Page **1** of **3** 

## U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Directorate for Engineering Sciences (ES)

Telephone Log

SUBJECT: Bassinet Mattress Angle Test Method Task Group Meeting

DATE OF MEETING: 2 8 June 20 10

LOG ENTRY SOURCE: Han Lim , ES

LOCATION: Via Teleconference

CPSC ATTENDEE(S): Han Lim

, ES

NON

- CPSC ATTENDEE(S):

Tony Fernandes (Dorel / Task Group Leader for Bassinet Testing Work Group ); Russ Butson (Kolcraft); Kandi Mell ( Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association, JPMA); Steve Anzaroot (Delta); Lauren Pfei ffer (JPMA); Bob Coughlin (Kids II); Mark Mendes (Kids II) ; Mike Dwyer (JPMA)

BACKGROUND:

Mr. Fernandes and other group members expressed concern about potential test

- to

- test variability when using a CAMI dummy for evaluating bassinet / play yard mattress flatness as the method is proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

. Based on a suggestion 1 from Kids II representatives

, Mr. Coughlin and Mr. Mendes , CPSC staff (Engineering Sciences, Health Sciences, and Human Factors) developed a triangle test prob e and associated test procedures

which have the potential to evaluate possible suffocation scenarios caused by V

- shaped sections formed from two mattress panels of a bassinet / play yard mattress. Subsequently, testing to verify the procedure was performed by CPSC staff on seven bassinet / play yard units.

SUMMARY OF MEETING:

Mr. Fernandes, Task Group L eader for the Bassinet Mattress Angle Test Method called to order this meeting at 11:0 0 AM Eastern Time. I ntroductions were made.

DISCUSSION :

Triang u l ar Probe Test Method

In this test method, a 17 lb cylinder, which has the same weight as a CAMI Mark II Dummy

, is placed between two end panels of a bassinet / play yard mattress. A 10 lb compression force is applied to the cylinder, and then the resulting V

- shaped space is evalu ated for suffocation

hazards. While the cylinder is still resting on the mattress under test, the triangle probe is placed 1 inch from the cylinder. If two sides of the triangle touch the two mattress panels, it

1 See Telephone Log, 7 April 2010, Evaluating B assinet/ Play Yard Mattress Flatness

.Page **2** of **3**

would be considered a failure. This result would indicate that air flow is restricted if a baby’s face is between two mattress panels. See Figure 2.

Figure 1 Figure 2

Mr. Lim explained that this test method may simplif y the test procedure and could possi bly

reduce lab

- to

- lab variability

. The rationale Mr. Lim used was that a cylinder will produce the same footprint on a given mattress, thus the results will be consistent and repeatable. The use of a probe eliminates the need for measuring the actual ang le formed when the mattress is compressed and instead requires a quick visual inspection to determine a pass or fail result. The dimensions of the triang u l ar probe were refined by CPSC Human Factors and Health

Sciences s taff: the dimensions represent the mandible width and nose depth of 0 to 5 month olds (Source: Farkas, L. G., Anthropometry of the Head and Face, Raven Press Ltd., 1994)

.

Mr. Butson commented that the CAMI dummy surrogate (cylinder) does not have to be made of

aluminum

, considering that i t could be costly. Mr. Lim expressed agreement and suggested that the surrogate could be a rigid cylinder with a smooth finish and the following dimensions: 6.3 inch diameter and 11.02 inch height

. In addition to the cylinder, Mr. Butson suggested using t wo plates on a hinge for the cylinder to rest on.

Mr. Fernandes expressed a concern that

, on some bassinet play yard models, the outer shell fabric or liner can become wrinkled once the 17 lb cylinder is placed. If one side of the triangle

touches a wr inkle

, it is possible this may indicate a false positive. The members discussed some options such as applying a force (to be determined) on the triangle to avoid the false positive readings or making the probe heavier, perhaps made of brass or similar mat erial to inherently apply a force of its own weight.

Rock/Swing Angle

Mr. Fernandes discussed Delta’s comment regarding the possible use of the Australian test method for measuring the rest angle with no mattress and no dead weight. While this method arguably may be consistent, Mr. Lim commented that an empty bassinet will not be representative nor would it mimic a child in the bassinet/cradle.

Mr. Lim discussed data that supported the use of a single test method to measure rocking/swinging a ngles. T he wood block cannot be placed in all products and did not appear to

be as consistent as the aluminum angle for mounting the inclinometer. The data suggests that the cylinder aluminum angle combination produced the most consistent, repeatable set of

resul ts.Page **3** of **3**

Mr. Butson raised the concern about the order of steps in the procedure. He suggested that the aluminum angle be mounted prior to the swinging motion. Mr. Lim disagreed because the angle could slide off the test bassinet. The group determined that it would be beneficial if the aluminum angle was clamped instead of placed on top of the frame. The group also discussed how this clamp would look and suggested some possible adaptations to the aluminum angle.

Static Loading

Based on an in

- depth invest igation ( IDI ) report , Mr. Lim raised concerns that products that contain swinging bassinets inside play yards can detach partially

, causing possible suffocation scenarios if an infant becomes entrapped in a gap or opening. Mr. Lim suggested looking into

m ultiple static load tests on multiple locations

, such as corners

, to adequately challenge the product to scenarios where the infant may not be located in the center of the product all the

time . The task group suggested testing a single, most onerous locat ion. Mr. Lim expressed
agreement with th is suggestion

. .

Flat Surrogate

Mr. Butson briefly mentioned the possibility of a flat surrogate. Mr. Lim expressed his concerns

with the method. Mr. Lim believe d that a flat surrogate will flatten a given mattre ss surface, especially a segmented play yard mattress, which would present the best case scenario and not the most stringent scenario.

Fabric Sided Testing

Mr. Butson expressed his concern with the fabric side testing procedure in the NPR. He

believe d i t may require multiple testing scenarios such as testing with and without canopy, etc. Mr. Fernandes and Mr. Anzaroot discussed options that would limit the testing to address the entrapment hazard associated with separating fabric and exposure to rails/ r igid members , which

is the main concern . Mr. Fernandes suggested changing the section 7.10.6 to include testing that requires the test lab to test in all us e positions that affect fabric configurations.

Miscellaneous Testing Discussions

There were br ief discussions regarding minimum side heights and positioning of the CAMI for the stability tests. Mr. Fernandes discussed the history and evolution of the F 2194 standard and explained that these issues were discussed and insufficient rationale was put forth to include these issues into the voluntary F 2194 standard.

Extension of C omment P eriod

Mr. Dwyer inquired about options regarding an extension of time for the NPR comment period.

Mr. Lim said he would check with the Office of General Counsel and follow up. Mr. Lim suggested that a written request to the Office of Secretary would be the first step in the approval process to extend the comment period. Mr. Lim reminded the group that the comment period will end on July 12, 2010.

The meeting was ad journed at 12: 3 5 PM Eastern Time.