LOG OF PHONE CALL

DIRECTORATE FOR ENGINEERING SCIENCES

SUBJECT: Correspondence from Nancy Gold regarding

the NPR on Frame Child Carriers

DATE OF CALL : July 28, 2014

LOG ENTRY SOURCE: Patricia Edwards , Project Manager, Frame

Child Carriers Rulemaking Project

COMMISSION ATTENDEES: Patricia Edwards

OTHER ATTENDEES: Nancy Gold , President Tough Traveler

BACKGROUND :

Ms. Gold sent a letter

, via Todd Stevenson

, to the CPSC, dated July 19, 2014, regarding the open regulation on Frame Child Carr iers. Specifically, Ms. Gold requested an extension of the open comment peri od for the NPR and in her

letter

, she outlines several problems, most in the form of questions, regarding the proposed rule and third party testing. With the comment period deadline fast approaching, I was instructed to cal l Ms. Gold to answer some of the questions in

her letter

.

Ms. Go ld is the President of Tough Traveler, a domestic manufacturer of a variety of travel oriented products, including frame child carriers. Ms. Gold was first made aware of the upcoming regulation via a phone call from Dr. Jill Jenkins

from the Directorate fo r Economic Analysis in the spring of 2014. Dr. Jenkins was obtaining information from suppliers in order to prepare a memorandum regarding the impact of the proposed rule on small businesses.

SUMMARY OF PHONE CALL:

In our phone conversation, Ms. Gold wa s provided with contact information for three separate laboratories that were knowledgeable and capable of testing frame child carriers to the proposed rule. In addition, I provided Ms. Gold with some general information regarding the ASTM process, the CPS IA (specifically the durable nursery products regulatory process outlined in section 104), and clarified some information that was in the staff’s NPR briefing package. During our conversation, Ms. Gold had several other questions that she requested

answers to and I told her that along with her letter dated July 19, 2014, I would add these additional questions, in the form of a phone call log, to the public

comments for the open regulation. Staff will review and respond to her comments in the briefing packag e for the final rule.Page 2 of 2 Phone Log July 28, 2014 Nancy Gold, Tough Traveler

Additional questions from Ms. Gold:

1) Tough Traveler is a registered small batch manufacturer. Ms. Gold would like to know why the CPSC cannot apply the small batch rules to the third party testing requirements in section 104 of the CPSIA.

2) Ms. Gold is interested in what the Directorate for E conomic Analysi s means (as outlined in the briefing package) by the word “insignificant”. And, would the staff recommend anything different if the rule was found to be significant on most/all small businesses?

3) Ms. Gold believes that the term “ domestic ma nufacturer ” should mean that the physical manufacturing of the product takes place in the US.

And she feels that the rules for determining significant vs. insignificant impact should be different between manufacturers who produce product

in the US vs. thos e who have manufacturing facilities overseas . She believes there is a need for treating them differently , based on the differences in manufacturing costs and profit.

4) Ms. Gold had questions regarding what constitutes a different model of a product or what changes in the product will require additional 3 rd party testing. For example, she was told by a testing laboratory that a color change of the fabric would require new testing. Also, if the fabric was from a new bolt of material, this too would constitute enough of a change to require additional testing. In addition, she was told that if she buys the same type of metal washer, but from a new source, this would

also requ ire new testing. She would like some clarification as to what changes to the frame child carrier would constitute enough of a difference that it requires additional 3 rd party testing with respect to the

104 rules.