[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5587-5589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01832]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Parts 1219, 1220
[Docket No. CPSC-2010-0075]
Review of the Safety Standards for Full-Size Baby Cribs and Non-
Full-Size Baby Cribs
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Section 610 review and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) is
conducting a review of the safety standards for full-size baby cribs
and non-full-size baby cribs under section 610 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA). That section requires the CPSC to review, within
10 years after their issuance, mandatory standards that have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The CPSC seeks comment to determine whether, consistent with the CPSC's
statutory obligations, these standards should be maintained without
change or modified to minimize significant impact of the rule on a
substantial number of small entities.
DATES: Written comments should be submitted by March 31, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2010-
0075, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. CPSC does not accept comments
submitted by electronic mail (email), except through
www.regulations.gov. CPSC encourages you to submit electronic comments
by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.
Mail/hand delivery/courier Submissions: Submit comments by mail/
hand delivery/courier to: Division of the Secretariat, Consumer Product
Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD
20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this notice. 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 electronically confidential business
information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected
information that you do not want to be available to the public. If you
wish to submit such information, please submit it according to the
instructions for written submissions.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the
docket number CPSC-2010-0075, into the ``Search'' box, and follow the
prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Proper, Directorate for Economic
Analysis, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway,
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 504-7628; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act
On December 28, 2010, the CPSC issued the Safety Standards for
Full-Size Baby Cribs (16 CFR part 1219) and Non-Full-Size Baby Cribs
(16 CFR part 1220) under section 104(c) of the Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), Public Law 110-314) (75 FR 81766).
Section 104(c) of the CPSIA stated that the crib standards would apply
to certain persons (such as those owning or operating child care
facilities and places of public accommodation), in addition to persons
usually subject to consumer product safety rules.\1\ In the initial
rule, the Commission determined that both crib standards would have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, including
manufacturers, importers, small retailers, and child care centers (75
FR 81782-86).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under section 104(c) of the CPSIA, the initial crib
standards applied to any person that
(A) Manufactures, distributes in commerce, or contracts to sell
cribs;
(B) Based on the person's occupation, holds itself out as having
knowledge of skill peculiar to cribs, including child care
facilities and family child care homes;
(C) Is in the business of contracting to sell or resell, lease,
sublet, or otherwise place cribs in the stream of commerce; or
(D) Owns or operates a place of accommodation affecting
commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 12, 2011, in Public Law 112-28, Congress amended section
104 and specifically addressed potential revisions of the crib
standards, stating that any revision after their initial promulgation
``shall apply only to a person that manufactures or imports cribs,''
unless the Commission determines that application to any others covered
by the initial crib standards is ``necessary to protect against an
unreasonable risk to health or safety.'' If the Commission applies a
revised crib standard to additional persons, the statute requires the
Commission to provide at least 12 months for those persons to come into
compliance. The Commission has not expanded the applicability of the
crib standards to any additional persons in subsequent revisions to the
standards.\2\
B. The Crib Standards
The full-size baby crib standard currently incorporates ASTM F1169-
19, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Full-Size Baby Cribs,
approved on March 15, 2019, as the mandatory CPSC standard. ASTM F1169-
19 specifies performance requirements and test procedures to determine
the structural integrity of full-size cribs. It also contains design
requirements addressing entanglement on crib corner post extensions,
and
[[Page 5588]]
requirements for warning labels and instructional material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The full-size crib standard was revised on July 31, 2012 (77
FR 45242), December 9, 2013 (78 FR 73692), and July 23, 2019 (84 FR
35293); the non-full-size crib standard was revised on June 6, 2018
(83 FR 26206) and October 23, 2019 (84 FR 56684).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The non-full-size baby crib standard currently incorporates ASTM
F406-17, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Non-Full-Size Baby
Cribs/Play Yards, approved on December 1, 2017, as the mandatory CPSC
standard. ASTM 406-17 specifies the testing requirements for structural
integrity and performance requirements for non-full-size cribs/play
yards. It also provides requirements for labeling and instructional
material.
C. Review Under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Section 610(a) of the RFA requires agencies to review regulations
that have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities within 10 years of the date of their publication. 5 U.S.C.
610(a). Because the crib standards were promulgated in 2010, the
Commission is now commencing its section 610 review. The purpose of the
review is to determine whether such rule should be continued without
change, or should be amended, consistent with the stated objectives of
applicable statutes to minimize any significant impact of the rules on
a substantial number of small entities. The RFA lists several factors
that the agency shall consider when reviewing rules under section 610.
These factors are:
The continued need for the rule;
The nature of complaints or comments received concerning
the rule from the public;
The complexity of the rule;
The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or
conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with
State and local governmental rules; and
The length of time since the rule has been evaluated or
the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors
have changed in the area affected by the rule.
5 U.S.C. 610(b)
The need for the safety standards for full-size baby cribs and non-
full-size baby cribs has been established by statutory mandate under
section 104 of the CPSIA. However, the Commission seeks comment to
evaluate the other factors and to determine whether the ongoing impact
of the rules is significant for a substantial number of small entities.
An important step in the review process involves gathering and
analyzing information from affected persons about their experience with
the rules and any material changes in circumstances since issuance of
the rules. The Commission requests written comments on the adequacy or
inadequacy of the rules, their small business impacts, and other
relevant issues. In addition to the specific questions below, the
Commission welcomes comments on any other issues raised by section 610
of the RFA.
Safety and Effectiveness
1. Are there any recent technological developments that would
improve the effectiveness of the full-size or non-full-size crib
standards? Would any of these potential improvements have an impact on
suppliers, and if so, would the impact be different for small suppliers
and large suppliers?
2. Are there any sections of the full-size and/or non-full-size
crib standards that could be improved without reducing the stringency
of the standards or reducing the safety of the resulting cribs? How
would these changes affect suppliers, particularly small suppliers?
Explain your response, and provide supporting data, if possible.
Costs and Impacts--Suppliers
1. Are there any requirements of the full-size or non-full size
crib standards that are especially or unnecessarily costly and/or
burdensome, particularly to small suppliers? Which ones? Are any of the
requirements disproportionately burdensome for small entities? How
might the requirements of either standard be modified to reduce the
costs or burdens on small suppliers without reducing the safety
provided by the standards or making the standards less stringent?
Please explain your response, and provide supporting data.
2. What percent of the time and cost of crib construction does
complying with the full-size and/or non-full-size crib standards
represent? Do these percentages vary significantly depending on the
geographical location, size of firm, or other factors? Which
requirements in the full-size or non-full-size crib standards have the
greatest impact on cost of production? The lowest impact on cost of
production? We are primarily interested in small firms, but
understanding how impact varies based on firm size would be helpful.
Please explain your response, and provide supporting data, if possible.
3. What modifications did manufacturers or others have to make to
full-size and/or non-full-size crib models to comply with the
requirements of CPSC's crib standards? What was the cost of these
modifications in terms of labor, materials, and research and
development? Are these costs ongoing, or were they one-time
expenditures? Please explain, and provide supporting data, if possible.
Are the costs comparable for large and small firms?
4. Have any manufacturers or importers entered the market for full-
size and/or non-full-size cribs since the standards went into effect?
Did the standards present any specific challenges for new entrants,
particularly small suppliers?
5. Have any manufacturers or importers reduced the number of models
in their full-size and/or non-full-size crib product lines or dropped
the product lines entirely because of the requirements of the crib
rules? If so, which requirements were the most burdensome, and were
they more, less, or equally burdensome for small firms? Why?
6. Did the longer effective date for childcare facilities
significantly reduce the impact? Please explain why or why not.
7. Do the full-size and non-full-size crib standards affect any
small entities not mentioned in the questions above? If so, what
entities are affected and how? Please explain your response, and
provide supporting data, if possible.
Recordkeeping and Third Party Testing
1. What percent of the time and cost of complying with the full-
size and non-full-size crib standards does testing represent? How much
of that testing is conducted by third parties, and how much is
additional, internal testing? Do these percentages vary significantly
depending on the type of crib, geographical location, size of firm, or
other factors? Which requirements in the full-size and non-full-size
crib standards have the greatest impact on testing costs? Which
requirements have the lowest impact on testing costs? We are especially
interested in any differential impact of the testing requirements on
small businesses. Explain your response, and provide supporting data,
if possible.
2. Are the recordkeeping requirements associated with third party
testing for conforming to the crib standards adequate, inadequate, or
overly burdensome? If they are overly burdensome, are they more or less
burdensome for small firms? Are there recordkeeping requirements that
could be applied to cribs as a product class that would reduce the
recordkeeping cost on suppliers, in particular small suppliers, without
reducing safety? Please explain your response.
3. How frequently do suppliers submit samples of their full-size
and non-full-size cribs to third party conformity assessment bodies for
testing to compliance with the full-size or non-full-size crib
standards or other crib
[[Page 5589]]
standards? Do small suppliers submit them more, less, or with equal
frequency as large suppliers? How many samples of each model are
submitted for testing to maintain certification? Do the number of
samples submitted vary depending on the size of the submitting
supplier? What is the cost of the testing, and to what extent, if any,
does cost vary, based on the size of the submitting firm? Did the cost
of testing for conformance with standards (whether third party,
internal, or both) increase after the rules became mandatory? If so, by
how much, and did that increase vary, based on firm size?
4. To what extent have the third party testing requirements
replaced other testing that suppliers, particularly small suppliers,
conducted, thereby not imposing any additional burden? Please explain
your response.
5. Have suppliers, particularly small suppliers, been able to make
use of the flexibilities provided in the component part rule (16 CFR
part 1109) to reduce their third party testing costs (e.g., relying
upon third party testing provided by a supplier to certify products or
relying on third party testing of a component used in more than one
model for certification purposes)? If so, in what way? Can you provide
estimates of the cost savings provided by the component part testing
rule?
6. Could changes be made in the third party testing procedures or
the third party testing rules that would reduce the burden on crib
suppliers, particularly small crib suppliers, and still be consistent
with assuring compliance with the crib standards? If so, how?
Clarity and Duplication
1. Is there any aspect of the full-size and/or non-full-size crib
standards that is unclear, needlessly complex, or duplicative?
2. Do any portions of the standards overlap, duplicate, or conflict
with other federal, state, or local government rules?
Outreach and Advocacy
1. Are the requirements in CPSC's full-size and non-full-size crib
standards known to firms that manufacture or import cribs for the
United States, particularly small firms and firms that build or import
cribs infrequently or in small lots? How could the requirements of the
standard be communicated more effectively to such firms?
2. Are there any cribs at small child care facilities or places of
public accommodation that do not meet the full-size or non-full-size
crib standard? What can CPSC do to improve awareness of the standards'
requirements among owners of these businesses? Please explain.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2020-01832 Filed 1-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P