Gates NPR FR Notice

32346

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June
24, 2019.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019–14285 Filed 7–5–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1239
[Docket No. CPSC–2019–0014]

Safety Standard for Gates and
Enclosures
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:

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.
Accordingly, the Commission is
proposing a safety standard for gates
and enclosures in response to the
direction under Section 104(b) of the
CPSIA. The Commission is also
amending its regulations regarding third
party conformity assessment bodies to
include the safety standard for gates and
enclosures in the list of notice of
requirements (NORs) issued by the
Commission.

SUMMARY:

Submit comments by September
23, 2019.
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–2019–0014, 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 CPSC does not accept comments
submitted by electronic mail (email),
except through www.regulations.gov.
The CPSC 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/

jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

DATES:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Jul 05, 2019

Jkt 247001

Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk,
or CD–ROM submissions), preferably in
five copies, 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 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–2019–0014, into
the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the
prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hope Nesteruk, Project Manager,
Directorate for Engineering Sciences,
Consumer Product Safety Commission,
5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850;
telephone: 301–987–2579; email:
hnesteruk@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Statutory Authority
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’’ the
applicable voluntary standards or more
stringent than the voluntary standard if
the Commision 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.’’
‘‘Gates and other enclosures for
confining a child’’ are specifically
identified in section 104(f)(2)(G) of the

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

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, ASTM F1004–19,
Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Expansion Gates and
Expandable Enclosures (ASTM F1004–
19). The ASTM standard is copyrighted,
but it can be viewed as a read-only
document during the comment period
at: https://www.astm.org/CPSC.htm, by
permission of ASTM.
II. Product Description
A. Definition of ‘‘Gates and Other
Enclosures’’
ASTM F1004–19 defines an
‘‘expansion gate’’ as a ‘‘barrier intended
to be erected in an opening, such as a
doorway, to prevent the passage of
young children, but which can be
removed by older persons who are able
to operate the locking mechanism’’
(section 3.1.7). ASTM F1004–19 defines
an ‘‘expandable enclosure’’ as a ‘‘selfsupporting barrier intended to
completely surround an area or playspace within which a young child may
be confined’’ (section 3.1.6). These
products are intended for young
children aged 6 months through 24
months (section 1.2).
Although the title of the ASTM
F1004–19 standard and its definitions
include the word ‘‘expansion’’ and
‘‘expandable’’ before the words ‘‘gate’’
and ‘‘enclosure,’’ respectively, the scope
of the ASTM F1004–19 standard
includes all children’s gates and
enclosures, whether they expand or not.
ASTM F1004–19 covers: ‘‘[p]roducts
known as expansion gates and
expandable enclosures, or by any other
name,’’ (section 1.2, emphasis added).1
Both expandable gates and nonexpandable gates may serve as barriers
that are intended to be erected in an
opening, such as a doorway, to prevent
the passage of young children. Both
expandable enclosures and nonexpandable enclosures may serve as
barriers intended to completely
surround an area or play-space to
confine young children. Similarly, all
children’s gates and enclosures, whether
1 Gates or enclosures for non-domestic use (such
as commercial or industrial), and those intended for
pets only, are not covered under the scope of ASTM
F1004–19.

E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM

08JYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules

jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

they expand or not, can be removed by
older persons who are able to operate
the locking mechanism.
CPSC staff’s review of enclosures
shows that all enclosures are
expandable. Staff’s review of gates
showed that there some nonexpandable, fixed-sized gates available
for sale.2 However, most of the gates and
enclosures sold in the United States that
are intended for children expand
because they vary in width (for gates) or
shape (enclosures). CPSC staff’s review
of hazard patterns indicates that all
children’s gates and enclosures present
the same hazards, whether they expand
or not. These hazards include injuries
caused by hardware-related issues, slat
problems, poor quality materials and
finish, design issues, and installation
problems. Accordingly, the proposed
CPSC standard addresses all children’s
gates and enclosures intended for
confining a child, including nonexpandable, fixed-sized gates and
enclosures.
Gates and enclosures may be made of
a wide range of materials: plastic, metal,
wood, cloth, mesh, or combinations of
several materials. Gates typically have a
means of egress that allows adults to
pass through them; but some enclosures
(i.e., some self-supporting barriers have
egress panels that resemble gates) also
have a means of egress. Gates may be
hardware-mounted, pressure-mounted,
or both. Hardware-mounted gates
generally require screws and cannot be
removed without tools. Pressuremounted gates attach like a pressure-fit
curtain rod, using pressure on each end
to hold the gate stable; they are intended
for consumers who prefer to be able to
move their gate, or who do not want to
permanently mark their walls. Mounting
cups can be attached to one or more
locations, and the gate can be removed,
as needed, or moved to other locations.
B. Market Description
Approximately 113 firms supply gates
and enclosures to the U.S. market. The
vast majority of suppliers to the U.S.
market are domestic (109 firms). Of
these, 83 appear to be very small, homebased domestic manufacturers.
Approximately 10.86 million gates/
enclosures were in use in U.S.
households with children under the age
of 5 in 2013, according to the CPSC’s
2013 Durable Nursery Product Exposure
Survey (DNPES).
Gates and enclosures vary widely in
price. Plastic pressure gates can be
purchased for as little as $10, but
2 The vast majority of non-expandable, fixed-size
gates are sold by home-based manufacturers with
very low sales volumes.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Jul 05, 2019

Jkt 247001

designer metal gates can cost as much
as $430. Retail prices for enclosures and
products that can operate either as an
enclosure or gate range from $74 to
$585, with the less expensive products
tending to be made of plastic, and the
more expensive products tending to be
made of wood.3 Gates supplied by
home-based manufacturers average
$200, although fabric gates are less
expensive ($44 on average), and wooden
gates with iron spindles are more
expensive ($525 on average).
III. Incident Data
CPSC staff reviewed incident data
associated with children’s gates and
enclosures as reported through the
Consumer Product Safety Risk
Management System (CPSRMS).4 Staff
also reviewed national injury estimates,
discussed below. Although these
products are intended for use with
young children between the ages of 6
months and 24 months, interaction with
the gates and enclosures with older
siblings and adult caregivers is a
foreseeable use pattern, and adults are
required to install such products
properly to prevent injuries. CPSC staff
reviewed the incident data involving
older children and adults to determine
hazard patterns; however, only injuries
sustained by children younger than 5
years of age were included in the
incident data reported for the proposed
rule. The Commission is aware of a total
of 436 reported incidents related to
gates and enclosures that occurred
between January 1, 2008 and October
31, 2018. Of the 436 incidents, 394 were
associated with the use of a gate, while
42 were associated with an enclosure.
Nineteen of the incidents reported a
fatality; 108 of the 417 nonfatal
incidents reported an injury. Because
reporting is ongoing, the number of
reported fatalities, nonfatal injuries, and
non-injury incidents may change in the
future.
A. Fatalities
The Commission is aware of 19 deaths
that occurred between January 1, 2008
and October 31, 2018. Seventeen of the
deaths were associated with the use of
3 Some of the enclosures designed for daycare
centers and preschools can run above $1,000 with
all the specialty extensions.
4 The CPSC databases searched were the In-Depth
Investigation (INDP) file, the Injury or Potential
Injury Incident (IPII) file, and the Death Certificates
(DTHS) file. These reported deaths and incidents
are neither a complete count of all that occurred
during this time period nor a sample of known
probability of selection. However, they do provide
a minimum number of deaths and incidents
occurring during this time period and illustrate the
circumstances involved in the incidents related to
children’s gates and enclosures.

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

32347

a gate, while two were associated with
an enclosure. Fifteen of the 19
decedents drowned, 13 in a backyard
pool, one in a backyard hot tub, and one
in a 5-gallon bucket of water inside the
house. In these incidents, the decedents
managed to get past the gate/enclosure
when it was left open or was opened
somehow, without the caregiver’s
knowledge (10 incidents); the gate/
enclosure was knocked down or pushed
out by the decedent due to incorrect or
unsecured installation (4 incidents); or
the decedent climbed over the gate/
enclosure (1 incident). The decedents
ranged in age from 9 months to 3 years.
Of the remaining four of 19 total
deaths reported: An 8-month-old was
found trapped between a mattress and
an expansion gate in a recreational
vehicle; a 23-month-old was trapped
under a TV that fell on him when he
was hanging on the edge of a safety gate
that was secured to the TV stand with
a rope; a 20-month-old was entrapped
between a wall and a repaired/modified
safety gate when the gate partially
detached from the wall; and a 2-year-old
got his neck entrapped between two
safety gates set up in a stacked
configuration.
B. Nonfatalities
The Commission is aware of a total of
417 nonfatal incidents related to safety
gates and enclosures that reportedly
occurred between January 1, 2008 and
October 31, 2018. Of these, 108
incidents reported an injury to a child
younger than 5 years of age.
Three of the injuries reportedly
required hospitalization and two
additional injuries needed overnight
observation at a hospital. Among the
hospitalized were a 2-year-old and an
18-month-old, both suffered a neardrowning episode, and another 2-yearold who ended up in a coma due to a
fall when she pushed through a safety
gate at the top of stairs. Of the two
children who were held at a hospital for
overnight observation, one fell down
stairs when a safety gate collapsed, and
the other swallowed a bolt or screw that
liberated from a gate.
Fifteen additional children were
reported to have been treated and
released from a hospital emergency
department (ED). Their injuries
included: (a) finger fractures,
amputations, and/or lacerations usually
from a finger getting caught at the hinge;
and (b) near-drowning, poison
ingestion, arm fracture, thermal burn,
head injury, or contusions.
Among the remaining injury reports,
some specifically mentioned the type of
injury, while others only mentioned an
injury, but no specifics about the injury.

E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM

08JYP1

jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

32348

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Head injuries, concussions, teeth
avulsions, sprains, abrasions,
contusions, and lacerations were some
of the common injuries reported.
The remaining 309 incidents reported
that no injury had occurred or provided
no information about any injury.
However, some of the descriptions
regarding the incidents indicated the
potential for a serious injury or even
death.

• Injury—almost 10 percent of the
impact injuries occurred when a child
fell down a flight of steps and hit a
safety gate at the bottom of the stairs:
Æ Injured body part—head (40%),
face (21%), and mouth (10%).
Æ Injury type—lacerations (28%),
internal organ injury (23%), and
contusions/abrasions (20%).
Most of the injured victims were
treated and released (97%).

C. National Injury Estimates
CPSC staff also reviewed injury
estimates from the National Electronic
Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), a
statistically valid injury surveillance
system.5 NEISS injury data are gathered
from EDs of hospitals selected as a
probability sample of all the U.S.
hospitals with EDs. CPSC staff found an
estimated total of 22,840 injuries
(sample size=820, coefficient of
variation=0.10) related to children’s
gates and enclosures that were treated in
U.S. hospital EDs over the 10-year
period 2008–2017. There was no
statistically significant trend observed
over the entire 2008–2017 period.
NEISS data for 2018 will be reviewed
prior to the issuance of a final rule.
No fatalities were reported through
NEISS. About 19 percent of the injured
victims were less than a year old; 40
percent were at least a year old, but less
than 2 years of age; and another 41
percent were at least 2, but less than 5
years of age. NEISS injury descriptions
are brief and focus more on the injury
than the scenario-specific details.
Therefore, a detailed hazard pattern
characterization, as conducted for
incidents reported through CPSRMS, is
not feasible. However, based on the
limited information available, CPSC
staff determined that some of the most
frequent NEISS injury characteristics
were as follows:
• Hazard—falls (57%) and impact on
gate/enclosure (31%). Most of the falls
occurred when:
Æ A child successfully climbed over
the barrier and (usually) fell down a
flight of steps; when a child
unsuccessfully attempted to climb over
the barrier; or a child-carrying-adult
tripped on a gate/enclosure and
dropped the child;
Æ gates failed to remain upright and
locked; or
Æ a child managed to defeat the
barrier by crawling/sliding under, or
‘‘getting around’’ the barrier in an
unspecified manner.

IV. Hazard Pattern Identification
CPSC staff reviewed 436 reported
incidents (19 fatal and 417 nonfatal) to
identify hazard patterns associated with
the use of children’s gates and
enclosures. Staff grouped the hazard
patterns into three categories: Productrelated, non-product-related, and
undetermined. Most of the reported
problems (94%) were product-related.
The categories and subcategories (in
order of descending frequency) are:

5 According to the NEISS publication criteria, to
derive a reportable national estimate, 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Jul 05, 2019

Jkt 247001

A. Product-Related
• Hardware issues: Of the 436
incidents, 163 (37%) reported some sort
of hardware-related problems. These
problems were due to:
Æ lock/latch hardware (e.g., lock or
latch breaking, not latching correctly,
opening too easily, or getting stuck)
Æ hinge hardware (mostly breaking
and causing the gate to fall off)
Æ mounting hardware (mostly
breaking and causing gate to fall off), or
Æ other hardware such as a slide
guide or a swing-control clip (breaking
or coming loose).
These hardware failures were associated
with 38 injuries, such as contusions,
lacerations, head injuries, and two
fractures; five of the injuries were
treated in a hospital ED, and one needed
overnight observation at a hospital.
• Slat problems: Of the 436 incidents,
107 (25%) reported slats breaking or
detaching from the safety gate or
enclosure. Sixteen injuries were
reported in this category, resulting in
contusions/abrasions or lacerations.
Once the slat(s) broke, the child either
got injured on it, fell forward through
the gap created, or lost balance and fell
backwards. One of the injuries was
treated at a hospital ED.
• Poor quality material and finish: Of
the 436 incidents, 50 (11%) reported
problems with small parts liberating,
splintered welding, sharp edges and
protrusions, rails bending out of shape,
fabric/mesh panels sagging, and poor
quality of stitching on fabric panels.
Eighteen injuries, mostly lacerations
and abrasions, were reported in this
category.
• Design issues: Of the 436 incident
reports, 42 (10%) indicated some

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

problems with the design of the gate or
enclosure. The reported problems were
with:
Æ The opening size between slats or
enclosure panels that allowed a child to
get their limbs or head entrapped;
Æ the pinch-point created during the
opening and closing action of the door
on the gate or enclosure;
Æ a specific design, which created a
foot-hold that a child could use to climb
over the safety gate; or
Æ a specific design that posed a trip
hazard when the gate was in the open
position.
Nineteen injuries were in this category,
including three fractures of the finger
and one severed fingertip, all treated at
a hospital ED.
• Installation problems: Of the 436
incident reports, 20 (5%) indicated
problems with installation due to:
Æ unclear installation instructions;
Æ mismatched dimensions between
the safety gate and the doorway/hallway
opening; or
Æ unknown reasons; in these cases,
the gate/enclosure was reported to have
been installed, but was somehow
‘‘pushed out’’ or ‘‘pulled down.’’
Four drowning fatalities were reported
in this category. In addition, there were
four nonfatal injuries: One a
hospitalization of a comatose child;
another child treated and released from
a hospital ED following a near-drowning
episode; and the remaining two,
relatively minor laceration/contusion
injuries.
• Miscellaneous other issues and
consumer comments: Seven of the 436
incident reports (2%) included three
complaints about an ineffective recall
remedy, one complaint about poor
product packaging, and three consumer
concerns about the safety of a specific
design. There was one unspecified
injury in this category.
• Instability issues in enclosures:
Three of the 436 incidents (<1%)
reported problems with flimsy and/or
unstable enclosures. Two laceration/
contusion injuries were reported in this
category.
• Multiple problems from among the
above: Twenty of the 436 incident
reports (5%) described two or more
problems from the preceding productrelated issues. Two minor injuries were
reported in this category.6
6 Redistributing these 20 complaints among the
other pertinent subcategories within the productrelated issues does not alter the ranking of the listed
subcategories. However, the redistribution would
result in the within-subcategory incident numbers
adding up to more than the total number of incident
reports. To prevent that, the 20 incidents were
grouped in a separate subcategory.

E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM

08JYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
B. Non-Product-Related
Eleven of the 436 incident reports
(3%) described non-product-related
issues, such as incorrect use of the
product, or the child managing to
bypass the barrier altogether.
Specifically:
• Four incidents reported the child
climbing over the gate/enclosure;
• Three incidents reported caregiver
missteps allowing the gate/enclosure
not to be secured in place;
• Three incidents reported misuse of
gates in a hazardous manner; and
• One report involving a gate
previously repaired/modified and
structurally compromised.
Eight deaths are included in this
category: Four due to drowning, three
due to entrapments, and one due to a
TV tip over. Among the three injuries,
one required hospitalization following a
near-drowning episode, and one
fractured arm was treated at a hospital
ED; the third injury was a concussion of
the forehead.
C. Undetermined
Thirteen of the 436 incident reports
(3%) fell into the undetermined
category. There was insufficient
information on the scenario-specific
details for CPSC staff to determine
definitively whether the product failed
or user error resulted in the incidents.
Seven drowning deaths were reported in
this category. Among the five nonfatal
injuries, one was a hospitalization due
to near-drowning, two were treated at a
hospital ED for poisonous ingestion and
burn, respectively, and two were minor
injuries.
D. Product Recalls
CPSC staff reviewed recalls involving
children’s gates and enclosures from
January 2008 to December 2018. During
that period, there were five recalls
involving baby gates and one recall
involving an enclosure. The total
number of units recalled was 1,318,180.
The recalls involved fall, entrapment,
tripping, and laceration hazards to
children. There were a total of 215
incidents reported, of which 13 resulted
in injuries.

jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

V. Voluntary Standard—ASTM F1004
A. History of ASTM F1004
The voluntary standard for gates and
enclosures was first approved and
published in 1986 (ASTM F1004–86,
Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for First-Generation
Standard Expansion Gates and
Expandable Enclosures). Between 1986
and 2013, ASTM F1004 underwent a
series of revisions to improve the safety

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Jul 05, 2019

Jkt 247001

of gates and enclosures and the clarity
of the standard. Revisions made during
this period included provisions to
address foot-pedal actuated opening
systems, warnings, evaluation of all
manufacturer’s recommended use
positions, test fixture improvements,
entrapment in openings along the side
of the gate, lead-containing substances
in surface, along with other minor
clarifications and editorial corrections.
Beginning in 2014, CPSC staff worked
closely with ASTM to address identified
hazards and to strengthen the voluntary
standard and improve the safety of
children’s gates and enclosures in the
U.S. market. ASTM made revisions
through several versions of the standard
(ASTM F1004–15, ASTM F004–15a,
ASTM F1004–16, ASTM F1004–16a,
ASTM F1004–16b, and ASTM F1004–
18) to address hazards associated with
bounded openings, slat breakage/slat
connection failures, mounting/hinge
hardware issues, latch/lock failures,
pressure gate push-out forces, and
warning labels and instructions. The
current voluntary standard is ASTM
F1004–19, which was approved on June
1, 2019.
B. Description of the Current Voluntary
Standard—ASTM F1004–19
ASTM F1004–19 includes the
following key provisions: Scope (section
1), Terminology (section 3), General
Requirements (section 5), Perfomance
Requirements (section 6), Test Methods
(section 7), Marking and Labeling
(section 8), and Instructional Literature
(section 9).
Scope. This section states the scope of
the standard, and includes products
known as expansion gates and
expandable enclosures, or by any other
name, and that are intended for young
children age 6 months through 24
months. ASTM has stated that the
standard applies to all children’s gates,
including non-expandable, fixed-sized
gates and enclosures.
Terminology. This section provides
definitions of terms specific to the
standard.
General Requirements. This section
addresses numerous hazards with
several general requirements, most of
which are also found in the other ASTM
juvenile product standards. ASTM
F1004–19 has requirements to address
the following safety issues common to
many juvenile products. The general
requirements included in this section
address:
• Wood parts;
• Screws;
• Sharp edges or points;
• Small parts;
• Openings;

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

32349

• Exposed coil springs;
• Scissoring, shearing, and pinching;
• Labeling;
• Lead in paint; and
• Protective components.
Performance Requirements and Test
Methods. These sections contain
performance requirements specific to
children’s gates and enclosures and the
test methods that must be used to assess
conformity with such requirements.
These requirements include:
• Completely bounded openings:
Openings within the gate or enclosure,
and completely bounded openings
between the gate and the test fixture,
shall not permit the complete passage of
the small torso probe when it is pushed
into the opening with a 25-pound force.
This requirement is intended to address
incidents where children were found
with their heads entrapped after having
pushed their way into gaps created
between soft or flexible gate and
enclosure components, and between the
gate and the sides of passageway to be
blocked off, e.g., door frame or wall.
• Height of sides: The vertical
distance from the floor to the lowest
point of the uppermost surface shall not
be less than 22 inches when measured
from the floor. The requirement is
intended to prevent intended occupants
from being able to lean over, and then
tumble over the top of the gate.
• Vertical strength: After a 45-pound
force is exerted downward along the
uppermost top rail, edge, or framing
component, gates and enclosures must
not fracture, disengage, fold nor have a
deflection that leaves the lowest point of
the top rail below 22 inches from the
ground. For gates, the 45-pound vertical
test force is applied five times to the
mid-point of the horizontal top rail,
surface or edge of each gate (or each of
the top points of a gate that doesn’t have
a horizontal top edge). This test is
carried out with the gate installed at
both the maximum and minimum
opening widths recommended by the
manufacturer. For enclosures, the 45pound force is applied to every other
uppermost rail, surface, or edge and
every other top joint of the enclosure.
This requirement is intended to check
that gates and enclosures retain their
intended occupants even when children
hang from or attempt to climb up the
gates.
• Bottom spacing: The space between
the floor and the bottom edge of an
enclosure or gate shall not permit the
complete passage of the small torso
probe when it is pushed into the
opening with a 25-pound force. This
requirement is intended to address
incidents where children were found
with their heads entrapped after having

E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM

08JYP1

jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

32350

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules

pushed their way, feet first, into gaps
created between the gate and the floor.
• Configuration of uppermost edge:
Partially bounded openings at any point
in the uppermost edge of a gate or
enclosure that is greater than 1.5 inches
in width and more than 0.64 inches in
depth must not allow simultaneous
contact between more than one surface
on opposite sides of a specified test
template. The template was
dimensioned so as to screen out nonhazardous openings with angles that are
either too narrow to admit the smallest
user’s neck, or too wide to entrap the
largest user’s head. This requirement is
intended to address head/neck
entrapment incidents reported in the
‘‘V’’ shaped openings common in older,
‘‘accordion style’’ gates.
• Latching/locking and hinge
mechanisms: This hardware durability
test requires egress panels on gates and
enclosures to be cycled through their
fully open and closed positions 2,000
times. Pressure gates without egress
panels are cycled through installation
and removal 550 times. The 2,000 cycles
tests the durability of gates or
enclosures having egress panels which
are expected to be operated twice a day
through the lifetime of the product.
Pressure gates without egress panels are
intended to be installed in locations not
accessed as frequently, and thus, are
tested through a reduced 550 cycle test.
This pre-conditioning test is intended to
address incidents involving failures of
latches, hinges, and hardware.
• Automatic closing system:
Immediately following the cyclic
preconditioning test, an egress panel
marketed to have an automatic closing
feature must continue to automatically
close when opened to a width of 8
inches as well as when it is opened to
its maximum opening width. This
requirement is intended to check that a
gate fully closes and locks as it is
expected and advertised to do, thereby
reducing the likelihood of an occupant
accessing potentially hazardous
conditions on the other side of an
unintentionally unsecured gate.
• Push-out force strength: Five test
locations are specified for this test: the
four corners of the gate as well as the
center. A horizontal push-out force is
applied five times to each of the test
locations and the maximum force
applied before the gate pushes out of the
test fixture is recorded and averaged for
each test location (up to a maximum of
45 lb). The maximum force of 45 lb was
selected because it simulates the effects
of the largest intended occupant’s
weight. The average push-out force shall
exceed 30 lb in all five test locations
(and each individual force shall exceed

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Jul 05, 2019

Jkt 247001

20 lb.) This requirement is intended to
prevent the intended occupant from
being able to dislodge the gate and gain
access to a hazardous area the gate was
meant to protect them from.
• Locking devices: Locking devices
shall meet one of two conditions: (1) If
the lock is a single-action latching
device, the release mechanism must
require a minimum force of 10 lb to
activate and open the gate, or else (2)
the lock must have a double action
release mechanism. This requirement is
intended to prevent the intended
occupant being contained by the gate
from being able to operate the locking
mechanism.
• Toys: Toy accessories shall not be
attached to, or sold with, a gate. Toy
accessories attached to, removable from,
or sold with an enclosure, shall meet
applicable requirements of specification
ASTM F963 ‘‘Consumer Safety
Specification for Toy Safety.’’
• Slat Strength: This test verifies that
no wood or metal vertical members
(slats) completely break or either end of
the slats completely separate from the
gate or enclosure when a force of 45
pounds is applied horizontally. The test
is conducted on 25 percent of all gate
slats, excluding adjacent slats. This
requirement is intended to check that
gates and enclosures retain their
structural integrity when children push
or pull on the gate or enclosure slats.
• Label testing: Paper and non-paper
labels (excluding labels attached by a
seam) shall not liberate without the aid
of tools or solvents. Paper or non-paper
attached by a seam shall not liberate
when subjected to a 15-lb pull force.
Warning, Labeling and Instructions.
These provisions specify the marking,
labeling and instructional literature
requirements that must appear on or
with each gate or enclosure.
• All gates and enclosures must
include warnings on the product about
the risk of serious injury or death when
a product is not securely installed, must
warn the consumer to never use the gate
with a child who is able to climb over
or dislodge the gate, and to never use
the gate to prevent access to a pool.
• Pressure-mounted gates with a
single-action locking mechanism on one
side of the gate must include the
following warning: Install with this side
AWAY from child.
• Enclosures with locking or latching
mechanisms must include the following
warnings: Use only with the [locking/
latching] mechanism securely engaged.
• Gates that do not pass the push-out
test requirements must include the
following warning on the product: You
MUST install [wall cups] to keep gate in

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

place. Without [wall cups] child can
push out and escape.
These warnings are also required on
the retail packaging unless they are
visible in their entirety to consumers on
the gate or enclosure at point of
purchase.
VI. Adequacy of ASTM F1004–19
Requirements
The Commission concludes that the
current voluntary standard, ASTM
F1004–19, sufficiently addresses many
of the general hazards associated with
the use of children’s gates and
enclosures, such as wood parts, sharp
points, small parts, lead in paint,
scissoring, shearing, pinching, openings,
exposed coil springs, locking and
latching, and protective components.
In addition to the general
requirements, ASTM F1004–19 contains
performance requirements and test
methods specific to gates and
enclosures. The Commission determines
that the current voluntary standard
addresses the primary hazard patterns
identified in the incident data. This
section discusses the hazard patterns
that account for the reported incidents
and injuries and how the current
voluntary standard addresses each. To
assess the adequacy of ASTM F1004–19,
CPSC staff considered all 436 reported
incidents (19 fatal and 417 nonfatal) to
identify hazard patterns associated with
children’s gates and enclosures.
A. Hardware Issues
This hazard is associated with 163
incidents (37%). The CPSC incident
data show that hardware failures, (e.g.,
broken hinges, locks, and mounting
brackets) led to contusions, lacerations,
head injuries, and fractures. To identify
gates and enclosures that have hardware
issues, such as those found in the
incident data, ASTM F1004–19 provides
a latching/locking and hinge
performance test that cycles gates
through 2,000 complete ‘‘open and
closing’’ cycles and 550 installation/
removal cycles for pressure gates
without egress panels. The Commission
concludes that this performance
requirement adequately addresses the
hazard pattern associated with hardware
failures.
B. Slat Problems
This hazard is associated with 107
incidents (25%). The CPSC incident
data show that problems occurred when
slats broke or detached from gates or
enclosures, resulting in contusions and
lacerations. The ASTM F1004–19
standard includes a performance
requirement that slats must withstand a
45-pound force, which is the pulling

E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM

08JYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
force of the largest intended occupant.
The Commission concludes that this
performance requirement adequately
addresses the hazard pattern associated
with slat failures.
C. Material and Finish
This hazard is associated with 50
incident reports (11%). The CPSC
incident data show that problems
occurred with small parts breaking free
to become potential choking hazards;
splintering wood, or welding, sharp
edges, protrusions, rails bending out of
shape; fabric/mesh panels sagging, and
poor quality stitching on fabric panels.
ASTM F1004–19 (General
Requirements) contains many
requirements that address these issues,
such as sharp points or edge, small
parts, and bans on the use of transverse/
lateral joints in all wood components.
ASTM F1004–19 also tests openings
within gates or enclosures and
completely bounded openings, as well
as bottom spacing between the bottom
of the gate or enclosure and the floor,
which also help reduce issues with rails
or flexible barrier materials bending out
of shape. The Commission concludes
that these performance requirements
adequately address the hazard pattern
associated with material and finish
failures.

jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

D. Design Issues
This hazard is associated with 42
incident reports (10%). The CPSC
incident data show that problems
occurred when an aspect of the design
of the gate or enclosure failed, such as
the opening size between slats or panels
that allowed for entrapments, moving
gate components causing scissoring or
pinching issues, features that were able
to be used as footholds, or sections that
posed a trip hazard when the gate was
in an opened position. ASTM F1004–19
contains several performance tests that
specifically address entrapments in
openings, including the completely
bounded openings and bottom spacing
tests. The general openings and
scissoring, shearing, and pinching
performance requirements also help
address hazards related to openings.
The Commission concludes that these
performance requirements adequately
address the hazard pattern associated
with design issues.
E. Installation Problems
This hazard is associated with 20
incidents (5%). The CPSC incident data
show that problems occurred when
there were unclear instructions,
mismatched dimensions between gates
and the openings they were meant to fit
into, and failure of the gate to remain

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Jul 05, 2019

Jkt 247001

upright in the opening. ASTM F1004–19
includes several provisions requiring
that warnings, labeling, and instructions
be easy to read and understand for
proper installation of gates. In addition,
ASTM F1004–19 provides that all gates
must meet a 30 lbs of push-out force at
five test locations.
The Commission agrees that the
requirement to meet the 30-lb push-out
force for all gates will improve
children’s safety, if the gate is installed
correctly. The ASTM F1004–19
standard allows the use of mounting
hardware or wall cups to meet the 30lb push-out force requirement. Although
the Commission determines that these
provisions generally address the
installation hazard patterns because
they help clarify the requirements for
proper installation, ASTM may be able
to make improvements in the future to
increase the consumer’s awareness of
the importance of proper installation of
pressure-mounted gates.
Currently, the ASTM standard does
not require pressure-mounted gates to
provide the consumer with reliable
feedback indicating that the gate has
been installed correctly with enough
side pressure to prevent a child from
knocking it over. Manufacturers’
instructions for some pressure-mounted
gates provide little or no clear direction
for consumers to know when the gate is
installed correctly or will stay in place
after several uses. Some of the designs
require the user to push or pull on the
gate to have a feel that the gate is
properly installed (e.g. ‘‘turn the nut
. . . until the gate is snug’’; ‘‘turn the
hand wheels until firm tension is
achieved’’); or make precise
measurements for installation (e.g., the
distance between the gate frame and the
wall to ensure both sides are equally
spaced). These tasks are often subjective
or cumbersome to guarantee proper
installation.
CPSC staff intends to collaborate with
ASTM in the future to improve the
installation of pressure-mounted gates
with the use of visual side-pressure
indicators. Because pressure-mounted
gates rely on friction force to resist a
push-out force applied to the gate, sidepressure force is a key component to the
gate performance. The more sidepressure force exerted by the gate to the
wall/door opening, the more resistance
to push-out forces. Effective visual sidepressure indicators would make it more
likely that test technicians install the
gate with sufficient side-force pressure
and could provide consistency and
validity to the test results. Equally
important, visual side-pressure
indicators could provide a way for
consumers to know when their gate is

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

32351

installed with sufficient side pressure,
particularly as they are not expected to
have or use force gauges during
installation. Visual indicators may also
help inform consumers during the
lifecycle of the product, when
readjustment is necessary. Accordingly,
the Commission seeks comment
regarding the use and feasibility of
visual side pressure indicators for
pressure-mounted gates and whether
such indicators would be effective in
addressing installation failures.
F. Miscellaneous
Seven of the incidents (2%) raised
miscellaneous issues, including three
complaints about an ineffective recall
remedy, one complaint about poor
product packaging, and three consumer
concerns about the safety of a specific
design. The issues are not addressed in
ASTM 1004–19, but they do not relate
directly to improving the safety of gates
or enclosures. Accordingly, the
Commission does not recommend
changes to the ASTM standard to
address these issues.
G. Enclosure Instability
A few (<1%) incident reports came
from consumers who described
problems with flimsy or unstable
enclosures. ASTM F1004–19 contains
several requirements that help address
the product durability issues reported in
these enclosure incidents. The vertical
strength requirement was expanded to
test not only the joints between the
enclosure panels, but also to test the top
rails of the panels themselves.
Additionally, the cyclic locking/latching
tests whether the hardware in these
products is durable and capable of
withstanding regular use. Many of the
general requirements, such as those
concerning sharp edges, small parts,
wood parts, and protective components,
also help to address issues in this
category. The Commission concludes
that these performance requirements are
adequate to address the hazard pattern
associated with unstable enclosures.
H. Warnings and Instructional
Literature
ASTM F1004–19 includes updated
warning format requirements that are
aligned with ASTM’s Ad Hoc Wording
Task Group recommendations. The Ad
Hoc Task Group harmonized the
wording and language used across
nursery product standards. This task
group also developed recommendations
for harmonizing warning formats across
standards. CPSC staff has worked
closely with this group to develop ad
hoc recommendations that are based
largely on the requirements of the ANSI

E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM

08JYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Z535.4, American National Standard for
Product Safety Signs and Labels.
The Commission expects that the
ASTM F1004–19’s labeling
requirements will reduce
inconsistencies currently seen on gates
and enclosures, and will address
numerous warning format issues to
capture consumer attention better,
improve readability, and increase
hazard perception and avoidance

behavior. In addition, the Commission
determines that the instructional
literature, also aligned with the Ad Hoc
Task Group’s wording design or form
requirements, improves the required
warning statements in the instructions.
However, the Commission believes that
additional collaboration with ASTM
regarding the placement and wording of
the warning label on gates for wall cups
on pressure-mounted gates may improve

consumers’ awareness of the importance
of proper wall cup installation.
ASTM F1004–19 currently requires a
warning statement about the hazard of
installing gates without wall cups. This
warning statement is included within
the general warning label; however, the
label can have as many as six different
required messages in one location:

As discussed, there is no objective
measure for consumers to confirm the
correct installation of the gate. CPSC
staff intends to work with ASTM to
improve the installation of pressuremounted gates with the use of visual
side-pressure indicators to provide an
objective way for test technicians and
consumers to know when their gate is
installed with sufficient side pressure.
In addition, although some pressuregate manufacturers generally instruct
consumers that wall cups are required if
they need to install a pressure-mounted
gate at the top of the stairs, consumers
may not be aware that wall cups need
to be installed if the gate is used in other
locations, or that wall cups need to be
reinstalled if the gate is moved to a
different location. Additional
collaboration with ASTM is needed to
assess whether a wall cup warning label
statement that is separate and distinct
from the general warning label, and
placed conspicuously on the top rail of
the gate, may increase the likelihood of
the consumer noticing, comprehending,
and complying with the warning.
Accordingly, the Commission seeks
comment on whether the placement and
wording of the wall cup warning should
be modified, and whether such changes
would be effective in addressing
installation failures.

standard, ASTM F1004–19, to the
performance requirements of other
standards that address children’s gates
and enclosures including:
• The European Standard, EN
1930:2011/A1, Child use and care
articles—Safety barriers—Safety
requirements and test methods (EN
standard); and
• The Canadian regulation, SOR/
2016–179, Expansion Gates and
Expandable Enclosures Regulations
(SOR standard).
CPSC staff determined that, for most
of the relevant performance
requirements, the SOR standard refers to
an older version of ASTM F1004,
published in 1986 (ASTM F1004–86),
which has been superseded. Staff
compared the applicable performance
requirements of the SOR standard and
EN standard to the current ASTM F1004
standard, ASTM F1004–19, including
the following requirements: Side height
and vertical load, footholds, head
entrapment, latch/oock conditioning
test and automatic closing system,
scissoring, shearing, and pinching,
entanglement by protruding parts, neck
entrapment in V shaped opening,
packaging, construction and structural
integrity, push-out test, hazardous
materials, flammability, and protective
components. CPSC staff’s review
showed that, for all of the requirements,
the current ASTM F1004–19 standard is
adequate, or more stringent than, the
international standards in addressing

the hazards identified in incidents
associated with children’s gates and
enclosures.

VII. International Standards
CPSC staff reviewed the performance
requirements of the current ASTM

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Jul 05, 2019

Jkt 247001

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

VIII. Incorporation by Reference
The Commission is proposing to
incorporate by reference, ASTM F1004–
19, 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 V.B of this
preamble summarizes the provisions of
ASTM F1004–19 that the Commission
proposes to incorporate by reference.
ASTM F1004–19 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 F1004–19 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.

E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM

08JYP1

EP08JY19.005

jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

32352

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Alternatively, interested parties may
inspect a copy of the standard at CPSC’s
Division of the Secretariat.
IX. 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, the
Commission 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. The
Commission believes that most firms
should be able to comply with the 6month time frame, but asks for
comments, particularly from small
businesses, regarding the feasibility of
complying with the proposed 6-month
effective date. We also propose a 6month effective date to the amendment
to part 1112.

jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

X. 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.
Based on current information, the
Commission cannot rule out that
incorporating by reference ASTM
F1004–19 as a mandatory CPSC safety
standard would have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities involved in the manufacturing
or importing of children’s gates and
enclosures,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Jul 05, 2019

Jkt 247001

B. Small Entities to Which the Proposed
Rule Would Apply
CPSC staff identified 113 firms
supplying gates and enclosures to the
U.S. market. The vast majority of
suppliers are domestic (109 firms). The
U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA) size guidelines identify any
manufacturer as ‘‘small’’ if it employs
fewer than 500 employees. Out of 113
firms, 83 appear to be very small, homebased domestic manufacturers.7 They
typically have only one or two gates in
their product line and supply few other
products. They generally also have low
sales volumes. None of the home-based
manufacturers appears to supply
enclosures.
An additional 30 firms that are larger
than the home-based suppliers supply
gates and/or enclosures; 26 of the 30 are
domestic. These firms include
manufacturers and importers. Twentythree of the 30 firms, although not as
small as the home-based suppliers, are
still small domestic entities, based on
SBA guidelines for the number of
employees in their North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS)
codes. These firms typically have eight
to nine gate models in their product
lines and have much larger sales
volumes than the home-based suppliers.
Of the 23 small domestic suppliers, 13
supply only gates, six supply only
enclosures, and four firms supply gates
and enclosures. The remaining four
firms are foreign manufacturers.
C. Costs of Proposed Rule To Be
Incurred by Small Manufacturers
CPSC staff is aware of 106 small,
domestic firms currently marketing
gates and enclosures in the United
States. It appears unlikely that there
would be a significant economic impact
on the 17 suppliers (12 manufacturers
and 5 importers) of compliant gates and
enclosures. These suppliers are already
compliant with the current ASTM
voluntary standard (ASTM F1004–18)
and are likely to remain compliant with
the new standard. However, based upon
current information, the Commission
cannot rule out a significant economic
impact on six suppliers of noncompliant
gates and enclosures and 83 home-based
suppliers of gates.
For the three domestic manufacturers
of gates and enclosures that do not
comply with the voluntary standard, the
cost of bringing products into
7 These suppliers were identified online, and staff
believes that there may be additional home-based
suppliers operating in the gates market on a very
small scale (possibly including some without an
online presence).

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

32353

compliance may be significant.8 Several
firms indicate that the cost of a redesign
could be between $400,000 and $1
million, depending on the materials
used to construct the product. The
changes in the requirements for
instruction manuals and labeling are not
expected to be significant for these
firms. Typically, these firms have
already developed and provided
warning labels and instruction manuals
with their products. For two of the three
small manufacturers of noncompliant
gates, third party testing costs are not
expected to exceed 1 percent of revenue
because they have high revenue levels
and few gate models in their product
lines. The revenue level for the third
firm is unknown.
For the three domestic importers/
wholesalers that supply gates and
enclosures that do not comply with the
voluntary standard, the cost of ensuring
compliance with the proposed standard
could be significant, depending upon
the extent of the changes required, and
the response of their supplying firms.
Finding another supplier, or dropping
the product line entirely, are options for
importers/wholesalers if their existing
supplier does not make the necessary
product changes. The impact on a given
firm will depend on the revenue
generated by the product line, the cost
of finding an alternative supplier, and
the variety of other products in their
product line. Third party testing costs
may also have a significant impact.
However, CPSC staff was unable to find
revenue information for two firms, and
testing costs could exceed 1 percent of
revenue for the third firm.
Additionally, it is likely that all 83 of
the very small, home-based suppliers
identified would be significantly
impacted, regardless of whether they
require modifications to meet the
performance requirements of the
proposed standard. Most of the firms are
likely to leave the market because their
revenue from the sale of gates does not
appear to be sufficiently large to justify
third party testing costs and the cost of
developing warning labels and
instructional literature if these have not
been provided before. If confronted by
these costs, most of these very small,
home-based manufacturers could stop
selling gates or go out of business.
The Commission seeks comments on
the changes that may be required to
meet the voluntary standard, ASTM
F1004–19, and in particular, whether
redesign would be necessary, and what
8 Generally, we believe that impacts of less than
one percent of a firm’s revenue are unlikely to be
significant. We cannot rule out the possibility that
impacts of greater than one percent of revenue
could be significant for some firms in some cases.

E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM

08JYP1

32354

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules

the associated costs are and the time
required to bring the products into
compliance. The Commission also seeks
comments from individuals/firms
familiar with various gates made by
home-based suppliers who can provide
additional information on the different
styles of gates provided by home-based
versus non-home-based suppliers. The
Commission is particularly interested in
how these firms are likely to respond to
the proposed rule and the costs and
time frame that would be required to
modify any product, if applicable.
Additionally, the Commission requests
information on the number of homebased suppliers, and on the significance
of gates sales specifically, to their total
revenue.
D. Alternatives
The Commission is proposing a 6month effective date for the rule. A later
effective date could reduce the
economic impact on firms in two ways.
First, firms would be less likely to
experience a lapse in production/
importation, which could result if they
are unable to comply and have their
products tested by a third party within
the required timeframe. Second, firms
could spread costs over a longer time
period, thereby reducing their annual
costs, as well as the present value of
their total costs. Suppliers interviewed
for the rulemaking indicated that 12–18
months might be necessary if a complete
product redesign were required.
Additional time might also be necessary
for home-based suppliers that currently
are not providing warning labels or

instructional materials with their
products to develop them.
The Commission seeks comments on
the impact of the proposed rule on small
manufacturers and importers, in
general, as well as alternative effective
dates, or any other alternatives that
could mitigate the impact on small
firms. When suggesting an alternative,
please provide specific information on
the alternative, and the extent to which
it could reduce the impact.
XI. Environmental Considerations
The CPSC’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.
XII. 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 (PRA; 44 U.S.C.
3501–3521). Under 44 U.S.C.
3507(a)(1)(D), an agency must publish
the following information:

• 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.
In accordance with this requirement,
the CPSC provides the following
information:
Title: Safety Standard for Gates and
Enclosures
Description: The proposed rule would
require each gates and enclosure to
comply with ASTM F1004–19,
Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Expansion Gates and
Expandable Enclosures, with no
modifications. Sections 8 and 9 of
ASTM F1004–19 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 gates or
enclosures.
Estimated Burden: We estimate the
burden of this collection of information
under 16 CFR part 1239 as follows:

jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN
Number of
respondents

Frequency of
responses

Total annual
responses

Total
burden
hours

Hours per
response

Burden type

Type of supplier

Labeling ................................

Home-based manufacturers
Other Suppliers .....................

83
30

2
8

166
240

7
1

1,162
240

Labeling Total ................
Instructional literature ...........

...............................................
Home-based manufacturers

........................
83

........................
2

........................
50

........................
100

1,402
8,300

Total Burden ..................

...............................................

........................

........................

........................

........................

9,702

Our estimate is based on the
following:
Two groups of firms that supply gates
and enclosures to the U.S. market may
need to modify their existing warning
labels. The first are very small, homebased manufacturers (83), who may not
currently have warning labels on their
gates (CPSC staff did not identify any
home-based suppliers of enclosures).
CPSC staff estimates that it would take
home-based manufacturers

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Jul 05, 2019

Jkt 247001

approximately 15 hours to develop a
new label; this translates to
approximately 7 hours per response for
this group of suppliers. Therefore, the
total burden hours for very small, homebased manufacturers is 7 hours per
model × 83 entities × 2 models per
entity = 1,162 hours.
The second group of firms supplying
gates and enclosures to the U.S. market
that may need to make some
modifications to their existing warning

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

labels are non-home-based
manufacturers and importers (30). These
are also mostly small domestic firms,
but are not home-based and do not
operate at the low production volume of
the home-based firms. For this second
group, all of whom have existing
warning labels on their products and are
used to working with warning labels on
a variety of other products, we estimate
that the time required to make any
modifications now or in the future

E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM

08JYP1

jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
would be about 1 hour per model. Based
on an evaluation of supplier product
lines, each entity supplies an average of
8 models of gates and/or enclosures;
therefore, the estimated burden
associated with labels is 1 hours per
model × 30 entities × 8 models per
entity = 240 hours.
The total burden hours attributable to
warning labels is the sum of the burden
hours for both groups of entities: Very
small home-based manufacturers (1,162
burden hours) + non-home-based
manufacturers and importers (240
burden hours) = 1,402 burden hours. We
estimate the hourly compensation for
the time required to create and update
labels is $34.50 (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, ‘‘Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation,’’ December
2018, Table 9, total compensation for all
sales and office workers in goodsproducing private industries: http://
www.bls.gov/ncs/). Therefore, the
estimated annual cost to industry
associated with the labeling
requirements is $48,369 ($34.50 per
hour × 1,402 hours = $48,369). No
operating, maintenance, or capital costs
are associated with the collection.
ASTM F1004–19 also requires
instructions to be supplied with the
product. 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.’’ As with the
warning labels, the reporting burden of
this requirement differs for the two
groups.
Many of the home-based gate
manufacturers supplying on a very
small scale may provide either no
instructions or only limited instructions
with their products as part of their
‘‘normal course of activities.’’ CPSC staff
estimates that each home-based entity
supplying homemade gates and/or
enclosures might require 50 hours to
develop an instruction manual to
accompany their products. Although the
number of home-based suppliers of
gates and/or enclosures is likely to vary
substantially over time, based on CPSC
staff’s review of the marketplace,
currently, there are approximately 83
home-based suppliers of gates and/or
enclosures operating in the U.S. market.
These firms typically supply two gates
on average. Therefore, the costs of
designing an instruction manual for
these firms could be as high as $286,350
(50 hours per model × 83 entities × 2
models per entity = 8,300 hours ×

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Jul 05, 2019

Jkt 247001

$34.50 per hour = $286,350). Not all
firms would incur these costs every
year, but new firms that enter the
market would and this may be a highly
fluctuating market.
The non-home-based manufacturers
and importers likely are providing user
instruction manuals already with their
products, under the normal course of
their activities. Therefore, for these
entities, there are no burden hours
associated with providing instructions.
Based on this analysis, the proposed
standard for gates and enclosures would
impose an estimated total burden to
industry of 9,702 hours at a cost of
$334,719 annually.
In compliance with the PRA (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 August 7, 2019, 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:
• The estimated burden hours
required for very small, home-based
manufacturers to modify (or, in some
cases, create) warning labels;
• the estimated burden hours
required for very small, home-based
manufacturers to modify (or, in some
cases, create) instruction manuals;
• 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, for
both home-based and non-home-based
suppliers.
XIII. 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

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

32355

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 CPSC 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.
XIV. 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 CPSC, must be certified
as complying with all applicable CPSCenforced 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 1239, ‘‘Safety Standard
for Gates and Enclosures,’’ when issued
as a final rule, will be a children’s
product safety rule that requires the
issuance of an NOR.
The CPSC 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
on 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 gates
and enclosures standard, require an
amendment to part 1112. Accordingly,
in this document, we propose to amend
part 1112 to include the gates and
enclosures standard, along with the
other children’s product safety rules for
which the CPSC has issued NORs.

E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM

08JYP1

jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

32356

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Test laboratories applying for
acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third
party conformity assessment body to
test to the new standard for gates and
enclosures 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 1239, Safety Standard for Gates
and Enclosures, 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 RFA 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 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 gates and
enclosures 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 gates and enclosures 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 gates
and enclosures standard to their scope
of accreditation. As a consequence, the
Commission certifies that the proposed
notice requirements for the gates and
enclosures standard will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Jul 05, 2019

Jkt 247001

XIV. Request for Comments
This proposed rule begins a
rulemaking proceeding under section
104(b) of the CPSIA for the Commission
to issue a consumer product safety
standard for gates and enclosures, and
to amend part 1112 to add gates and
enclosures to the list of children’s
product safety rules for which the CPSC
has issued an NOR. In addition to
requests for specific comments
elsewhere in this NPR, the Commission
invites all interested persons to submit
comments on any aspect of the
proposed rule.
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 1239
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 parts 1112 and 1239 of 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)(49) 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) * * *
(49) 16 CFR part 1239, Safety
Standard for Gates and Enclosures.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Add part 1239 to read as follows:
PART 1239—SAFETY STANDARD FOR
GATES AND ENCLOSURES
Sec.
1239.1 Scope.
1239.2 Requirements for Gates and
Enclosures.

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Authority: Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110–314, 122
Stat. 3016 (15 U.S.C. 2056a).
§ 1239.1

Scope.

This part establishes a consumer
product safety standard for gates and
enclosures.
§ 1239.2 Requirements for gates and
enclosures.

Each gate and enclosure must comply
with all applicable provisions of ASTM
F1004–19, Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Expansion Gates and
Expandable Enclosures, approved on
June 1, 2019. 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;
www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may
inspect a copy at the Division of the
Secretariat, 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: www.archives.gov/federalregister/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2019–14295 Filed 7–5–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2019–0246; FRL–9996–06–
Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; District
of Columbia; Amendments to the
Control of Emissions of Volatile
Organic Compounds From Motor
Vehicle and Mobile Equipment NonAssembly Line Coating Operations
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:

The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
part of a state implementation plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the District of
Columbia (the District) on August 29,
2018. The part of the August 29, 2018
SIP revision being proposed for
approval is an update to the 2002
Mobile Equipment Repair and

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM

08JYP1