Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 73415 

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE 

AGENCY 

[No. 2013–N–16] 

12 CFR Part 1260 

Information To Be Distributed to the 

Federal Home Loan Banks and the 

Office of Finance 

AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notification. 

SUMMARY: Section 20A of the Federal 

Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act), 

requires the Director of the Federal 

Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to 

make available to the Federal Home 

Loan Banks (Banks) such reports, 

records, or other information as may be 

available, relating to the condition of 

any Bank in order to enable each Bank 

to evaluate the financial condition of 

one or more of the other Banks 

individually and the Bank System as a 

whole. FHFA has adopted, and 

published in this issue of the Federal 

Register, a regulation to implement the 

statutory information sharing 

provisions, which will be located at 12 

CFR part 1260. As required by 

§ 1260.2(b) of that regulation, FHFA is 

providing this notification to the Banks 

and the Bank System’s Office of Finance 

of the categories of information that it 

will distribute under part 1260 

beginning on the effective date noted 

below. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 6, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

M. Raudenbush, Assistant General 

Counsel, Office of General Counsel, 

Eric.Raudenbush@fhfa.gov, (202) 649– 

3084; or Jonathan Curtis, Financial 

Analyst, Office of Program Support, 

Division of Bank Regulation, 

Jonathan.Curtis@fhfa.gov, (202) 649– 

3321 (these are not toll-free numbers), 

Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 

20024. The telephone number for the 

Telecommunications Device for the 

Hearing Impaired is (800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In order to 

fulfill the requirements of section 20A 

of the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1440a), and 

as provided in 12 CFR part 1260, FHFA 

will distribute or otherwise make 

available to each Bank and to the Office 

of Finance on a regular and ongoing 

basis the following categories of 

information, as soon as practicable after 

the materials have been prepared in 

final form: 

1. Information submitted by a Bank to 

FHFA’s call report system (CRS) 

electronic database, excluding Bank 

membership information; 

2. Information about each Bank, and 

the Banks collectively, that is presented 

in FHFA’s semi-annual ‘‘Profile of the 

Federal Home Loan Bank System’’ 

report prepared by FHFA’s Division of 

Bank Regulation (DBR); 

3. Information about each Bank, and 

the Banks collectively, that is contained 

in the weekly report on Bank liquidity 

prepared by DBR; 

4. Information about each Bank, and 

the Banks collectively, that is contained 

in the quarterly report on Bank 

membership prepared by DBR; 

5. Information about each Bank, and 

the Banks collectively, that is contained 

in the weekly report on the Banks’ 

unsecured credit exposure prepared by 

DBR; 

6. A quarterly statement, to be 

prepared by FHFA, indicating whether 

each Bank has timely filed with FHFA 

the quarterly liquidity certification 

required under 12 CFR 1270.10(b)(1); 

7. A statement, to be prepared by 

FHFA as circumstances warrant, 

identifying any Bank that has notified 

FHFA pursuant to 12 CFR 1270.10(b)(2) 

of any actual or anticipated liquidity 

problems and describing the nature of 

the liquidity problems; and 

8. Beginning with the calendar year 

2014 Bank examination cycle, 

information contained in the ‘‘Summary 

and Conclusions’’ portion of each 

Bank’s final report of examination. 

Dated: November 22, 2013. 

Edward J. DeMarco, 

Acting Director, Federal Housing Finance 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2013–28886 Filed 12–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8070–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1225 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2012–0068] 

Safety Standard for Hand-Held Infant 

Carriers 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Danny Keysar Child 

Product Safety Notification Act, section 

104(b) of the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), 

requires the United States Consumer 

Product Safety Commission 

(Commission, CPSC, or we) 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 issuing 

a safety standard for hand-held infant 

carriers in response to the direction 

under section 104(b) of the CPSIA. The 

rule would incorporate ASTM F2050– 

13a by reference, with one modification. 

DATES: The rule will become effective 

on June 6, 2014. The incorporation by 

reference of the publication listed in 

this rule is approved by the Director of 

the Federal Register as of June 6, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julio 

Alvarado, Compliance Officer, Office of 

Compliance and Field Operations, U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; email: jalvarado@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Statutory Authority 

The CPSIA (Pub. L. 110–314) was 

enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 

104(b) of the CPSIA requires the 

Commission to: (1) Examine and assess 

the effectiveness of voluntary consumer 

product safety standards for durable 

infant or toddler products, in 

consultation with representatives of 

consumer groups, juvenile product 

manufacturers, and independent child 

product engineers and experts; and (2) 

promulgate consumer product safety 

standards for durable infant and toddler 

products. These standards are to be 

substantially the same as applicable 

voluntary standards or more stringent 

than the voluntary standard if the 

Commission concludes that more 

stringent requirements would further 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

the product. 

The term ‘‘durable infant or toddler 

product’’ is defined in section 104(f)(1) 

of the CPSIA as a durable product 

intended for use, or that may be 

reasonably expected to be used, by 

children under the age of 5 years. Infant 

carriers are one of the products 

specifically identified in section 

104(f)(2)(H) as a durable infant or 

toddler product. The Commission has 

identified four types of products that 

could fall within the infant carrier 

product category, including: Frame 

backpack carriers, soft infant and 

toddler carriers, slings, and hand-held 

infant carriers. This rule addresses 

hazards associated only with hand-held 

infant carriers. Hazards associated with 

other types of carriers would be 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

73416 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

addressed in separate rulemaking 

proceedings. 

On December 10, 2012, the 

Commission issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for hand-held infant 

carriers. 77 FR 73354. The NPR 

proposed to incorporate by reference the 

then current voluntary standard, ASTM 

F2050–12, Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Hand-Held Infant 

Carriers, with certain modifications to 

strengthen the ASTM standard. One 

proposed modification provided for a 

change in the warning label to better 

address suffocation and restraint-related 

hazards. The other proposed 

modification addressed the testing 

procedures for the carry handle autolocking requirement and specified using 

an aluminum cylinder as the surrogate 

for the occupant of the carrier rather 

than a CAMI Mark II 6-month infant 

dummy (CAMI dummy). 

Since the Commission published the 

NPR, ASTM has revised ASTM F2050 

twice. On July 1, 2013, ASTM approved 

an updated version of the voluntary 

standard, ASTM F2050–13, which 

includes the warning label modification 

proposed in the NPR. On September 1, 

2013, ASTM approved another revision 

of the voluntary standard, ASTM 

F2050–13a, which includes a carry 

handle auto-locking performance 

requirement that is different than the 

requirement proposed in the NPR. As 

explained in section VII of this 

preamble, the Commission agrees with 

the auto-locking requirement in ASTM 

F2050–13a. The draft final rule 

incorporates by reference the most 

recent version of the ASTM standard, 

ASTM F2050–13a, with one 

modification—a clarification of the 

definition of ‘‘hand-held infant carrier,’’ 

to include a specific reference to both 

‘‘rigid-sided’’ and ‘‘semi-rigid-sided’’ 

products. 

II. The Product 

ASTM F2050–13a defines a ‘‘hand 

held infant carrier’’ as a ‘‘freestanding, 

rigid-sided product intended to carry an 

occupant whose torso is completely 

supported by the product to facilitate 

transportation by a caregiver by means 

of hand-holds or handles.’’ The ASTM 

voluntary standard published in August 

2012, for the first time referenced two 

types of hand-held infant carriers: 

Hand-held bassinets/cradles and handheld carrier seats. The current ASTM 

voluntary standard defines ‘‘hand-held 

carrier seat’’ as a ‘‘hand-held infant 

carrier having a seat back that is 

intended to be in a reclined position 

(more than 10° from horizontal),’’ and 

‘‘hand-held bassinet/cradle’’ is defined 

as ‘‘a freestanding product, with a rest/ 

support surface to facilitate sleep 

(intended to be flat or up to 10° from 

horizontal), that sits directly on the 

floor, without legs or a stand, and has 

hand-holds or handle(s) intended to 

allow carrying an occupant whose torso 

is completely supported by the 

product.’’ Hand-held carrier seats often 

are used as infant car seats, or as 

attachments to strollers or high chairs 

bases. Some of the requirements in 

F2050–13a are different for hand-held 

bassinets/cradles and hand-held infant 

carriers because the intended position of 

the occupant (lying supine vs. sitting 

reclined) and the product designs used 

to accommodate the occupant can create 

different hazards. 

A Moses basket is a freestanding 

product with a rest/support surface to 

facilitate sleep and has hand-holds or 

handles intended to allow carrying an 

occupant. Some Moses baskets are rigidsided, but most have semi rigid sides. In 

the NPR, the Commission sought 

comment on whether Moses baskets are 

or should be covered by this safety 

standard. The Commission also asked: 

(1) If Moses baskets should be included 

in this safety standard, does the present 

definition cover Moses baskets, and (2) 

if the present definition does not cover 

Moses baskets, how should the standard 

be amended to cover Moses baskets? 

The Commission received no comments 

in response to these questions and will 

clarify the definition of ‘‘hand-held 

infant carrier’’ in the rule to specify that 

the definition includes both ‘‘rigidsided’’ and ‘‘semi-rigid-sided’’ products. 

III. Incident Data 

The preamble to the NPR summarized 

incident data involving bassinets and 

cradles reported to the Commission as 

of June 8, 2012. 77 FR 73354 (December 

10, 2012). The NPR stated that, 

according to reports to the CPSC, 242 

incidents involving hand-held infant 

carriers occurred between January 1, 

2007 and June 7, 2012. Of the 242 

incidents, there were 36 fatalities, 60 

nonfatal injuries, and 146 incidents 

where no injury occurred or was 

reported. Staff attributed the majority of 

the fatalities to the improper use or 

nonuse of the carrier’s restraint system. 

CPSC’s Directorate for Epidemiology, 

Division of Hazard Analysis has 

updated this information to include 

hand-held infant carrier-related incident 

data reported to the Commission from 

June 8, 2012 through June 21, 2013. A 

search of the CPSC epidemiological 

databases showed that there were 10 

new incidents related to hand-held 

infant carriers reported during this time 

frame. Seven of the 10 were fatal, and 

three were nonfatal. None of the 

nonfatal incidents involved injuries. All 

of the new incidents reportedly 

occurred in late 2011 and 2012. 

Reporting is ongoing, however, so the 

incident totals are subject to change. 

A. Fatalities Reported Since the NPR 

Most of the more recently reported 

seven fatalities involved a productrelated issue. The ages of the decedents 

ranged from one month to 15 months. 

Staff attributes the majority of the 

fatalities to the improper use or nonuse 

of the carrier’s restraint system. The 

incident reports indicate the following 

circumstances in these fatalities: 

• Infant was unrestrained and found 

in a prone position with the seat tipped 

over; 

• infant was unrestrained and found 

with its face pressed into the side of the 

seat; 

• infant strangled to death when 

restrained by the shoulder straps only 

and moved forward in the seat and was 

caught in the throat by the chest clip 

that connects the shoulder straps; 

• infant was strapped into a handheld infant carrier that was placed on a 

bed and overturned; 

• infant was reported to have become 

entrapped in the carrier by other 

unsupervised children; although 

information on the exact manner of 

entrapment was unavailable; 

• insufficient information to identify 

conclusively a hazard pattern but may 

have been the result of misuse of the 

product; 

• insufficient information to identify 

hazard pattern. 

B. Nonfatal Incidents Reported Since 

the NPR 

There were three hand-held carrierrelated nonfatal incidents reported to 

the Commission from June 8, 2012 

through June 21, 2013. All of the 

incidents occurred in 2012; none of 

these involved an injury. Two of the 

incident reports stated that the carrier 

handle broke. The third report was a 

complaint about the poor quality and 

design of a Moses basket carrier. 

C. Hazard Pattern Identification 

Staff did not identify any new hazard 

patterns among the 10 incident reports 

that CPSC staff received since the 

Commission published the hand-held 

infant carrier NPR. In order of frequency 

of incident reports, staff grouped the 

hazard patterns of the incidents 

reported since the NPR into the 

following categories: 

1. Restraint issues: Three of the 

incidents—all fatalities—were 

associated with the incorrect use or 

nonuse of the harness straps. In two of 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 73417 

these fatal incidents, the decedent was 

not restrained in the carrier at all. The 

decedents were found later to have 

turned over to a prone position, face 

down on a soft surface. One death 

resulted when the infant was left in the 

seat with only the shoulder straps 

connected, but unrestrained at the 

crotch strap, which allowed the infant 

to slide forward in the seat, just enough 

to get caught at the throat by the chest 

clip and become strangled. 

2. Handle problems: Two incident 

reports state that the handle broke. One 

of these incidents involved a product 

that was already recalled for handle 

problems. There were no injuries 

reported in these incidents. 

3. Issues with carrier design: There 

was one fatality in this category, which 

resulted when the occupied carrier was 

left on a soft surface (i.e., a bed), tipped 

upside down, and trapped the infant. In 

addition, one noninjury report 

complained about the poor and unsafe 

design of a Moses basket carrier. 

4. Hazardous environment: One 

fatality resulted from an infant 

becoming trapped in the hand-held 

carrier by other unsupervised children. 

Details of the manner in which the 

entrapment occurred were unavailable. 

5. Other product-related issue: One 

fatality report indicated that misuse of 

the product may have contributed to the 

incident; however, not enough 

information was available for CPSC staff 

to identify conclusively the hazard 

pattern involved. 

6. Other/unknown issue: One fatality 

was reported with an undetermined 

official cause of death. There was 

insufficient evidence of any product 

involvement or the presence of any 

hazardous external circumstances. 

IV. Overview of ASTM F2050 

ASTM F2050, Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Hand-Held 

Infant Carriers, establishes safety 

performance requirements, test 

methods, and labeling requirements to 

minimize the identified hazard patterns 

associated with the use of hand-held 

infant carriers. The voluntary standard 

for hand-held infant carriers was first 

approved and published in August 

2000, as ASTM F2050–00, Standard 

Consumer Safety Performance 

Specification for Hand-Held Infant 

Carriers. ASTM has revised the standard 

six times since then. ASTM F2050–13 

was approved on July 1, 2013, and the 

current version, ASTM F2050–13a, was 

approved on September 1, 2013. The 

more significant requirements of ASTM 

F2050 include: 

• Scope—describes the types of 

products intended to be covered under 

the standard. 

• Testing of the handle auto-locking 

mechanism—is intended to prevent 

unintentional rotation of the carrier and 

resulting expulsion of the child when 

the caregiver picks up the carrier by the 

handle and the handle is not in a locked 

position. 

• Testing of the integrity of the 

handle—is intended to prevent 

unintentional separation of the handle 

from the carrier while in use. 

• Occupant restraints—are intended 

to prevent incidents in which improper 

use of restraints has resulted in the 

entrapment and strangulation of 

children. 

• Slip-resistance requirement—is 

intended to prevent the carrier from 

sliding when placed on a slightly 

inclined surface. 

• Warning label—is intended to 

address: (1) Improper use of restraints 

(to prevent strangulation and other 

injuries), and (2) improper placement of 

the carrier on an elevated surface (to 

prevent fall injuries). 

The voluntary standard also includes: 

(1) Torque and tension tests to prevent 

components from being removed; (2) 

requirements to prevent entrapment and 

cuts (minimum and maximum opening 

size, small parts, hazardous sharp edges 

or points, and edges that can scissor, 

shear, or pinch); (3) requirements for the 

permanency and adhesion of labels; and 

(4) requirements for instructional 

literature. 

V. The NPR and ASTM 2050–12 

The NPR proposed to incorporate by 

reference ASTM F2050–12 as a 

consumer product safety standard, with 

two modifications: 

1. Warning Label: The NPR proposed 

requiring a strangulation warning label 

to be affixed to the outer surface of the 

cushion or padding of a hand-held 

carrier seat in or adjacent to the area 

where the child’s head would rest. 

Under the proposal, the warning label 

for hand-held carrier seats that are 

intended to be used as restraints in 

motor vehicles would include a 

pictogram, while the warning label for 

hand-held carrier seats not intended to 

be used as restraints in motor vehicles 

would not include the pictogram 

because these seats do not have the 

chest clips depicted in the pictogram. 

2. Handle Auto-Lock Test: The NPR 

proposed a modification of the test 

method for preventing the carrier from 

rotating and spilling an unrestrained 

infant when a caregiver picks up the 

carrier and the handle is not locked in 

the carry position. The test method in 

ASTM F2050–12 required the tester to 

use a standard CAMI dummy as an 

infant surrogate. The NPR proposed a 

change that would require the tester to 

use an aluminum cylinder designed as 

a surrogate for a 6-month-old infant, in 

lieu of the CAMI dummy, because 

testing had revealed that the CAMI 

dummy could be wedged into the seat 

padding or otherwise manipulated, so 

that the CAMI dummy did not fall out 

during the lift test when the CAMI 

dummy otherwise should fall. 

Furthermore, the Commission was 

concerned that the ability to pass or fail 

the test based on friction or placement 

of the CAMI would affect the 

consistency and repeatability of the test 

results. 

The NPR also asked for comments 

regarding whether Moses baskets should 

be included in this safety standard, and 

if so, whether we should revise the 

definition of ‘‘hand-held infant carrier’’ 

to cover Moses baskets. 

VI. ASTM F2050–13a 

ASTM approved the current voluntary 

standard for hand-held infant carriers, 

ASTM F2050–13a, on September 1, 

2013. ASTM balloted the NPR’s 

provisions concerning the warning label 

requirement in 2013, and the provisions 

are now included in the latest revision 

of the voluntary standard, ASTM 2050– 

13a. 

Several comments received in 

response to the NPR suggested that the 

aluminum cylinder was not an 

appropriate surrogate for use in the 

handle auto-lock test and maintained 

that other surrogates, including the 

CAMI dummy, would produce more 

repeatable and consistent test results if 

properly placed in the carrier. After 

considering these comments and the 

results of additional testing performed 

since the Commission published the 

NPR, Commission staff determined that 

using the CAMI dummy, with certain 

modifications to the test procedure, 

would produce more repeatable and 

consistent test results. ASTM F2050– 

13a retains the use of the CAMI dummy 

as the surrogate occupant and clarifies 

how the dummy should be situated in 

the seat during testing. The revised 

requirement also: 

• Specifies using webbing instead of 

hooks for lifting the carrier during the 

test; 

• specifies that a pneumatic cylinder 

be used to provide the force needed for 

the lift; and 

• narrows the lift speed range. 

VII. Responses to Comments 

The Commission received five 

comments on the NPR, including: one 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

73418 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

from a consumer’s group (Consumers 

Union); one from the Juvenile Products 

Manufacturers Association (JPMA); and 

three from hand-held infant carrier 

manufacturers. The comments raised 

several issues, which resulted in ASTM 

changing the handle auto-lock test 

procedures and including guidance for 

the placement of the CAMI dummy in 

the seat during the handle-auto lock test 

in ASTM F2050–13a. Several 

commenters made general statements 

supporting the overall purpose of the 

proposed rule. All of the comments can 

be viewed at: www.regulations.gov, by 

searching under the docket number of 

the rulemaking, CPSC–2012–0068. 

Following is a summary of, and 

responses to, the comments. 

Handle Auto-Locking Test—CAMI 

Dummy v. Aluminum Cylinder 

Comment: Two commenters 

supported the proposal to use the 

aluminum cylinder surrogate instead of 

the CAMI dummy during the handle 

auto-locking test. The other three 

commenters opposed using the 

aluminum cylinder surrogate. Specific 

concerns with the cylinder included: (1) 

The cylinder is not the same shape as 

a child and can roll from side to side 

during testing; (2) the weight 

distribution and center of gravity of the 

cylinder are different for a child, and 

the cylinder can tip forward in an 

unrealistic manner during testing; and 

(3) testing with the cylinder can be 

dangerous because the cylinder can fall 

out of the carrier during testing and 

potentially injure a tester. The three 

commenters who raised concerns about 

using the cylinder as a surrogate in the 

handle auto-locking test preferred using 

the CAMI dummy as the surrogate for 

this test. One commenter suggested that 

whichever surrogate was specified, 

more detail be provided for placing the 

surrogate into the carrier before the lift 

test. One commenter suggested that 

CPSC should allow ASTM additional 

time to develop a test procedure that 

will provide more repeatable results. 

Response: Since publication of the 

NPR, Commission staff has reviewed the 

comments, witnessed additional testing, 

and participated in discussions at 

ASTM hand-held infant carrier 

subcommittee and task group meetings. 

Based on this additional work, the 

Commission agrees with the three 

commenters who stated that using the 

cylinder during testing would produce 

unrepeatable results for some carriers. 

The Commission believes that most of 

the issues presented by use of the CAMI 

dummy can be addressed with 

clarifications and modifications to the 

ASTM test procedure set forth in ASTM 

F2050–12 so that the test produces more 

repeatable and reliable results. ASTM 

revised the requirement in the most 

recent version of F2050, and staff 

believes the revision, as now stated in 

ASTM F2050–13a, is adequate to 

address the hazards associated with 

unlocked carry handles. Therefore, the 

final rule does not does not require any 

changes to the carry handle auto-locking 

requirement but incorporates by 

reference the latest version of the 

standard, ASTM F2050–13a. 

Fall Hazard Warning 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Commission 

strengthen the warning regarding the 

fall hazard to discourage more strongly 

caregivers placing the carrier on 

elevated surfaces. The language in 

ASTM F2050–12 (the version in effect at 

the time of the NPR) stated: ‘‘Fall 

Hazard: Child’s movement can slide 

carrier. NEVER place carrier near edges 

of counter tops, tables, or other elevated 

surfaces.’’ 

Response: The Commission agrees 

with the commenter that the fall hazard 

warning stated in ASTM F2050–12 was 

not sufficiently strong. Leaving handheld carriers on elevated surfaces is a 

foreseeable behavior, and the warning 

language should highlight the 

importance of not leaving the carriers on 

elevated surfaces. ASTM F2050–13a 

revises this warning. The warning 

language in ASTM’s ‘13a version is 

presented below: 

8.3.2.5 Fall Hazard: Child’s activity 

can move carrier. Never place carrier on 

counter tops, tables, or any other 

elevated surfaces. 

The Commission agrees with the change 

in the ASTM standard, and thus, no 

further modifications are necessary in 

response to this comment. 

Location of the Strangulation Warning 

Label 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the requirement that the 

label be placed ‘‘in or adjacent to the 

area where the child’s head would rest’’ 

does not specify sufficiently the proper 

placement of the label, and therefore, 

the label could be obscured when a 

child is in the seat. The commenter 

suggested requiring the label to be 

placed ‘‘adjacent to where the infant’s 

head or torso would rest with or without 

the child installed in the seat.’’ The 

commenter explained that this change 

would permit the caregiver to see the 

warning label at all times and allow the 

manufacturer the space and flexibility to 

place the label in a location that is 

effective, without impacting NHTSA’s 

airbag warning label. 

Response: The requirement in ASTM 

F2050–13a specifying the location for 

the warning label mirrors NHTSA’s 

airbag warning label requirement. The 

Commission believes the warning label 

location requirement clearly describes 

the proper location of the label and 

further believes that adopting the 

commenter’s suggestion may create 

confusion regarding the placement of 

the label and may reduce the warning’s 

effectiveness if a manufacturer decides 

to locate the label toward the lower end 

of the infant carrier. The Commission 

agrees with the current language in 

ASTM F2050–13a and believes that the 

warning label is more likely to be seen 

if placed on the outer surface of the 

cushion or padding, in or adjacent to 

where child’s head rests, and also 

believes that there is sufficient area in 

that part of the seat to accommodate 

both NHTSA’s and ASTM’s labels 

independently. Therefore, the 

Commission declines to make the 

change suggested by the commenter. 

Alert Mechanism 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Commission look for feasible 

means to bolster the protection against 

the hazards posed by improper use of 

the harness restraint system, by 

requiring an alert mechanism that 

would clearly signal or indicate whether 

a harness restraint system is properly 

secured. 

Response: Although alerting the user 

to the existence of improperly secured 

or unsecured harnesses would be 

beneficial, the Commission is uncertain 

how to accomplish this. Visual 

indicators are unlikely to get the 

attention of the user, and an auditory 

signal (similar to vehicle seat belt 

reminders) would require a power 

source that would energize the alert 

mechanism when the carrier is inside 

and outside of a vehicle. Adding a 

power source to the child restraint 

would require a redesign that may fall 

under NHTSA’s jurisdiction. 

Effective Date 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the proposed six-month effective date. 

Another commenter requested an 18- 

month effective date, assuming that the 

final rule would reference the use of the 

cylinder as the surrogate for the carry 

handle auto-locking test. The 

commenter seeking an 18-month 

effective date expressed concern that 

requiring the cylinder might necessitate 

substantial design changes. 

Response: Because the Commission 

has determined that the CAMI dummy 

will be used as a surrogate in the carry 

handle auto-locking test, the 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 73419 

commenter’s basis for requesting an 18- 

month effective date no longer exists. A 

six-month effective date should be 

sufficient for manufacturers of handheld infant carriers to comply with the 

rule. 

Moses Baskets 

We did not receive any comments 

concerning Moses baskets. Despite the 

lack of comments, the Commission has 

determined that a revision to the 

definition of ‘‘hand-held infant carrier’’ 

is warranted to clarify that Moses 

baskets are subject to the standard. The 

final rule modifies the definition of 

‘‘hand-held infant carrier’’ as follows 

(underline represents additional 

wording): ‘‘Hand-held infant carrier—a 

freestanding, rigid- or semi-rigid-sided 

product intended to carry an occupant 

whose torso is completely supported by 

the product to facilitate transportation 

by a caregiver by means of hand-holds 

or handles.’’ 

VIII. Assessment of Voluntary Standard 

ASTM F2050–13a and Description of 

Final Rule 

Consistent with section 104(b) of the 

CPSIA, this rule establishes new 16 CFR 

part 1225, ‘‘Safety Standard for HandHeld Infant Carriers.’’ The new part 

incorporates by reference the 

requirements for hand-held infant 

carriers in ASTM F2050–13a, with one 

modification to clarify that semi-rigid 

sided products, such as Moses baskets, 

are included in the scope of the rule. 

The following discussion describes the 

final rule, the changes, and the 

additions to the ASTM requirements. 

A. Scope (§ 1225.1) 

The final rule states that part 1225 

establishes a consumer product safety 

standard for hand-held infant carriers 

manufactured or imported on or after 

the date that is six months after the date 

of publication of a final rule in the 

Federal Register. 

B. Incorporation by Reference (§ 1225.2) 

Section 1225.2(a) explains that, 

except as provided in § 1225.2(b), each 

hand-held infant carrier must comply 

with all applicable provisions of ASTM 

F2050–13a, ‘‘Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Hand-Held Infant 

Carriers,’’ which is incorporated by 

reference. Section 1225.2(a) also 

provides information on how to obtain 

a copy of the ASTM standard or to 

inspect a copy of the standard at the 

CPSC. The Commission received no 

comments on this provision in the NPR, 

but the Commission is changing the 

language in the incorporation in the 

final rule to refer to ASTM F2050–13a, 

the current version of the ASTM 

standard. 

C. Changes to Requirements of ASTM 

F2050–13a 

The final rule modifies the definition 

of ‘‘hand-held infant carrier’’ to clarify 

that the definition includes products 

with semi rigid sides, as well as 

products that are rigid-sided. ASTM 

revised the hand-held infant carrier 

standard in 2012, to include a separate 

definition for ‘‘hand-held bassinets/

cradles.’’ A Moses basket meets the 

definition of a ‘‘hand-held bassinet’’ 

because a Moses basket is a freestanding 

product with a rest/support surface that 

is no more than 10° from horizontal, 

that sits directly on the floor, without 

legs or a stand, and has handles or 

hand-holds intended to allow carrying 

an occupant whose torso is completely 

supported by the product. However, 

because hand-held infant carriers (of 

which hand-held bassinets/cradles are a 

subset) are defined in part as ‘‘a rigidsided product’’ and many Moses baskets 

have flexible sides, some manufacturers 

and importers may have interpreted the 

standard as excluding semi-rigid-sided 

products such as Moses baskets. 

Because Moses baskets meet the 

definition of ‘‘hand-held bassinet/

cradle,’’ and Moses baskets are not 

subject to any other durable children’s 

product standard (specifically ASTM 

F2194–13, Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Bassinets and Cradles), 

the Commission has determined that 

Moses baskets are within the scope of 

the rule. The modification of the 

definition of ‘‘hand-held infant carrier’’ 

to include semi rigid-sided products 

clarifies that Moses baskets are covered 

by the rule. 

IX. Effective Date 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) generally requires that the 

effective date of a rule be at least 30 

days after publication of the final rule. 

5 U.S.C. 553(d). To allow time for handheld carriers to come into compliance, 

the final rule provides that the standard 

will become effective 6 months after 

publication in the Federal Register for 

products manufactured or imported 

after that date. 

X. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

A. Introduction 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires agencies to 

consider the impact of rules on small 

entities, including small businesses. 

Section 604 of the RFA requires that 

agencies prepare a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis when the agency 

promulgates a final rule, unless the head 

of the agency certifies that the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The final regulatory flexibility 

analysis must describe the impact of the 

rule on small entities and identify any 

alternatives that may reduce the impact. 

Specifically, the final regulatory 

analysis must contain: 

• A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

rule; 

• a summary of the significant issues 

raised by public comments in response 

to the initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis, a summary of the assessment 

of the agency of such issues, and a 

statement of any changes made in the 

proposed rule as a result of such 

comments; 

• a description of, and, where 

feasible, an estimate of, the number of 

small entities to which the rule will 

apply; 

• a description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities subject to the 

requirements and the type of 

professional skills necessary for the 

preparation of reports or records; and 

• a description of the steps the agency 

has taken to reduce the significant 

economic impact on small entities, 

consistent with the stated objectives of 

applicable statutes, including a 

statement of the factual, policy, and 

legal reasons for selecting the alternative 

adopted in the rule, and why each one 

of the other significant alternatives to 

the rule considered by the agency, 

which affect the impact on small 

entities, was rejected. 

B. The Market 

The majority of hand-held infant 

carriers are produced and/or marketed 

by juvenile product manufacturers and 

distributors. A potential exception is the 

Moses basket, which is often marketed 

by bedding manufacturers and 

distributors. The Commission estimates 

that currently, there are at least 47 

suppliers of hand-held infant carriers to 

the U.S. market. Fifteen are domestic 

manufacturers, 22 are domestic 

importers, and 1 is a domestic firm with 

an unknown supply source. In addition, 

eight foreign firms distribute products 

from outside of the United States (four 

manufacturers, two importers, one 

retailer, and one firm with an unknown 

supply source). One firm, about which 

the staff has little information, sells 

hand-held infant carriers through an 

online marketplace. An additional 24 

domestic firms supply Moses basket 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

73420 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

bedding, along with Moses baskets. Staff 

does not know the source of the Moses 

baskets supplied by these 24 firms. 

We expect that the products of 29 of 

the 47 hand-held infant carrier suppliers 

will be compliant with ASTM F2050– 

13a (7 are JPMA certified to F2050; 6 

claim compliance with F2050; and 16 

have ASTM-compliant strollers with 

hand-held infant carrier attachments). 

We do not believe that any of the Moses 

baskets currently on the market comply 

with the voluntary standard; however, 

the requirements that apply to Moses 

baskets involve slip resistance, adding 

warnings, and instructional literature. 

Staff believes that the majority of Moses 

baskets on the market would not require 

adjustments to meet the slip resistance 

requirement, and that adding warnings 

and instructional literature would not 

be costly. 

The product ownership data available 

is limited to infant car seats, which 

represented nearly the entire hand-held 

infant carrier market prior to the 

publication of ASTM F2050–12, which 

expanded the scope of the standard to 

include hand-held bassinets and 

cradles. According to a 2005 survey 

conducted by the American Baby Group 

(2006 Baby Products Tracking Study), 

68 percent of new mothers own infant 

car seats. Approximately 25 percent of 

infant car seats were handed down or 

purchased secondhand. Thus, about 75 

percent of infant car seats were acquired 

new. This suggests annual sales of about 

2.1 million infant car seats (.68 × .75 × 

4 million births per year). (U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC), National Center 

for Health Statistics, National Vital 

Statistics System, ‘‘Births: Final Data for 

2010,’’ National Vital Statistics Reports 

Volume 61, Number 1 (August 28, 

2012): Table I. Number of births in 2010 

is rounded from 3,999,386.) These 2 

million infant car seats represent the 

minimum number of units sold per year 

that might be affected by the hand-held 

infant carrier standard. We do not know 

how many Moses baskets and other 

bassinet/cradle-style carriers are sold 

annually. 

C. Reason for Agency Action and Legal 

Basis for Rule 

The Danny Keysar Child Product 

Safety Notification Act, section 104 of 

the CPSIA, requires the CPSC to 

promulgate a mandatory standard for 

hand-held infant carriers that is 

substantially the same as, or more 

stringent than, the voluntary standard. 

CPSC worked closely with ASTM to 

develop the new requirements and test 

procedures that have been added to the 

voluntary standard since 2010. These 

new requirements address several 

known hazard patterns and will help to 

reduce injuries and deaths in hand-held 

carriers, and they have resulted in the 

current voluntary standard, F2050–13a, 

upon which the rule is based. 

The final rule modifies the definition 

of ‘‘hand-held infant carrier’’ in ASTM 

F2050–13a to clarify that the standard 

includes products with semi rigid sides, 

as well as products that are rigid-sided. 

This modification resulted from the 

Commission receiving no comments in 

response to the NPR’s question whether 

Moses baskets should be included 

within the scope of this rule and the 

Commission’s determination that Moses 

baskets (which typically have semi rigid 

as opposed to rigid sides) should be 

covered by the rule. 

D. Requirements of the Rule 

The final rule adopts the voluntary 

ASTM standard for hand-held infant 

carriers (ASTM F2050–13a), with a 

modification of the definition of ‘‘handheld infant carrier,’’ as discussed above. 

Some of the more significant 

requirements of the current voluntary 

standard for hand-held infant carriers 

are listed below: 

• Carry handle integrity—a series of 

endurance and durability tests is 

intended to prevent rigid, adjustable 

handles from breaking or unlocking 

during use. 

• Carry handle auto-locking— 

intended to address incidents that have 

occurred when the rigid, adjustable 

handles switched positions 

unexpectedly. 

• Restraints— intended to minimize 

the fall hazard associated with inclined 

hand-held carriers, while 

simultaneously minimizing the 

potential for injury or death in flat 

bassinet/cradle products where 

restraints can pose a strangulation 

hazard. 

• Slip resistance—intended to 

prevent slipping when the hand-held 

infant carrier is placed on a slightly 

inclined surface (10 degrees). 

• Marking and labeling 

requirements—intended to provide 

tracking information, as well as hazard 

warnings. 

The voluntary standard also includes: 

(1) Torque and tension tests to prevent 

components from being removed; (2) 

requirements for several hand-held 

infant carrier features to prevent 

entrapment and cuts (minimum and 

maximum opening size, coverage of 

exposed coil springs, small parts, 

hazardous sharp edges or points, 

smoothness of wood parts, and edges 

that can scissor, shear, or pinch); (3) 

marking and labeling requirements; (4) 

requirements for the permanency and 

adhesion of labels; (5) requirements for 

instructional literature; and (6) toy 

accessory requirements. ASTM F2050– 

13a includes no reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements. 

The final rule does not alter ASTM 

F2050–13a, except to clarify that the 

definition of ‘‘hand-held infant carrier’’ 

includes products with semi rigid sides, 

as well as products that are rigid-sided. 

We do not expect this modification to 

the final rule to have a negative 

economic impact on firms because it is 

a clarification of the intended scope, 

rather than a change. In the 2012 

version of the hand-held carrier 

standard (F2050–12), ASTM changed 

the standard to include a separate 

definition for ‘‘bassinet-style carriers,’’ 

which may have been interpreted by 

some manufacturers to include Moses 

baskets. The Commission proposed the 

same scope in the NPR but requested 

comments on including Moses baskets. 

In the absence of comments, the 

Commission determined that Moses 

baskets were intended to and should be 

included in the scope and that the 

definition of a ‘‘hand-held infant 

carrier’’ should be modified to include 

‘‘semi rigid-sided,’’ as well as ‘‘rigidsided’’ products, consistent with the 

scope’s intent. 

E. Other Federal or State Rules 

Two federal rules would interact with 

the hand-held infant carrier mandatory 

standard: (1) 16 CFR part 1107, Testing 

and Labeling Pertaining to Product 

Certification (1107 rule or testing rule); 

and (2) 16 CFR part 1112, Requirements 

Pertaining to Third Party Conformity 

Assessment Bodies (1112 rule). 

The 1107 rule implementing sections 

14(a)(2) and 14(i)(2) of the Consumer 

Product Safety Act (CPSA), as amended 

by the CPSIA, became effective on 

February 13, 2013. Section 14(a)(2) of 

the CPSA requires every manufacturer 

of a children’s product that is subject to 

a product safety rule to certify, based on 

third party testing, that the product 

complies with all applicable safety 

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

requires the Commission to establish 

protocols and standards: (i) For ensuring 

that a children’s product is tested 

periodically and when there has been a 

material change in the product; (ii) for 

the testing of representative samples to 

ensure continued compliance; (iii) for 

verifying that a product tested by a 

conformity assessment body complies 

with applicable safety rules; and (iv) for 

safeguarding against the exercise of 

undue influence on a conformity 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 73421 

assessment body by a manufacturer or 

private labeler. 

Because hand-held infant carriers will 

be subject to a mandatory children’s 

product safety rule, the product will 

also be subject to the third party testing 

requirements of section 14(a)(2) of the 

CPSA and the 1107 rule when the handheld infant carrier mandatory standard 

and the notice of requirements (NORs) 

become effective. 

The 1112 rule, which became 

effective on June 10, 2013, established 

requirements for the accreditation of 

third party conformity assessment 

bodies to test for conformance with a 

children’s product safety rule in 

accordance with section 14(a)(2) of the 

CPSA. The final rule also codified all of 

the NORs that the CPSC had published, 

to date. However, any new NORs 

require an amendment to this rule. 

Therefore, this rule amends 16 CFR part 

1112 to establish the requirements for 

accepting the accreditation of a 

conformity assessment body to test for 

compliance with the hand-held infant 

carrier final rule. 

F. Impact of the Rule on Small Business 

There are at least 47 firms currently 

known to be marketing hand-held infant 

carriers in the United States, as well as 

24 firms supplying Moses basket 

bedding and Moses baskets whose 

source is unknown. Under U.S. Small 

Business Administration (SBA) 

guidelines, a manufacturer of hand-held 

infant carriers is small if the firm has 

500 or fewer employees, and importers 

and wholesalers are considered small, if 

they have 100 or fewer employees. 

Based on these guidelines, about 50 of 

the firms known to be marketing handheld infant carriers in the United States 

are small firms—10 domestic 

manufacturers, 17 domestic importers, 1 

domestic firm with an unknown supply 

source, and 22 firms supplying Moses 

basket/bedding suppliers. There may 

also be additional small hand-held 

infant carrier suppliers operating in the 

U.S. market. 

Small Manufacturers 

Direct Costs From the Rule 

The expected impact on small 

manufacturers of the standard will differ 

based on whether the firm’s hand-held 

infant carriers already comply with 

F2050–12. Firms whose hand-held 

infant carriers meet the requirements of 

F2050–12 are likely to continue to 

comply with the voluntary standard as 

ASTM publishes new versions of the 

ASTM standard. In addition, firms 

currently in compliance are likely to 

meet any new standard within six 

months after approval because six 

months is the established amount of 

time that JPMA allows for products in 

JPMA’s certification program to shift to 

a new standard. Compliance with the 

voluntary standard in the six-month 

time frame is part of an established 

business practice. Additionally, 

modifying warning labels and updating 

instructional literature should not result 

in significant expenditures for most 

firms. As a result, the direct impact of 

the rule on manufacturers whose 

products are likely to meet the 

requirements of ASTM F2050–13a (eight 

of ten small domestic manufacturers) is 

not likely to be significant. One or more 

firms might have to modify their carry 

handles to continue to pass the autolocking test, but staff believes that a 

complete product redesign should not 

be necessary. Thus, for manufacturers 

whose products are likely to meet the 

requirements of ASTM F2050–13a (eight 

of ten firms), staff estimates little or no 

incremental impact on the costs of 

producing hand-held infant carriers. 

For either or both of the hand-held 

infant carrier suppliers staff believes do 

not comply with the current version of 

the voluntary standard, however, 

meeting ASTM F2050–13a’s 

requirements could necessitate product 

redesign. A redesign would be minor if 

most of the changes involve adding 

straps and fasteners or using different 

mesh or fabric; but could be more 

significant if changes to the frame are 

required, including changes to the 

handles. Some firms have estimated 

product redesigns, including 

engineering time, prototype 

development, tooling, and other 

incidental costs, to cost approximately 

$500,000. Consequently, the final rule 

could potentially have a significant 

direct impact on small manufacturers 

whose products currently do not 

conform to the voluntary standard, 

depending on the scope of the redesign 

that ultimately is necessary. Where the 

products need not be completely 

redesigned, actual costs are likely to be 

lower than the $500,000 level. 

Even though the hand-held infant 

carriers sold by two firms are neither 

certified as compliant, nor claim 

compliance with F2050–12, the 

products may, in fact, comply with the 

current standard. Staff has identified 

many such cases with other products. 

To the extent that some of these firms 

may supply compliant hand-held infant 

carriers and have developed a pattern of 

compliance with the voluntary 

standard, the direct impact of the 

standard will be less significant than 

described above. 

Indirect Costs From Testing and 

Certification 

In addition to the direct impact of the 

standard described above, the rule will 

have indirect impacts. These impacts 

are considered indirect because they do 

not arise directly as a consequence of 

the hand-held infant carrier rule’s 

requirements. Nonetheless, they could 

be significant. Once the rule becomes 

final and the NOR is in effect, all 

manufacturers will be subject to the 

additional costs associated with the 

third party testing and certification 

requirements. These costs will include 

any physical and mechanical test 

requirements specified in the final rule; 

lead and phthalates testing is already 

required, and hence, related costs are 

not included here. 

Based on durable nursery product 

industry input and confidential 

business information supplied for the 

development of the third party testing 

rule, testing to the ASTM voluntary 

standard could cost $500–$1,000 per 

model sample. Testing overseas could 

potentially reduce some testing costs, 

but such testing may not always be 

practical. 

On average, each small domestic 

manufacturer supplies two different 

models of hand-held infant carriers to 

the U.S. market annually. Therefore, if 

third party testing were conducted every 

year on a single sample for each model, 

third party testing costs for each 

manufacturer would be about $1,000– 

$2,000 annually. Based on a review of 

firm revenues, the impact of third party 

testing to ASTM F2050–13a is unlikely 

to be significant if only one hand-held 

infant carrier sample per model is 

necessary to comply with the third party 

testing requirements. However, if more 

than one sample would be needed to 

meet the testing requirements, that third 

party testing costs potentially could 

have a significant impact on one or 

more of the small manufacturers. 

