This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

28458 

Vol. 79, No. 95 

Friday, May 16, 2014 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

12 CFR Part 1005 

[Docket No. CFPB–2014–0008] 

RIN 3170–AA45 

Electronic Fund Transfers (Regulation 

E) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: On April 25, 2014, the Bureau 

of Consumer Financial Protection 

(Bureau) published in the Federal 

Register a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking proposing amendments to 

certain requirements set forth in subpart 

B of Regulation E related to remittance 

transfers (Remittance Proposal). The 

Remittance Proposal allowed a 30-day 

comment period that will end on May 

27, 2014. To allow interested persons 

additional time to consider and submit 

their responses, the Bureau has 

determined that an extension of the 

comment period until June 6, 2014, is 

appropriate. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

Remittance Proposal published April 

25, 2014, at 79 FR 23233, is extended. 

Responses must now be received on or 

before June 6, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CFPB–2014– 

0008 or RIN 3170–AA45, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: 

Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive 

Secretary, Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20552. 

Instructions: All submissions should 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Information 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. 

Because paper mail in the Washington, 

DC area and at the Bureau is subject to 

delay, commenters are encouraged to 

submit comments electronically. In 

general, all comments received will be 

posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov. In addition, 

comments will be available for public 

inspection and copying at 1700 G Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20552, on official 

business days between the hours of 10 

a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You can 

make an appointment to inspect the 

documents by telephoning (202) 435– 

7275. 

All comments, including attachments 

and other supporting materials, will 

become part of the public record and 

subject to public disclosure. Sensitive 

personal information, such as account 

numbers or Social Security numbers, 

should not be included. Comments 

generally will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general inquiries, submission process 

questions, or any additional 

information, please contact Monica 

Jackson, Office of the Executive 

Secretary, 202–435–7275. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

15, 2014, the Bureau issued the 

Remittance Proposal. The Remittance 

Proposal was published in the Federal 

Register on April 25, 2014. The 

Remittance Proposal seeks comment, 

data and information from the public 

about proposed amendments to certain 

disclosure and error resolution 

requirements set forth in subpart B of 

Regulation E, which implements the 

Electronic Fund Transfers Act. Among 

other clarifying amendments and 

technical corrections, the Remittance 

Proposal would extend a temporary 

provision that permits insured 

institutions to estimate certain pricing 

disclosures pursuant to section 1073 of 

the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act. Absent 

further action by the Bureau, that 

exception expires on July 21, 2015. 

The comment period on the 

Remittance Proposal was to close on 

May 27, 2014. 

The Bureau has received a number of 

oral and written requests from industry 

trade groups asking that the Bureau 

extend the Remittance Proposal 

comment period. The requests indicated 

that additional time would enable 

interested parties to more thoroughly 

evaluate and respond to the specific 

issues raised in the proposal. 

The Bureau balances interested 

parties’ desire to have additional time to 

consider the issues raised in the 

Remittance Proposal, gather data, and 

prepare their responses, with the need 

to provide industry and consumers with 

certainty and ample time to plan in 

advance of July 21, 2015, the date by 

which, absent further action by the 

Bureau, the temporary exception is set 

to expire. Accordingly, the Bureau 

determines an extension of the comment 

period is appropriate and is extending 

the period allotted for comments 

received pursuant to the Remittance 

Proposal for 10 additional days. The 

comment period will now close on June 

6, 2014. 

Dated: May 12, 2014. 

Richard Cordray, 

Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11421 Filed 5–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–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: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Danny Keysar Child 

Product Safety Notification Act, section 

104 of the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), 

requires the United States Consumer 

Product Safety Commission 

(Commission or CPSC) to promulgate 

consumer product safety standards for 

durable infant or toddler products. 

These standards are to be ‘‘substantially 

the same as’’ applicable voluntary 

standards or more stringent than the 

voluntary standard if the Commission 

concludes that more stringent 

requirements would further reduce the 

risk of injury associated with the 

product. The Commission is proposing 

a safety standard for frame child carriers 

in response to the direction under 

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

the Commission is proposing an 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 28459 

amendment to the list of Notice of 

Requirements (NOR) issued by the 

Commission. 

DATES: Submit comments by July 30, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Comments related to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the 

marking, labeling, and instructional 

literature of the proposed mandatory 

standard for frame child carriers should 

be directed to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, the Office of 

Management and Budget, Attn: CPSC 

Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–6974, or 

emailed to oira_submission@

omb.eop.gov. 

Other comments, identified by Docket 

No. CPSC–2014–0011, may be 

submitted electronically or in writing: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

The Commission does not accept 

comments submitted by electronic mail 

(email), except through 

www.regulations.gov. The Commission 

encourages you to submit electronic 

comments by using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal, as described above. 

Written Submissions: Submit written 

submissions in the following way: Mail/ 

Hand delivery/Courier, preferably in 

five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Room 820, 4330 East-West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 

504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this proposed 

rulemaking. All comments received may 

be posted without change, including 

any personal identifiers, contact 

information, or other personal 

information provided, to: http://

www.regulations.gov. Do not submit 

confidential business information, trade 

secret information, or other sensitive or 

protected information that you do not 

want to be available to the public. If 

furnished at all, such information 

should be submitted in writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: http://

www.regulations.gov, and insert the 

docket number, CPSC–2014–0011, into 

the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the 

prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia L. Edwards, Project Manager, 

Directorate for Engineering Sciences, 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 5 Research Place, 

Rockville, MD 20850; email: pedwards@

cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Statutory Authority 

The CPSIA was enacted on August 14, 

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

of the Danny Keysar Child Product 

Safety Notification Act, requires the 

Commission to: (1) Examine and assess 

the effectiveness of voluntary consumer 

product safety standards for durable 

infant or toddler products, in 

consultation with representatives of 

consumer groups, juvenile product 

manufacturers, and independent child 

product engineers and experts; and (2) 

promulgate consumer product safety 

standards for durable infant and toddler 

products. Standards issued under 

section 104 are to be ‘‘substantially the 

same as’’ the applicable voluntary 

standards or more stringent than the 

voluntary standard if the Commission 

concludes that more stringent 

requirements would further reduce the 

risk of injury associated with the 

product. 

The term ‘‘durable infant or toddler 

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

of the CPSIA as ‘‘a durable product 

intended for use, or that may be 

reasonably expected to be used, by 

children under the age of 5 years.’’ 

Section 104(f)(2)(I) of the CPSIA 

specifically identifies ‘‘infant carriers’’ 

as a durable infant or toddler product. 

The category of infant carriers covers a 

variety of products. The Commission 

has previously issued rules under 

section 104 for other infant carriers: 

specifically, for hand-held infant 

carriers and for soft infant and toddler 

carriers. 

Pursuant to section 104(b)(1)(A), the 

Commission consulted with 

manufacturers, retailers, trade 

organizations, laboratories, consumer 

advocacy groups, consultants, and 

members of the public in the 

development of this proposed standard, 

largely through the ASTM process. The 

proposed rule is based on the voluntary 

standard developed by ASTM 

International (formerly the American 

Society for Testing and Materials), 

ASTM F2549–14, Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Frame Child 

Carriers, with one proposed 

modification to specify requirements for 

the retention system performance test to 

provide clear pass/fail criteria for the 

carrier’s restraints. 

The ASTM standard is copyrighted, 

but the standard can be viewed as a 

read-only document during the 

comment period on this proposal only, 

at: http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm, by 

permission of ASTM. 

The testing and certification 

requirements of section 14(a) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) 

apply to the standards promulgated 

under section 104 of the CPSIA. Section 

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

Commission to publish an NOR for the 

accreditation of third party conformity 

assessment bodies (test laboratories) to 

assess conformity with a children’s 

product safety rule to which a children’s 

product is subject. The proposed rule 

for frame child carriers, if issued as a 

final rule, will be a children’s product 

safety rule that requires the issuance of 

an NOR. To meet the requirement that 

the Commission issue an NOR for the 

frame child carriers standard, the draft 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) 

proposes to amend 16 CFR part 1112. 

II. Product Description 

A. Definition of Frame Child Carrier 

The scope section of ASTM F2549–14 

defines a ‘‘frame child carrier’’ as ‘‘a 

product normally of sewn fabric 

construction on a tubular metal or other 

frame, which is designed to carry a 

child, in an upright position, on the 

back of the caregiver.’’ The intended 

occupants of frame child carriers are 

children who are able to sit upright 

unassisted and weigh between 16 and 

50 pounds. Frame child carriers are 

intended to be worn on the back and 

suspended from both shoulders of the 

caregiver’s body in a forward- or rearfacing position. This type of carrier is 

often used for hiking and typically 

closely resembles hiking/

mountaineering backpacks not intended 

to be used for transporting children. 

B. Market Description 

CPSC staff is aware of 15 firms 

currently supplying frame child carriers 

to the U.S. market, although additional 

firms may supply these products to U.S. 

consumers. Most of these firms 

specialize in the manufacture and/or 

distribution of one of two distinct types 

of products: (1) Children’s products, 

including durable nursery products; or 

(2) outdoor products, such as camping 

and hiking gear. The majority of the 15 

known firms are domestic (including 

four manufacturers, seven importers, 

and one firm whose supply source 

could not be determined). The 

remaining three firms are foreign 

(including two manufacturers and one 

firm that imports products from foreign 

companies and distributes them from 

outside of the United States). 

III. Incident Data 

CPSC’s Directorate for Epidemiology, 

Division of Hazard Analysis, is aware of 

a total of 47 frame child carrier-related 

incidents reported to CPSC that 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
28460 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1According to staff from the Directorate for 

Health Sciences, a closed head injury is a head 

injury where the skull remained intact but it can 

range in severity from a minor bump to a severe 

life-threatening traumatic brain injury. 

occurred between January 1, 2003 and 

October 27, 2013. Although there were 

no fatalities in the 47 incidents, 33 

injuries were reported. Twenty-eight of 

the reports were received through the 

National Electronic Injury Surveillance 

System (NEISS). According to reports, 

the oldest child involved in an incident 

was 3 years old. For some incidents, the 

age of the child was not reported 

because no injury was involved, or the 

age of the child was unknown. 

A. Fatalities 

The incident data did not include any 

reports of fatalities. 

B. Nonfatalities 

Among the 33 reported nonfatal 

injuries, there were no hospitalizations. 

More than half of these incidents 

reported a serious injury, such as a 

closed-head injury1 or a fracture of the 

leg or face. The other reported injuries 

ranged from head/facial lacerations, to 

dislocated arms and contusions and 

abrasions. 

A majority of the injuries resulted 

from falls from the frame child carrier. 

Many of the falls occurred when 

children slipped out of the frame child 

carrier through leg openings; in other 

scenarios, children fell out when 

carriers, placed on elevated surfaces, 

toppled over, or when caregivers fell 

when carrying the infant in the carrier. 

For other falls, the specifics of the 

circumstances were not reported. 

Certain non-fall injuries occurred when 

the frame child carrier tipped over due 

to instability when the carrier was 

placed upright on the floor, or from 

caregiver errors in placing/removing the 

child in or from the carrier. The 

remaining 14 incident reports indicated 

that no injury had occurred or else 

provided no information about any 

injury. However, many of the 14 

incident reports described scenarios that 

CPSC staff believes presented the 

potential for a serious injury or even 

death. 

C. Hazard Pattern Identification 

CPSC staff reviewed all 47 reported 

incidents (33 with injuries and 14 

without injuries) to identify hazard 

patterns associated with frame child 

carriers. Subsequently, CPSC staff 

considered each pattern when reviewing 

the adequacy of ASTM F2549–14. 

Staff grouped the incidents into three 

broad categories of hazard patterns 

(product-related, non-product-related, 

and unknown); staff then further 

classified the incidents within each 

category. In order of frequency of 

incident reports, the hazard patterns are 

described below: 

1. Product Related: Twenty-nine of 

the 47 incidents, including 15 of the 33 

injuries, were attributed to productrelated issues. The specific productrelated issues were: 

• Structural integrity of the frame 

child carrier was identified as a problem 

in 11 (23 percent) of the 47 incidents. 

Reported problems included: 

Æ Failure of caregiver’s attachment 

components; 

Æ Poor quality stitching on straps; 

Æ Detachment of the cloth component 

from the frame; and 

Æ Loose screws or breakage of the 

frame, which resulted in an abrasion 

injury. 

A review of the data shows that each 

of the 11 incidents involved carriers 

manufactured before the initial 

publication of ASTM F2549 in 2006. 

• Stability problems of the frame 

child carrier were reported in nine 

incidents (19 percent); all nine incidents 

resulted in an injury to the head/face of 

the child. In some cases, when the 

carrier was placed on an elevated 

surface, the infant fell out of the carrier 

as the carrier toppled over. In other 

cases, when the carrier was at ground 

level, the infant fell along with the 

carrier when the carrier tipped over. All 

nine incidents were from NEISS reports; 

and thus, information about the carrier 

and details about the incident are 

unknown. Three of the nine incidents 

occurred before 2006, and thus, 

involved carriers that were 

manufactured before the initial 

publication of ASTM F2549. 

• Leg opening problems were 

reported in seven incidents (15 percent). 

In these cases, the leg holes were large 

enough to allow the child to slip out or 

almost slip out of the carrier. In a few 

of these incidents, the consumer also 

expressed concern about the potential 

risk of strangulation if the child were to 

get trapped in the process of slipping 

out through the opening. This category 

includes four injuries to the head and/ 

or face due to a fall. Three of the seven 

incidents involved carriers 

manufactured after ASTM F2549 was 

first published. 

• Restraint inadequacy was reported 

in two incidents (4 percent); one was a 

NEISS incident that occurred in 2005, 

and the other incident occurred in 2009. 

In both cases, the caregiver bent over, 

and the restraints somehow failed to 

prevent the child from sliding out from 

the top. One injury is included in this 

category. 

2. Non-Product-Related: Nine 

incidents (19 percent) involving nine 

injuries were not attributable to any 

product-related failure or defect. Five of 

the incidents resulted in arm dislocation 

injuries during the placement/removal 

of the child in or out of the frame child 

carrier. The remaining four incidents 

resulted in injuries (leg fracture, closedhead injury, and facial laceration, for 

example) when the caregiver slipped or 

tripped and fell, with the child in the 

carrier. 

3. Unknown: There were nine NEISS 

incidents (19 percent) reported that 

provided very few scenario-specific 

details. Staff could not determine 

whether there was any product 

involvement or any hazardous external 

circumstances. All of the incidents 

resulted in injuries to the head and/or 

face due to falls. 

D. Product Recalls 

There have been two product recalls 

involving frame child carriers from 

January 1, 2003 to October 27, 2013. 

One recall involved 4,000 units, and the 

other recall involved 40 units. 

IV. Other Relevant Standards 

A. International Standards 

CPSC is aware of one international 

standard, EN 13209–1:2004, European/

British Standard for Child use and care 

articles—Baby carriers—Safety 

requirements and test methods—Part 1: 

Framed back carriers, which addresses 

frame child carriers in a fashion similar 

to ASTM F2549–14. Although there are 

differences between the two standards, 

CPSC believes that the ASTM standard 

is more stringent in most areas and 

addresses most of the hazard patterns 

seen in the CPSC incident data. The 

exception is the test requirement for the 

occupant retention system (known as 

the child-restraint system in the EN 

standard). The EN standard has clear 

pass/fail requirements for restraint 

performance, and the ASTM standard 

does not. Both standards include a test 

procedure that rotates the carrier a full 

360 degrees when occupied by a 

surrogate dummy. In addition, both 

standards include procedures that apply 

forces to the retention straps, 

attachment points, and the dummy legs. 

The EN standard requirement states that 

the dummy shall not fall completely out 

of the restraint system and that the 

attachment of the restraint system shall 

not break, deform, work loose, or 

become torn/displaced. Additionally, 

the EN standard requires that fasteners 

shall not be released or have suffered 

damage that impairs their operation and 

function. The ASTM standard does not 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 28461 

contain any of this language, and 

therefore, as discussed in section V of 

the preamble, and as reflected in the 

language of the proposed 

§ 1230.2(b)(1)(i), the Commission’s 

proposed standard includes a 

modification to ASTM F2549 that 

would specify test criteria similar to 

those provided in the EN standard. 

B. Voluntary Standard—ASTM F2549 

1. History of ASTM F2549 

The voluntary standard for frame 

child carriers was first approved and 

published in December 2006, as ASTM 

F2549–06, Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Frame Child Carriers. 

ASTM has revised the voluntary 

standard five times since then. The 

current version, ASTM F2549–14, was 

approved on January 1, 2014. 

The original version, ASTM F2549– 

06, contained requirements to address 

the following issues: 

• Sharp points 

• Small parts 

• Lead in paint 

• Wood parts 

• Scissoring, shearing, pinching 

• Openings 

• Exposed coil springs 

• Locking and latching (for carriers that 

fold for storage, this requirement 

helps prevent unintentional folding) 

• Unintentional folding (for carriers 

with kick stands that can stand freely, 

this requirement helps prevent the 

unintentional folding of the kick 

stand) 

• Labeling 

• Protective components 

• Leg openings (to help prevent smaller 

occupants from falling out of the 

carrier through a single leg opening) 

• Dynamic strength (tests the frame, 

fasteners, and seams/stitching under 

dynamic conditions to help prevent 

breakage or separation) 

• Static load (ensures the carrier can 

hold three times the maximum 

recommended weight) 

• Stability (for carriers that can stand 

freely, this helps prevent an occupied 

carrier from tipping over during 

normal use) 

• Restraints (requires that all carriers 

have a restraint system and also 

provides a method for testing the 

restraints) 

• Handle integrity (helps prevent the 

handle from breaking or separating 

when it is pulled with three times the 

maximum recommended weight) 

ASTM F2549–08 (approved 

November 1, 2008) addressed the 

following issues: 

• New flammability requirements for 

carriers 

• New toy accessory requirements 

• A revised unintentional folding test 

procedure, adding a weight load to 

mimic an occupant in the carrier. 

ASTM F2549–09 (approved April 1, 

2009) addressed the following issue: 

• A revised dynamic strength test 

procedure because some carrier designs 

could not be tested using the old 

method. 

ASTM F2549–09a (approved July 1, 

2009) addressed the following issue: 

• Change of the reference to the 

flammable solids requirement [16 CFR 

1500.3(C)(6)(vi)] to correct an editorial 

error. 

ASTM F2549–13 (approved 

November 1, 2013) addressed the 

following issues: 

• A revised leg opening test 

procedure to reflect the use of the 

product better and explain what is 

happening in incident reports where 

children were slipping through a leg 

opening. 

• A revised scope to include carriers 

rated for weights up to 50 pounds, 

which reflects the existing market for 

frame child carriers. 

ASTM F2549–14 (approved January 1, 

2014) addressed the following issue: 

• A revised dynamic strength test to 

accommodate the greater weight rating 

(which was changed in version F2549– 

13). 

2. Description of the Current Voluntary 

Standard—ASTM F2549–14 

We believe that the current voluntary 

standard, ASTM F2549–14, sufficiently 

addresses the primary hazard patterns 

identified in the incident data. The 

following section discusses how each of 

the identified hazard patterns listed 

above is addressed by the current 

voluntary standard, ASTM F2549–14. 

Structural Integrity 

ASTM F2549–14 uses a dynamic 

strength test and a static load test to 

assess the structural integrity of frame 

child carriers. We are aware of 11 

reported incidents associated with the 

structural integrity of carriers that 

occurred before the first publication of 

ASTM F2549 in 2006. No incidents 

have been reported involving carriers 

manufactured since 2006. Thus, we 

believe that the combination of the 

dynamic strength and static load tests 

are adequate to address the issues 

associated with structural integrity. 

Stability Problems 

A total of nine tip-over incidents were 

reported to CPSC, all through hospital 

emergency departments with very few 

scenario-specific details. CPSC staff’s 

review of these incident reports shows 

that three incidents involved carriers 

falling from elevated surfaces. The fall 

hazard and recommendations to 

mitigate this hazard, including not 

placing the carrier on counter tops, 

tables, or other elevated surfaces, are 

specified in a warning label 

requirement. The standard requires this 

warning label to be in a conspicuous 

location, visible to the caregiver each 

time the occupant is placed in the 

carrier, or when the caregiver places the 

product on his or her body. 

In addition to the warning label 

requirement, the current voluntary 

standard includes a stability 

requirement and associated test 

procedure so that carriers that use a 

kickstand can remain in an upright 

position and are stable. When used 

correctly, a kickstand is designed to 

make the carrier stable so that the child 

can remain safely in the carrier just 

before and immediately after being 

carried by the caregiver. CPSC considers 

the stability test in the ASTM standard 

to be strong, and thus, we view the test 

as capable of discerning stable versus 

unstable carriers. 

Based on the reasons outlined above, 

CPSC believes that ASTM F2549–14 

adequately addresses stability issues 

through the use of both a warning label 

and a strong test requirement and 

associated test procedure. Thus, CPSC is 

not proposing any modifications to the 

ASTM standard to address this hazard 

pattern. 

Leg Opening Problems 

Leg opening problems were reported 

in seven incidents. In those cases, the 

carrier’s leg holes were large enough to 

allow the child to slip out or almost slip 

out of the carrier. In a few of these 

incidents, the consumer also expressed 

concern about the potential risk of 

strangulation if the child slipped out 

through the opening. This category of 

incidents includes four head/face 

injuries from falls. A closer look 

revealed that four of the seven incidents 

occurred before the standard was 

published. After initial publication of 

the standard in October 2006, no other 

leg opening incidents were reported 

until 2012. During a 6-month period 

between August 2012 and January 2013, 

three new leg opening incidents 

occurred. 

Because of the new incidents, CPSC 

staff began working with ASTM in 

spring 2013, to update the leg opening 

test in ASTM F2549–09a. CPSC staff 

collected 10 carriers from a variety of 

suppliers, including the carrier involved 

in the three incidents, and staff tested 

each carrier to the leg opening 

requirement in ASTM F2549–09a. This 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
28462 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2The test sphere size is based on the hip 

circumference of the smallest child likely to use the 

frame child carrier (3 to 5 months of age). 

3http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Regulations-Lawsand-Standards/Voluntary-Standards/VoluntaryStandards-Reports/Frame%20Infant%20Carriers/

LetterToASTMFrameCarriers21014.pdf. 

test requires the carrier to be adjusted to 

the smallest leg opening; and then a 7- 

pound, 16.5-inch circumference test 

sphere 2 is placed in the carrier. Next, 

the carrier is tilted until the leg opening 

is horizontal, and then the carrier is 

held in that position for an additional 

minute. The test is repeated for the 

other leg opening. To pass the test, the 

sphere must not pass through either leg 

opening. CPSC staff found that all 10 

carriers that were tested passed the 

requirement specified in ASTM F2549– 

09a. 

CPSC staff, with the help of an ASTM 

task group, developed a more stringent 

test method that addressed the recent 

incidents. Instead of being adjusted to 

the smallest leg opening, carriers were 

fitted around a CAMI Infant Dummy 

Mark II (modeled after a 50th percentile 

6-month old child). Four of the 10 

carriers failed the modified leg-opening 

test. Notably, one of the carriers that 

failed the modified test was associated 

with the recent incident reports of 

children falling through leg openings. 

In fall 2013, ASTM balloted a revised 

test procedure for leg openings that was 

developed by CPSC staff and the ASTM 

task group. This ballot item passed and 

was included in the revised standard, 

F2549–13. With the inclusion of this 

recently revised leg-opening test 

method, CPSC believes that the current 

voluntary standard is now adequate to 

address leg-opening hazards. 

Although we believe the current 

standard adequately addresses the three 

hazard patterns described above, we 

will continue to monitor incidents and 

work with ASTM to make any necessary 

future changes. 

Restraints 

There were two reported incidents of 

restraint inadequacy. One was a NEISS 

report of a child falling out of a carrier 

when the caregiver leaned forward. This 

report contained no information 

regarding whether the restraints were 

used properly or how the restraints were 

involved. The other incident involved 

an 8-month-old child who stood up and 

almost fell out of the carrier while the 

caregiver was leaning forward. In the 

latter incident, we do not know what 

happened to the shoulder straps, but the 

report mentioned that the restraints 

might have been adjusted to be too 

loose. There was no report that the 

restraints broke in any way or became 

loose on their own. 

V. Proposed Change to ASTM F2549–14 

in the Proposed Mandatory Standard 

ASTM juvenile product standards 

generally include sections that provide 

performance requirements and test 

methods. The performance requirement 

section spells out the pass/fail criteria 

associated with various requirements, 

while the test method section outlines 

the procedures for conducting the tests 

that need to be performed to determine 

whether the product meets the pass/fail 

criteria. Although some performance 

requirements do not have an associated 

test method, all test methods must have 

an associated performance (or general) 

requirement. 

ASTM F2549–14 contains a 

performance requirement and a test 

procedure intended to address the 

hazard patterns associated with frame 

child carriers. However, CPSC 

concludes that a change to the ASTM 

standard’s performance requirement is 

needed to address restraint hazards 

adequately. The current performance 

requirement associated with the 

retention (restraint) system for frame 

child carriers states: 

6.5 Retention System: 

6.5.1 A retention system, including a 

shoulder restraint, shall be provided to 

secure the occupant in a seated position in 

any of the manufacturer’s recommended use 

positions when tested in accordance with 

7.5. 

6.5.2 Before shipment, the manufacturer 

shall attach the retention system in such a 

manner that it will not detach in normal 

usage. 

6.5.3 If the retention system includes a 

crotch restraint designed to work with a lap 

belt, it shall be designed such that its use is 

mandatory when the retention system is in 

use. 

The retention system test procedure 

(section 7.5 of the standard) has three 

parts. Under the first part, a 45-lbf 

(pound-force) is applied to a single 

attachment point of the retention 

system. The second part of the test 

procedure requires a CAMI Infant 

Dummy Mark II to be placed in the 

carrier with the restraint system 

secured. Then, a 45-lbf is applied 

horizontally on the centerline of either 

leg of the dummy and repeated five 

times. For the third part of the test 

procedure, the carrier, containing the 

CAMI dummy, is lifted and rotated 

backwards 360° about the axis of the 

intersection of the seat back and bottom. 

The carrier is then rotated 360° around 

the axis of the side edge of the seat 

bottom. 

CPSC believes that the purpose of the 

first two parts of the test procedure is to 

help ensure that the retention system 

and all buckles do not break, disengage, 

or separate at any seams. In addition, 

CPSC believes the purpose of the third 

part of the test procedure is to help 

ensure that the CAMI dummy does not 

fall out of the carrier. Therefore, CPSC 

concludes that the standard should 

express these goals as criteria to 

determine whether restraint systems 

comply with the performance 

requirements. However, these pass/fail 

criteria are not mentioned explicitly in 

the performance requirement section of 

ASTM F2549–14. CPSC believes the 

frame child carriers standard should 

include explicit pass/fail criteria. 

Without this change to the standard, a 

frame child carrier that is undergoing 

testing could fail the intended criteria 

but still be deemed to comply with the 

standard. Thus, correcting the standard 

prevents this from happening and, in 

effect, makes the standard more 

stringent. Staff consulted with 

representatives from two test 

laboratories and the ASTM 

subcommittee chairman about the lack 

of explicit pass/fail criteria in the ASTM 

standard’s requirements for retention 

systems. Test laboratory personnel 

reported that they likely had not tested 

any frame child carriers that should 

have failed the purpose of the 

requirement; otherwise, the test 

laboratory personnel would have noted 

the lack of stated criteria previously. 

Both the consulted test laboratory 

representatives and the ASTM 

subcommittee chairman agreed that the 

requirement should be revised so that 

the purpose of the restraint performance 

test is expressed clearly. With the help 

of the test laboratory personnel, staff 

developed a revised requirement using 

language found in similar requirements 

in the EN standard and the ASTM high 

chair and stroller standards. CPSC staff 

suggested language to explicitly require 

that buckles shall not break, disengage, 

or separate and that all fasteners cannot 

become damaged to the point that the 

restraint system will not function as a 

result of the test. In addition, staff 

suggested language that requires that the 

CAMI dummy not fall out of the carrier. 

In February 2014, staff wrote a letter to 

the ASTM subcommittee chairman,3

outlining the suggested new language, 

and asking that the matter be discussed 

at the next ASTM meeting. During the 

April 9, 2014 ASTM subcommittee 

meeting, the letter (including the 

recommended language) was shared 

with the subcommittee. The 

subcommittee agreed to ballot the 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 28463 

4Staff made these determinations using 

information from Dun & Bradstreet and 

ReferenceUSAGov, as well as firm Web sites. 

5The data collected for the Baby Products 

Tracking Study do not represent an unbiased 

statistical sample. The sample of 3,600 new and 

expectant mothers is drawn from American Baby 

magazine’s mailing lists. Additionally, because the 

most recent survey information is from 2005, the 

data may not reflect the current market. 

6The data on secondhand products for new 

mothers were not available. Instead, data for new 

mothers and expectant mothers were combined and 

Continued 

proposed language for inclusion in the 

next revision of the standard. 

Accordingly, proposed 

§ 1230.2(b)(1)(i)(D) includes a 

modification to the ASTM standard’s 

retention system performance 

requirement in section 6.5, by adding a 

new section 6.5.4 that would require 

that when the frame child carrier 

restraints are tested in accordance with 

section 7.5 of the voluntary standard, 

the restraint system and its closing 

means (for example, a buckle) shall not 

break, disengage or separate at any seam 

and all fasteners shall not release or 

suffer damage that impairs the operation 

and function of the restraint system. 

Additionally, at the end of the tests, the 

CAMI dummy shall not be released fully 

or fall out of the carrier. 

VI. Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112 To 

Include NOR for Frame Child Carriers 

Standard 

The CPSA establishes certain 

requirements for product certification 

and testing. Products subject to a 

consumer product safety rule under the 

CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard 

or regulation under any other act 

enforced by the Commission, must be 

certified as complying with all 

applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 

15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Certification of 

children’s products subject to a 

children’s product safety rule must be 

based on testing conducted by a CPSCaccepted third party conformity 

assessment body. Id. 2063(a)(2). The 

Commission must publish an NOR for 

the accreditation of third party 

conformity assessment bodies to assess 

conformity with a children’s product 

safety rule to which a children’s product 

is subject. Id. 2063(a)(3). Thus, the 

proposed rule for 16 CFR part 1230, 

Safety Standard for Frame Child 

Carriers, if issued as a final rule, would 

be a children’s product safety rule that 

requires the issuance of an NOR. 

The Commission published a final 

rule, Requirements Pertaining to Third 

Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78 

FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), codified at 

16 CFR part 1112 (referred to here as 

part 1112) and effective on June 10, 

2013, that establishes requirements for 

accreditation of third party conformity 

assessment bodies to test for 

conformance with a children’s product 

safety rule in accordance with section 

14(a)(2) of the CPSA. Part 1112 also 

codifies all of the NORs that have been 

issued previously by the Commission. 

All new NORs for new children’s 

product safety rules, such as the frame 

child carriers standard, require an 

amendment to part 1112. To meet the 

requirement that the Commission issue 

an NOR for the proposed frame child 

carriers standard, as part of this NPR, 

the Commission proposes to amend the 

existing rule that codifies the list of all 

NORs issued by the Commission to add 

frame child carriers to the list of 

children’s product safety rules for 

which the CPSC has issued an NOR. 

Test laboratories applying for 

acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third 

party conformity assessment body to 

test to the new standard for frame child 

carriers would be required to meet the 

third party conformity assessment body 

accreditation requirements in part 1112. 

When a laboratory meets the 

requirements as a CPSC-accepted third 

party conformity assessment body, the 

laboratory can apply to the CPSC to 

have 16 CFR part 1230, Safety Standard 

for Frame Child Carriers, included in 

the laboratory’s scope of accreditation of 

CPSC safety rules listed for the 

laboratory on the CPSC Web site at: 

www.cpsc.gov/labsearch. 

VII. Effective Date 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) generally requires that the 

effective date of a rule be at least 30 

days after publication of the final rule. 

5 U.S.C. 553(d). The Commission is 

proposing an effective date of six 

months after publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register. Without 

evidence to the contrary, CPSC 

generally considers six months to be 

sufficient time for suppliers to come 

into compliance with a new standard, 

and a six-month effective date is typical 

for other CPSIA section 104 rules. Six 

months is also the period that the 

Juvenile Products Manufacturers 

Association (JPMA) typically allows for 

products in the JPMA certification 

program to transition to a new standard 

once that standard is published. The 

Commission does not expect the 

modification proposed for frame child 

carriers to cause any changes to existing 

products. 

We also propose a six-month effective 

date for the amendment to part 1112. 

We ask for comments on the proposed 

six-month effective date. 

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

A. Introduction 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

requires that agencies review a proposed 

rule for the rule’s potential economic 

impact on small entities, including 

small businesses. Section 603 of the 

RFA generally requires that agencies 

prepare an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) and make the analysis 

available to the public for comment 

when the agency publishes a notice of 

proposed rulemaking. The IRFA must 

describe the impact of the proposed rule 

on small entities and identify any 

alternatives that may reduce the impact. 

Specifically, the IRFA must contain: 

• A description of, and where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the proposed 

rule will apply; 

• a description of the reasons why 

action by the agency is being 

considered; 

• a succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

proposed rule; 

• a description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of 

the classes of small entities subject to 

the requirements and the types of 

professional skills necessary for the 

preparation of reports or records; and 

• an identification, to the extent 

possible, of all relevant federal rules 

which may duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed rule. 

B. Market Description 

CPSC is aware of 15 firms currently 

supplying frame child carriers to the 

U.S. market, although additional firms 

may supply these products to U.S. 

customers. Most of these firms 

specialize in the manufacture and/or 

distribution of one of two distinct types 

of products: (1) children’s products, 

including durable nursery products; or 

(2) outdoor products, such as camping 

and hiking gear. The majority of the 15 

known firms are domestic (including 

four manufacturers, seven importers, 

and one firm whose supply source 

could not be determined). The 

remaining three firms are foreign 

(including two manufacturers and one 

firm that imports products from foreign 

companies and distributes the products 

from outside of the United States).4

According to a 2005 survey conducted 

by the American Baby Group (2006 

Baby Products Tracking Study),5 32 

percent of new mothers owned a frame 

child carrier. Approximately 32 percent 

of those carriers were handed down or 

purchased secondhand,6 and about 68 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
28464 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

broken into data for first-time mothers and data for 

experienced mothers. Data for first-time mothers 

and experienced mothers have been averaged to 

calculate the approximate percentage of products 

that were handed down or purchased secondhand. 

7U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 

National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital 

Statistics System, ‘‘Births: Final Data for 2010,’’ 

National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 61, 

Number 1 (August 28, 2012): Table 1. The number 

of births in 2010 is rounded from 3,999,386. 

percent were new when acquired. This 

information suggests annual sales of 

around 870,000 frame child carriers (.32 

× .68 × 4 million births per year),7

typically costing from $100 to around 

$300. 

C. Reason for Agency Action and Legal 

Basis for the Proposed Rule 

The Danny Keysar Child Product 

Safety Notification Act, section 104 of 

the CPSIA, requires the CPSC to 

promulgate a mandatory standard that is 

substantially the same as, or more 

stringent than, the voluntary standard 

for a durable infant or toddler product. 

The proposed rule implements that 

congressional direction. 

D. Other Federal Rules 

There are two federal rules that would 

interact with the frame child carriers 

mandatory standard: (1) Testing and 

Labeling Pertaining to Product 

Certification (16 CFR part 1107); and (2) 

Requirements Pertaining to Third Party 

Conformity Assessment Bodies (16 CFR 

part 1112). 

The testing and labeling rule (16 CFR 

part 1107) requires that manufacturers 

of children’s products subject to 

children’s product safety rules certify, 

based on third party testing, that the 

manufacturers’ children’s products 

comply with all applicable children’s 

product safety rules. If a final children’s 

product safety rule for frame child 

carriers is adopted by the Commission, 

frame child carriers will be subject to 

the third party testing requirements, 

including record keeping, when such a 

final frame child carriers rule becomes 

effective. 

In addition, the 16 CFR part 1107 rule 

requires the third party testing of 

children’s products to be conducted by 

CPSC-accepted test laboratories. Section 

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

Commission to publish an NOR for the 

accreditation of third party conformity 

assessment bodies to test for 

conformance with each children’s 

product safety rule. Existing NORs that 

have been issued by the Commission are 

listed in 16 CFR part 1112. 

Consequently, the Commission proposes 

to amend 16 CFR part 1112 to add the 

frame child carriers rule to the list of 

rules for which the Commission has 

issued an NOR. 

E. Impact of Proposed 16 CFR Part 1230 

on Small Businesses 

We are aware of approximately 15 

firms currently marketing frame child 

carriers in the United States, 12 of 

which are domestic firms. Under U.S. 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

guidelines, a manufacturer of frame 

child carriers is categorized as small if 

the firm has 500 or fewer employees, 

and importers and wholesalers are 

considered small if they have 100 or 

fewer employees. We limited our 

analysis to domestic firms because SBA 

guidelines and definitions pertain to 

U.S.-based entities. Based on these 

guidelines, about nine of the identified 

15 firms are small—three domestic 

manufacturers, five domestic importers, 

and one domestic firm with an 

unknown supply source. There may be 

additional unknown small domestic 

frame child carrier suppliers operating 

in the U.S. market. 

Prior to the preparation of a regulatory 

flexibility analysis, staff conducts a 

screening analysis in order to determine 

whether a regulatory flexibility analysis 

or a certification statement of no 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities is appropriate 

for a proposed rule. The SBA gives 

considerable flexibility in defining the 

threshold for ‘‘no significant economic 

impact.’’ However, staff typically uses 1 

percent of gross revenue as a threshold; 

unless the impact is expected to fall 

below the 1 percent threshold for the 

small businesses evaluated, staff 

prepares a regulatory flexibility 

analysis. Because staff was unable to 

demonstrate that the proposed rule 

would impose an economic impact less 

than 1 percent of gross revenue for the 

affected firms, staff conducted an IRFA. 

Small Manufacturers. Of the three 

small domestic manufacturers, the 

proposed rule is likely to have little or 

no impact on the two firms whose frame 

child carriers comply with the ASTM 

voluntary standard currently in effect 

for JPMA testing and certification 

purposes (ASTM F2549–09a). We 

anticipate that these firms will remain 

compliant with the voluntary standard 

as the standard changes because these 

firms follow, and in at least one case, 

participate actively in the voluntary 

standard development process. 

Therefore, compliance with the evolving 

voluntary standard is part of an 

established business practice. ASTM 

F2549–14, the version of the voluntary 

standard upon which the proposed rule 

is based, will be in effect already for 

JPMA testing and certification purposes, 

before a mandatory standard becomes 

final, should one be issued by the 

Commission; and these firms are likely 

to be in compliance based on their 

history. Because the proposed 

modification to the retention system 

requirement consists of specifying pass/ 

fail criteria already used by test 

laboratories, we do not expect the 

modification to have an impact on 

firms. 

The remaining small manufacturer 

would experience some economic 

impacts of unknown size. Based on 

discussions with a company 

representative, this firm does not know 

whether its products comply with the 

voluntary standard, having been 

previously unaware of the standard’s 

existence. However, the firm indicated 

that it might elect to discontinue 

production of its frame child carriers, 

even if the firm’s frame child carriers 

prove to be compliant with the 

proposed CPSC standard. The company 

believes that the burden associated with 

the testing and record-keeping 

requirements triggered by a mandatory 

frame child carriers standard might 

exceed the value of continuing 

production. Although this firm 

produces many other products, which 

should lessen the economic impact, and 

indicated that frame child carriers do 

not represent a large portion of the 

firm’s product line, the firm did not 

convey the precise percentage of 

revenues that frame child carriers 

constitutes for this firm and thus, staff 

could not rule out a significant 

economic impact on this firm. 

Under section 14 of the CPSA, should 

the Commission adopt the new frame 

child carriers requirements as a final 

rule, once the requirements become 

effective, all manufacturers will be 

subject to the additional costs associated 

with the third party testing and 

certification requirements under the 

testing and labeling rule (16 CFR part 

1107). Third party testing will include 

any physical and mechanical test 

requirements specified in the final 

frame child carriers rule that may be 

issued; lead and phthalates testing are 

already required. Third party testing 

costs are in addition to the direct costs 

of meeting the frame child carriers 

standard. 

Several firms were contacted 

regarding testing costs and one 

estimated that chemical and structural 

testing of one unit of a frame child 

carrier costs around $1,300. No other 

firms were willing or able to supply the 

requested testing cost information. 

Estimates provided by suppliers for 

other section 104 rulemakings indicate 

that around 40 percent to 50 percent of 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 28465 

testing costs can be attributed to 

structural requirements, with the 

remaining 50 percent to 60 percent 

resulting from chemical testing (e.g., 

lead and phthalates). Therefore, staff 

estimates that testing to the ASTM 

voluntary standard could cost about 

$520 to $650 per sample tested ($1,300 

× .4 to $1,300 × .5). These costs are 

consistent with testing cost estimates for 

products with standards of similar 

complexity. 

Staff’s review of the frame child 

carrier market shows that on average, 

each small domestic manufacturer 

supplies three different models of frame 

child carriers to the U.S. market 

annually. Therefore, if third party 

testing were conducted every year, third 

party testing costs for each manufacturer 

would be about $1,560 to $1,950 

annually, if only one sample were tested 

for each model. Based on an 

examination of each small domestic 

manufacturer’s revenues from recent 

Dun & Bradstreet or Reference USAGov 

reports, the impact of third party testing 

to ASTM F2549–14 is unlikely to be 

economically significant for the three 

small domestic manufacturers (i.e., 

testing costs less than one percent of 

gross revenue). Although the testing and 

labeling rule (16 CFR part 1107) does 

not set forth a specific number of 

samples firms will need to test to meet 

the ‘‘high degree of assurance’’ criterion, 

more than 100 units per model would 

be required to make testing costs 

economically significant for the two 

firms with available revenue data. As 

described above, the third manufacturer 

has already indicated that the firm may 

exit the market because of the testing 

costs, even if the company’s frame child 

carriers meet the requirements of the 

voluntary standard. 

Small Importers. As noted above, 

there are five small importers of frame 

child carriers, with three of them 

currently importing compliant carriers. 

In the absence of a mandatory 

regulation, these three small importers 

of frame child carriers would likely 

remain in compliance with new 

versions of the standard. Given that the 

three small importers have developed a 

pattern of compliance with the ASTM 

voluntary standard as the standard 

evolves and that the proposed rule does 

not differ substantively from the 

voluntary standard, ASTM F2549–14, as 

applied by test laboratories, the three 

small importers of compliant products 

would likely experience little or no 

direct costs under the proposed rule. 

Whether there is a significant 

economic impact on the two small 

importers with noncompliant frame 

child carriers will depend upon the 

extent of the changes required to come 

into compliance and the response of 

their supplying firms. Because no small 

importers with noncompliant frame 

child carriers responded to requests for 

information, staff cannot estimate the 

precise economic impact on these firms. 

However, in general, if an importer’s 

supplying firm supplies products that 

comply with the new standard, the 

importer could elect to continue 

importing the frame child carriers. Any 

increase in production costs 

experienced by the importer’s suppliers 

as a result of changes made to meet the 

mandatory standard may be passed on 

to the importer. If an importer is 

unwilling or unable to accept the 

increased costs, or if the importer’s 

supplier decides not to comply with the 

mandatory standard, at least three 

alternative courses of action are 

available. First, the importer could find 

another supplier of frame child carriers. 

This could result in increased costs as 

well, depending, for example, on 

whether the alternative supplier must 

modify its carriers to comply with the 

mandatory standard. Second, the 

importer could import a different 

product in place of frame child carriers. 

This alternative would help mitigate the 

economic impact of the mandatory 

standard on these firms. Finally, the 

importer could stop importing frame 

child carriers and make no other 

changes to its product line. As with 

manufacturers, all importers are subject 

to third party testing and certification 

requirements. Consequently, if the 

Commission adopts a final mandatory 

standard for frame child carriers, 

importers will be subject to costs similar 

to those for manufacturers, if the 

importer’s supplying foreign firm(s) 

does not perform third party testing. It 

does not appear likely that these costs 

would have a significant economic 

impact on the two small domestic 

importers for which revenue 

information is available, unless around 

20 units per model were required to be 

tested to provide a ‘‘high degree of 

assurance’’ (i.e., at 20 units tested per 

model, testing costs will exceed one 

percent of gross revenue for each of 

these firms, even if testing costs are 

estimated at the lowest level of $520). 

The impact on the other three small 

importers is unknown. 

Alternatives. Under the Danny Keysar 

Child Product Safety Notification Act, 

one alternative that generally reduces 

the impact on small entities is to make 

the voluntary standard mandatory with 

no modifications. However, in the case 

of frame child carriers, no difference in 

impact would be expected because the 

CPSC proposed modification articulates 

the current standard practice of test 

laboratories. Thus, only products that 

cannot meet the requirement without 

the modification would fail the 

requirement with the modification. 

Another way that the Commission 

could reduce the economic impact of 

any proposed regulation, including the 

proposed frame child carriers rule, is to 

allow for a later effective date. The 

Commission proposes a 6-month 

effective date, which is the least amount 

of time frame child carrier firms familiar 

with the applicable ASTM standard 

have indicated they would need for new 

product development (1.5 years was the 

longest estimate, with most firms 

suggesting a 6-month to 1-year time 

frame). Product redevelopment might be 

necessary for some noncompliant firms 

to meet the requirements of ASTM 

F2549–14; although staff does not 

believe that complete redesigns will be 

necessary based on preliminary product 

testing. In particular, no product 

modifications should be necessary to 

meet the proposed pass/fail criteria for 

the retention system performance 

requirement because, as already 

mentioned, the proposed requirement 

only clarifies what the test laboratories 

are already performing. A later effective 

date, more in line with the longest 

estimate of time required for product 

redevelopment, could reduce the 

economic impact in two ways. One, 

firms are less likely to experience a 

lapse in production, which could result 

if they are unable to comply within the 

required timeframe. Two, firms could 

spread costs over a longer time period, 

thereby reducing their annual costs, as 

well as the present value of their total 

costs. In the case of frame child carrier 

firms, a longer effective date would 

primarily benefit firms with 

noncompliant products. 

F. Impact of Proposed 16 CFR Part 1112 

Amendment on Small Businesses 

As required by the RFA, staff 

conducted a Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) when the Commission 

issued the part 1112 rule (78 FR 15836, 

15855–58). Briefly, the FRFA concluded 

that the accreditation requirements 

would not have a significant adverse 

impact on a substantial number of small 

test laboratories because no 

requirements were imposed on test 

laboratories that did not intend to 

provide third party testing services. The 

only test laboratories that were expected 

to provide such services were those that 

anticipated receiving sufficient revenue 

from the mandated testing to justify 

accepting the requirements as a business 

decision. Moreover, a test laboratory 

would only choose to provide such 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
28466 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8This number was derived during the market 

research phase of the initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis by dividing the total number of frame 

carriers supplied by all frame child carrier suppliers 

by the total number of frame child carrier suppliers. 

services if it anticipated receiving 

revenues sufficient to cover the costs of 

the requirements. 

Based on similar reasoning, amending 

16 CFR part 1112 to include the NOR for 

the frame child carriers standard will 

not have a significant adverse impact on 

small test laboratories. Moreover, based 

upon the number of test laboratories in 

the United States that have applied for 

CPSC acceptance of accreditation to test 

for conformance to other mandatory 

juvenile product standards, we expect 

that only a few test laboratories will 

seek CPSC acceptance of their 

accreditation to test for conformance 

with the frame child carriers standard. 

Most of these test laboratories will have 

already been accredited to test for 

conformance to other mandatory 

juvenile product standards, and the only 

costs to them would be the cost of 

adding the frame child carriers standard 

to their scope of accreditation. As a 

consequence, the Commission certifies 

that the NOR amending 16 CFR part 

1112 to include the frame child carriers 

standard will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

IX. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations address 

whether the agency is required to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

an environmental impact statement. 

Under these regulations, a rule that has 

‘‘little or no potential for affecting the 

human environment,’’ is categorically 

exempt from this requirement. 16 CFR 

1021.5(c)(1). The proposed rule falls 

within the categorical exemption. 

X. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains 

information collection requirements that 

are subject to public comment and 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3521). In this document, pursuant to 44 

U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth: 

• A title for the collection of 

information; 

• a summary of the collection of 

information; 

• a brief description of the need for 

the information and the proposed use of 

the information; 

• a description of the likely 

respondents and proposed frequency of 

response to the collection of 

information; 

• an estimate of the burden that shall 

result from the collection of 

information; and 

• notice that comments may be 

submitted to the OMB. 

Title: Safety Standard for Frame Child 

Carriers 

Description: The proposed rule would 

require each frame child carrier to 

comply with ASTM F2549–14, 

Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Frame Child Carriers. 

Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F2549–14 

contain requirements for marking, 

labeling, and instructional literature. 

These requirements fall within the 

definition of ‘‘collection of 

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

3502(3). 

Description of Respondents: Persons 

who manufacture or import frame child 

carriers. 

Estimated Burden: We estimate the 

burden of this collection of information 

as follows: 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN

16 CFR Section Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

responses 

Total annual 

responses 

Hours per 

response 

Total burden 

hours 

1230.2(a) .............................................................................. 15 3 45 1 45 

Estimates are based on the following: 

Section 8.1.1 of ASTM F2549–14 

requires that the name and the place of 

business (city, state, and mailing 

address, including zip code) or 

telephone number of the manufacturer, 

distributor, or seller be marked clearly 

and legibly on each product and its 

retail package. Section 8.1.2 of ASTM 

F2549–14 requires a code mark or other 

means that identifies the date (month 

and year, as a minimum) of 

manufacture. 

There are 15 known entities 

supplying frame child carriers to the 

U.S. market that might need to make 

some modifications to their existing 

labels. We estimate that the time 

required to make these modifications is 

about 1 hour per model. Based on an 

evaluation of supplier product lines, 

each entity supplies an average of three 

different models of frame child 

carriers; 8 therefore, the estimated 

burden associated with labels is 1 hour 

per model × 15 entities × 3 models per 

entity = 45 hours. We estimate the 

hourly compensation for the time 

required to create and update labels is 

$27.71 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

‘‘Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation,’’ September 2013, Table 

9, total compensation for all sales and 

office workers in goods-producing 

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

ncs/). Therefore, the estimated annual 

cost to industry associated with the 

labeling requirements is $1,246.95 

($27.71 per hour × 45 hours = 

$1,246.95). There are no operating, 

maintenance, or capital costs associated 

with the collection. 

Section 9.1 of ASTM F2549–14 

requires instructions to be supplied 

with the product. Frame child carriers 

are complicated products that generally 

require use and assembly instructions. 

Under the OMB’s regulations (5 CFR 

1320.3(b)(2)), the time, effort, and 

financial resources necessary to comply 

with a collection of information that 

would be incurred by persons in the 

‘‘normal course of their activities’’ are 

excluded from a burden estimate, where 

an agency demonstrates that the 

disclosure activities required to comply 

are ‘‘usual and customary.’’ Therefore, 

because we are unaware of frame child 

carriers that generally require use 

instructions, but lack such instructions, 

we tentatively estimate that there are no 

burden hours associated with section 

9.1 of ASTM F2549–14 because any 

burden associated with supplying 

instructions with frame child carriers 

would be ‘‘usual and customary’’ and 

not within the definition of ‘‘burden’’ 

under the OMB’s regulations. 

Based on this analysis, the proposed 

standard for frame child carriers would 

impose a burden to industry of 45 hours 

at a cost of $1,246.95 annually. 

In compliance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), we have submitted the 

information collection requirements of 

this rule to the OMB for review. 

Interested persons are requested to 

submit comments regarding information 

collection by June 16, 2014, to the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB (see the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice). 

Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), 

we invite comments on: 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 28467 

• Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the CPSC’s functions, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; 

• the accuracy of the CPSC’s estimate 

of the burden of the proposed collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

• ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; 

• ways to reduce the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques, when 

appropriate, and other forms of 

information technology; and 

• the estimated burden hours 

associated with label modification, 

including any alternative estimates. 

XI. Preemption 

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

2075(a), provides that when a consumer 

product safety standard is in effect and 

applies to a product, no state or political 

subdivision of a state may either 

establish or continue in effect a 

requirement dealing with the same risk 

of injury unless the state requirement is 

identical to the federal standard. Section 

26(c) of the CPSA also provides that 

states or political subdivisions of states 

may apply to the Commission for an 

exemption from this preemption under 

certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of 

the CPSIA refers to the rules to be 

issued under that section as ‘‘consumer 

product safety rules.’’ Therefore, the 

preemption provision of section 26(a) of 

the CPSA would apply to a rule issued 

under section 104. 

XII. Request for Comments 

This NPR begins a rulemaking 

proceeding under section 104(b) of the 

CPSIA to issue a consumer product 

safety standard for frame child carriers, 

and to amend part 1112 to add frame 

child carriers to the list of children’s 

product safety rules for which the CPSC 

has issued an NOR. We invite all 

interested persons to submit comments 

on any aspect of the proposed 

mandatory safety standard for frame 

child carriers and on the proposed 

amendment to part 1112. Specifically, 

the Commission requests comments on 

the costs of compliance with, and 

testing to, the proposed frame child 

carriers safety standard, the proposed 

six-month effective date for the new 

mandatory frame child carriers safety 

standard, and the amendment to part 

1112. 

Comments should be submitted in 

accordance with the instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this notice. 

List of Subjects 

16 CFR Part 1112 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Third party conformity 

assessment body. 

16 CFR Part 1230 

Consumer protection, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Infants and 

children, Labeling, Law enforcement, 

and Toys. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Commission proposes to 

amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 1112—REQUIREMENTS 

PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY 

CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT BODIES 

■ 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. 

(a) Each frame child carrier must 

comply with all applicable provisions of 

ASTM F2549–14, Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Frame Child 

Carriers, approved on January 1, 2014. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approves this incorporation by reference 

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 

1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy 

from ASTM International, 100 Bar 

Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://

www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may 

inspect a copy at the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/code_of_federal 

regulations/ibr_locations.html. 

(b) Comply with ASTM F2549–14 

standard with the following exception: 

(1) Instead of complying with section 

6.5 of ASTM F2549–14, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 6.5 Retention System: 

(A) 6.5.1 A retention system, 

including a shoulder restraint, shall be 

provided to secure the occupant in a 

seated position in any of the 

manufacturer’s recommended use 

positions. 

(B) 6.5.2 Before shipment, the 

manufacturer shall attach the retention 

system in such a manner that it will not 

detach in normal usage. 

(C) 6.5.3 If the retention system 

includes a crotch restraint designed to 

work with a lap belt, it shall be designed 

such that its use is mandatory when the 

retention system is in use. 

(D) 6.5.4 When tested in accordance 

with 7.5, the restraint system and its 

closing means (for example, a buckle) 

shall not break, disengage or separate at 

any seam and all fasteners shall not 

release or suffer damage that impairs the 

operation and function of the restraint 

system. At the end of the tests, the 

CAMI dummy shall not be released fully 

or fall out of the carrier. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(2) [Reserved] 

Dated: May 12, 2014. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11193 Filed 5–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS