economic 

impacts. The other two appear to be 

small firms specializing in slings, and 

therefore, these small firms may be 

impacted more heavily by compliance 

and testing costs. 

5. Alternatives 

Under the Danny Keysar Child 

Product Safety Notification Act, section 

104 of the CPSIA, one alternative would 

be to set an effective date later than 12 

months. Setting a later effective date 

would reduce the economic impact on 

firms in two ways. First, firms would be 

less likely to experience a lapse in 

production, which could result if firms 

are unable to comply 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. 

Given the large number of very small 

suppliers who potentially will 

experience significant economic 

impacts, a later effective date may 

warrant consideration. The Commission 

welcomes comments regarding an 

appropriate effective date. 

VII. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations address 

whether we are required to prepare an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement. If our 

rule has ‘‘little or no potential for 

affecting the human environment,’’ our 

rule will be categorically exempted from 

this requirement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). 

The proposed rule falls within the 

categorical exemption. 

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains 

information collection requirements that 

are subject to public comment and 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3521). In this document, pursuant to 44 

U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth: 

• a title for the collection of 

information; 

• a summary of the collection of 

information; 

• a brief description of the need for 

the information and the proposed use of 

the information; 

• a description of the likely 

respondents and proposed frequency of 

response to the collection of 

information; 

• an estimate of the burden that shall 

result from the collection of 

information; and 

• notice that comments may be 

submitted to the OMB. 

Title: Safety Standard for Sling 

Carriers. 

Description: The proposed rule would 

require each sling carrier to comply 

with ASTM F2907–14a, Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for Sling 

Carriers. Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM 

F2907–14a 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). 

Description of Respondents: Persons 

who manufacture or import sling 

carriers. 

Estimated Burden: We estimate the 

burden of this collection of information 

as follows: 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN

16 CFR Section Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

responses 

Total annual 

responses 

Hours per 

response 

Total burden 

hours 

1228 47 3 141 1 141 

Our estimates are based on the 

following: 

Section 8.1.1 of ASTM F2907–14a 

requires that the name and the place of 

business (city, state, mailing address, 

including zip code, or telephone 

number) and Web site, if applicable, of 

the manufacturer, distributor, or seller 

be marked clearly and legibly on each 

product and its retail package. Section 

8.1.2 of ASTM F2907–14a requires a 

code mark or other means that identifies 

the date (month and year, as a 

minimum) of manufacture. 

There are 47 known entities 

supplying sling carriers to the U.S. 

market. All 47 firms are assumed to use 

labels already on both their products 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 42733 

and their packaging, but the firms might 

need to make some modifications to 

their existing labels. The estimated time 

required to make these modifications is 

about 1 hour per model. Each entity 

supplies an average of three different 

models of sling carrier; therefore, the 

estimated burden associated with labels 

is 1 hour per model × 47 entities × 3 

models per entity = 141 hours. We 

estimate the hourly compensation for 

the time required to create and update 

labels is $27.71 (U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, ‘‘Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation,’’ September 

2013, Table 9, total compensation for all 

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

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

estimated annual cost to industry 

associated with the labeling 

requirements is $3,907.11 ($27.71 per 

hour × 141 hours = $3,907.11). There are 

no operating, maintenance, or capital 

costs associated with the collection. 

Section 9.1 of ASTM F2907–14a 

requires instructions to be supplied 

with the product. Sling carriers do not 

generally require assembly, but require 

instructions for proper use, fit, and 

adjustment on a caregiver’s body, as 

well as maintenance, cleaning, and 

storage. Under the OMB’s regulations (5 

CFR 1320.3(b)(2)), the time, effort, and 

financial resources necessary to comply 

with a collection of information that 

would be incurred by persons in the 

‘‘normal course of their activities’’ are 

excluded from a burden estimate, where 

an agency demonstrates that the 

disclosure activities required to comply 

are ‘‘usual and customary.’’ Therefore, 

because we are unaware of sling carriers 

that generally require some instructions 

for use, but lack any instructions to the 

user, we estimate tentatively that there 

are no burden hours associated with 

section 9.1 of ASTM F803–13 because 

any burden associated with supplying 

instructions with sling carriers would be 

‘‘usual and customary’’ and would not 

within the definition of ‘‘burden’’ under 

the OMB’s regulations. 

Based on this analysis, the proposed 

standard for sling carriers would impose 

a burden to industry of 141 hours, at an 

estimated cost of $3,907.11 annually. 

In compliance with the Paperwork 

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

3507(d)), we have submitted the 

information collection requirements of 

this rule to the OMB for review. 

Interested persons are requested to 

submit comments regarding information 

collection by August 22, 2014, to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, OMB (see the ADDRESSES 

section at the beginning of this notice). 

Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), 

we invite comments on: 

• whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the CPSC’s functions, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; 

• the accuracy of the CPSC’s estimate 

of the burden of the proposed collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

• ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; 

• ways to reduce the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques, when 

appropriate, and other forms of 

information technology; and 

• the estimated burden hours 

associated with label modification, 

including any alternative estimates. 

IX. Preemption 

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

2075(a), provides that where a consumer 

product safety standard is in effect and 

applies to a product, no state or political 

subdivision of a state may either 

establish or continue in effect a 

requirement dealing with the same risk 

of injury, unless the state requirement is 

identical to the federal standard. Section 

26(c) of the CPSA also provides that 

states or political subdivisions of states 

may apply to the Commission for an 

exemption from this preemption under 

certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of 

the CPSIA refers to the rules to be 

issued under that section as ‘‘consumer 

product safety rules.’’ Therefore, the 

preemption provision of section 26(a) of 

the CPSA would apply to a rule issued 

under section 104. 

X. Certification and Notice of 

Requirements (NOR) 

The CPSA establishes certain 

requirements for product certification 

and testing. Products subject to a 

consumer product safety rule under the 

CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation under any other 

act enforced by the Commission, must 

be certified as complying with all 

applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 

15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Certification of 

children’s products subject to a 

children’s product safety rule must be 

based on testing conducted by a CPSCaccepted third party conformity 

assessment body. Id. 2063(a)(2). The 

Commission must publish a notice of 

requirements (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. Id. 2063(a)(3). Thus, 

the proposed rule for 16 CFR part 1228, 

‘‘Safety Standard for Sling Carriers,’’ 

when issued as a final rule, will be a 

children’s product safety rule that 

requires the issuance of an NOR. 

To meet the requirement that the 

Commission issue an NOR for the sling 

carrier standard, the Commission 

proposes to amend an existing rule. 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 took effect 

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 Section14(a)(2) of the 

CPSA. The final rule also codifies all of 

the NORs that the CPSC had published 

to date. All new NORs, such as the sling 

carrier standard, require an amendment 

to part 1112. Accordingly, the proposed 

rule would amend part 1112 to include 

the sling carrier standard, along with the 

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 sling carriers 

would be required to meet the third 

party conformity assessment body 

accreditation requirements in part 1112. 

When a laboratory meets the 

requirements as a CPSC-accepted third 

party conformity assessment body, the 

laboratory can apply to the CPSC to 

have 16 CFR part 1228, Safety Standard 

for Sling Carriers, included in the 

laboratory’s scope of accreditation of 

CPSC safety rules listed for the 

laboratory on the CPSC Web site at: 

www.cpsc.gov/labsearch. 

As required by the RFA, staff 

conducted a final regulatory flexibility 

analysis (FRFA) when the Commission 

issued the part 1112 rule (78 FR 15836, 

15855–58). Briefly, the FRFA concluded 

that the accreditation requirements 

would not have a significant adverse 

impact on a substantial number of small 

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 

the part 1112 rule to include the NOR 

for the sling carrier standard will not 

have a significant adverse impact on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42734 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

small laboratories. Moreover, based 

upon the 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 sling 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 sling 

carrier standard to their scope of 

accreditation. As a consequence, the 

Commission certifies that the NOR for 

the sling carrier standard will not have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

XI. Request for Comments 

This proposed rule begins a 

rulemaking proceeding under section 

104(b) of the CPSIA to issue a consumer 

product safety standard for sling 

carriers. We invite all interested persons 

to submit comments on any aspect of 

the proposed rule. 

Comments should be submitted in 

accordance with the instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this notice. 

List of Subjects 

16 CFR Part 1112 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Third party conformity 

assessment body. 

16 CFR Part 1228 

Consumer protection, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Infants and 

children, Labeling, Law enforcement, 

Toys. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Commission proposes to 

amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 1112—REQUIREMENTS 

PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY 

CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT BODIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1112 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 110–314, section 3, 122 

Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008); 15 U.S.C. 2063. 

■ 2. Amend § 1112.15, by adding 

paragraph (b)(39) to read as follows: 

§ 1112.15 When can a third party 

conformity assessment body apply for 

CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule 

and/or test method? 

* * * * * 

(b)(39) 16 CFR part 1228, Safety 

Standard for Sling Carriers. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Add part 1228 to read as follows: 

PART 1228—SAFETY STANDARD FOR 

SLING CARRIERS 

Sec. 

1228.1 Scope. 

1228.2 Requirements for sling carriers. 

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

Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Pub. L. 112–28, 

125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011). 

§ 1228.1 Scope. 

This part establishes a consumer 

product safety standard for sling 

carriers. 

§ 1228.2 Requirements for sling carriers. 

(a) Each sling carrier must comply 

with all applicable provisions of ASTM 

F2907–14a, Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Sling Carriers, 

approved on February 15, 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; http://

www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may 

inspect a copy at the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/code_of_

federalregulations/ibr_locations.html. 

(b) [Reserved] 

Dated: July 10, 2014. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16792 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 40 

[Docket No. RM14–15–000] 

Physical Security Reliability Standard 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the section 

regarding Electric Reliability of the 

Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) 

proposes to approve Reliability 

Standard CIP–014–1 (Physical Security). 

The North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation, the Commission-certified 

Electric Reliability Organization, 

submitted the proposed Reliability 

Standard for Commission approval in 

response to a Commission order issued 

on March 7, 2014. The purpose of 

proposed Reliability Standard CIP–014– 

1 is to enhance physical security 

measures for the most critical BulkPower System facilities and thereby 

lessen the overall vulnerability of the 

Bulk-Power System against physical 

attacks. The Commission proposes to 

approve Reliability Standard CIP–014– 

1. In addition, the Commission proposes 

to direct NERC to develop two 

modifications to the physical security 

Reliability Standard and seeks comment 

on other issues. 

DATES: Comments are due September 8, 

2014. Reply comments are due 

September 22, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by 

docket number, may be filed in the 

following ways: 

• Electronic Filing through http:// 

www.ferc.gov/: Documents created 

electronically using word processing 

software should be filed in native 

applications or print-to-PDF format and 

not in a scanned format. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable 

to file electronically may mail or handdeliver comments to: Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Comment Procedures Section of 

this document 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Regis Binder (Technical Information), 

Office of Electric Reliability, Division 

of Reliability Standards and Security, 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: 

(301) 665–1601, 

Regis.Binder@ferc.gov. 

Matthew Vlissides (Legal Information), 

Office of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE., Washington, DC 

20426, Telephone: (202) 502–8408, 

Matthew.Vlissides@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Pursuant to section 215 of the 

Federal Power Act (FPA), the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS