```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 95 (Friday, May 16, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28458-28467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11193]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1230

[Docket No. CPSC-2014-0011]

Safety Standard for Frame Child Carriers

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: 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 frame child carriers in response to the direction under 
section 104(b) of the CPSIA. In addition, the Commission is proposing 
an

[[Page 28459]]

amendment to the list of Notice of Requirements (NOR) issued by the 
Commission.

DATES: Submit comments by July 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of 
the marking, labeling, and instructional literature of the proposed 
mandatory standard for frame child carriers should be directed to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Office of Management 
and Budget, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or emailed to 
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.
    Other comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2014-0011, may be 
submitted electronically or in writing:
    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 in the following 
way: Mail/Hand delivery/Courier, preferably in five copies, 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 proposed rulemaking. 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-2014-0011, into the ``Search'' box, and follow the 
prompts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia L. Edwards, Project Manager, 
Directorate for Engineering Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; email: 
pedwards@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Statutory Authority

    The CPSIA 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. Standards issued 
under section 104 are to be ``substantially the same as'' the 
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.'' Section 104(f)(2)(I) of the CPSIA specifically 
identifies ``infant carriers'' as a durable infant or toddler product. 
The category of infant carriers covers a variety of products. The 
Commission has previously issued rules under section 104 for other 
infant carriers: specifically, for hand-held infant carriers and for 
soft infant and toddler carriers.
    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. The proposed rule is based on the voluntary standard developed 
by ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and 
Materials), ASTM F2549-14, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for 
Frame Child Carriers, with one proposed modification to specify 
requirements for the retention system performance test to provide clear 
pass/fail criteria for the carrier's restraints.
    The ASTM standard is copyrighted, but the standard can be viewed as 
a read-only document during the comment period on this proposal only, 
at: http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm, by permission of ASTM.
    The testing and certification requirements of section 14(a) of the 
Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) apply to the standards promulgated 
under section 104 of the CPSIA. Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires 
the Commission to publish an NOR for the accreditation of third party 
conformity assessment bodies (test laboratories) to assess conformity 
with a children's product safety rule to which a children's product is 
subject. The proposed rule for frame child carriers, if 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 frame child carriers standard, the draft notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPR) proposes to amend 16 CFR part 1112.

II. Product Description

A. Definition of Frame Child Carrier

    The scope section of ASTM F2549-14 defines a ``frame child 
carrier'' as ``a product normally of sewn fabric construction on a 
tubular metal or other frame, which is designed to carry a child, in an 
upright position, on the back of the caregiver.'' The intended 
occupants of frame child carriers are children who are able to sit 
upright unassisted and weigh between 16 and 50 pounds. Frame child 
carriers are intended to be worn on the back and suspended from both 
shoulders of the caregiver's body in a forward- or rear-facing 
position. This type of carrier is often used for hiking and typically 
closely resembles hiking/mountaineering backpacks not intended to be 
used for transporting children.

B. Market Description

    CPSC staff is aware of 15 firms currently supplying frame child 
carriers to the U.S. market, although additional firms may supply these 
products to U.S. consumers. Most of these firms specialize in the 
manufacture and/or distribution of one of two distinct types of 
products: (1) Children's products, including durable nursery products; 
or (2) outdoor products, such as camping and hiking gear. The majority 
of the 15 known firms are domestic (including four manufacturers, seven 
importers, and one firm whose supply source could not be determined). 
The remaining three firms are foreign (including two manufacturers and 
one firm that imports products from foreign companies and distributes 
them from outside of the United States).

III. Incident Data

    CPSC's Directorate for Epidemiology, Division of Hazard Analysis, 
is aware of a total of 47 frame child carrier-related incidents 
reported to CPSC that

[[Page 28460]]

occurred between January 1, 2003 and October 27, 2013. Although there 
were no fatalities in the 47 incidents, 33 injuries were reported. 
Twenty-eight of the reports were received through the National 
Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). According to reports, 
the oldest child involved in an incident was 3 years old. For some 
incidents, the age of the child was not reported because no injury was 
involved, or the age of the child was unknown.

A. Fatalities

    The incident data did not include any reports of fatalities.

B. Nonfatalities

    Among the 33 reported nonfatal injuries, there were no 
hospitalizations. More than half of these incidents reported a serious 
injury, such as a closed-head injury\1\ or a fracture of the leg or 
face. The other reported injuries ranged from head/facial lacerations, 
to dislocated arms and contusions and abrasions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ According to staff from the Directorate for Health Sciences, 
a closed head injury is a head injury where the skull remained 
intact but it can range in severity from a minor bump to a severe 
life-threatening traumatic brain injury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A majority of the injuries resulted from falls from the frame child 
carrier. Many of the falls occurred when children slipped out of the 
frame child carrier through leg openings; in other scenarios, children 
fell out when carriers, placed on elevated surfaces, toppled over, or 
when caregivers fell when carrying the infant in the carrier. For other 
falls, the specifics of the circumstances were not reported. Certain 
non-fall injuries occurred when the frame child carrier tipped over due 
to instability when the carrier was placed upright on the floor, or 
from caregiver errors in placing/removing the child in or from the 
carrier. The remaining 14 incident reports indicated that no injury had 
occurred or else provided no information about any injury. However, 
many of the 14 incident reports described scenarios that CPSC staff 
believes presented the potential for a serious injury or even death.

C. Hazard Pattern Identification

    CPSC staff reviewed all 47 reported incidents (33 with injuries and 
14 without injuries) to identify hazard patterns associated with frame 
child carriers. Subsequently, CPSC staff considered each pattern when 
reviewing the adequacy of ASTM F2549-14.
    Staff grouped the incidents into three broad categories of hazard 
patterns (product-related, non-product-related, and unknown); staff 
then further classified the incidents within each category. In order of 
frequency of incident reports, the hazard patterns are described below:
    1. Product Related: Twenty-nine of the 47 incidents, including 15 
of the 33 injuries, were attributed to product-related issues. The 
specific product-related issues were:
     Structural integrity of the frame child carrier was 
identified as a problem in 11 (23 percent) of the 47 incidents. 
Reported problems included:
    [cir] Failure of caregiver's attachment components;
    [cir] Poor quality stitching on straps;
    [cir] Detachment of the cloth component from the frame; and
    [cir] Loose screws or breakage of the frame, which resulted in an 
abrasion injury.
    A review of the data shows that each of the 11 incidents involved 
carriers manufactured before the initial publication of ASTM F2549 in 
2006.
     Stability problems of the frame child carrier were 
reported in nine incidents (19 percent); all nine incidents resulted in 
an injury to the head/face of the child. In some cases, when the 
carrier was placed on an elevated surface, the infant fell out of the 
carrier as the carrier toppled over. In other cases, when the carrier 
was at ground level, the infant fell along with the carrier when the 
carrier tipped over. All nine incidents were from NEISS reports; and 
thus, information about the carrier and details about the incident are 
unknown. Three of the nine incidents occurred before 2006, and thus, 
involved carriers that were manufactured before the initial publication 
of ASTM F2549.
     Leg opening problems were reported in seven incidents (15 
percent). In these cases, the leg holes were large enough to allow the 
child to slip out or almost slip out of the carrier. In a few of these 
incidents, the consumer also expressed concern about the potential risk 
of strangulation if the child were to get trapped in the process of 
slipping out through the opening. This category includes four injuries 
to the head and/or face due to a fall. Three of the seven incidents 
involved carriers manufactured after ASTM F2549 was first published.
     Restraint inadequacy was reported in two incidents (4 
percent); one was a NEISS incident that occurred in 2005, and the other 
incident occurred in 2009. In both cases, the caregiver bent over, and 
the restraints somehow failed to prevent the child from sliding out 
from the top. One injury is included in this category.
    2. Non-Product-Related: Nine incidents (19 percent) involving nine 
injuries were not attributable to any product-related failure or 
defect. Five of the incidents resulted in arm dislocation injuries 
during the placement/removal of the child in or out of the frame child 
carrier. The remaining four incidents resulted in injuries (leg 
fracture, closed-head injury, and facial laceration, for example) when 
the caregiver slipped or tripped and fell, with the child in the 
carrier.
    3. Unknown: There were nine NEISS incidents (19 percent) reported 
that provided very few scenario-specific details. Staff could not 
determine whether there was any product involvement or any hazardous 
external circumstances. All of the incidents resulted in injuries to 
the head and/or face due to falls.

D. Product Recalls

    There have been two product recalls involving frame child carriers 
from January 1, 2003 to October 27, 2013. One recall involved 4,000 
units, and the other recall involved 40 units.

IV. Other Relevant Standards

A. International Standards

    CPSC is aware of one international standard, EN 13209-1:2004, 
European/British Standard for Child use and care articles--Baby 
carriers--Safety requirements and test methods--Part 1: Framed back 
carriers, which addresses frame child carriers in a fashion similar to 
ASTM F2549-14. Although there are differences between the two 
standards, CPSC believes that the ASTM standard is more stringent in 
most areas and addresses most of the hazard patterns seen in the CPSC 
incident data. The exception is the test requirement for the occupant 
retention system (known as the child-restraint system in the EN 
standard). The EN standard has clear pass/fail requirements for 
restraint performance, and the ASTM standard does not. Both standards 
include a test procedure that rotates the carrier a full 360 degrees 
when occupied by a surrogate dummy. In addition, both standards include 
procedures that apply forces to the retention straps, attachment 
points, and the dummy legs. The EN standard requirement states that the 
dummy shall not fall completely out of the restraint system and that 
the attachment of the restraint system shall not break, deform, work 
loose, or become torn/displaced. Additionally, the EN standard requires 
that fasteners shall not be released or have suffered damage that 
impairs their operation and function. The ASTM standard does not

[[Page 28461]]

contain any of this language, and therefore, as discussed in section V 
of the preamble, and as reflected in the language of the proposed Sec.  
1230.2(b)(1)(i), the Commission's proposed standard includes a 
modification to ASTM F2549 that would specify test criteria similar to 
those provided in the EN standard.

B. Voluntary Standard--ASTM F2549

1. History of ASTM F2549
    The voluntary standard for frame child carriers was first approved 
and published in December 2006, as ASTM F2549-06, Standard Consumer 
Safety Specification for Frame Child Carriers. ASTM has revised the 
voluntary standard five times since then. The current version, ASTM 
F2549-14, was approved on January 1, 2014.
    The original version, ASTM F2549-06, contained requirements to 
address the following issues:

 Sharp points
 Small parts
 Lead in paint
 Wood parts
 Scissoring, shearing, pinching
 Openings
 Exposed coil springs
 Locking and latching (for carriers that fold for storage, this 
requirement helps prevent unintentional folding)
 Unintentional folding (for carriers with kick stands that can 
stand freely, this requirement helps prevent the unintentional folding 
of the kick stand)
 Labeling
 Protective components
 Leg openings (to help prevent smaller occupants from falling 
out of the carrier through a single leg opening)
 Dynamic strength (tests the frame, fasteners, and seams/
stitching under dynamic conditions to help prevent breakage or 
separation)
 Static load (ensures the carrier can hold three times the 
maximum recommended weight)
 Stability (for carriers that can stand freely, this helps 
prevent an occupied carrier from tipping over during normal use)
 Restraints (requires that all carriers have a restraint system 
and also provides a method for testing the restraints)
 Handle integrity (helps prevent the handle from breaking or 
separating when it is pulled with three times the maximum recommended 
weight)

    ASTM F2549-08 (approved November 1, 2008) addressed the following 
issues:
     New flammability requirements for carriers
     New toy accessory requirements
     A revised unintentional folding test procedure, adding a 
weight load to mimic an occupant in the carrier.
    ASTM F2549-09 (approved April 1, 2009) addressed the following 
issue:
     A revised dynamic strength test procedure because some 
carrier designs could not be tested using the old method.
    ASTM F2549-09a (approved July 1, 2009) addressed the following 
issue:
     Change of the reference to the flammable solids 
requirement [16 CFR 1500.3(C)(6)(vi)] to correct an editorial error.
    ASTM F2549-13 (approved November 1, 2013) addressed the following 
issues:
     A revised leg opening test procedure to reflect the use of 
the product better and explain what is happening in incident reports 
where children were slipping through a leg opening.
     A revised scope to include carriers rated for weights up 
to 50 pounds, which reflects the existing market for frame child 
carriers.
    ASTM F2549-14 (approved January 1, 2014) addressed the following 
issue:
     A revised dynamic strength test to accommodate the greater 
weight rating (which was changed in version F2549-13).
2. Description of the Current Voluntary Standard--ASTM F2549-14
    We believe that the current voluntary standard, ASTM F2549-14, 
sufficiently addresses the primary hazard patterns identified in the 
incident data. The following section discusses how each of the 
identified hazard patterns listed above is addressed by the current 
voluntary standard, ASTM F2549-14.
Structural Integrity
    ASTM F2549-14 uses a dynamic strength test and a static load test 
to assess the structural integrity of frame child carriers. We are 
aware of 11 reported incidents associated with the structural integrity 
of carriers that occurred before the first publication of ASTM F2549 in 
2006. No incidents have been reported involving carriers manufactured 
since 2006. Thus, we believe that the combination of the dynamic 
strength and static load tests are adequate to address the issues 
associated with structural integrity.
Stability Problems
    A total of nine tip-over incidents were reported to CPSC, all 
through hospital emergency departments with very few scenario-specific 
details. CPSC staff's review of these incident reports shows that three 
incidents involved carriers falling from elevated surfaces. The fall 
hazard and recommendations to mitigate this hazard, including not 
placing the carrier on counter tops, tables, or other elevated 
surfaces, are specified in a warning label requirement. The standard 
requires this warning label to be in a conspicuous location, visible to 
the caregiver each time the occupant is placed in the carrier, or when 
the caregiver places the product on his or her body.
    In addition to the warning label requirement, the current voluntary 
standard includes a stability requirement and associated test procedure 
so that carriers that use a kickstand can remain in an upright position 
and are stable. When used correctly, a kickstand is designed to make 
the carrier stable so that the child can remain safely in the carrier 
just before and immediately after being carried by the caregiver. CPSC 
considers the stability test in the ASTM standard to be strong, and 
thus, we view the test as capable of discerning stable versus unstable 
carriers.
    Based on the reasons outlined above, CPSC believes that ASTM F2549-
14 adequately addresses stability issues through the use of both a 
warning label and a strong test requirement and associated test 
procedure. Thus, CPSC is not proposing any modifications to the ASTM 
standard to address this hazard pattern.
Leg Opening Problems
    Leg opening problems were reported in seven incidents. In those 
cases, the carrier's leg holes were large enough to allow the child to 
slip out or almost slip out of the carrier. In a few of these 
incidents, the consumer also expressed concern about the potential risk 
of strangulation if the child slipped out through the opening. This 
category of incidents includes four head/face injuries from falls. A 
closer look revealed that four of the seven incidents occurred before 
the standard was published. After initial publication of the standard 
in October 2006, no other leg opening incidents were reported until 
2012. During a 6-month period between August 2012 and January 2013, 
three new leg opening incidents occurred.
    Because of the new incidents, CPSC staff began working with ASTM in 
spring 2013, to update the leg opening test in ASTM F2549-09a. CPSC 
staff collected 10 carriers from a variety of suppliers, including the 
carrier involved in the three incidents, and staff tested each carrier 
to the leg opening requirement in ASTM F2549-09a. This

[[Page 28462]]

test requires the carrier to be adjusted to the smallest leg opening; 
and then a 7-pound, 16.5-inch circumference test sphere \2\ is placed 
in the carrier. Next, the carrier is tilted until the leg opening is 
horizontal, and then the carrier is held in that position for an 
additional minute. The test is repeated for the other leg opening. To 
pass the test, the sphere must not pass through either leg opening. 
CPSC staff found that all 10 carriers that were tested passed the 
requirement specified in ASTM F2549-09a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The test sphere size is based on the hip circumference of 
the smallest child likely to use the frame child carrier (3 to 5 
months of age).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPSC staff, with the help of an ASTM task group, developed a more 
stringent test method that addressed the recent incidents. Instead of 
being adjusted to the smallest leg opening, carriers were fitted around 
a CAMI Infant Dummy Mark II (modeled after a 50th percentile 6-month 
old child). Four of the 10 carriers failed the modified leg-opening 
test. Notably, one of the carriers that failed the modified test was 
associated with the recent incident reports of children falling through 
leg openings.
    In fall 2013, ASTM balloted a revised test procedure for leg 
openings that was developed by CPSC staff and the ASTM task group. This 
ballot item passed and was included in the revised standard, F2549-13. 
With the inclusion of this recently revised leg-opening test method, 
CPSC believes that the current voluntary standard is now adequate to 
address leg-opening hazards.
    Although we believe the current standard adequately addresses the 
three hazard patterns described above, we will continue to monitor 
incidents and work with ASTM to make any necessary future changes.
Restraints
    There were two reported incidents of restraint inadequacy. One was 
a NEISS report of a child falling out of a carrier when the caregiver 
leaned forward. This report contained no information regarding whether 
the restraints were used properly or how the restraints were involved. 
The other incident involved an 8-month-old child who stood up and 
almost fell out of the carrier while the caregiver was leaning forward. 
In the latter incident, we do not know what happened to the shoulder 
straps, but the report mentioned that the restraints might have been 
adjusted to be too loose. There was no report that the restraints broke 
in any way or became loose on their own.

V. Proposed Change to ASTM F2549-14 in the Proposed Mandatory Standard

    ASTM juvenile product standards generally include sections that 
provide performance requirements and test methods. The performance 
requirement section spells out the pass/fail criteria associated with 
various requirements, while the test method section outlines the 
procedures for conducting the tests that need to be performed to 
determine whether the product meets the pass/fail criteria. Although 
some performance requirements do not have an associated test method, 
all test methods must have an associated performance (or general) 
requirement.
    ASTM F2549-14 contains a performance requirement and a test 
procedure intended to address the hazard patterns associated with frame 
child carriers. However, CPSC concludes that a change to the ASTM 
standard's performance requirement is needed to address restraint 
hazards adequately. The current performance requirement associated with 
the retention (restraint) system for frame child carriers states:

    6.5 Retention System:
    6.5.1 A retention system, including a shoulder restraint, shall 
be provided to secure the occupant in a seated position in any of 
the manufacturer's recommended use positions when tested in 
accordance with 7.5.
    6.5.2 Before shipment, the manufacturer shall attach the 
retention system in such a manner that it will not detach in normal 
usage.
    6.5.3 If the retention system includes a crotch restraint 
designed to work with a lap belt, it shall be designed such that its 
use is mandatory when the retention system is in use.

    The retention system test procedure (section 7.5 of the standard) 
has three parts. Under the first part, a 45-lbf (pound-force) is 
applied to a single attachment point of the retention system. The 
second part of the test procedure requires a CAMI Infant Dummy Mark II 
to be placed in the carrier with the restraint system secured. Then, a 
45-lbf is applied horizontally on the centerline of either leg of the 
dummy and repeated five times. For the third part of the test 
procedure, the carrier, containing the CAMI dummy, is lifted and 
rotated backwards 360[deg] about the axis of the intersection of the 
seat back and bottom. The carrier is then rotated 360[deg] around the 
axis of the side edge of the seat bottom.
    CPSC believes that the purpose of the first two parts of the test 
procedure is to help ensure that the retention system and all buckles 
do not break, disengage, or separate at any seams. In addition, CPSC 
believes the purpose of the third part of the test procedure is to help 
ensure that the CAMI dummy does not fall out of the carrier. Therefore, 
CPSC concludes that the standard should express these goals as criteria 
to determine whether restraint systems comply with the performance 
requirements. However, these pass/fail criteria are not mentioned 
explicitly in the performance requirement section of ASTM F2549-14. 
CPSC believes the frame child carriers standard should include explicit 
pass/fail criteria. Without this change to the standard, a frame child 
carrier that is undergoing testing could fail the intended criteria but 
still be deemed to comply with the standard. Thus, correcting the 
standard prevents this from happening and, in effect, makes the 
standard more stringent. Staff consulted with representatives from two 
test laboratories and the ASTM subcommittee chairman about the lack of 
explicit pass/fail criteria in the ASTM standard's requirements for 
retention systems. Test laboratory personnel reported that they likely 
had not tested any frame child carriers that should have failed the 
purpose of the requirement; otherwise, the test laboratory personnel 
would have noted the lack of stated criteria previously.
    Both the consulted test laboratory representatives and the ASTM 
subcommittee chairman agreed that the requirement should be revised so 
that the purpose of the restraint performance test is expressed 
clearly. With the help of the test laboratory personnel, staff 
developed a revised requirement using language found in similar 
requirements in the EN standard and the ASTM high chair and stroller 
standards. CPSC staff suggested language to explicitly require that 
buckles shall not break, disengage, or separate and that all fasteners 
cannot become damaged to the point that the restraint system will not 
function as a result of the test. In addition, staff suggested language 
that requires that the CAMI dummy not fall out of the carrier. In 
February 2014, staff wrote a letter to the ASTM subcommittee 
chairman,\3\ outlining the suggested new language, and asking that the 
matter be discussed at the next ASTM meeting. During the April 9, 2014 
ASTM subcommittee meeting, the letter (including the recommended 
language) was shared with the subcommittee. The subcommittee agreed to 
ballot the

[[Page 28463]]

proposed language for inclusion in the next revision of the standard. 
Accordingly, proposed Sec.  1230.2(b)(1)(i)(D) includes a modification 
to the ASTM standard's retention system performance requirement in 
section 6.5, by adding a new section 6.5.4 that would require that when 
the frame child carrier restraints are tested in accordance with 
section 7.5 of the voluntary standard, the restraint system and its 
closing means (for example, a buckle) shall not break, disengage or 
separate at any seam and all fasteners shall not release or suffer 
damage that impairs the operation and function of the restraint system. 
Additionally, at the end of the tests, the CAMI dummy shall not be 
released fully or fall out of the carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Regulations-Laws-and-Standards/Voluntary-Standards/Voluntary-Standards-Reports/Frame%20Infant%20Carriers/LetterToASTMFrameCarriers21014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 CPSC-accepted third 
party conformity assessment body. Id. 2063(a)(2). The Commission must 
publish an NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity 
assessment bodies 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 1230, Safety Standard for Frame Child 
Carriers, if issued as a final rule, would be a children's product 
safety rule that requires the issuance of an NOR.
    The Commission published a final rule, Requirements Pertaining to 
Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), 
codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (referred to here as part 1112) and 
effective on June 10, 2013, that establishes requirements for 
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. Part 1112 also codifies all of the NORs 
that have been issued previously by the Commission.
    All new NORs for new children's product safety rules, such as the 
frame child carriers standard, require an amendment to part 1112. To 
meet the requirement that the Commission issue an NOR for the proposed 
frame child carriers standard, as part of this NPR, the Commission 
proposes to amend the existing rule that codifies the list of all NORs 
issued by the Commission to add frame child carriers to the list of 
children's product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued an NOR.
    Test laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third 
party conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for frame 
child carriers would be required to meet the third party conformity 
assessment body accreditation requirements in 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 1230, Safety Standard for Frame Child 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.

VII. 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). The Commission is proposing an effective 
date of six months after publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. Without evidence to the contrary, CPSC generally considers 
six months to be sufficient time for suppliers to come into compliance 
with a new standard, and a six-month effective date is typical for 
other CPSIA section 104 rules. Six months is also the period that the 
Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) typically allows for 
products in the JPMA certification program to transition to a new 
standard once that standard is published. The Commission does not 
expect the modification proposed for frame child carriers to cause any 
changes to existing products.
    We also propose a six-month effective date for the amendment to 
part 1112.
    We ask for comments on the proposed six-month effective date.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

A. Introduction

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that agencies review 
a proposed rule for the 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 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
     an identification, to the extent possible, of all relevant 
federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 
proposed rule.

B. Market Description

    CPSC is aware of 15 firms currently supplying frame child carriers 
to the U.S. market, although additional firms may supply these products 
to U.S. customers. Most of these firms specialize in the manufacture 
and/or distribution of one of two distinct types of products: (1) 
children's products, including durable nursery products; or (2) outdoor 
products, such as camping and hiking gear. The majority of the 15 known 
firms are domestic (including four manufacturers, seven importers, and 
one firm whose supply source could not be determined). The remaining 
three firms are foreign (including two manufacturers and one firm that 
imports products from foreign companies and distributes the products 
from outside of the United States).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Staff made these determinations using information from Dun & 
Bradstreet and ReferenceUSAGov, as well as firm Web sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to a 2005 survey conducted by the American Baby Group 
(2006 Baby Products Tracking Study),\5\ 32 percent of new mothers owned 
a frame child carrier. Approximately 32 percent of those carriers were 
handed down or purchased secondhand,\6\ and about 68

[[Page 28464]]

percent were new when acquired. This information suggests annual sales 
of around 870,000 frame child carriers (.32 x .68 x 4 million births 
per year),\7\ typically costing from $100 to around $300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The data collected for the Baby Products Tracking Study do 
not represent an unbiased statistical sample. The sample of 3,600 
new and expectant mothers is drawn from American Baby magazine's 
mailing lists. Additionally, because the most recent survey 
information is from 2005, the data may not reflect the current 
market.
    \6\ The data on secondhand products for new mothers were not 
available. Instead, data for new mothers and expectant mothers were 
combined and broken into data for first-time mothers and data for 
experienced mothers. Data for first-time mothers and experienced 
mothers have been averaged to calculate the approximate percentage 
of products that were handed down or purchased secondhand.
    \7\ 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 1. The number of births in 2010 is rounded 
from 3,999,386.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. 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 a mandatory standard that 
is substantially the same as, or more stringent than, the voluntary 
standard for a durable infant or toddler product. The proposed rule 
implements that congressional direction.

D. Other Federal Rules

    There are two federal rules that would interact with the frame 
child carriers mandatory standard: (1) Testing and Labeling Pertaining 
to Product Certification (16 CFR part 1107); and (2) Requirements 
Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies (16 CFR part 
1112).
    The testing and labeling rule (16 CFR part 1107) requires that 
manufacturers of children's products subject to children's product 
safety rules certify, based on third party testing, that the 
manufacturers' children's products comply with all applicable 
children's product safety rules. If a final children's product safety 
rule for frame child carriers is adopted by the Commission, frame child 
carriers will be subject to the third party testing requirements, 
including record keeping, when such a final frame child carriers rule 
becomes effective.
    In addition, the 16 CFR part 1107 rule requires the third party 
testing of children's products to be conducted by CPSC-accepted test 
laboratories. Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to 
publish an NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity 
assessment bodies to test for conformance with each children's product 
safety rule. Existing NORs that have been issued by the Commission are 
listed in 16 CFR part 1112. Consequently, the Commission proposes to 
amend 16 CFR part 1112 to add the frame child carriers rule to the list 
of rules for which the Commission has issued an NOR.

E. Impact of Proposed 16 CFR Part 1230 on Small Businesses

    We are aware of approximately 15 firms currently marketing frame 
child carriers in the United States, 12 of which are domestic firms. 
Under U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines, a 
manufacturer of frame child carriers is categorized as small if the 
firm has 500 or fewer employees, and importers and wholesalers are 
considered small if they have 100 or fewer employees. We limited our 
analysis to domestic firms because SBA guidelines and definitions 
pertain to U.S.-based entities. Based on these guidelines, about nine 
of the identified 15 firms are small--three domestic manufacturers, 
five domestic importers, and one domestic firm with an unknown supply 
source. There may be additional unknown small domestic frame child 
carrier suppliers operating in the U.S. market.
    Prior to the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis, 
staff conducts a screening analysis in order 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, staff 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, staff prepares a 
regulatory flexibility analysis. Because staff was unable to 
demonstrate that the proposed rule would impose an economic impact less 
than 1 percent of gross revenue for the affected firms, staff conducted 
an IRFA.
    Small Manufacturers. Of the three small domestic manufacturers, the 
proposed rule is likely to have little or no impact on the two firms 
whose frame child carriers comply with the ASTM voluntary standard 
currently in effect for JPMA testing and certification purposes (ASTM 
F2549-09a). We anticipate that these firms will remain compliant with 
the voluntary standard as the standard changes because these firms 
follow, and in at least one case, participate actively in the voluntary 
standard development process. Therefore, compliance with the evolving 
voluntary standard is part of an established business practice. ASTM 
F2549-14, the version of the voluntary standard upon which the proposed 
rule is based, will be in effect already for JPMA testing and 
certification purposes, before a mandatory standard becomes final, 
should one be issued by the Commission; and these firms are likely to 
be in compliance based on their history. Because the proposed 
modification to the retention system requirement consists of specifying 
pass/fail criteria already used by test laboratories, we do not expect 
the modification to have an impact on firms.
    The remaining small manufacturer would experience some economic 
impacts of unknown size. Based on discussions with a company 
representative, this firm does not know whether its products comply 
with the voluntary standard, having been previously unaware of the 
standard's existence. However, the firm indicated that it might elect 
to discontinue production of its frame child carriers, even if the 
firm's frame child carriers prove to be compliant with the proposed 
CPSC standard. The company believes that the burden associated with the 
testing and record-keeping requirements triggered by a mandatory frame 
child carriers standard might exceed the value of continuing 
production. Although this firm produces many other products, which 
should lessen the economic impact, and indicated that frame child 
carriers do not represent a large portion of the firm's product line, 
the firm did not convey the precise percentage of revenues that frame 
child carriers constitutes for this firm and thus, staff could not rule 
out a significant economic impact on this firm.
    Under section 14 of the CPSA, should the Commission adopt the new 
frame child carriers requirements as a final rule, once the 
requirements become effective, all manufacturers will be subject to the 
additional costs associated with the third party testing and 
certification requirements under the testing and labeling rule (16 CFR 
part 1107). Third party testing will include any physical and 
mechanical test requirements specified in the final frame child 
carriers rule that may be issued; lead and phthalates testing are 
already required. Third party testing costs are in addition to the 
direct costs of meeting the frame child carriers standard.
    Several firms were contacted regarding testing costs and one 
estimated that chemical and structural testing of one unit of a frame 
child carrier costs around $1,300. No other firms were willing or able 
to supply the requested testing cost information. Estimates provided by 
suppliers for other section 104 rulemakings indicate that around 40 
percent to 50 percent of

[[Page 28465]]

testing costs can be attributed to structural requirements, with the 
remaining 50 percent to 60 percent resulting from chemical testing 
(e.g., lead and phthalates). Therefore, staff estimates that testing to 
the ASTM voluntary standard could cost about $520 to $650 per sample 
tested ($1,300 x .4 to $1,300 x .5). These costs are consistent with 
testing cost estimates for products with standards of similar 
complexity.
    Staff's review of the frame child carrier market shows that on 
average, each small domestic manufacturer supplies three different 
models of frame child carriers to the U.S. market annually. Therefore, 
if third party testing were conducted every year, third party testing 
costs for each manufacturer would be about $1,560 to $1,950 annually, 
if only one sample were tested for each model. Based on an examination 
of each small domestic manufacturer's revenues from recent Dun & 
Bradstreet or Reference USAGov reports, the impact of third party 
testing to ASTM F2549-14 is unlikely to be economically significant for 
the three small domestic manufacturers (i.e., testing costs less than 
one percent of gross revenue). Although the testing and labeling rule 
(16 CFR part 1107) does not set forth a specific number of samples 
firms will need to test to meet the ``high degree of assurance'' 
criterion, more than 100 units per model would be required to make 
testing costs economically significant for the two firms with available 
revenue data. As described above, the third manufacturer has already 
indicated that the firm may exit the market because of the testing 
costs, even if the company's frame child carriers meet the requirements 
of the voluntary standard.
    Small Importers. As noted above, there are five small importers of 
frame child carriers, with three of them currently importing compliant 
carriers. In the absence of a mandatory regulation, these three small 
importers of frame child carriers would likely remain in compliance 
with new versions of the standard. Given that the three small importers 
have developed a pattern of compliance with the ASTM voluntary standard 
as the standard evolves and that the proposed rule does not differ 
substantively from the voluntary standard, ASTM F2549-14, as applied by 
test laboratories, the three small importers of compliant products 
would likely experience little or no direct costs under the proposed 
rule.
    Whether there is a significant economic impact on the two small 
importers with noncompliant frame child carriers will depend upon the 
extent of the changes required to come into compliance and the response 
of their supplying firms. Because no small importers with noncompliant 
frame child carriers responded to requests for information, staff 
cannot estimate the precise economic impact on these firms.
    However, in general, if an importer's supplying firm supplies 
products that comply with the new standard, the importer could elect to 
continue importing the frame child carriers. Any increase in production 
costs experienced by the importer's suppliers as a result of changes 
made to meet the mandatory standard may be passed on to the importer. 
If an importer is unwilling or unable to accept the increased costs, or 
if the importer's supplier decides not to comply with the mandatory 
standard, at least three alternative courses of action are available. 
First, the importer could find another supplier of frame child 
carriers. This could result in increased costs as well, depending, for 
example, on whether the alternative supplier must modify its carriers 
to comply with the mandatory standard. Second, the importer could 
import a different product in place of frame child carriers. This 
alternative would help mitigate the economic impact of the mandatory 
standard on these firms. Finally, the importer could stop importing 
frame child carriers and make no other changes to its product line. As 
with manufacturers, all importers are subject to third party testing 
and certification requirements. Consequently, if the Commission adopts 
a final mandatory standard for frame child carriers, importers will be 
subject to costs similar to those for manufacturers, if the importer's 
supplying foreign firm(s) does not perform third party testing. It does 
not appear likely that these costs would have a significant economic 
impact on the two small domestic importers for which revenue 
information is available, unless around 20 units per model were 
required to be tested to provide a ``high degree of assurance'' (i.e., 
at 20 units tested per model, testing costs will exceed one percent of 
gross revenue for each of these firms, even if testing costs are 
estimated at the lowest level of $520). The impact on the other three 
small importers is unknown.
    Alternatives. Under the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety 
Notification Act, one alternative that generally reduces the impact on 
small entities is to make the voluntary standard mandatory with no 
modifications. However, in the case of frame child carriers, no 
difference in impact would be expected because the CPSC proposed 
modification articulates the current standard practice of test 
laboratories. Thus, only products that cannot meet the requirement 
without the modification would fail the requirement with the 
modification.
    Another way that the Commission could reduce the economic impact of 
any proposed regulation, including the proposed frame child carriers 
rule, is to allow for a later effective date. The Commission proposes a 
6-month effective date, which is the least amount of time frame child 
carrier firms familiar with the applicable ASTM standard have indicated 
they would need for new product development (1.5 years was the longest 
estimate, with most firms suggesting a 6-month to 1-year time frame). 
Product redevelopment might be necessary for some noncompliant firms to 
meet the requirements of ASTM F2549-14; although staff does not believe 
that complete redesigns will be necessary based on preliminary product 
testing. In particular, no product modifications should be necessary to 
meet the proposed pass/fail criteria for the retention system 
performance requirement because, as already mentioned, the proposed 
requirement only clarifies what the test laboratories are already 
performing. A later effective date, more in line with the longest 
estimate of time required for product redevelopment, could reduce the 
economic impact in two ways. One, firms are less likely to experience a 
lapse in production, which could result if they are unable to comply 
within the required timeframe. Two, firms could spread costs over a 
longer time period, thereby reducing their annual costs, as well as the 
present value of their total costs. In the case of frame child carrier 
firms, a longer effective date would primarily benefit firms with 
noncompliant products.

F. Impact of Proposed 16 CFR Part 1112 Amendment on Small Businesses

    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 test laboratories because no 
requirements were imposed on test laboratories that did not intend to 
provide third party testing services. The only test 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. Moreover, a test 
laboratory would only choose to provide such

[[Page 28466]]

services if it anticipated receiving revenues sufficient to cover the 
costs of the requirements.
    Based on similar reasoning, amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include 
the NOR for the frame child carriers standard will not have a 
significant adverse impact on small test laboratories. Moreover, based 
upon the number of test laboratories in the United States that have 
applied for CPSC acceptance of accreditation to test for conformance to 
other mandatory juvenile product standards, we expect that only a few 
test laboratories will seek CPSC acceptance of their accreditation to 
test for conformance with the frame child carriers standard. Most of 
these test laboratories will have already been accredited to test for 
conformance to other mandatory juvenile product standards, and the only 
costs to them would be the cost of adding the frame child carriers 
standard to their scope of accreditation. As a consequence, the 
Commission certifies that the NOR amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include 
the frame child carriers standard will not have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.

IX. Environmental Considerations

    The Commission's regulations address whether the agency is required 
to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact 
statement. Under these regulations, a rule that has ``little or no 
potential for affecting the human environment,'' is categorically 
exempt from this requirement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The proposed rule 
falls within the categorical exemption.

X. 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 Frame Child Carriers
    Description: The proposed rule would require each frame child 
carrier to comply with ASTM F2549-14, Standard Consumer Safety 
Specification for Frame Child Carriers. Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F2549-
14 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 frame 
child carriers.
    Estimated Burden: We estimate the burden of this collection of 
information as follows:

                                                       Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Number of       Frequency of     Total annual      Hours per       Total burden
                           16 CFR Section                              respondents       responses        responses         response          hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1230.2(a)..........................................................              15                3               45                1               45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimates are based on the following:
    Section 8.1.1 of ASTM F2549-14 requires that the name and the place 
of business (city, state, and mailing address, including zip code) or 
telephone number of the manufacturer, distributor, or seller be marked 
clearly and legibly on each product and its retail package. Section 
8.1.2 of ASTM F2549-14 requires a code mark or other means that 
identifies the date (month and year, as a minimum) of manufacture.
    There are 15 known entities supplying frame child carriers to the 
U.S. market that might need to make some modifications to their 
existing labels. We estimate that the time required to make these 
modifications is about 1 hour per model. Based on an evaluation of 
supplier product lines, each entity supplies an average of three 
different models of frame child carriers; \8\ therefore, the estimated 
burden associated with labels is 1 hour per model x 15 entities x 3 
models per entity = 45 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 goods-producing private industries: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/
). Therefore, the estimated annual cost to industry associated with the 
labeling requirements is $1,246.95 ($27.71 per hour x 45 hours = 
$1,246.95). There are no operating, maintenance, or capital costs 
associated with the collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This number was derived during the market research phase of 
the initial regulatory flexibility analysis by dividing the total 
number of frame carriers supplied by all frame child carrier 
suppliers by the total number of frame child carrier suppliers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 9.1 of ASTM F2549-14 requires instructions to be supplied 
with the product. Frame child carriers are complicated products that 
generally require use and assembly instructions. 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 frame 
child carriers that generally require use instructions, but lack such 
instructions, we tentatively estimate that there are no burden hours 
associated with section 9.1 of ASTM F2549-14 because any burden 
associated with supplying instructions with frame child carriers would 
be ``usual and customary'' and not within the definition of ``burden'' 
under the OMB's regulations.
    Based on this analysis, the proposed standard for frame child 
carriers would impose a burden to industry of 45 hours at a cost of 
$1,246.95 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 June 16, 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:

[[Page 28467]]

     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.

XI. Preemption

    Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that when 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.

XII. Request for Comments

    This NPR begins a rulemaking proceeding under section 104(b) of the 
CPSIA to issue a consumer product safety standard for frame child 
carriers, and to amend part 1112 to add frame child carriers to the 
list of children's product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued 
an NOR. We invite all interested persons to submit comments on any 
aspect of the proposed mandatory safety standard for frame child 
carriers and on the proposed amendment to part 1112. Specifically, the 
Commission requests comments on the costs of compliance with, and 
testing to, the proposed frame child carriers safety standard, the 
proposed six-month effective date for the new mandatory frame child 
carriers safety standard, and the amendment to part 1112.
    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 1230

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 1112 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2063; Pub. L. 110-314, section 3, 122 Stat. 
3016, 3017 (2008).

0
2. Amend Sec.  1112.15 by adding paragraph (b)(38) to read as follows:

Sec.  1112.15  When can a third party conformity assessment body apply 
for CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule and/or test method?

* * * * *
    (b) (38) 16 CFR part 1230, Safety Standard for Frame Child 
Carriers.
* * * * *
0
3. Add part 1230 to read as follows:

PART 1230--SAFETY STANDARD FOR FRAME CHILD CARRIERS

Sec.
1230.1 Scope.
1230.2 Requirements for Frame Child Carriers.

    Authority: The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, 
Pub. L. 110-314, Sec.  104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Pub. 
L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).

Sec.  1230.1  Scope.

    This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for frame 
child carriers.

Sec.  1230.2  Requirements for Frame Child Carriers.

    (a) Each frame child carrier must comply with all applicable 
provisions of ASTM F2549-14, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for 
Frame Child Carriers, approved on January 1, 2014. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from ASTM 
International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, 
PA 19428; 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_federal regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (b) Comply with ASTM F2549-14 standard with the following 
exception:
    (1) Instead of complying with section 6.5 of ASTM F2549-14, comply 
with the following:
    (i) 6.5 Retention System:
    (A) 6.5.1 A retention system, including a shoulder restraint, shall 
be provided to secure the occupant in a seated position in any of the 
manufacturer's recommended use positions.
    (B) 6.5.2 Before shipment, the manufacturer shall attach the 
retention system in such a manner that it will not detach in normal 
usage.
    (C) 6.5.3 If the retention system includes a crotch restraint 
designed to work with a lap belt, it shall be designed such that its 
use is mandatory when the retention system is in use.
    (D) 6.5.4 When tested in accordance with 7.5, the restraint system 
and its closing means (for example, a buckle) shall not break, 
disengage or separate at any seam and all fasteners shall not release 
or suffer damage that impairs the operation and function of the 
restraint system. At the end of the tests, the CAMI dummy shall not be 
released fully or fall out of the carrier.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (2) [Reserved]

    Dated: May 12, 2014.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-11193 Filed 5-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```