83 FR 28390 - Safety Standard for Stationary Activity Centers

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 118 (June 19, 2018)

Page Range		28390-28397
FR Document		2018-13024

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 stationary activity centers in response to the direction under Section 104(b) of the CPSIA.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2018)

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28390-28397]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13024]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

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.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 28390]]

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1238

[Docket No. CPSC-2018-0015]

Safety Standard for Stationary Activity Centers

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 stationary activity centers in response to the direction
under Section 104(b) of the CPSIA.

DATES: Submit comments by September 4, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of
the marking, labeling, and instructional literature of the proposed
rule should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or emailed to
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.
Other comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2018-0015, 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 (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM
submissions), 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-2018-0015, into the ``Search'' box, and follow the
prompts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Lee, Project Manager, Mechanical
Engineer, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 301-987-
2486; email: klee@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 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.''
In this document, the Commission is proposing a safety standard for
stationary activity centers (SACs). ``Stationary Activity Centers'' are
specifically identified in section 104(f)(2)(G) of the CPSIA as a
durable infant or toddler product. 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 F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\,
Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Stationary Activity Centers
(ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\).
The ASTM standard is copyrighted, but it can be viewed as a read-
only document during the comment period on this proposal, at: http://www.astm.org/Standards/F833.htm, by permission of ASTM.

II. Product Description

A. Definition of ``Stationary Activity Center''

ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ defines a SAC as ``a freestanding product
intended to remain stationary that enables a sitting or standing
occupant whose torso is completely surrounded by the product to walk,
rock, play, spin or bounce, or all of these, within a limited range of
motion.'' \1\ The intended users of SACs are children who have not yet
reached the developmental milestone of walking. The product is intended
for children who are able to hold up their heads unassisted. SACs vary
in style and design complexity, but typically consist of a seating area
that is suspended from a frame by springs, or

[[Page 28391]]

supported from the bottom by a fixed base. The updated standard
includes a definition of a ``spring-supported SAC,'' which is described
as ``a stationary activity center in which the sitting or standing
platform is supported from below or suspended from above by springs (or
equivalent resilient members).'' For spring-supported SACs, children
should not be able to have their feet flat on the ground when using the
product. Doorway jumpers are not included in the definition of
``stationary activity centers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ ASTM F2012 Sec. 3.1.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Market Description

SACs typically range in price from $30 to $150, with spring-
supported SACs typically ranging from $50 to $150. Some manufacturers
produce multiple models and several produce models that are similar in
design, but with different accessories. SACs typically accommodate
children who weigh less than 25 pounds and have a maximum height of 32
inches.
There were approximately 7.5 million (95% confidence interval (CI)
between 6.2 million and 8.8 million) SACs in national households with
children under the age of 5 in 2013, according to CPSC's 2013 Durable
Nursery Product Exposure Survey (DNPES). However, based on the same
data, only about 4.1 million of these were actually in use (95% CI
between 3.1 million and 5.2 million).

III. Incident Data

The Commission is aware of a total of 3,488 reported incidents
related to SACs that occurred between January 1, 2013 and September 30,
2017. The characterization of the deaths, injuries, and types of
hazards is based on incident reports received by CPSC staff.
Information on 92 percent (3,217 out of 3,488) of the incidents was
based solely on reports submitted to CPSC by manufacturers and
retailers through CPSC's ``Retailer Reporting Program.'' Because
reporting is ongoing, the number of reported incidents may change. The
number of emergency department-treated injuries associated with SACs,
for the timeframe covered, was insufficient to derive any reportable
national estimates.\2\ Consequently, CPSC staff is not providing injury
estimates. However, the emergency department-treated injuries are
included in the total count of reported incidents presented in this
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ According to the NEISS publication criteria, an estimate
must be 1,200 or greater, the sample size must be 20 or greater, and
the coefficient of variation must be 33 percent or smaller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Fatalities

CPSC does not have any reports of fatalities associated with the
use of SACs occurring between January 1, 2013 and September 30, 2017.

B. Nonfatalities

The Commission is aware of a total of 304 nonfatal injury incidents
related to SACs that reportedly occurred between January 1, 2013 and
September 30, 2017.
Twenty-four children were reported to have been treated at, and
released from, a hospital emergency department (ED). A majority of them
suffered a fall, resulting in head injuries, limb fractures, and
contusions. A few children treated in hospital EDs suffered unexplained
foot/leg/pelvic bruising, fractures, and/or swelling while jumping in
the product. One child had an allergic reaction to the product's finish
or materials, while two children suffered from limb entrapments when
using the product.
Among the remaining 280 injury reports, some specifically mentioned
the type of injury, while others only mentioned an injury, but provided
no specifics about the injury. Fractures, head injuries, concussions,
teeth injury, abrasions, contusions, and lacerations were among some of
the commonly reported injuries.
The remaining 3,184 incidents reported that no injury had occurred
or provided no information about any injury. However, many of the
descriptions indicated the potential for a serious injury.

C. Hazard Pattern Identification

CPSC staff considered all 3,488 reported incidents to identify
hazard patterns associated with the use of SACs. Most of the reported
problems were product-related issues. In order of descending frequency,
the problems were as follows:
Spring support issues: In 1,617 of the 3,488 incidents (46
percent), there was a report of some sort of a problem with the springs
that suspend the seat from the product's frame. In most cases, the
springs were reported to have broken, twisted, outstretched, or failed
in some other manner. Twenty-seven injuries, including one ED-treated
injury, were reported in this category.
Problems with toy accessories: 1,075 of the 3,488
incidents (31 percent) reported problems with toy accessories attached
to the product. The problems were with toys:
[cir] Forcefully striking the child, usually on the face
[cir] Pinching or entrapping limbs or extremities
[cir] Posing a laceration hazard due to sharp edges or surfaces
[cir] Causing gagging while mouthing the toy
[cir] Posing an entanglement hazard because of the long ribbons/
strings attached
[cir] Posing a choking hazard due to small parts detaching.
One hundred fifty-six injuries, including two ED-treated injuries,
were reported in this category.
Support strap issues: 306 of the 3,488 incidents (9
percent) reported straps that tore, frayed, twisted, or detached. The
strap system on a SAC is typically the primary means by which most
spring-suspended activity centers are supported. If the strap (to which
a support spring is attached) fails, the activity center is often left
unsupported on one side and typically results in a fall of the child.
Thirty injuries were reported in this category.
Structural integrity problems: 158 of the 3,488 incidents
(5 percent) reported some problem with structural components such as:
[cir] Locks, which led to product collapse, detachment of the top
and bottom parts of the exerciser, or failure of the height adjustment
mechanism
[cir] Snap buttons/fasteners breaking during regular use, delivery,
or assembly/disassembly
[cir] Tube/frame/post separating, bending, or getting damaged in
some other manner
[cir] Various small parts (often unspecified) detaching
[cir] Screws/nuts/bolts loosening and falling out.
Twelve injuries were reported in this category.
Problems with seats/seat pads: 122 of the 3,488 incidents
(4 percent) reported problems specific to the seat or the seat pad.
Examples include:
[cir] Tabs, used to attach the pad to the seat frame, breaking,
tearing, or separating
[cir] The stitching on the pad fraying or tearing
[cir] The leg openings designed to be inadequately constrictive
[cir] Rough material used for the pad.
Twelve injuries were reported in this category.
Stability issues: 76 of the 3,488 incidents (2 percent)
reported problems with flimsy and/or unstable products. Specifically,
the incidents described:
[cir] Frame/posts/seat/unit leaning to one side and not sitting
level
[cir] Legs lifting up during use
[cir] The product toppling over.
Four children were reported injured in these incidents.
Electrical problems: 36 of the 3,488 incidents (1 percent)
reported leakage

[[Page 28392]]

and/or corrosion in the batteries or failure of the circuit board on
the product. Two injuries were reported in this category.
Design issues: 32 of the 3,488 incidents (1 percent)
reported some problems with the design of the product. There were
reports of:
[cir] Limb/extremity entrapment between parts of the exerciser
[cir] Failure of the seat to contain the child within
[cir] Poor choice for the placement of structural components that
made it easier for a child to get hurt during routine use.
There were 20 injuries, including two treated in a hospital ED, in
this category.
Miscellaneous other issues: 22 of the 3,488 incidents
(less than 1 percent) reported a variety of other general product-
related issues, such as:
[cir] Rough surface, sharp edges, or protrusions
[cir] Paint/finish
[cir] Product packaging
[cir] Fall of product from an elevated surface
[cir] Sales of recalled or modified products at a consignment store
or a garage sale.
Thirteen injuries, including four treated at hospital EDs, were
reported in this category.
Multiple problems from among the above-listed categories:
20 of the 3,488 incidents (less than 1 percent) reported two or more
problems from the preceding product-related issues.\3\ CPSC staff could
not determine if there was any priority (e.g., primary, secondary)
among the order in which issues were reported. Five injuries were
reported in this category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Redistributing these 20 complaints among the other pertinent
categories already listed does not alter the ranking of the listed
categories. However, the redistribution would result in the incident
numbers adding up to more than the total number of reported
incidents. To prevent that, the 20 incidents were grouped in this
category separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unspecified/Unknown issues: 24 of the 3,488 incident
reports (less than 1 percent) provided incomplete or unclear
descriptions of the scenario; as such, CPSC staff was unable to
identify the problem. Twenty-three injuries, mostly falls, were
reported in this category; 15 of these injuries were treated in a
hospital ED.

D. Product Recalls

Compliance staff reviewed recalls involving SACs from January 2013
to March 2018. During that period, one consumer-level recall occurred
involving a Kids II, Inc., stationary activity center.\4\ A recall was
initiated because one of the toy attachments on the SAC posed an impact
hazard when it rebounded. The recall involved 400,000 units. The firm
received 100 reports of incidents, including 61 reported injuries from
the hazard. The injuries included bruises and lacerations to the face;
in addition, a 7-month-old sustained a lineal skull fracture, and an
adult suffered a chipped tooth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ CPSC website link to recalled product: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2013/Kids-II-Recalls-Baby-Einstein-Activity-Jumpers/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Other Standards and History of ASTM F2012-18 [egr]\1\

A. International Standards

CPSC staff found no comparable international standard similar to
ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ that addresses SACs.

B. History of Voluntary Standard--ASTM F2012

The voluntary standard for SACs was first approved and published in
April 2000, as ASTM F2012-00, Standard Consumer Safety Specification
for Stationary Activity Centers. The standard has been revised nine
times since its publication. The current version, ASTM F2012-18
[epsiv]\1\, was approved on May 18, 2018.
ASTM F2012-00 (approved on April 10, 2000), established performance
requirements to address the following:
Latching or Locking Mechanisms--for SACs that fold for
storage, this requirement helps prevent unintentional folding during
use.
Openings--Assesses the accessibility of slots or cracks in
the unit to ensure that the occupant's extremities (fingers, toes)
cannot be caught or trapped while not in motion.
Scissoring, Shearing, Pinching--Dynamically assesses
accessible slots to prevent injury from moving parts throughout the
range of movement.
Exposed Coil Springs--Sets a requirement for the spacing
between the coils of any accessible spring element to prevent
entrapment.
Labeling--Assesses the permanency of labeling, as well as
label removal, which may involve creating small parts.
Structural Integrity--Includes dynamic and static loading,
to determine any collapsing or failure modes that may occur during the
lifecycle of the unit.
Occupant Retention--Evaluates the leg openings of the
activity center to prevent entrapment of the torso, neck, or head.
Stability--Assesses the stability of a seated occupant
leaning outside of the unit.
Protective Components--Determines whether a child can
grasp/bite and remove, protective caps, shields, sleeves, and plugs. If
so, determine if a hazard exists (i.e., small parts, sharp edges, sharp
points, or entrapments).
Later versions of the standard added other requirements, such as:
Protective components for open-base SACs and SACs that do and do not
rotate around a central stationary post.
ASTM F2012-18 (approved on March 1, 2018):
Added a definition of ``closed-base stationary activity
center'';
added definition of ``spring-supported stationary activity
center'';
added section requiring that spring-supported stationary
activity centers have a redundant system in place, to prevent the seat
from falling should any spring component fail. Upon failure, the
redundant system must keep the child in place at a rest angle no more
than 25[deg] from horizontal.
ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\, approved on May 18, 2018, corrected
errors and made editorial revisions to the standard.

V. Adequacy of ASTM F2012-18 [egr]\1\ Requirements

The Commission concludes that the current voluntary standard, ASTM
F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\, sufficiently addresses many of the general hazards
associated with the use of SACs, such as sharp points, small parts,
lead in paint, scissoring, shearing, pinching, openings, exposed coil
springs, locking and latching, unintentional folding, labeling,
protective components, flammability, and toy accessories that are sold
with the carrier, given the low frequency and low severity of incidents
and injuries reported.
This section discusses the four primary hazard patterns that
account for the majority of the reported incidents and injuries;
Springs--46 percent, Toy Accessories--31 percent, Straps--9 percent;
Structural integrity--5 percent, and how each is addressed in the
current voluntary standard, ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\.

A. Spring Support Failure

This hazard is associated with 46 percent of the reported incidents
(9 percent of injuries). Reports of support spring failures typically
involved a common type of SAC scenario, in which the child and activity
tray are suspended by springs from multiple points. These hazards often
involve the failure of one or more members of the

[[Page 28393]]

spring system, which causes the occupant to dynamically tilt, tip,
topple, or lean from the manufacturer's recommended-use position, which
can result in the occupant falling out of the activity center. The 2018
version of the voluntary standard (ASTM F2012-2018 [epsiv]\1\)
addressed spring failures with a performance requirement that support
springs withstand 100 drops from a 33-lb. weight from a height of at
least 1 inch. CPSC staff presented the incident data to the voluntary
standards committee and suggested a secondary support for load bearing
springs. Consequently, ASTM F2012-2018 [epsiv]\1\ also requires a
redundant system to prevent the seat from falling should the spring
fail. Because this support strap would function as a fail-safe if
springs break, including springs not identified during the dynamic load
and life-cycle tests, the Commission concludes that this change will
address the hazard pattern identified.

B. Problems With Toy Accessories

This hazard pattern is associated with 31 percent of the reported
incidents and 51 percent of the injuries. The majority of the incidents
involved pinching, laceration, choking/gagging, and entanglement
injuries. ASTM F2012-2018 [epsiv]\1\ addresses hazards associated with
toys, by requiring that toy accessories meet the relevant requirements
of ASTM F963-2017, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toy
Safety. The Commission believes that the majority of the hazards
related to toy accessories are adequately addressed by ASTM F963;
therefore, the Commission believes that the current voluntary standard
for stationary activity centers, ASTM F2012-2018 [epsiv]\1\ adequately
addresses this hazard.

C. Support Strap Failure

This hazard pattern is associated with 9 percent of the reported
incidents and 10 percent of the injuries, and it includes straps that
break, twist, fray, or detach. The strap system on a SAC is typically
the primary means by which most spring-suspended activity centers are
supported (see Figure 1). Upon failure of the occupant support strap,
the activity center is often left unsupported on one side, and this
typically results in the child falling.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JN18.003

There are no specific requirements for support straps, although
ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ requires dynamic and static loading at the
seat of the product to evaluate the durability of the support
structures for the seat. This testing also stresses the structural
integrity components of the product, which include support straps; and
the standard requires that the product shows no seam failure, breakage
of materials, or changes of adjustments that could cause the product
not to support the child fully. The severity of injury produced by this
potential hazard is relatively low.
While preparing the briefing package for this notice of proposed
rulemaking, CPSC staff learned of an additional failure mode of the
occupant support strap. The additional information suggested that some
occupant support strap failures have resulted from abrasions of a strap
against a metal buckle during normal use. Staff determined that this
scenario is not addressed by the requirements in ASTM F2012-18
[epsiv]\1\. On April 27, 2018, staff sent a letter to ASTM asking ASTM
to consider modifying the standard, as indicated below (underlining
indicates language staff suggests added):

6.1 Structural Integrity--All tests that cover static and
dynamic loading, and occupant retention, are to be performed on the
same product, sequentially and without refurbishing or repositioning
of adjustment, if any. At test conclusion, there shall be no
fraying, tearing, or failure of textile materials, such as seams or
straps; breakage of materials;, or changes of adjustments that

[[Page 28394]]

could cause the product to not fully support the child or create a
hazardous condition as defined in Section 5. Maximum slippage of
adjustable features, if any, is 1 in. (25 mm).

ASTM set up a task group, of which CPSC will be a part, to look into
strap-related failures. The Commission invites comments from the public
on the necessity of these modifications to the structural integrity
requirements.

D. Structural Integrity

This hazard pattern is associated with 5 percent of the reported
incidents and 4 percent of the injuries. Incidents involve failure of
structural components, such as locking mechanisms, fasteners, and frame
tubing. There are no specific requirements for the structural
components of a SAC, but ASTM F2012-2018 [epsiv]\1\ requires dynamic
and static loading at the seat of the product to evaluate the
durability of the support structures for the seat. This testing also
stresses the structural integrity components of the product, and the
standard requires that the product show no failure of seams, breakage
of materials, or changes of adjustments that could cause the product
not to fully support the child.
Because of the relatively low frequency of this potential hazard,
as well as the minor injury severity produced, the Commission believes
that the current voluntary standard adequately addresses the structural
integrity of stationary activity centers.

E. Warnings

Before publishing the current version of ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\,
typical warning labels on SACs were composed of paragraph-form messages
on a black and white label. Although the labels met the voluntary
standard requirements for warning statements at the time, the labels
were not conspicuous or consistent in format with other juvenile
product warning labels.
Several subcommittee members associated with the ASTM F15 juvenile
product/durable nursery products raised concerns about inconsistency
among various durable nursery product rules, and ASTM formed an Ad Hoc
Wording Task Group to harmonize the wording and language used across
nursery product standards. CPSC staff worked closely with the Ad Hoc
Task Group to develop recommendations that are based largely on the
requirements of ANSI Z535.4, American National Standard for Product
Safety Signs and Labels.
In October 2016, the Ad Hoc Task Group published a working document
titled, ``Ad Hoc Wording--October 16, 2016.'' Since then, the juvenile
product subcommittees have been incorporating the formatting
recommendations into their standards. The latest version of the
``Recommended Language Approved by Ad Hoc Task Group, Revision C''
document is dated November 10, 2017, and it is published in the
``Committee Documents' section of the Committee F15 ASTM website. In
August 2017, new requirements for formatting warning labels were
balloted and accepted by the F15.17 subcommittee for Stationary
Activity Centers, and these new requirements are reflected in F2012-18
[epsiv]\1\.
The work of the Ad Hoc Task Group resulted in permanent,
conspicuous, and consistently formatted warning labels across juvenile
products. On-product warning labels that meet the requirements in ASTM
F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ will address numerous warning format issues related
to capturing consumer attention, improving readability, and increasing
hazard perception and avoidance behavior. The Commission concludes that
the warnings adequately inform consumers of the fall and strangulation
hazards, the consequences of those hazards, and instructions on how to
reduce the risks of injury and death due to falls and strangulation.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

The Commission is proposing to incorporate by reference ASTM F2012-
18 [epsiv]\1\, without change. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR)
has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51.
These regulations require that, for a proposed rule, agencies discuss
in the preamble to the NPR ways that the materials the agency proposes
to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested
persons, or explain how the agency worked to make the materials
reasonably available. In addition, the preamble to the proposed rule
must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(a).
In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section IV.B of this
preamble summarizes the provisions of ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ that the
Commission proposes to incorporate by reference. ASTM F2012-18
[epsiv]\1\ is copyrighted. By permission of ASTM, the standard can be
viewed as a read-only document during the comment period on this NPR,
at http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. Interested persons may also purchase a
copy of ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ from ASTM, through its website (http://www.astm.org), or by mail from ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor
Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://www.astm.org.
Alternatively, interested parties may inspect a copy of the standard at
CPSC's Office of the Secretary.

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 proposes that the standard
become effective 6 months after publication of a final rule in the
Federal Register. Barring evidence to the contrary, CPSC generally
considers 6 months to be sufficient time for suppliers to come into
compliance with a new standard, and this 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 their certification program to shift to a new standard once that new
standard is published. The Commission is not aware of any information
suggesting that 6 months is not an appropriate time frame for suppliers
to come into compliance. Therefore, juvenile product manufacturers are
accustomed to adjusting to new standards within this time frame.

VIII. Assessment of Small Business Impact

A. Introduction

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that proposed rules
be reviewed for their potential economic impact on small entities,
including small businesses. Section 603 of the RFA requires that
agencies prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and
make it available to the public for comment when the general notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) is published, unless the head of the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The Commission certifies that
this rule incorporating by reference ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ as a CPSC
standard will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities involved in the manufacturing or importing of SACs.

B. Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply

The Commission identified 11 U.S. manufacturers of SACs. The U.S.
Small Business Administration (SBA) size guidelines for this category
identifies any manufacturer as ``small'' if it employs fewer than 500
employees. Based on this definition, seven out of the 11 U.S.
manufacturers of SACs would be considered small. For

[[Page 28395]]

importers, SBA guidelines consider an importer under the NAICS category
423920 (Toy and Hobby Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers) with
fewer than 150 employees to be small. The Commission did not identify
any small importers of SACs per SBA guidelines.

C. Costs of Proposed Rule That Would Be Incurred by Small Manufacturers

In addition to any costs associated with modifying a product to
comply with ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\, which includes the integration of
the redundant strap, mandating the standard under Section 104 of the
CPSIA would also require manufacturers to certify that their SACs
comply with the standard, based on tests conducted by third party
conformity assessment bodies. The Commission believes that all seven
small domestic manufacturers of SACs are currently certified by the
Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA), meaning that their
products comply with ASTM F2012-16 and the companies are already
conducting some third party testing on their SACs.
The additional requirements of ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ may require
a minor modification for manufacturers of spring-supported SACs. Of the
three such manufacturers, we have confirmed that two have already
integrated a redundant strap, a new requirement of ASTM F2012-18
[epsiv]\1\. If the third manufacturer has not yet integrated a
redundant strap, we believe that the cost to do so would be less than
50 cents per unit.
Additional costs that small manufacturers would incur as a result
of the proposed rule, if finalized, include incremental costs
associated with meeting the third party testing requirements. This
would apply to those that manufacture any type of SAC, not just spring-
supported SACs. If the ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ requirements become
effective as a CPSC children's product safety rule, all manufacturers
of SACs will be subject to the third party testing and certification
requirements under section 14 of CPSA and the Testing and Labeling
Pertaining to Product Certification rule (16 CFR part 1107) (1107
rule). Third party testing will include any physical and mechanical
test requirements specified in the final SAC rule. The Commission found
that all seven small manufacturers of SACs are certified by JPMA and
are currently conducting third party testing. Those that manufacture
spring-supported SACs will need to have the redundant strap tested to
the standard, which we do not estimate will be a significant cost.
Generally, CPSC considers impacts that exceed 1 percent of a firm's
revenue to be potentially significant. Because all seven manufactures
are JPMA certified, we believe that the only costs that may be
introduced with this standard are for the integration of a redundant
strap for one firm and the testing of that strap for all three firms
that manufacture spring-supported SACs. Because the smallest
manufacturer of spring-supported SACs has annual revenues of
approximately $4 million, we do not expect that the added costs
associated with this rule will reach the 1 percent threshold for any of
the producers of SACs. However, at this time, CPSC has not considered
any potential impact on firms resulting from modifying the current
voluntary standard to address the potential for abrasion on the support
straps that might cause them to fray or break. Staff intends to work
with ASTM on this modification. Any changes to the voluntary standard
and/or proposed regulation will be assessed before completing a final
rule.

IX. Environmental Considerations

The Commission's regulations address whether we are required to
prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact
statement. 16 CFR part 1021. Those regulations state that certain
categories of CPSC actions normally have ``little or no potential for
affecting the human environment,'' and therefore, do not require an
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. 16 CFR
1021.5(c)(1). Rules or safety standards that provide design or
performance requirements for products are among the listed exempt
actions. Thus, 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 Stationary Activity Centers.
Description: The proposed rule would require each stationary
activity center to comply with ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\, Standard
Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Stationary Activity
Centers. Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ 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
stationary activity centers.
Estimated Burden: We estimate the burden of this collection of
information, as follows:

Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Frequency of Total annual Hours per Total burden
16 CFR section respondents responses responses response hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1238............................................................... 11 4 44 1 44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our estimates are based on the following:
Section 8.1.1 of ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ requires that the name
and the place of business (city, state, 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 F833-13 requires a code mark or other means that
identifies the date (month and year, as a minimum) of manufacture.

[[Page 28396]]

There are 11 known entities supplying stationary activity centers
to the U.S. market. These entities may need to modify their existing
labels to comply with ASTM 2012-18 [epsiv]\1\. CPSC estimates that the
time required to make these modifications is about 1 hour per model.
Each entity supplies an average of four different models of stationary
activity centers; therefore, the estimated burden associated with
labels is 1 hour per model x 11 entities x 4 models per entity = 44
hours. CPSC estimates the hourly compensation for the time required to
create and update labels is $34.21 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,'' Sep. 2017, 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 proposed labeling
requirements is $1,505 ($34.21 per hour x 44 hours = $1,505). There are
no operating, maintenance, or capital costs associated with the
collection.
Section 9.1 of ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\ requires instructions to be
supplied with stationary activity centers. Stationary activity centers
generally require use and assembly instructions. As such, products sold
without use and assembly instructions would not compete successfully
with products supplying this information. Under OMB's regulations, the
time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a
collection of information incurred by persons in the ``normal course of
their activities'' are excluded from a burden estimate when an agency
demonstrates that the disclosure activities required are ``usual and
customary.'' 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). CPSC is unaware of stationary activity
centers that generally require use or assembly instructions but lack
such instructions. Therefore, CPSC estimates that no burden hours are
associated with section 9.1 of ASTM F2012-18, [epsiv]\1\ because any
burden associated with supplying instructions with stationary activity
centers would be ``usual and customary,'' and thus, excluded from
``burden'' estimates under OMB's regulations. Based on this analysis,
the proposed standard for stationary activity centers would impose a
burden to industry of 44 hours at a cost of $1,505 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 OMB for review. Interested persons are requested to submit
comments regarding information collection by July 19, 2018, 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:
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 where 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 104 of the CPSIA will invoke the preemptive effect of section
26(a) of the CPSA when it becomes effective.

XII. 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 CPSC-
accepted third party conformity assessment body. 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
(or laboratories) to assess conformity with a children's product safety
rule to which a children's product is subject. The proposed rule for 16
CFR part 1238, ``Safety Standard for Stationary Activity Centers,''
when issued as a final rule, will 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),
which is codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (referred to here as Part 1112).
This rule took effect 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. The final rule
also codifies all of the NORs that the CPSC had published to date. All
new NORs, such as the stationary activity center standard, require an
amendment to part 1112. Accordingly, in this document we propose to
amend part 1112 to include the stationary activity center standard
along with the 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 stationary
activity centers 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, it can apply to the CPSC to have 16 CFR
part 1238, Safety Standard for Stationary Activity Centers, included in
its scope of accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed for the
laboratory on the CPSC website at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.
In connection with the part 1112 rulemaking, CPSC staff conducted
an analysis of the potential impacts on small entities of the proposed
rule establishing accreditation requirements, 77 FR 31086, 31123-26
(May 24, 2012), as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). The IRFA
concluded that the requirements would not have a significant adverse
impact on a substantial number of small laboratories because no
requirements are imposed on laboratories that do not intend to provide
third party testing services under section 14(a)(2) of the

[[Page 28397]]

CPSA. The only laboratories that are expected to provide such services
are those that anticipate receiving sufficient revenue from providing
the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a
business decision. Laboratories that do not expect to receive
sufficient revenue from these services to justify accepting these
requirements would not likely pursue accreditation for this purpose.
Similarly, amending the part 1112 rule to include the NOR for
stationary activity centers would not have a significant adverse impact
on small laboratories. Moreover, based upon the 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
stationary activity center 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 stationary activity center standard to their scope of
accreditation. As a consequence, the Commission certifies that the
proposed notice requirements for the stationary activity center
standard will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

XIII. Request for Comments

This proposed rule begins a rulemaking proceeding under section
104(b) of the CPSIA to issue a consumer product safety standard for
stationary activity centers. We invite all interested persons to submit
comments on any aspect of the proposed rule.
In particular, the Commission invites comments on the necessity of
additional requirements pertaining to the potential fraying of the
support straps on SACs.
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 1238

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes
to amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 1112--REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY CONFORMITY
ASSESSMENT BODIES

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec. 1112.15 by adding paragraphs (b)(45) through (47) to
read as follows:

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

* * * * *
(b) The CPSC has published the requirements for accreditation for
third party conformity assessment bodies to assess conformity for the
following CPSC rules or test methods:
* * * * *
(45) [Reserved]
(46) [Reserved]
(47) 16 CFR part 1238, Safety Standard for Stationary Activity
Centers.
* * * * *
0
3. Add part 1238 to read as follows:

PART 1238--SAFETY STANDARD FOR STATIONARY ACTIVITY CENTERS

Sec.
1238.1 Scope.
1238.2 Requirements for stationary activity centers.

Authority: Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (15 U.S.C.
2056a).

Sec. 1238.1 Scope.

This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for
stationary activity centers.

Sec. 1238.2 Requirements for stationary activity centers.

Each stationary activity center must comply with all applicable
provisions of ASTM F2012-18 [epsiv]\1\, Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Stationary Activity Centers, approved on May 18,
2018. 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_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html.

Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-13024 Filed 6-18-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules 28395

importers, SBA guidelines consider an testing and certification requirements environmental assessment or an
importer under the NAICS category under section 14 of CPSA and the environmental impact statement. 16
423920 (Toy and Hobby Goods and Testing and Labeling Pertaining to CFR 1021.5(c)(1). Rules or safety
Supplies Merchant Wholesalers) with Product Certification rule (16 CFR part standards that provide design or
fewer than 150 employees to be small. 1107) (1107 rule). Third party testing performance requirements for products
The Commission did not identify any will include any physical and are among the listed exempt actions.
small importers of SACs per SBA mechanical test requirements specified Thus, the proposed rule falls within the
guidelines. in the final SAC rule. The Commission categorical exemption.
found that all seven small
C. Costs of Proposed Rule That Would X. Paperwork Reduction Act
manufacturers of SACs are certified by
Be Incurred by Small Manufacturers This proposed rule contains
JPMA and are currently conducting
In addition to any costs associated third party testing. Those that information-collection requirements
with modifying a product to comply manufacture spring-supported SACs that are subject to public comment and
with ASTM F2012–18 ε1, which will need to have the redundant strap review by the Office of Management and
includes the integration of the tested to the standard, which we do not Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
redundant strap, mandating the estimate will be a significant cost. Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
standard under Section 104 of the Generally, CPSC considers impacts 3521). In this document, pursuant to 44
CPSIA would also require that exceed 1 percent of a firm’s revenue U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth:
manufacturers to certify that their SACs to be potentially significant. Because all • A title for the collection of
comply with the standard, based on seven manufactures are JPMA certified, information;
tests conducted by third party we believe that the only costs that may • a summary of the collection of
conformity assessment bodies. The be introduced with this standard are for information;
Commission believes that all seven the integration of a redundant strap for • a brief description of the need for
small domestic manufacturers of SACs one firm and the testing of that strap for the information and the proposed use of
are currently certified by the Juvenile all three firms that manufacture spring- the information;
Products Manufacturers Association supported SACs. Because the smallest • a description of the likely
(JPMA), meaning that their products manufacturer of spring-supported SACs respondents and proposed frequency of
comply with ASTM F2012–16 and the has annual revenues of approximately response to the collection of
companies are already conducting some $4 million, we do not expect that the information;
third party testing on their SACs. added costs associated with this rule • an estimate of the burden that shall
The additional requirements of ASTM will reach the 1 percent threshold for result from the collection of
F2012–18 ε1 may require a minor any of the producers of SACs. However, information; and
modification for manufacturers of at this time, CPSC has not considered • notice that comments may be
spring-supported SACs. Of the three any potential impact on firms resulting submitted to the OMB.
such manufacturers, we have confirmed from modifying the current voluntary Title: Safety Standard for Stationary
that two have already integrated a standard to address the potential for Activity Centers.
redundant strap, a new requirement of abrasion on the support straps that Description: The proposed rule would
ASTM F2012–18 ε1. If the third might cause them to fray or break. Staff require each stationary activity center to
manufacturer has not yet integrated a intends to work with ASTM on this comply with ASTM F2012–18 ε1,
redundant strap, we believe that the cost modification. Any changes to the Standard Consumer Safety Performance
to do so would be less than 50 cents per voluntary standard and/or proposed Specification for Stationary Activity
unit. regulation will be assessed before Centers. Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM
Additional costs that small completing a final rule. F2012–18 ε1 contain requirements for
manufacturers would incur as a result of marking, labeling, and instructional
the proposed rule, if finalized, include IX. Environmental Considerations literature. These requirements fall
incremental costs associated with The Commission’s regulations address within the definition of ‘‘collection of
meeting the third party testing whether we are required to prepare an information,’’ as defined in 44 U.S.C.
requirements. This would apply to those environmental assessment or an 3502(3).
that manufacture any type of SAC, not environmental impact statement. 16 Description of Respondents: Persons
just spring-supported SACs. If the CFR part 1021. Those regulations state who manufacture or import stationary
ASTM F2012–18 ε1 requirements that certain categories of CPSC actions activity centers.
become effective as a CPSC children’s normally have ‘‘little or no potential for Estimated Burden: We estimate the
product safety rule, all manufacturers of affecting the human environment,’’ and burden of this collection of information,
SACs will be subject to the third party therefore, do not require an as follows:

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN
Number of Frequency of Total annual Hours per Total burden
16 CFR section respondents responses responses response hours

1238 ..................................................................................... 11 4 44 1 44
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

Our estimates are based on the including zip code, or telephone F833–13 requires a code mark or other
following: number) of the manufacturer, means that identifies the date (month
Section 8.1.1 of ASTM F2012–18 ε1 distributor, or seller be marked clearly and year, as a minimum) of
requires that the name and the place of and legibly on each product and its manufacture.
business (city, state, mailing address, retail package. Section 8.1.2 of ASTM

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:28 Jun 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JNP1.SGM 19JNP1

28396 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules

There are 11 known entities collection by July 19, 2018, to the Office assessment body. Section 14(a)(3) of the
supplying stationary activity centers to of Information and Regulatory Affairs, CPSA requires the Commission to
the U.S. market. These entities may OMB (see the ADDRESSES section at the publish a notice of requirements (NOR)
need to modify their existing labels to beginning of this notice). for the accreditation of third party
comply with ASTM 2012–18 ε1. CPSC Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), conformity assessment bodies (or
estimates that the time required to make we invite comments on: laboratories) to assess conformity with a
these modifications is about 1 hour per • Whether the collection of children’s product safety rule to which
model. Each entity supplies an average information is necessary for the proper a children’s product is subject. The
of four different models of stationary performance of the CPSC’s functions, proposed rule for 16 CFR part 1238,
activity centers; therefore, the estimated including whether the information will ‘‘Safety Standard for Stationary Activity
burden associated with labels is 1 hour have practical utility; Centers,’’ when issued as a final rule,
per model × 11 entities × 4 models per • the accuracy of the CPSC’s estimate will be a children’s product safety rule
entity = 44 hours. CPSC estimates the of the burden of the proposed collection that requires the issuance of an NOR.
hourly compensation for the time of information, including the validity of The Commission published a final
required to create and update labels is the methodology and assumptions used; rule, Requirements Pertaining to Third
$34.21 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, • ways to enhance the quality, utility, Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78
‘‘Employer Costs for Employee and clarity of the information to be FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), which is
Compensation,’’ Sep. 2017, Table 9, collected; codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (referred to
total compensation for all sales and • ways to reduce the burden of the here as Part 1112). This rule took effect
office workers in goods-producing collection of information on June 10, 2013. Part 1112 establishes
private industries: http://www.bls.gov/ respondents, including the use of requirements for accreditation of third
ncs/). Therefore, the estimated annual automated collection techniques, when party conformity assessment bodies (or
cost to industry associated with the appropriate, and other forms of laboratories) to test for conformance
proposed labeling requirements is information technology; and the with a children’s product safety rule in
$1,505 ($34.21 per hour × 44 hours = estimated burden hours associated with accordance with Section 14(a)(2) of the
$1,505). There are no operating, label modification, including any CPSA. The final rule also codifies all of
maintenance, or capital costs associated alternative estimates. the NORs that the CPSC had published
with the collection. XI. Preemption to date. All new NORs, such as the
Section 9.1 of ASTM F2012–18 ε1 stationary activity center standard,
requires instructions to be supplied Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. require an amendment to part 1112.
with stationary activity centers. 2075(a), provides that where a consumer Accordingly, in this document we
Stationary activity centers generally product safety standard is in effect and propose to amend part 1112 to include
require use and assembly instructions. applies to a product, no state or political the stationary activity center standard
As such, products sold without use and subdivision of a state may either along with the other children’s product
assembly instructions would not establish or continue in effect a safety rules for which the CPSC has
compete successfully with products requirement dealing with the same risk issued NORs.
supplying this information. Under of injury unless the state requirement is Laboratories applying for acceptance
OMB’s regulations, the time, effort, and identical to the federal standard. Section as a CPSC-accepted third party
financial resources necessary to comply 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that conformity assessment body to test to
with a collection of information states or political subdivisions of states the new standard for stationary activity
incurred by persons in the ‘‘normal may apply to the Commission for an centers would be required to meet the
course of their activities’’ are excluded exemption from this preemption under third party conformity assessment body
from a burden estimate when an agency certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of accreditation requirements in part 1112.
demonstrates that the disclosure the CPSIA refers to the rules to be When a laboratory meets the
activities required are ‘‘usual and issued under that section as ‘‘consumer requirements as a CPSC-accepted third
customary.’’ 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). CPSC is product safety rules,’’ thus implying party conformity assessment body, it
unaware of stationary activity centers that the preemptive effect of section can apply to the CPSC to have 16 CFR
that generally require use or assembly 26(a) of the CPSA would apply. part 1238, Safety Standard for
instructions but lack such instructions. Therefore, a rule issued under section Stationary Activity Centers, included in
Therefore, CPSC estimates that no 104 of the CPSIA will invoke the its scope of accreditation of CPSC safety
burden hours are associated with preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the rules listed for the laboratory on the
section 9.1 of ASTM F2012–18, ε1 CPSA when it becomes effective. CPSC website at: www.cpsc.gov/
because any burden associated with labsearch.
XII. Certification and Notice of In connection with the part 1112
supplying instructions with stationary
Requirements (NOR) rulemaking, CPSC staff conducted an
activity centers would be ‘‘usual and
customary,’’ and thus, excluded from Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the analysis of the potential impacts on
‘‘burden’’ estimates under OMB’s requirement that products subject to a small entities of the proposed rule
regulations. Based on this analysis, the consumer product safety rule under the establishing accreditation requirements,
proposed standard for stationary activity CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard 77 FR 31086, 31123–26 (May 24, 2012),
centers would impose a burden to or regulation under any other act as required by the Regulatory Flexibility
industry of 44 hours at a cost of $1,505 enforced by the Commission, must be Act and prepared an Initial Regulatory
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

annually. certified as complying with all Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). The IRFA
In compliance with the Paperwork applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. concluded that the requirements would
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Section 14(a)(2) of the not have a significant adverse impact on
3507(d)), we have submitted the CPSA requires that certification of a substantial number of small
information-collection requirements of children’s products subject to a laboratories because no requirements
this rule to OMB for review. Interested children’s product safety rule be based are imposed on laboratories that do not
persons are requested to submit on testing conducted by a CPSC- intend to provide third party testing
comments regarding information accepted third party conformity services under section 14(a)(2) of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:28 Jun 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JNP1.SGM 19JNP1

Document Created: 2018-07-02 11:21:28
Document Modified: 2018-07-02 11:21:28

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Dates		Submit comments by September 4, 2018.
Contact		Kevin Lee, Project Manager, Mechanical Engineer, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 301-987- 2486; email: [email protected]
FR Citation		83 FR 28390
CFR Citation		16 CFR 1112 16 CFR 1238
CFR Associated		Administrative Practice and Procedure; Audit; Consumer Protection; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Third Party Conformity Assessment Body; Imports; Incorporation by Reference; Infants and Children; Labeling; Law Enforcement and Toys