Small Importers 

As with manufacturers of compliant 

hand-held infant carriers, we do not 

believe that the eight small importers of 

hand-held infant carriers currently in 

compliance with F2050–12 will 

experience significant direct impacts as 

a result of the final rule. In the absence 

of regulation, these importing firms 

would likely continue to their 

established practice of complying with 

the voluntary standard as the standard 

evolves. 

Importers of hand-held infant carriers 

would need to find an alternate supply 

source if their existing supplier does not 

comply with the requirements of the 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

73422 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

rule, which may be the case with all 

four small importers of hand-held infant 

carriers, whom we believe do not 

comply with F2050–12. Some of these 

importers could react to the rule by 

discontinuing the import of 

noncomplying hand-held infant carriers, 

possibly discontinuing the product line 

altogether. However, the impact of such 

a decision could be mitigated by 

replacing the noncompliant hand-held 

infant carriers with compliant handheld infant carriers. Deciding to import 

an alternative product would be a 

reasonable and realistic way to offset 

any lost revenue. However, for some 

importers, switching suppliers might 

not be an option. 

As is the case with manufacturers, all 

importers will be subject to third party 

testing and certification requirements, 

and consequently, importers will incur 

costs similar to those for manufacturers 

if their supplying foreign firm(s) does 

not perform third party testing. The 

resulting costs could have a significant 

impact on a few small importers who 

must perform the testing themselves, if 

more than one sample per model is 

required. 

Moses Basket Suppliers 

Staff also assessed the potential 

impact of the rule on firms that supply 

Moses baskets. There are 22 known 

small firms supplying Moses baskets to 

the U.S. market. Most of these firms also 

supply bedding; some of them 

manufacture the bedding, and others act 

as importers. Because a separate 

definition for ‘‘hand-held bassinets’’ 

was added to the standard relatively 

recently in 2012, and some 

manufacturers may be uncertain 

whether Moses baskets (a type of handheld bassinet) are covered by the 

standard because they are not rigidsided, Moses baskets currently on the 

market may not have been designed to 

comply with this standard. 

Many Moses baskets on the market, 

however, might be able to comply with 

the standard with minimal 

modifications. For example, although 

Moses baskets would not be subject to 

most of the hand-held carrier standard’s 

performance requirements, Moses 

baskets would likely have to meet the 

slip-resistance requirement. Because 

typical Moses baskets are fabricated 

from textured materials, we believe that 

these products likely would not require 

modifications to meet the slip-resistance 

requirement (that the product does not 

slip on surface 10 degrees from 

horizontal while facing forward, 

sideways, and to the rear). Therefore, 

the biggest changes might be to add 

warnings and instructional literature, 

actions that the staff expects would not 

be costly. 

Alternatively, Moses basket suppliers 

could remove themselves from the 

scope of the final rule by eliminating the 

handles from their products. Because 

most Moses baskets come with warnings 

against carrying an infant in the basket, 

eliminating handles would conform to 

those instructions. 

All Moses basket manufacturers 

within the scope of the rule will be 

subject to third party testing and 

certification requirements. Importers of 

Moses baskets could experience testing 

costs if their supplying firm does not 

perform third party testing. Because 

Moses baskets would not be subject to 

most of the mechanical tests in the 

standard, we expect that third party 

testing costs, at most, will be half the 

amount of other types of hand-held 

infant carriers, or approximately $250– 

$500 per model sample. Review of each 

firm’s product line reveals that most 

firms use only one model of Moses 

basket for their bedding; although some 

firms have up to four variations of 

Moses baskets. The resulting costs are 

unlikely to have a significant impact on 

firms that must perform the testing 

themselves. 

G. Alternatives 

An alternative to the rule would be to 

set an effective date later than six 

months, which is generally considered 

sufficient time for suppliers to come 

into compliance with a rule. Setting a 

later effective date would allow 

suppliers additional time to develop 

compliant hand-held infant carriers and 

spread the associated costs over a longer 

period of time. 

XI. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations address 

whether we are required to prepare an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement. These 

regulations provide a categorical 

exclusion for certain CPSC actions that 

normally have ‘‘little or no potential for 

affecting the human environment.’’ 

Among those actions are rules or safety 

standards for consumer products. 16 

CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The rule falls within 

the categorical exclusion. 

XII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule contains information 

collection requirements that are subject 

to public comment and review by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3521). The preamble to the proposed 

rule (77 FR at 73363 through 73364) 

discussed the information collection 

burden of the proposed rule and 

specifically requested comments on the 

accuracy of our estimates. Briefly, 

sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F2050–13a 

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). 

In compliance with the PRA (44 

U.S.C. 3507(d)), we have submitted the 

information collection requirements of 

this rule to the OMB for review. OMB 

has assigned control number 3041–0158 

to this information collection. The 

Commission did not receive any 

comments regarding the information 

collection burden of this proposal. 

However, the final rule makes 

modifications regarding the information 

collection burden because the number 

of estimated suppliers subject to the 

information collection burden is now 

estimated to be 71 firms, rather than the 

43 firms initially estimated in the 

proposed rule. 

Accordingly, the estimated burden of 

this collection of information is 

modified as follows: 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN

16 CFR Section Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

responses 

Total annual 

responses 

Hours per 

response 

Total burden 

hours 

1221 ..................................................................................... 71 2 142 1 142 

Our estimates are based on the 

following: 

Section 8.1 of ASTM F 2050–13a 

requires that the name of the 

manufacturer, distributor, or seller, and 

either the place of business (city, state, 

and mailing address, including zip 

code) or telephone number, or both, be 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 73423 

marked clearly and legibly on each 

product and its retail package. Section 

8.2 of ASTM F 2050–13a requires a code 

mark or other means that identifies the 

date (month and year, as a minimum) of 

manufacture. 

There are 71 known entities 

supplying hand-held infant carriers to 

the U.S. market. All 71 firms are 

assumed to use labels already on both 

their products and their packaging, but 

they might need to modify existing 

labels. The estimated time required to 

make these modifications is about 1 

hour per model. Each entity supplies an 

average of two different models of handheld infant carriers; therefore, the 

estimated burden associated with labels 

is 1 hour per model × 71 entities × 2 

models per entity = 142 hours. We 

estimate the hourly compensation for 

the time required to create and update 

labels is $27.44 (U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, ‘‘Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation,’’ March 2013, 

Table 9, total compensation for all sales 

and office workers in goods-producing 

private industries: http://www.bls.gov/

ncs/). Therefore, the estimated annual 

cost to industry associated with the 

labeling requirements is $3,896.48 

($27.54 per hour × 142 hours = 

$3,896.48). There are no operating, 

maintenance, or capital costs associated 

with the collection of information. 

Section 9.1 of ASTM F2050–12 

requires the supply of instructions with 

the product. Hand-held infant carriers 

often require installation or assembly, 

and products sold without such 

information would not be as attractive 

to consumers as products supplying this 

information. 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 

hand-held infant carriers that generally 

require installation or some assembly 

but lack any instructions to the user 

about such installation or assembly, we 

estimate that there are no burden hours 

associated with section 9.1 of ASTM F 

2050–12 because any burden associated 

with supplying instructions with handheld infant carriers would be ‘‘usual and 

customary’’ and not within the 

definition of ‘‘burden’’ under the OMB’s 

regulations. 

XIII. 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,’’ thus implying 

that the preemptive effect of section 

26(a) of the CPSA would apply. 

Therefore, a rule issued under section 

104 of the CPSIA will invoke the 

preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the 

CPSA when the rule becomes effective. 

XIV. Certification and Notice of 

Requirements (NOR) 

Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires 

that children’s products subject to a 

children’s 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)(2). For children’s 

products, such certification must be 

based on tests on a sufficient number of 

samples by a third party conformity 

assessment body accredited by the 

Commission to test according to the 

applicable requirements. As discussed 

in section I of this preamble, section 

104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA refers to 

standards issued under this section as 

‘‘consumer product safety standards.’’ 

Accordingly, a safety standard for handheld infant carriers issued under section 

104 of the CPSA is a consumer product 

safety rule that is subject to the testing 

and certification requirements of section 

14 of the CPSA. Because hand-held 

infant carriers are children’s products, 

they must be tested by a third party 

conformity assessment body whose 

accreditation has been accepted by the 

CPSC. Notices of requirements (NORs) 

provide the criteria and process for our 

acceptance of accreditation of third 

party conformity assessment bodies. 

The Commission published a final 

rule, Requirements Pertaining to Third 

Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78 

FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), which is 

codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (referred to 

here as part 1112). This rule became 

effective on June 10, 2013. Part 1112 

establishes requirements for 

accreditation of third party conformity 

assessment bodies (or laboratories) to 

test for conformance with a children’s 

product safety rule in accordance with 

Section14(a)(2) of the CPSA. Part 1112 

also codifies a list of all of the NORs 

that the CPSC had published at the time 

part 1112 was issued. All NORs issued 

after the Commission published part 

1112, such as the hand-held infant 

carrier standard, require the 

Commission to amend part 1112. 

Accordingly, this rule amends part 1112 

to include the hand-held infant carrier 

standard in the list 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 hand-held infant 

carriers are required to meet the third 

party conformity assessment body 

accreditation requirements in 16 CFR 

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 1225, Safety Standard 

for Hand-Held Infant Carriers included 

in the scope of accreditation of CPSC 

safety rules listed for the laboratory on 

the CPSC Web site at: www.cpsc.gov/

labsearch. 

In connection with the part 1112 

rulemaking, CPSC staff conducted an 

analysis of the potential impacts on 

small entities of the rule establishing 

accreditation requirements, 78 FR 

15836, 15855–58 (March 12, 2013), as 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and prepared a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). Briefly, the 

FRFA concluded that the requirements 

would not have a significant adverse 

impact on a substantial number of small 

laboratories because no requirements 

are imposed on laboratories that do not 

intend to provide third party testing 

services under section 14(a)(2) of the 

CPSA. The only laboratories that are 

expected to provide such services are 

those that anticipate receiving sufficient 

revenue from providing the mandated 

testing to justify accepting the 

requirements as a business decision. 

Laboratories that do not expect to 

receive sufficient revenue from these 

services to justify accepting these 

requirements would not likely pursue 

accreditation for this purpose. Similarly, 

amending the part 1112 rule to include 

the NOR for the hand-held infant carrier 

standard would not have a significant 

adverse impact on small laboratories. 

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 handheld infant carrier standard to their 

scope of accreditation. As a 

consequence, the Commission certifies 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

73424 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

that the NOR for the hand-held infant 

carrier standard will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

To ease the transition to new third 

party testing requirements for hand-held 

infant carriers subject to the standard 

and to avoid a ‘‘bottlenecking’’ of 

products at laboratories at or near the 

effective date of required third party 

testing for hand-held infant carriers, the 

Commission, under certain 

circumstances, will accept certifications 

based on testing that occurred before the 

effective date for third party testing. 

The Commission will accept 

retrospective testing for 16 CFR part 

1225, safety standard for hand-held 

infant carriers, if the following 

conditions are met: 

• The children’s product was tested 

by a third party conformity assessment 

body accredited to ISO/IEC 

17025:2005(E) by a signatory to the 

ILAC–MRA at the time of the test. The 

scope of the third party conformity body 

accreditation must include testing in 

accordance with 16 CFR part 1225. For 

firewalled third party conformity 

assessment bodies, the firewalled third 

party conformity assessment body must 

be one that the Commission, by order, 

has accredited on or before the time that 

the children’s product was tested, even 

if the order did not include the tests 

contained in the safety standard for 

hand-held infant carriers at the time of 

initial Commission acceptance. For 

governmental third party conformity 

assessment bodies, accreditation of the 

body must be accepted by the 

Commission, even if the scope of 

accreditation did not include the tests 

contained in the safety standard for 

hand-held infant carriers at the time of 

initial CPSC acceptance. 

• The test results show compliance 

with 16 CFR part 1225. 

• The hand-held infant carrier was 

tested on or after the date of publication 

in the Federal Register of the final rule 

for 16 CFR part 1225 and before June 6, 

2014. 

• The laboratory’s accreditation 

remains in effect through June 6, 2014. 

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 1225 

Consumer protection, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Infants and 

children, Labeling, Law enforcement, 

and Toys. 

Therefore, the Commission amends 

Title 16 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations by amending part 1112 and 

adding a new part 1225 to read 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)(34) 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) 

(34) 16 CFR part 1225, Safety 

Standard for Hand-Held Infant Carriers. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Add part 1225 to read as follows: 

PART 1225—SAFETY STANDARD FOR 

HAND-HELD INFANT CARRIERS 

Sec. 

1225.1 Scope. 

1225.2 Requirements for hand-held infant 

carriers. 

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

Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008). 

§ 1225.1 Scope. 

This part establishes a consumer 

product safety standard for hand-held 

infant carriers. 

§ 1225.2 Requirements for hand-held 

infant carriers. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, each hand-held infant 

carrier must comply with all applicable 

provisions of ASTM F 2050–13a, 

Standard Consumer Safety Specification 

for Hand-Held Infant Carriers, approved 

on September 1, 2013. 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. 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_federal 

regulations/ibr_locations.html. 

(b) Instead of complying with section 

3.1.3 of ASTM F2050–13a, comply with 

the following: 

(1) 3.1.3 hand-held infant carrier, n— 

a freestanding, rigid- or semirigid-sided 

product intended to carry an occupant 

whose torso is completely supported by 

the product to facilitate transportation 

by a caregiver by means of hand-holds 

or handles. 

(2) [Reserved] 

Dated: December 2, 2013. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2013–29061 Filed 12–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 40 

[Docket No. RM13–8–000; Order No. 788] 

Retirement of Requirements in 

Reliability Standards 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, DOE. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 215 of the 

Federal Power Act, the Commission 

approves the retirement of 34 

requirements within 19 Reliability 

Standards identified by the North 

American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC), the Commissioncertified Electric Reliability 

Organization. The requirements 

approved for retirement either: Provide 

little protection for Bulk-Power System 

reliability; or are redundant with other 

aspects of the Reliability Standards. In 

addition, the Commission withdraws 41 

Commission directives that NERC 

develop modifications to Reliability 

Standards. This rule is part of the 

Commission’s ongoing effort to review 

its requirements and reduce 

unnecessary burdens by eliminating 

requirements that are not necessary to 

the performance of the Commission’s 

regulatory responsibilities. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will 

become effective January 21, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Ryan (Legal Information), Office 

of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE., Washington, DC 

20426, Telephone: (202) 502–6840 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES