Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 11113 

for the conduct of the activity; the 

extent to which the conduct of the 

activity may diminish or enhance 

Sanctuary resources and qualities; the 

cumulative effects of the activity; the 

end value of the activity; and the 

impacts of the activity on adjacent 

American Indian tribes. Where the 

issuance or denial of a permit is 

requested by the governing body of an 

American Indian tribe, the Director shall 

consider and protect the interests of the 

tribe to the fullest extent practicable in 

keeping with the purposes of the 

Sanctuary and his or her fiduciary 

duties to the tribe. The Director may 

also deny a permit application pursuant 

to this section, in whole or in part, if it 

is determined that the permittee or 

applicant has acted in violation of the 

terms or conditions of a permit or of 

these regulations. In addition, the 

Director may consider such other factors 

as he or she deems appropriate. 

(d) It shall be a condition of any 

permit issued that the permit or a copy 

thereof be displayed on board all vessels 

or aircraft used in the conduct of the 

activity. 

(e) The Director may, inter alia, make 

it a condition of any permit issued that 

any data or information obtained under 

the permit be made available to the 

public. 

(f) The Director may, inter alia, make 

it a condition of any permit issued that 

a NOAA official be allowed to observe 

any activity conducted under the permit 

and/or that the permit holder submit 

one or more reports on the status, 

progress or results of any activity 

authorized by the permit. 

(g) The Director shall obtain the 

express written consent of the governing 

body of an Indian tribe prior to issuing 

a permit, if the proposed activity 

involves or affects resources of cultural 

or historical significance to the tribe. 

(h) Removal, or attempted removal of 

any Indian cultural resource or artifact 

may only occur with the express written 

consent of the governing body of the 

tribe or tribes to which such resource or 

artifact pertains, and certification by the 

Director that such activities occur in a 

manner that minimizes damage to the 

biological and archeological resources. 

Prior to permitting entry onto a 

significant cultural site designated by a 

tribal governing body, the Director shall 

require the express written consent of 

the governing body of the tribe or tribes 

to which such cultural site pertains. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04237 Filed 2–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P 

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: Final rule. 

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 standards if the Commission 

determines that more stringent 

requirements would further reduce the 

risk of injury associated with the 

products. The Commission is issuing a 

safety standard for frame child carriers 

in response to the direction under 

section 104(b) of the CPSIA. In addition, 

the Commission is amending its 

regulations regarding third party 

conformity assessment bodies to include 

the mandatory standard for frame child 

carriers in the list of Notices of 

Requirements (NOR) issued by the 

Commission. 

DATES: The rule will become effective 

on September 2, 2016. The 

incorporation by reference of the 

publication listed in this rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of September 2, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julio 

Alvarado, Compliance Officer, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; telephone: 301–504–7418; email: 

jalvarado@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Statutory Authority 

The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA, 

Pub. L. 110–314) was enacted on August 

14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, 

part of the Danny Keysar Child Product 

Safety Notification Act, requires the 

Commission to: (1) Examine and assess 

the effectiveness of voluntary consumer 

product safety standards for durable 

infant or toddler products, in 

consultation with representatives of 

consumer groups, juvenile product 

manufacturers, and independent child 

product engineers and experts; and (2) 

promulgate consumer product safety 

standards for durable infant and toddler 

products. These standards are to be 

‘‘substantially the same as’’ applicable 

voluntary standards or more stringent 

than the voluntary standards if the 

Commission determines 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.’’ 

On May 16, 2014, the Commission 

issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPR) for frame child carriers. 79 FR 

28458. The NPR proposed to 

incorporate by reference the voluntary 

standard, ASTM F2549–14, Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for 

Frame Child Carriers, with one 

proposed substitute provision that 

would provide clear pass/fail criteria for 

an existing test. 

In this document, the Commission is 

issuing a mandatory safety standard for 

frame child carriers. As required by 

section 104(b)(1)(A), the Commission 

consulted with manufacturers, retailers, 

trade organizations, laboratories, 

consumer advocacy groups, consultants, 

and the public to develop this proposed 

standard, largely through the ASTM 

process. The rule incorporates by 

reference the most recent voluntary 

standard developed by ASTM 

International (formerly the American 

Society for Testing and Materials), 

ASTM F2549–14a, Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Frame Child 

Carriers. This most recent version of the 

ASTM voluntary standard includes the 

clear pass/fail criteria for an existing test 

that were proposed in the NPR. 

In addition, the final rule amends the 

list of NORs issued by the Commission 

in 16 CFR part 1112 to include the 

standard for frame child carriers. Under 

section 14 of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (CPSA), the Commission 

promulgated 16 CFR part 1112 to 

establish requirements for accreditation 

of third party conformity assessment 

bodies (or testing laboratories) to test for 

conformance with a children’s product 

safety rule. Amending part 1112 adds a 

NOR for the frame child carrier standard 

to the list of children’s product safety 

rules. 

II. Product Description 

The scope of ASTM F2549–14a 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
11114 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1Since staff prepared the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, one importer has entered the 

market, another firm was purchased (remaining in 

the market), and a third has established an official 

U.S. distributor for their products. 

2Staff made these determinations using 

information from Dun & Bradstreet and 

ReferenceUSAGov, as well as firm Web sites. 

3 JPMA typically allows 6 months for companies 

with products in their certification program to shift 

to a new standard for testing and certification once 

the new standard is published. The version of the 

standard that firms currently are likely to be testing 

to is ASTM F2549–14. One revision of the standard 

has been published since then, but it will become 

effective for JPMA certification purposes before 

February 2015. However, many frame child carriers 

are expected to be compliant with ASTM F2549– 

14a without modification; and firms compliant with 

earlier versions of the standard are likely to remain 

compliant as the standard evolves. 

4These results are preliminary. While the data 

has undergone one stage of review and clean-up, 

this work is ongoing. 5Memorandum from Risana T. Chowdhury, 

Division of Hazard Analysis, Directorate for 

Epidemiology, dated November 18, 2013, Subject: 

Frame Child Carriers-Related Deaths, Injuries, and 

Potential Injuries; January 1, 2003–October 27, 

2013; and memorandum from Risana T. 

Chowdhury, Division of Hazard Analysis, 

Directorate for Epidemiology, dated September 30, 

2014, Subject: Frame Child Carrier-Related Deaths, 

Injuries, and Potential Injuries Reported Between 

October 28, 2013 and September 4, 2014. 

