Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 16635 

1The Commission voted 4–0 to approve this 

notice. 

the text ‘‘Regional Coastal Observing 

System (RCOS)’’; 

■ c. Remove the text ‘‘a RICE’’ wherever 

it appears and add in its place the text 

‘‘an RCOS’’; 

■ d. Remove the text ‘‘RICE’’ wherever 

it appears and add in its place the text 

‘‘RCOS’’; and 

■ e. Remove the text ‘‘U.S. IOOS 

Program Office’’ wherever it appears 

and add in its place the text ‘‘U.S. IOOS 

Office’’. 

■ 3. In § 997.11, revise paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 997.11 Application process. 

* * * * * 

(b) Submission shall be made to 

NOAA at the following address, or to 

such other address as may be indicated 

in the future: Director U.S. IOOS Office, 

NOAA, 1315 East West Hwy., Suite 

3000, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

Submissions may also be made online at 

http://www.ioos.noaa.gov/certification. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06196 Filed 3–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JE–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1307 

[Docket No. CPSC–2014–0033] 

Prohibition of Children’s Toys and 

Child Care Articles Containing 

Specified Phthalates 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (Commission or CPSC) is 

publishing this document following a 

Federal court opinion remanding the 

Commission’s final phthalates rule to 

allow the Commission to address two 

procedural deficiencies found by the 

court. This document seeks public 

comment regarding the justification for 

the phthalates final rule and the staff’s 

cost-benefit analysis for continuing the 

interim prohibition on DINP. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

submitted by May 9, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2014– 

0033, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

The CPSC does not accept comments 

submitted by electronic mail (email), 

except through https://

www.regulations.gov and as described 

below. The CPSC encourages you to 

submit electronic comments by using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as 

described above. 

Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier 

Submissions: Submit comments by 

mail/hand delivery/courier to: Division 

of the Secretariat, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; telephone (301) 504–7479. 

Alternatively, as a temporary option 

during the COVID–19 pandemic, you 

can email such submissions to: cpsc-os@

cpsc.gov. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this notice. CPSC 

may post all comments without change, 

including any personal identifiers, 

contact information, or other personal 

information provided, to: https://

www.regulations.gov. Do not submit 

electronically confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

that you do not want to be available to 

the public. If you wish to submit such 

information, please submit it according 

to the instructions for written 

submissions. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: https://

www.regulations.gov, and insert the 

docket number, CPSC–2014–0033, into 

the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the 

prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Proper, Directorate for Economic 

Analysis, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 

504–7628; email: sproper@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 108(b)(3) of the Consumer 

Product Safety Improvement Act of 

2008 (CPSIA) required the Commission 

to promulgate a final rule addressing 

children’s toys and child care articles 

containing certain phthalates not later 

than 180 days after the Commission 

received a final Chronic Hazard 

Advisory Panel (CHAP) report.1 The 

Commission was required to 

‘‘determine, based on such report, 

whether to continue in effect the 

[interim] prohibition’’ on children’s toys 

that can be placed in a child’s mouth 

and child care articles ‘‘in order to 

ensure a reasonable certainty of no harm 

to children, pregnant women, or other 

susceptible individuals with an 

adequate margin of safety.’’ 15 U.S.C. 

2057c (b)(3)(A). Additionally, the 

Commission was required to ‘‘evaluate 

the findings and recommendations of 

the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel and 

declare any children’s product 

containing any phthalates to be a 

banned hazardous product under 

section 8 of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2057), as the 

Commission determines necessary to 

protect the health of children.’’ 15 

U.S.C. 2057c (b)(3)(B). 

On December 30, 2014, the 

Commission published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the 

Federal Register. 79 FR 78324. The 

Commission published a final rule on 

October 27, 2017, with an effective date 

of April 25, 2018. 82 FR 49938. The 

final rule was substantially the same as 

the proposed rule. The preambles of the 

NPRM and final rule provide more 

detailed discussions of the CHAP report 

and staff’s technical analysis and 

findings in support of the rule. 

In December 2017, the Texas 

Association of Manufacturers and others 

petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Fifth Circuit for a review of the 

CPSC’s final phthalates rule. In March 

2021, the court remanded without 

vacating the phthalates final rule to the 

CPSC to address two procedural 

deficiencies found by the court. Tex. 

Ass’n of Mfrs. v. United States 

Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 989 

F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2021). As relevant 

here, the court held that the final rule 

had failed to: (1) Provide adequate 

notice and comment regarding a change 

in the primary justification from the 

proposed rule to the final rule; and (2) 

consider the costs and benefits of 

continuing the interim prohibition on 

DINP. This document is being published 

to address these two procedural 

deficiencies. We note that the court did 

not vacate the final rule, and thus the 

rule remains in effect. 

II. Request for Comments 

A. Phthalates Final Rule Justification 

The Fifth Circuit held that the 

phthalates final rule did not provide 

adequate notice and comment regarding 

a change in the primary justification 

between the proposed rule and the final 

rule. The court remanded the rule to 

allow CPSC to seek public comment on 

the justification for the final rule. The 

Commission’s justification for the 

proposed rule was based on data 

demonstrating that 10 percent of 

pregnant women had a Hazard Index 

(HI) greater than one, which exceeded 

the acceptable risk, and that the average 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
16636 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

HI was five at the 95th percentile. See 

79 FR 78328–32. The Commission’s 

justification for the proposed rule was 

based on available data showing that a 

statistically stable, non-zero percentage 

of the women studied had an HI greater 

than one and that an HI less than or 

equal to one is necessary ‘‘to ensure a 

reasonable certainty of no harm to 

children, pregnant women, or other 

susceptible individuals with an 

adequate margin of safety.’’ See 79 FR 

78334–35. 

After publication of the proposed 

rule, the Commission examined new 

data using the CHAP’s original 

methodology. Based on the new data, 

the Commission determined that 

phthalate exposures had changed over 

time and that there were too few 

samples in the study with an HI above 

one to make a statistically reliable 

estimate for the population of the 

number or percentage of women of 

reproductive age with an HI greater than 

one. No new data on infants were 

available, so risk estimates for this 

population did not change in the 

updated analysis. Based on the new data 

for women of reproductive age, the 

Commission found that the risk of 

antiandrogenic effects had decreased, 

and that the HI at the 95th percentile 

had decreased from five to less than 

one. 82 FR 49958. Based on the new 

data, the Commission could not 

determine exactly what percentage of 

the women studied had an HI greater 

than one but did state that ‘‘between 

two and nine real women from the 

sample of 538 [women of reproductive 

age] had an HI greater than one.’’ Id. The 

Commission’s justification for the final 

rule was based on the facts that between 

two and nine individual samples had HI 

levels greater than one and not the 10 

percent of women who had exposures 

described in the proposed rule, and that 

no new data on infants were available. 

For details regarding the respective 

justifications, potential commenters are 

directed to the preamble of the 

respective Federal Register notices for 

the proposed and final rule. 

The court of appeals held that the 

Commission did not provide adequate 

notice and comment when it changed 

the justification for the prohibitions in 

the proposed rule to the final rule. 

Accordingly, the Commission is 

publishing this notice to request public 

comment regarding the justification for 

the final rule. 

B. Request for Comment on Cost-Benefit 

Analysis of Continuing Interim DINP 

Prohibition 

The Fifth Circuit held that the final 

phthalates rule was deficient because it 

did not consider the costs and benefits 

of continuing the interim prohibition on 

DINP. Specifically, the court found that 

the Commission was required at least to 

consider the cost, as well as the effect 

on utility and availability of products 

containing DINP, to determine whether 

to continue the interim prohibition. 

The staff of the Directorate for 

Economic Analysis has conducted a 

cost-benefit analysis regarding 

continuing the interim prohibition on 

DINP in the final rule. The staff 

memorandum ‘‘Cost-Benefit Analysis of 

Continuing the Interim DINP 

Prohibition in the Final Rule: 16 CFR 

part 1307 ‘Prohibition of Children’s 

Toys and Child Care Articles Containing 

Specified Phthalates’ ’’ can be found 

here. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ 

CostBenefitAnalysisDINPinPhthalates

FinalRule.pdf?VersionId=4dQErAhY2c

QdvQpf1I8rAqTNCjinie_h. The 

Commission requests public comment 

regarding the cost-benefit analysis of 

continuing the interim prohibition on 

DINP in the final rule. 

III. Submission of Comments 

We request comments on two issues: 

The rationale for the final rule in section 

II.A; and the cost-benefit analysis of 

continuing the DINP interim prohibition 

discussed in section II.B of this 

document. Only comments submitted 

regarding the rationale for the final rule 

and/or the cost-benefit analysis of 

continuing the DINP interim prohibition 

will be considered. Comments 

submitted on any other issues are out of 

scope and will not be considered. 

Finally, untimely submitted comments 

will not be considered. 

Information regarding the court 

decision is available on the CPSC 

website or http://www.regulations.gov, 

under Docket No. CPSC–2014–0033, 

Supporting and Related Materials. 

Alternatively, interested parties may 

obtain a copy of the court decision by 

writing or calling the Division of the 

Secretariat, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 

504–6833. 

Alberta E. Mills, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06223 Filed 3–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

22 CFR Part 22 

[Public Notice: 11649] 

RIN 1400–AF48 

Schedule of Fees for Consular 

Services—Elimination of the ‘‘Return 

Check Processing Fee’’ 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of State (the 

Department) is adjusting the Schedule 

of Fees for Consular Services (Schedule) 

by removing Item Number 74, a $25 

return check processing fee. 

Domestically, the Bureau of Consular 

Affairs, Office of Passport Services (CA/ 

PPT), has charged customers this fee 

when the instruments they have used to 

submit payment for a passport 

application could not be processed due 

to insufficient funds, closed accounts, 

stop payments, and altered/fictious 

checks or money orders. A recent 

review of the Department’s Cost of 

Service Model (CoSM) established that 

the costs associated with attempts to 

recover on non-viable instruments are 

now captured within the passport 

application fee. The Department 

therefore stopped charging this fee on 

December 13, 2021, and will remove 

this fee from the Schedule. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 24, 

2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Johanna Cruz, Management Analyst, 

Office of the Comptroller, Bureau of 

Consular Affairs, Department of State; 

phone: 202–485–8915, email: fees@

state.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This rule makes changes to the 

Schedule of Fees in 22 CFR 22.1 by 

removing Item Number 74, the $25 

return check processing fee, from the 

Schedule of Fees. This fee was added to 

the Schedule in 1991 to recoup the cost 

of time spent by passport office 

personnel attempting to recover on bad 

checks applicants had submitted to the 

Department. According to the Passport 

Directorate’s research, in FY 1989 there 

were approximately 8,800 bad checks 

and money orders, which required an 

estimated 5,400 staff hours to process. 

This fee has only been charged 

domestically; overseas posts do not 

accept personal checks and have not 

charged the fee. A recent review of the 

Department’s CoSM established that the 

costs associated with the return check 

processing fee are now captured within 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES