Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations c Baby Tents Baby tents cannot meet any of CPSCs sleep standards, due to the physical form of these products, which includes slanted flexible sides connected to the floor, sometimes with hanging cords and anchoring spikes. Therefore, relabeling these products as not for infant sleep or removing the products from the market are the only compliance options. We assume that most suppliers will choose to remarket their items as not for sleep or for older children, and that this will not reduce sales, because the advertised primary purpose of the product is shade and insect screen.
Also, most suppliers in this product sector are importers with many other unrelated products or foreign direct shippers. CPSC believes it unlikely most of the suppliers in this category will experience a significant economic impact as a result of this rule. One small importer does not appear to have any other products that might be significantly impacted if they cannot find a compliant supplier.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

F. Summary of Costs and the Economic Impact of the Final Rule Suppliers that choose to stay in the market for infant sleep products will need to comply with the final rule, or another CPSC sleep standard, and certify compliance through third party testing. Suppliers that choose to relabel their products as bouncer seats or swings will need to meet the standards for those products. Suppliers that relabel their products for use by children over 5 months will still need to meet general testing and certification requirements required for all childrens products, such as testing for lead content and phthalates, as well as small parts, but they were already required to meet those requirements.
Based on costs for compliance with other ASTM and CPSC standards for durable nursery products, the expected cost to comply with third party testing will be about $1,500 per model tested, including the costs of the samples to be tested. This is for compliance with the specific standard for infant sleep products only; the costs for complying with general requirements for childrens products should not be new costs for any suppliers. Some of the companies that are small by SBA standards have up to a dozen models of different products impacted by this rule, each of which will have to be tested for compliance with this standard. This would suggest testing costs of about $18,000 per testing cycle.
The suppliers of low, soft-sided products and hammocks are unlikely to
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:56 Jun 22, 2021

Jkt 253001

be able to redesign their products to meet any of the sleep standards, so they will need to decide whether to exit the market or relabel their products for use by older children. The impact is likely to be significant for suppliers of these products if these products constitute a substantial portion of their product line, and they choose to exit the market rather than remarketing the items for older children or pets.
Some manufacturers and importers, both large and small, may be able to minimize the impact of this rule by marketing their products as not for infant sleep, thus effectively putting their products out of scope of this rule.
This may involve conspicuously labeling and marketing their items as not for sleep by children under 5
months. Some flat sleep surface rigidsided products could demonstrate compliance with this standard and the bassinet standard with the addition of a stand or other rigid support. Some noncompliant items might be remarketed for pet use, which has apparently happened with some former childrens products, but the market for such products is probably limited.
Remarketing these products could still result in significant impact of suppliers if such relabeling results in a substantial reduction in product demand.
While some items can be credibly remarketed as not for infant sleep, such as items that resemble chairs or swings, the design of other items suggest they are intended for infant sleep, including hammock crib accessories, baby boxes, and in-bed sleepers, as are most compact bassinets and anything marketed as a bed. Some of these products could be marketed for children over 5 months, depending on the size of the product, but many are too small for a larger child. Suppliers of products where the design and function of the product communicates to the consumer that the product is intended for infant sleep may experience a significant economic impact if those products are a substantial portion of their product line.
Most home-based manufacturers will have the choice of either remarketing their products as not for infant sleep or stopping the sale of the products. The cost of redesigning the product to comply with the standard could be a significant portion of revenue for homebased manufacturers, and redesign might not even be possible for some products commonly sold by home-based manufacturers, such as baby hammocks and low, soft-sided flat products.
Additionally, even if redesign were possible, the testing costs alone could be sufficient to induce these home-based manufacturers to withdraw from the
PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

33067

market for these products. The economic impact of the rule on these home-based manufacturers is likely to be significant. In some cases, these manufacturers might be able to relabel their products for older children, or for pet use. In the case of hammocks, the items could also be marketed for toy storage. However, the demand for infant sleep products for these types of alternative uses is likely to be limited.
We discussed earlier the impacts for specific types of sleeper markets. In summary, the suppliers of inclined sleepers can redesign their items to meet this standard, remove them from the market, relabel them for use by older children, or remarket them as some type of chair. Some inclined items have already been remarketed as types of chairs or chair/swing combination products. The impact would depend on the demand for these products as chairs;
the current remarketing suggests that companies have found there is indeed demand for these products as chairs.
Suppliers of inclined play yard accessories have similar options; it appears that most play yard suppliers have chosen to remove these items from the market and replace them with flat sleep surface accessories instead.
Because play yards were already required to comply with the bassinet standard if in bassinet mode, this may not be a significant impact. Suppliers of compact rigid-sided and rigid-framed products without a stand may be able to redesign their products to meet this standard, or remarket them for use by older children. The size of some of these products would be appropriate for use by older children. Some suppliers of soft-sided travel and compact bassinets are unlikely to be able to redesign their products to comply with this standard, but may be able to remarket them for use by older children.
Similarly, suppliers of in-bed sleepers and baby hammocks are unlikely to be able to redesign their products to comply with this rule, but some may be able to remarket them for use by older children or pets, depending on the size of the products, although demand for those uses may be limited.
In general, suppliers of products with limited remarketing options, where the size of the product is not conducive to use by older children, the low, soft sides cannot easily be redesigned to meet this standard, and the physical configuration of the product limits uses other than sleep, are likely to be significantly impacted. Some suppliers may be able to remarket their infant sleep products for alternative uses. However, this market is probably limited; otherwise, some of these suppliers would already
E:FRFM23JNR2.SGM

23JNR2