6Using 95% confidence interval values for frame 

child carriers in use yields an annual estimate of 

0.71 to 1.36 emergency department-treated injuries 

per 10,000 frame child carriers in use in U.S. 

households with children under age 6. 

child, in an upright position, on the 

back of the caregiver.’’ The intended 

users of frame carriers are children who 

are able to sit upright unassisted and 

weigh between 16 pounds and 50 

pounds. Frame 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 closely resembles 

hiking/mountaineering backpacks not 

intended to be used for child transport. 

III. Market Description 

Staff identified 16 firms supplying 

frame child carriers to the U.S. market. 

Typically, frame child carriers cost from 

$100 to around $300. Additional firms 

may supply these products to U.S. 

consumers.1 Most of these firms 

specialize in manufacturing and/or 

distributing 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 16 

known firms are domestic (including 

five manufacturers, eight importers, and 

one firm whose supply source could not 

be determined). The remaining two 

firms are foreign (including one 

manufacturer and one firm that imports 

products from foreign companies and 

distributes the products from outside of 

the United States).2

The Commission expects that the 

frame child carriers of seven of these 

firms comply with ASTM F2549 

because the firms either: (1) Certify their 

carriers through the Juvenile Products 

Manufacturers Association (JPMA) 

(three firms); or (2) claim compliance 

with the voluntary standard (four 

firms).3 However, some of the suppliers 

of frame child carriers do not supply 

any other children’s products; and it is 

possible that these suppliers may be 

unfamiliar with the voluntary ASTM 

standards, a circumstance confirmed by 

one supplier that staff contacted during 

the initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(IRFA) development. The Commission 

staff attempted unsuccessfully to obtain 

information from several firms whose 

frame child carriers do not claim 

compliance with the ASTM standard to 

determine the extent to which their 

carriers might not comply. Staff’s testing 

indicates that some frame child carriers 

would not meet all provisions of the 

ASTM F2549. 

In 2013, the CPSC conducted a 

Durable Nursery Product Exposure 

Survey (DNPES) of U.S. households 

with children under age 6. Data from the 

DNPES indicate that an estimated 2.38 

million frame child carriers are in U.S. 

households with children under the age 

of 6 (with 95% probability that the 

actual value is between 1.8 million and 

2.95 million). Data collected also 

indicate that about 54 percent of the 

frame child carriers in U.S. households 

with children under age 6 are in use (an 

estimated 1.28 million frame carriers, 

with 95% probability that the actual 

value is between about 880,000 and 1.7 

million).4

Staff could not estimate annual 

injuries because the number of National 

Electronic Injury Surveillance System 

(NEISS) cases was insufficient to meet 

the CPSC Directorate for Epidemiology 

(EPI) publication criteria. However, 

given that part of the publication criteria 

is that the estimate must be 1,200 or 

greater over the period under 

consideration, presumably, there would 

be, on average, fewer than 120 injuries 

annually over the approximately 10-year 

period considered by EPI staff. The 

recent EPI update for the final briefing 

package is consistent with this 

assumption.5

Combining the maximum annual 

emergency department-treated injury 

estimate with the data collected for the 

DNPES yields less than about 0.94 

emergency department-treated injuries 

per 10,000 frame child carriers in use in 

U.S. households with children under 

age 6 annually ((120 injuries ÷ 1.28 

million frame child carriers in use in 

U.S. households with children under 

age 6) × 10,000).6

IV. Incident Data 

The preamble to the NPR summarized 

the incident data reported to the 

Commission involving frame child 

carriers from January 1, 2003 through 

October 27, 2013. 79 FR 28459–60. In 

the NPR, CPSC’s Directorate for 

Epidemiology identified a total of 47 

incidents, including 33 injuries and no 

fatalities related to frame child carriers. 

Since the NPR, the Commission has 

received two new reports involving 

frame child carriers from October 28, 

2003 through September 28, 2014. One 

reported a frame child carrier falling off 

of a chair with a 14-month-old child in 

the carrier. The child sustained a head 

injury. The second report was of a frame 

child carrier whose straps and buckles 

disintegrated, but no injury was 

mentioned. 

The hazards reported in the new 

incidents are consistent with the hazard 

patterns identified among the incidents 

presented in the NPR briefing package. 

Specifically, staff identified stability 

and structural integrity as the two top 

product-related hazards in the incident 

data presented in the NPR package. The 

hazard for one of the two new incidents 

is related to stability, and the other is 

related to the structural integrity of the 

product. 

V. Overview of ASTM F2549 

ASTM F2549, Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Frame Child 

Carriers, is the voluntary standard that 

addresses the identified hazard patterns 

associated with the use of frame child 

carriers and was first approved and 

published in December 2006, as ASTM 

F2549–06. ASTM has revised the 

voluntary standard six times since then. 

ASTM F2549–14a is the most recent 

version, which was approved on July 1, 

2014. 

A. Proposed Rule 

In the NPR, the Commission proposed 

to incorporate ASTM F2549–14, which 

addressed many of the hazard patterns 

identified for frame child carriers, with 

one addition: specifying criteria for the 

retention system performance test to 

provide clear pass/fail criteria for the 

frame child carrier’s restraints. 

B. Current ASTM Standard for Frame 

Child Carriers (ASTM F2549–14a) 

In May 2014, ASTM issued a ballot 

for ASTM F2549. That ballot contained 

language identical to the modification 

language proposed in the NPR regarding 

the pass/fail criteria associated with the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 11115 

7U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) 

Office of Advocacy, A Guide for Government 

Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, May 2012: 36. 8 Ibid.18. 

retention system test. The ASTM 

subcommittee approved the ballot item. 

Therefore, the current version of the 

voluntary standard, ASTM F2549–14a, 

is identical to the requirements 

proposed in the NPR. 

In this rule, the Commission 

incorporates by reference ASTM F2549– 

14a because the Commission’s proposed 

modification in the NPR has been 

adopted in ASTM F2549–14a. Thus, 

ASTM F2549–14a specifies criteria for 

the retention system performance test to 

provide clear pass/fail criteria for the 

carrier’s restraints. 

VI. Response to Comments 

The Commission received two 

comments in response to the NPR. A 

summary of each comment topic and 

response is provided below. 

A. Economic Factors 

1. Definition of Domestic Manufacturer 

Comment: One commenter questioned 

the number of small domestic 

manufacturers cited by CPSC staff and 

believed that the term ‘‘domestic 

manufacturer’’ should mean that the 

product is physically manufactured in 

the United States. 

Response: CPSC staff uses U.S. 

Census Bureau guidelines to determine 

whether a firm is domestic and whether 

a firm is a manufacturer. Under these 

guidelines, domestic firms are firms 

filing tax returns in the United States. 

The U.S. Census uses the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) to determine the type 

of business. Under this system, a 

manufacturer can be a firm/

establishment that processes materials 

itself or a firm/establishment that 

contracts with others to process the 

materials. The U.S. Small Business 

Administration’s guidance on the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (SBA 

Guidance) recommends using NAICS 

codes in combination with Census data 

to identify classes of small entities and 

estimate their number.7

2. Impact on Domestic Manufacturers 

Comment: One commenter questioned 

what is meant by an insignificant 

impact and asked whether staff’s 

recommendation would be different if 

the proposed rule was found to have a 

significant impact on all or most small 

businesses. 

The commenter also questioned the 

use of gross income rather than net 

income or profit, particularly as the 

higher costs of manufacturing 

domestically would decrease net 

income and profit while leaving gross 

income unaffected. The commenter 

suggested that this might, in turn, lead 

to an underestimate of the significance 

of the proposed rule on firms 

manufacturing only in the United 

States. 

Response: The Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA) does not define ‘‘significant 

impact.’’ As stated in the SBA 

Guidance, the determination of 

‘‘significance’’ will ‘‘vary depending on 

the economics of the industry or 

sector.’’ The SBA Guidance also notes 

that the applicable ‘‘agency is in the best 

position to gauge the small entity 

impacts of its regulations.’’ Generally, 

CPSC staff believes that an insignificant 

impact in the context of the regulatory 

flexibility analysis means that the 

impact is expected to be small enough 

that changes to a firm’s current business 

operations would be limited or largely 

unaffected. 

Section 104 of the CPSIA requires that 

the Commission promulgate a standard 

that is either substantially the same as 

the voluntary standard or more stringent 

than such voluntary standard if the 

Commission determines that the more 

stringent standard would further reduce 

the risk of injury associated with a 

product. CPSC may not propose a less 

stringent standard based on economic 

considerations. At the NPR stage, the 

Commission proposed adopting the 

voluntary standard with the sole 

addition of specifying the pass/fail 

criteria for the existing retention system 

performance requirement. By doing so, 

the Commission proposed adopting the 

least stringent rule allowed by law. 

Therefore, the Commission’s proposed 

rule would have been the same even if 

the impact on each and every small 

business was found to be significant. 

The same holds true of the 

Commission’s final rule, which is to 

adopt the current voluntary standard 

without modification. CPSC’s ability to 

reduce the impact on small businesses 

is limited in this case to a later effective 

date, which would allow firms 

additional time to come into 

compliance, spreading out the 

associated costs. 

The Directorate for Economic 

Analysis staff typically uses the gross 

revenue measure because these data are 

generally available. Furthermore, use of 

gross revenues as an appropriate 

measure is consistent with the SBA 

Guidance.8 In the case of small 

manufacturers and importers of frame 

child carriers, no information on profits 

or net income was available; therefore, 

no analysis based on this information 

could be undertaken. 

3. Baby Products Survey 

Comment: The commenter questioned 

the Directorate for Economic Analysis’s 

use of the American Baby Group’s 2006 

Baby Products Tracking Study, ‘‘which 

could be weighted by bias’’ and ‘‘may 

not have been adjusted for income and 

proclivities.’’ 

Response: In the IRFA, staff 

acknowledged the bias inherent in the 

study. As noted in the IRFA, the data 

collected for the Baby Products 

Tracking Study do not represent an 

unbiased statistical sample because the 

data are drawn from American Baby 

magazine’s mailing lists. However, these 

data were used solely to estimate annual 

sales of frame child carriers in the 

United States and the potential injury 

risk associated with this product. The 

use of the Baby Products Tracking Study 

in no way influenced staff’s 

determination of whether the 

regulation’s impact on firms would be 

significant or not. 

4. Cost/Benefits Disproportion 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

the CPSC ‘‘keep the cost-benefit ratio 

appropriate,’’ noting that the lack of 

serious ‘‘or near serious injuries . . . 

over the past ten years’’ would mean 

minimal benefits associated with third 

party testing ‘‘while such testing costs 

would be extremely expensive for small 

domestic businesses.’’ The commenter 

requested alternatives, specifically selfcertification, and noted that she does 

not consider a firm’s exit from the 

market an acceptable alternative. 

Response: The CPSC did not conduct 

a cost-benefit analysis for the frame 

child carrier rule because the rule is 

being promulgated under the 

requirements of section 104 of the 

CPSIA, which does not require a costbenefit analysis. Staff conducted an 

IRFA to assess the impact of the rule on 

small domestic businesses. Benefits are 

not required to be considered as part of 

an IRFA. 

As noted above, section 104 of the 

CPSIA requires the Commission to 

adopt a standard that is substantially the 

same as the voluntary standard or more 

stringent than such voluntary standard 

if the Commission determines that the 

more stringent standard would further 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

a product. Thus, CPSC’s ability to 

reduce the impact on small firms is 

limited to providing a later effective 

date. 

CPSC’s ability to address testing costs 

in the context of section 104 rulemaking 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
11116 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

likewise is limited. In particular, 

applicable legal requirements do not 

allow CPSC to modify the voluntary 

standard to reduce the testing costs 

imposed by a mandatory frame child 

carrier standard; CPSC is required to 

adopt either the voluntary standard or a 

more stringent standard. 

The discussion in the IRFA of one 

small domestic manufacturer leaving 

the market was based on information 

supplied by the firm when contacted. In 

consideration of that concern and to 

allow small businesses additional time 

to prepare for the impact of the rule, the 

final rule provides an 18-month 

effective date. To address potential 

hazards during that 18-month period 

before the rule takes effect, CPSC could 

act to remove any unsafe frame child 

carriers from the market using its 

authorities under section 15 of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). 

B. Availability of Testing Laboratories 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

she had a problem finding laboratories 

that could conduct the proposed testing. 

Response: In a follow-up phone 

conversation with the commenter, staff 

provided specific contacts for three 

laboratories. Although not yet 

accredited to test frame child carriers, 

all three laboratories are capable of 

testing frame child carriers to the final 

rule because they have experience 

testing frame child carriers to the ASTM 

standard referenced in the final rule. 

C. Testing Equipment Issues 

One commenter raised several issues 

or questions regarding the test 

equipment specified in the ASTM 

standard. 

1. CAMI Dummy Availability 

Comment: One commenter was 

unable to secure the CAMI dummy due 

to its price and the lead-time needed to 

order it. 

Response: Unfortunately, CAMI 

dummies are only available through the 

one company that makes them; thus, 

there are no less expensive versions 

available. However, there is no 

requirement for firms to perform testing 

themselves; thus, there is no 

requirement to purchase a CAMI 

dummy or any of the test equipment. 

Third party testing laboratories offer 

many services, not just certification 

testing. Testing laboratories can perform 

product assessments and precertification testing as well. 

2. CAMI Dummy Applicability 

Comment: One commenter believed 

the size of the test dummy required by 

the standard is not indicative of a 

typical user of a frame child carrier. In 

addition, the commenter noted that the 

test dummy does not take into account 

items such as seasonal clothing on the 

child, which could increase the overall 

size of the occupant. 

Response: The CAMI dummy 

referenced in the ASTM standard is 

modeled after the average (50th 

percentile) 6-month-old child, which is 

the youngest user normally specified for 

these carriers. The CAMI dummy is 

used in the standard to simulate the 

youngest user because the hazards being 

addressed (falling through leg openings, 

etc.) are more likely to occur with the 

youngest user. The older (larger) users 

are not as vulnerable to the specific 

hazards where testing requires using a 

CAMI dummy. Therefore, the test 

procedure uses a conservative approach 

and simulates use by the smallest 

(youngest) user. Adding a new test, or 

using an ‘‘older’’ dummy (or one 

wearing heavy clothes), would not 

capture any additional hazards and 

would only make the testing more 

expensive. 

3. Test Sphere 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

she could not find the test sphere. 

Response: The test sphere is not an 

off-the-shelf product. The standard 

defines the test sphere as a sphere, 16.5 

inches (419.1 mm) in diameter, which is 

fabricated from a smooth, rigid material 

and weighs 7.0 pounds (3.2 kg). Those 

are the only design specifications. Staff 

is aware of test spheres fabricated from 

wood, metal, or plastic. Any competent 

machine shop or woodworking facility 

should be able to make one to the 

correct weight and size. 

4. Test Sphere vs. CAMI Dummy 

Comment: One commenter believed 

the use of the test sphere for the leg 

opening test is not reasonable because 

the shape is different from a child, and 

a sphere cannot use a safety harness. 

The commenter requested that a CAMI 

dummy be used instead. 

Response: The goal of this 

performance requirement is to model a 

worst-case-use scenario associated with 

a specific hazard; i.e., an occupant 

slipping both legs and body through one 

leg opening. If the product passes a 

conservative, worst-case scenario test, 

the product would be safe in that 

particular respect for all users. For the 

leg-opening test, the test sphere 

simulates the smallest user’s hip 

dimension. The requirement is intended 

to address the hazard associated with 

the smallest users who may be getting 

both legs/body into one leg hole and 

sliding out of the frame child carrier. 

Thus, the worst-case scenario is to take 

into account the smallest user’s hip 

dimensions. Lastly, and more 

importantly, using a smooth, rigid, and 

consistently dimensioned sphere is 

more likely to provide repeatable 

results. This means that the same frame 

carrier would consistently pass (or fail) 

the test, irrespective of the test 

laboratory or technician running the 

test. The CAMI dummy is made from 

canvas fabric, and with age and use, the 

flexibility and texture of the dummy 

changes. Thus, a frame child carrier 

tested to the leg-opening requirement 

might fail the requirement if a worn 

CAMI dummy were used but would 

pass if a brand new CAMI dummy were 

used. Thus, staff agrees with ASTM that 

the test sphere is the right test probe. 

Leg opening tests are used in various 

other children’s product standards; and 

the use of test equipment, such as 

spheres and probes, to conduct these 

tests is common practice. 

D. Pre-Certification Testing 

Comment: One commenter expected 

to send products to a certified laboratory 

only after having pre-tested them, which 

she claims would not be possible 

because of the problems associated with 

obtaining the testing equipment. 

Response: As mentioned in another 

response to a comment, firms are not 

required to pre-test their products before 

having the products tested by a third 

party laboratory for certification. It is, 

however, understandable that 

companies would like to be assured that 

their products will pass, before sending 

them out for certification testing. In that 

case, firms have multiple alternatives. 

They can purchase the equipment and 

undertake the testing themselves, or 

they can contract with a qualified 

testing laboratory to conduct the pretesting. 

E. Self-Certification 

Comment: One commenter, a 

registered small batch manufacturer, 

asked why CPSC cannot apply the small 

batch rules for registered small batch 

manufacturers to the third party testing 

requirements for section 104 rules. The 

commenter suggested removing the 

third party testing requirement from the 

rule and providing small batch 

manufacturers with the alternative to 

self-certify. The commenter noted that 

CPSC has already allowed for 

exemptions from the CPSIA’s third 

party testing requirements for small 

batch manufacturers. 

Response: Section 14(a)(2) of the 

CPSA requires that all children’s 

products subject to a children’s product 

safety rule, like the rule for frame child 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 11117 

carriers, must be third party tested. 15 

U.S.C. 2063(a)(2). Section 14(g)(4) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act allows 

exceptions to third party testing for 

small batch manufacturers. However, 

that provision does not allow the 

Commission to provide small batch 

manufacturers any alternative 

requirements or exemptions for rules for 

durable infant and toddler products 

promulgated under section 104. Id. 

2063(g)(4)(C)(ii). The rule for frame 

child carriers is promulgated under the 

legal authority in section 104 of the 

CPSIA. Therefore, the Commission does 

not have the legal authority to allow for 

self-certification for small batch 

manufacturers for the frame child 

carrier rule. 

F. Training Opportunities 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

CPSC staff will be conducting training 

for buyers and sourcing professionals 

dealing in electrical-electric-appliances, 

apparel, and toys in China. The 

commenter was concerned that similar 

training with respect to the mandatory 

rule for frame child carriers would give 

a competitive advantage to importers 

and foreign manufacturers whose 

products are made offshore. 

Response: CPSC staff routinely 

conducts industry training both abroad 

and in the United States. During fiscal 

year 2013, for instance, we conducted 

12 training events for industry abroad. 

For the same period, we conducted 14 

training events domestically. Moreover, 

the Office of Compliance participated in 

public or webcast meetings throughout 

fiscal year 2013 to discuss newly issued 

and existing rules and requirements; 

these materials generally are made 

available to the general public. Many of 

these materials are available at 

www.slideshare.net/USCPSC for 

download and review. Since Fiscal Year 

2012, we have uploaded 120 

presentations on a variety of topic areas 

to SlideShare. The total number of these 

meetings was 88, the majority of which 

were domestic. Staff anticipates 

continuing such training opportunities 

both abroad and domestically. 

G. Compliance Issues 

Comment: One commenter asked for 

clarification about what constitutes a 

different model of a product and what 

changes to the frame child carrier would 

constitute enough of a difference to 

require additional third party testing. 

Response: Guidance regarding 

material change testing is available on 

the CPSC Web site, which contains 

information about applicable definitions 

and legal requirements. It is a 

manufacturer’s responsibility to 

determine when a product change 

constitutes a different model. How this 

determination is made governs whether 

different models could require third 

party testing and certification. A 

material change to the product’s design 

or manufacturing process, as well as a 

new source of component parts for the 

product, could affect the product’s 

ability to comply with the applicable 

children’s product safety rule and could 

be considered enough of a change to 

require additional testing. 

The frame child carrier rule is a 

children’s product safety rule subject to 

third party testing. The manufacturer 

only has to retest the product if there is 

a material change. If the material change 

only affects certain component parts; 

component part testing can be sufficient 

for that component part only, so long as 

the material change will not affect the 

finished product’s ability to comply 

with the applicable children’s product 

safety rules. 

H. Effective Date 

Comment: One commenter agreed 

with the proposed 6-month effective 

date for the standard, while another 

commenter expressed concerns about 

whether a domestic test laboratory 

would be willing to perform testing to 

the mandatory frame child carrier 

standard if only three U.S. firms were 

requesting third party testing. A second 

commenter suggested that the rule could 

impose ‘‘excessive costs,’’ damaging to 

the commenter’s firm. 

Response: As previously noted, the 

sole alternative staff can recommend to 

help minimize the impact of the 

mandatory standard is a later effective 

date. A later effective date would allow 

manufacturers and test laboratories 

additional time to prepare for the rule’s 

requirements. A later effective date 

would reduce the economic impact on 

small firms in two ways. First, firms 

would be less likely to experience a 

lapse in production, which could result 

if firms are unable to develop compliant 

frame child carriers and third party test 

them within the required timeframe. 

Second, firms could spread costs over a 

longer time period, thereby reducing 

their annual costs and the present value 

of their total costs. 

Staff does not agree with the second 

commenter’s concerns regarding the 

potential difficulty in securing a U.S. (or 

foreign) test laboratory accredited to test 

frame child carriers. Inquiries made of 

three domestic laboratories who are 

qualified to test frame child carriers 

indicated that these test laboratories 

already have the ASTM standard for 

frame child carriers in their 

accreditation scope. All three labs 

include the ASTM standard in their 

accreditation and intend to apply for 

CPSC acceptance for testing to the 

regulation after a final rule is published. 

Staff believes that laboratories will be 

able to complete the necessary 

procedures to permit testing under the 

new frame carrier rule within the 18- 

month period before effectiveness of the 

rule. 

However, CPSC staff cannot rule out 

a significant impact on small businesses 

whose frame child carriers do not 

comply with the final rule. Therefore, as 

discussed above, the final rule provides 

an 18-month effective date to reduce the 

impact of the mandatory standard, to 

the extent possible, on small businesses. 

VII. Final Rule 

A. Final Rule for Part 1230 and 

Incorporation by Reference 

Section 1230.2 of the final rule 

provides that frame child carriers must 

comply with ASTM F2549–14a. The 

Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has 

regulations concerning incorporation by 

reference. 1 CFR part 51. The OFR 

recently revised these regulations to 

require that, for a final rule, agencies 

must discuss in the preamble of the rule 

ways that the materials the agency 

incorporates by reference are reasonably 

available to interested persons and how 

interested parties can obtain the 

materials. In addition, the preamble of 

the rule must summarize the material. 1 

CFR 51.5(b). 

In accordance with the OFR’s 

requirements, the discussion in this 

section summarizes the provisions of 

ASTM F2549–14a. Interested persons 

may purchase a copy of ASTM F2549– 

14a from ASTM, either through ASTM’s 

Web site or by mail at the address 

provided above and in the rule. One 

may also inspect a copy of the standard 

at the CPSC’s Office of the Secretary, 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, or at NARA, as discussed 

above. We note that the Commission 

and ASTM arranged for commenters to 

have ‘‘read only’’ access to ASTM F 

2549–14a during the NPR’s comment 

period. 

The CPSC is incorporating by 

reference ASTM F2549–14a because 

ASTM F2549–14a includes the 

Commission’s proposed modification in 

the NPR to specify criteria for the 

retention system performance test to 

provide clear pass/fail criteria for the 

carrier’s restraints. 

ASTM F2549–14a contains 

requirements covering: 

• Sharp points 

• small Parts 

• lead in paint 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
11118 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

• flammability requirements 

• scissoring, shearing, pinching 

• openings 

• exposed coil springs 

• locking and latching (for carriers that 

fold for storage) 

• unintentional folding (for carriers 

with kick stands that can stand freely) 

• labeling 

• protective components 

• structural integrity 

• 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) 

• restraints (requires that all carriers 

have a restraint system and also 

provides a method for testing the 

restraints), and 

• handle integrity (helps prevent the 

handle from breaking or separating 

when it is pulled with three times the 

maximum recommended weight). 

B. Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112 To 

Include NOR for Frame Child Carriers 

Standard 

The final rule amends part 1112 to 

add a new section 1112.15(b)(38) that 

lists 16 CFR part 1230, Safety Standard 

for Frame Child Carriers as a children’s 

products safety rule for which the 

Commission has issued an NOR. Section 

XIII of the preamble provides additional 

background information regarding 

certification of frame child carriers and 

issuance of an NOR. 

VIII. Effective Date 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) generally requires that the 

effective date of the rule be at least 30 

days after publication of the final rule. 

5 U.S.C. 553(d). The safety standard for 

frame child carriers and the 

corresponding changes to the part 1112 

rule regarding requirements for third 

party conformity assessment bodies will 

become effective 18 months after 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. The rule provides an 

18-month effective date to allow firms 

whose frame child carriers may not 

comply with the voluntary ASTM 

standard additional time to come into 

compliance with the mandatory frame 

child carrier rule. Of the nine supplying 

firms contacted, four provided 

information on the time table required 

for redevelopment. Eighteen months 

reflects the maximum length of time 

these firms indicated might be necessary 

and will allow the greatest flexibility to 

small firms that may be significantly 

affected by the mandatory frame child 

carrier standard. 

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

A. Introduction 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

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

consider the impact of proposed and 

final rules on small entities, including 

small businesses. Section 604 of the 

RFA requires that agencies prepare a 

final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) when promulgating final rules, 

unless the head of the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The FRFA must describe the 

impact of the rule on small entities. 

Specifically, the final regulatory 

flexibility analysis must contain: 

• A statement of the need for, and 

objectives of, the rule; 

• a statement of the significant issues 

raised by the public comments in 

response to the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, a statement 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; 

• the response of the agency to any 

comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration in response to the 

proposed rule, and a detailed statement 

of any change made to the proposed rule 

in the final rule as a result of the 

comments; 

• a description of and an estimate of 

the number of small entities to which 

the rule will apply or an explanation of 

why no such estimate is available; 

• a description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities which will be subject to 

the requirement and the type of 

professional skills necessary for the 

preparation of the report or record; and 

• a description of the steps the agency 

has taken to minimize 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 final 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. Reason for Agency Action 

The Danny Keysar Child Product 

Safety Notification Act, section 104 of 

the CPSIA, requires the CPSC to 

promulgate mandatory standards for 

durable infant or toddler products that 

are substantially the same as, or more 

stringent than, the voluntary standard. 

Infant carriers are included in the 

definition of ‘‘durable infant or toddler 

products’’ subject to section 104 of the 

CPSIA. CPSC staff worked closely with 

ASTM stakeholders to develop the 

requirements and the pass/fail criteria 

associated with the retention system test 

procedures that have been incorporated 

into ASTM F2549–14a, which forms the 

basis for the mandatory standard. 

C. Other Federal Rules 

The frame child carrier mandatory 

standard will have implications for two 

separate, existing federal rules: (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 product 

safety rules, certify, based on third party 

testing, that their children’s products 

comply with all applicable safety rules. 

Because frame child carriers will be 

subject to a mandatory rule, they will 

also be subject to the third party testing 

requirements when the rule becomes 

effective. 

In addition, section 14(a)(2) of the 

CPSA requires the third party testing of 

children’s products to be conducted by 

CPSC-accepted laboratories. Section 

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

Commission to publish a notice of 

requirements (NOR) for the 

accreditation of third party conformity 

assessment bodies (i.e., testing 

laboratories) to test for conformance 

with each children’s product safety rule. 

These NORs are set forth in 16 CFR part 

1112. The final rule is amending part 

1112 to include frame child carriers in 

the list of NORs issued by the 

Commission. 

D. Impact on Small Businesses 

There are approximately 16 firms 

currently known to be marketing frame 

child carriers in the United States, 14 of 

which are domestic. Under SBA 

guidelines, a manufacturer of frame 

child carriers is categorized as small if 

the entity 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 11 of the identified 16 

firms are small—four domestic 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 11119 

9 It should be noted that the company 

representative believes that the impact of the rule 

on the firm will be significant. However, much of 

the perceived impact is due to third party testing 

costs which are considered separately later in this 

section. 

10One of these firms commented that their actual 

testing costs will be higher than estimated in the 

NPR. However, even if the firm’s testing costs were 

twice those estimated here, testing costs are 

unlikely to exceed 1 percent of the firm’s publically 

reported gross revenue. 

manufacturers, six domestic importers, 

and one domestic firm with an 

unknown supply source. Additional 

unknown small domestic frame child 

carrier suppliers operating in the U.S. 

market may exist. 

The impact of the final frame child 

carrier rule on the domestic 

manufacturers and importers considered 

to be small depends upon two factors: 

(1) Whether, and the degree to which, 

their frame child carriers comply with 

the voluntary standard; and (2) the 

importance of frame child carriers to the 

firm’s overall product line. The effect of 

these two factors on small 

manufacturers and small importers is 

discussed below. 

Small Manufacturers 

Aside from third party testing 

requirements, discussed below, the final 

rule is likely to have little or no impact 

on the three (of four) small domestic 

manufacturers whose frame child 

carriers are compliant with the ASTM 

voluntary standard currently in effect 

for JPMA testing and certification 

purposes (ASTM F2549–14). We 

anticipate these firms will remain 

compliant with the voluntary standard 

as the standard changes because the 

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 

F2549–14a, the voluntary standard that 

the final rule incorporates by reference 

as the mandatory standard for frame 

child carriers, will be in effect already 

for JPMA testing and certification 

purposes before the mandatory standard 

goes into effect. These firms are likely 

to be in compliance based on their 

history. 

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. When contacted by 

staff prior to the NPR, the firm was 

unaware of the ASTM standard. Based 

on subsequent staff conversations, the 

firm has not yet tested its products to 

the voluntary standard. Initially, the 

company’s representative indicated that 

the firm would likely discontinue 

production of its frame child carriers, 

regardless of whether they complied 

with the frame child carriers rule. 

However, subsequent information from 

the company suggests that the company 

likely will stay in the market and 

modify its frame child carriers, if 

necessary, to meet the final rule. This 

firm produces many other products and 

has indicated that frame child carriers 

do not represent a large portion of the 

firm’s product line. However, the extent 

of the changes that may be required to 

meet the mandatory standard is 

unknown, as is the exact percentage of 

revenues that frame child carriers 

constitute for the firm. Because we have 

no basis for quantifying the size of the 

impact, we cannot rule out a significant 

economic impact for this firm.9

The 18-month effective date for the 

final frame child carrier rule should 

help reduce the impact of the final rule 

on the known small manufacturer 

whose frame child carriers may not 

comply with the rule. This would give 

the firm additional time to develop new 

or modified products and spread costs 

over a longer time frame. 

Under section 14 of the CPSA, once 

the new frame child carrier 

requirements become effective, all 

manufacturers will be subject to the 

additional costs associated with the 

third party testing and certification 

requirements under the testing rule, 

Testing and Labeling Pertaining to 

Product Certification (16 CFR part 

1107). Third party testing will include 

any physical and mechanical test 

requirements specified in the final 

frame child carrier rule; lead testing is 

already required, and testing for 

phthalates may also be required. Third 

party testing costs are in addition to the 

direct costs of meeting the mandatory 

frame child carriers standard. 

CPSC staff contacted several frame 

child carrier suppliers regarding testing 

costs. Two firms provided estimates that 

included both physical and mechanical 

testing to the current ASTM standard, as 

well as lead and phthalate testing. Firms 

must test for lead and may be required 

to test for phthalates regardless of any 

rule for frame child carriers. Including 

lead and phthalate testing, one firm 

estimated testing costs to be $800 to 

$1,100 per unit tested, and the other 

firm estimated the costs to be about 

$1,300 per unit. Estimates provided by 

durable nursery product suppliers 

subject to other section 104 rulemakings 

indicate that around 40 percent to 50 

percent of 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 the ASTM voluntary standard 

portion of the frame child carrier testing 

cost estimates to be $320 to $550 per 

sample tested ($800 × .4 to $1,100 × .5) 

and $520 to $650 per sample tested 

($1,300 × .4 to $1,300 × .5), respectively. 

A third frame child carrier supplier 

provided an estimate of $500 to $750 for 

testing to the ASTM standard 

separately. These estimates demonstrate 

that testing costs can vary widely. 

Elements that can influence costs 

include where the testing is performed 

and whether a firm can negotiate rates 

based on volume for one or more 

products. 

Staff’s review of the frame child 

carriers 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 $960 ($320 × 3) to 

$2,250 ($750 × 3) 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 (D&B) or 

ReferenceUSAGov reports, the impact of 

third party testing to ASTM F2549–14a 

will be significantly less than 1 percent 

of revenue for the three small domestic 

manufacturers for whom revenue data 

are available (i.e., testing costs less than 

1 percent of gross revenue). Although 

the testing and labeling rule (16 CFR 

part 1107) is not explicit regarding the 

number of samples firms will need to 

test to meet the ‘‘high degree of 

assurance’’ criterion, more than 20 units 

per model would be required before the 

testing costs of any of the three small 

manufacturers with available revenue 

data would exceed 1 percent of gross 

revenue.10 However, testing costs could 

be significant for the one small 

manufacturer for which revenue data 

were unavailable, given that the entity 

only recently entered the frame child 

carriers market and manufactures no 

other products. 

Small Importers 

As noted above, six small firms 

import frame child carriers, with two of 

them currently importing compliant 

carriers. Absent a mandatory regulation, 

these two small importers of frame child 

carriers would likely remain compliant 

with new versions of the voluntary 

standard. Given that the two small 

importers have developed a pattern of 

compliance with the ASTM voluntary 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
11120 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

standard as the voluntary standard 

evolves, and that the final rule is a soonto-be-effective voluntary standard for 

JPMA testing, ASTM F2549–14a, the 

two small importers of compliant 

products would likely experience little 

or no direct costs if the final rule is 

implemented. 

The extent of the economic impact on 

the four small importers with frame 

child carriers that do not comply with 

the voluntary standard will depend 

upon the product changes required to 

comply and how their supplying firms 

respond. 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 their 

supplying firm comes into compliance, 

the importer could elect to continue 

importing the frame child carriers. Any 

increase in production costs 

experienced by their suppliers from 

changes made to meet the mandatory 

standard may be passed on to the 

importers. If an importer decides that it 

is unwilling or unable to accept the 

increased costs, or if the importer’s 

supplier decides not to comply with the 

mandatory standard, there are three 

alternatives available. First, importers 

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 their carriers to 

comply with the mandatory standard. 

Second, firms could import a different 

product in place of their frame child 

carriers. This alternative would help 

mitigate the economic impact of the 

mandatory standard on these firms. 

Finally, importers could stop importing 

frame child carriers and make no other 

changes to their product line. 

As with manufacturers, all importers 

will be subject to third party testing and 

certification requirements, and 

consequently, will be subject to costs 

similar to those for manufacturers, if 

their supplying foreign firm(s) does not 

perform third party testing. These costs 

appear unlikely to exceed 1 percent of 

gross revenue for the two small 

domestic importers for which revenue 

information is available, unless more 

than 10 or 30 units per model were 

required to be tested to provide a ‘‘high 

degree of assurance,’’ respectively. The 

impact on the other four small importers 

could not be determined or quantified, 

and thus, we cannot rule out a 

significant economic impact. 

E. Alternatives 

Section 104 of the CPSIA requires that 

the Commission promulgate a standard 

that is either substantially the same as 

the voluntary standard or more 

stringent. Therefore, the final frame 

child carrier rule (adoption of the 

voluntary standard, ASTM F2549–14a, 

with no modifications) is the minimum 

required by law. Consequently, the sole 

recommendation that staff can make to 

minimize (but not eliminate) the rule’s 

economic impact is a later effective 

date. As discussed above, a later 

effective date would reduce the 

economic impact on small frame child 

carrier firms in two ways. 

Because the economic impact of the 

frame child carriers rule on small firms 

could not be determined or quantified, 

staff cannot rule out a significant 

impact. Therefore, the final rule has an 

18-month effective date, which was the 

maximum estimated period of time that 

frame child carrier firms familiar with 

the ASTM standard advised staff the 

firms would need for new product 

development. The minimum period of 

time estimated was 6 months, but only 

one of the four firms that responded to 

this question supported that time 

estimate. Of the nine supplying firms 

that staff contacted, four provided 

information on the time table required 

for redevelopment. Eighteen months 

reflects the maximum length of time 

these firms indicated might be necessary 

and will allow the greatest flexibility to 

small firms that may be significantly 

affected by the mandatory frame child 

carriers standard. 

X. 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. 

XI. 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 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521). The 

preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 

28466 through 28467) discussed the 

information collection burden of the 

proposed rule and specifically requested 

comments on the accuracy of our 

estimates. Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM 

F2549–14a contain requirements for 

marking, labeling, and instructional 

literature. These requirements fall 

within the definition of ‘‘collection of 

information,’’ as defined in 44 U.S.C. 

3502(3). 

OMB has assigned control number 

3041–0166 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 at 16 firms, rather than the 15 

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 

1230.2(a) .............................................................................. 16 3 48 1 48 

XII. Preemption 

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

2075(a), provides that if 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 11121 

104 of the CPSIA will invoke the 

preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the 

CPSA when the rule becomes effective. 

XIII. Certification and Notice of 

Requirements (NOR) 

Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the 

requirement that 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). Section 14(a)(2) of the 

CPSA requires that certification of 

children’s products subject to a 

children’s product safety rule be based 

on testing conducted by a CPSCaccepted third party conformity 

assessment body. Section 14(a)(3) of the 

CPSA requires the Commission to 

publish a NOR for the accreditation of 

third party conformity assessment 

bodies (or laboratories) to assess 

conformity with a children’s product 

safety rule to which a children’s product 

is subject. The ‘‘Safety Standard for 

Frame Child Carriers,’’ to be codified at 

16 CFR part 1230, is 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), 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 

section 14(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 standard for frame 

child carriers, require the Commission 

to amend part 1112. Accordingly, the 

Commission is now amending part 1112 

to include the standard for frame child 

carriers in the list of 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 frame child 

carriers would be required to meet the 

third party conformity assessment body 

accreditation requirements in 16 CFR 

part 1112, Requirements Pertaining to 

Third Party Conformity Assessment 

Bodies. 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 its 

scope of accreditation of CPSC safety 

rules listed for the laboratory on the 

CPSC Web site at: www.cpsc.gov/

labsearch. 

CPSC staff conducted a FRFA as part 

of the process of promulgating the part 

1112 rule (78 FR 15836, 15855–58), as 

required by the RFA. Briefly, the FRFA 

concluded that the accreditation 

requirements would not have a 

significant adverse impact on a 

substantial number of small laboratories 

because no requirements were imposed 

on laboratories that did not intend to 

provide third party testing services. The 

only laboratories that were expected to 

provide such services were those that 

anticipated receiving sufficient revenue 

from the mandated testing to justify 

accepting the requirements as a business 

decision. 

Based on similar reasoning, amending 

16 CFR part 1112 to include the NOR for 

the frame child carrier standard will not 

have a significant adverse impact on 

small laboratories. Based upon the 

relatively small number of laboratories 

in the United States that have applied 

for CPSC acceptance of the accreditation 

to test for conformance to other juvenile 

product standards, we expect that only 

a few laboratories will seek CPSC 

acceptance of their accreditation to test 

for conformance with the frame child 

carrier standard. Most of these 

laboratories will have already been 

accredited to test for conformance to 

other juvenile product standards, and 

the only costs to them would be the cost 

of adding the frame child carrier 

standard to their scope of accreditation. 

Costs should be negligible, as these 

laboratories are already familiar with 

the requirements for CPSC accreditation 

under 16 CFR part 1112 and have 

experience with this process for other 

durable nursery products under section 

104 of the CPSIA. As a consequence, the 

Commission could certify that the NOR 

for the frame child carriers standard will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

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 amends Title 

16 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as follows: 

PART 1112—REQUIREMENTS 

PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY 

CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT BODIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1112 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2063; Pub. L. 110– 

314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008). 

■ 2. Amend § 1112.15 by adding 

paragraph (b)(38) 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) * * * 

(38) 16 CFR part 1230, Safety 

Standard for Frame Child Carriers. 

* * * * * 

■ 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, 

§ 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Pub. 

L. 112–28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011). 

§ 1230.1 Scope. 

This part establishes a consumer 

product safety standard for frame child 

carriers. 

§ 1230.2 Requirements for frame child 

carriers. 

Each frame child carrier must comply 

with all applicable provisions of ASTM 

F2549–14a, Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Frame Child Carriers, 

approved on July 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. 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/ 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
11122 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

federal_register/code_of_

federalregulations/ibr_locations.html. 

Alberta E. Mills, 

Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03717 Filed 2–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2014–1076] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of deviation from 

drawbridge regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a 

temporary deviation from the operating 

schedule that governs the Tower 

Drawbridge across the Sacramento 

River, mile 59.0 at Sacramento, CA. The 

deviation is necessary to allow the 

community to participate in footrace 

events. This deviation allows the bridge 

to remain in the closed-to-navigation 

position during the deviation period. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

7:45 a.m. on March 14, 2015, to 1 p.m. 

on March 15, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

deviation, [USCG–2014–1076], is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Type the docket number in the 

‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ 

Click on Open Docket Folder on the line 

associated with this deviation. You may 

also visit the Docket Management 

Facility in Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the Department of 

Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

deviation, call or email David H. 

Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh 

Coast Guard District; telephone 510– 

437–3516, email David.H.Sulouff@

uscg.mil. If you have questions on 

viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, 

Program Manager, Docket Operations, 

telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: California 

Department of Transportation has 

requested a temporary change to the 

operation of the Tower Drawbridge, 

mile 59.0, over Sacramento River, at 

Sacramento, CA. The drawbridge 

navigation span provides a vertical 

clearance of 30 feet above Mean High 

Water in the closed-to-navigation 

position. The draw opens on signal from 

May 1 through October 31 from 6 a.m. 

to 10 p.m. and from November 1 

through April 30 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

At all other times the draw shall open 

on signal if at least four hours notice is 

given, as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). 

Navigation on the waterway is 

commercial and recreational. 

The drawspan will be secured in the 

closed-to-navigation position 7:45 a.m. 

to 9:45 a.m. on March 14, 2015, and 

from 7:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on March 15, 

2015, to allow the community to 

participate in the Shamrock 5K footrace 

and the Shamrock Half Marathon, 

respectively. This temporary deviation 

has been coordinated with the waterway 

users. No objections to the proposed 

temporary deviation were raised. 

Vessels able to pass through the 

bridge in the closed position may do so 

at any time. The bridge will be able to 

open for emergencies and there is no 

immediate alternate route for vessels to 

pass. The Coast Guard will also inform 

the users of the waterway through our 

Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners 

of the change in operating schedule for 

the bridge so that vessels can arrange 

their transits to minimize any impact 

caused by the temporary deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the effective period of this 

temporary deviation. This deviation 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: February 12, 2015. 

D.H. Sulouff, 

District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04267 Filed 2–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2015–0112] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of deviation from 

drawbridge regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a 

temporary deviation from the operating 

schedule that governs the North 

Carolina Department of Transportation 

(NCDOT) Cape Fear Memorial Bridge 

across the Cape Fear River, mile 26.8, in 

Wilmington, NC. This temporary 

deviation allows the bridge to remain in 

the closed to navigation position for up 

to five days to facilitate biennial 

maintenance and inspections. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

7 a.m. on March 16, 2015 to 5 p.m. 

March 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

deviation [USCG–2015–0112] is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Type the docket number in the 

‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH’’. 

Click on Open Docket Folder on the line 

associated with this deviation. You may 

also visit the Docket Management 

Facility in Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the Department of 

Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

deviation, call or email Terrance 

Knowles, Environmental Protection 

Specialist, Coast Guard; telephone 757– 

398–6587, email Terrance.A.Knowles@

uscg.mil. If you have questions on 

viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, 

Program Manager, Docket Operations, at 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: North 

Carolina Department of Transportation 

(NCDOT), who owns and operates this 

vertical lift-type drawbridge, has 

requested a temporary deviation from 

the current operating regulation to 

facilitate biennial maintenance and 

inspections. 

Under the regular operating schedule, 

the bridge opens on signal, except for 

two other time periods in July and 

November as described in 33 CFR 

117.822. The Cape Fear Memorial 

Bridge has 65 feet of vertical clearance 

in the closed position at mean high 

water. 

Under this temporary deviation the 

repairs would restrict the operation of 

the draw. It would allow the bridge to 

remain closed from 7 a.m. March 16, 

2015, to 5 p.m. March 20, 2015 to 

facilitate biennial maintenance and 

inspections. 

The Coast Guard will also inform the 

users of the waterways through our 

Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners 

of the change in operating schedule for 

the bridge so that vessels can arrange 

their transits to minimize any impact 

caused by the temporary deviation. 

Vessels able to pass under the bridge in 

the closed position may do so at any 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES