Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 64055 

WA. For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

5, 2012. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25673 Filed 10–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1218 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2010–0028] 

RIN 3041–AC81 

Safety Standard for Bassinets and 

Cradles 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA 

requires the United States Consumer 

Product Safety Commission 

(Commission or CPSC) to promulgate 

consumer product safety standards for 

durable infant or toddler products. 

These standards are to be ‘‘substantially 

the same as’’ applicable voluntary 

standards or more stringent than the 

voluntary standard if the Commission 

concludes that more stringent 

requirements would further reduce the 

risk of injury associated with the 

product. The Commission is proposing 

a safety standard for bassinets and 

cradles in response to the CPSIA. This 

constitutes a second round of notice and 

comment, or supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking, for bassinets and 

cradles. 

DATES: Submit comments by January 2, 

2013. 

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–2010–0028, 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. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

directly accepting comments submitted 

by electronic mail (email), except 

through www.regulations.gov. The 

Commission encourages you to submit 

electronic comments by using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, as 

described above. 

Written Submissions: Submit written 

submissions in the following way: Mail/ 

Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, 

or CD–ROM submissions), preferably in 

five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 

504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this 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 2010–0028, into 

the ‘‘Search’’ box and follow the 

prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Edwards, Project Manager, 

Directorate for EngineeringSciences, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; 

telephone 301–987–2244; email 

pedwards@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background and Statutory Authority 

The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008, (CPSIA, Pub. 

L. 110–314), was enacted on August 14, 

2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, part 

of the Danny Keysar Child Product 

Safety Notification Act, requires the 

Commission to: (1) Examine and assess 

the effectiveness of voluntary consumer 

product safety standards for durable 

infant or toddler products, in 

consultation with representatives of 

consumer groups, juvenile product 

manufacturers, and independent child 

product engineers and experts, and (2) 

promulgate consumer product safety 

standards for durable infant and toddler 

products. These standards are to be 

‘‘substantially the same as’’ applicable 

voluntary standards or more stringent 

than the voluntary standard if the 

Commission concludes that more 

stringent requirements would further 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

the product. The term ‘‘durable infant or 

toddler product’’ is defined in section 

104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as a durable 

product intended for use, or that may be 

reasonably expected to be used, by 

children under the age of 5 years. 

Bassinets and cradles are specifically 

identified in section 104(f)(2)(L) as a 

durable infant or toddler product. 

In April 2010, the Commission issued 

a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) 

for bassinets and cradles. (75 FR 22303, 

April 28, 2010). Through ongoing 

consultation and assessment of the 

standard, both the ASTM standard and 

the Commission’s proposals have 

evolved since publication of the April 

2010 NPR, such that the Commission 

believes a supplemental notice and 

opportunity for the public to comment 

would be beneficial. Thus, in this 

document, the Commission is proposing 

a safety standard for bassinets and 

cradles in a supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 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 standard is based on the 

voluntary standard developed by ASTM 

International (formerly the American 

Society for Testing and Materials), 

ASTM F2194–12, ‘‘Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Bassinets and 

Cradles’’ (ASTM F2194–12), with 

additions and modifications to 

strengthen the standard. The ASTM 

standard is copyrighted but can be 

viewed as a read-only document, only 

during the comment period on this 

proposal, at: http://www.astm.org/ 

cpsc.htm, by permission of ASTM. 

B. The Product 

ASTM F2194–12 defines a ‘‘bassinet/ 

cradle’’ as a ‘‘small bed designed 

exclusively to provide sleeping 

accommodations for infants supported 

by free standing legs, a wheeled base, a 

rocking base, or which can swing 

relative to a stationary base’’ and 

provides that a bassinet/cradle is 

‘‘intended to provide sleeping 

accommodations only for an infant up 

to approximately 5 months in age or 

when the child begins to push up on 

hands and knees, whichever comes 

first.’’ ASTM F2194–12 defines a 

‘‘bassinet/cradle accessory’’ as ‘‘a 

supported sleep surface that attaches to 

a crib or play yard designed to convert 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

64056 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

the product into a bassinet/cradle 

intended to have a horizontal sleep 

surface while in a rest (non-rocking) 

position.’’ The Commission is proposing 

modifications to the scope and 

definition of a bassinet/cradle and 

bassinet/cradle accessory, as further 

discussed herein. 

C. The Voluntary Standard—ASTM 

F2194 

The voluntary standard for bassinets 

and cradles was first approved and 

published by ASTM in 2002, as ASTM 

2194, Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Bassinets and Cradles. 

The standard has been revised a number 

of times since then. The Commission’s 

April 2010 NPR assessed the 

effectiveness of ASTM F2194–07aε1. 

Since publication of the 2010 NPR, the 

standard has been revised three times: 

In 2010, 2011, and, most recently, in 

2012. The 2012 version, ASTM F2914– 

12, was approved on June 1, 2012. The 

2012 voluntary standard contains 

requirements addressing a number of 

hazards. The requirements include: 

1. Compliance with CPSC’s 

regulations at 16 CFR part 1303 (ban of 

lead in paint), 16 CFR 1500.48 and 16 

CFR 1500.49 (sharp points and sharp 

edges), and 16 CFR part 1501 (small 

parts), both before and after the product 

is tested according to the standard. 

2. Exposed wood parts on bassinet/ 

cradles, prior to testing, must be smooth 

and free of splinters. 

3. Bassinets/cradles must not present 

scissoring, shearing, or pinching 

hazards. 

4. Requirements and test method to 

prevent unintentional folding. 

5. Requirements for the permanency 

of labels and warnings. 

6. Prohibition against using wood 

screws in the assembly of any 

components that must be removed by 

the consumer in the normal disassembly 

of a bassinet/cradle. 

7. Limits on how far a corner post 

assembly may extend. 

8. Prohibition against containing an 

occupant restraint system when the 

product is used in the bassinet/cradle 

mode. 

9. Performance requirements for the 

spacing of rigid sided bassinet/cradle 

components. 

10. Performance requirements for the 

openings of mesh/fabric sided bassinet/ 

cradles to prevent entrapment. 

11. Performance requirements and test 

methods for static load and stability of 

the bassinet/cradle. 

12. Requirements regarding the 

thickness and dimensions of the 

sleeping pad. 

13. Requirements for the side height 

of the bassinet/cradle. 

14. Requirements and test method for 

protective components of bassinet/ 

cradle. 

15. Fabric-sided enclosed openings 

requirement and test method involving 

a torso probe to protect against 

entrapment in bounded openings in the 

bassinet/cradle. 

16. Performance requirements and test 

methods for the rock/swing feature of 

bassinets or cradles. 

17. Marking, labeling, and 

instructional literature requirements. 

D. Incident Data 

The CPSC’s Directorate for 

Epidemiology reports that there have 

been 335 incidents reported to the 

Commission regarding bassinets/cradles 

from November 2007 through December 

2011. The data is drawn from the 

CPSC’s ‘‘Early Warning System’’ (EWS), 

a pilot project initiated in 2007, which 

draws all data entered into the CPSC’s 

epidemiology databases on a weekly 

basis. The 335 incidents involved 94 

fatalities and 241 nonfatal incidents. 

(Because the number of emergency 

department-treated injuries associated 

with bassinets and cradles was 

insufficient to derive any reportable 

national estimates, injury estimates are 

not presented separately but are instead 

included within the category ‘‘nonfatal 

incidents.’’). 

1. Fatalities 

A total of 94 bassinet-related fatalities 

have been reported from early 

November 2007 through December 

2011. Eight of the 94 deaths are 

associated with the design aspects of the 

product. Three of these deaths were due 

to entrapment and/or hanging that 

resulted after an infant’s body, but not 

head, slipped through the fabric 

covering and underlying structural 

components of a particular brand of 

convertible bassinets/bedside sleeper 

that was subsequently recalled for this 

defect. Two of these three infants were 

6 months old, while the third infant was 

a 4-month-old. Three of the eight deaths 

are associated with problems dealing 

with the flatness of the mattress pads 

used in a bassinet accessory of a play 

yard. All three of these decedents were 

5 months old or younger. One of the 

three decedents suffocated in the corner 

of the bassinet when he rolled into that 

position due to the unlevel mattress 

pad; the other two decedents were 

found face down in a dip in the center 

of the unlevel mattress pad. The rocking 

feature of a bassinet, which contributed 

to its non-level resting position, was 

associated with an additional 

suffocation death of a 1-month-old 

infant. The remaining fatality associated 

with the design of the product occurred 

when the bassinet bed fell off its stand 

and allowed the 3-month-old decedent 

to get pinned between the bassinet and 

a nearby dresser. 

Eighty-two of the deaths were 

asphyxiations due to the presence of 

soft or extra bedding in the bassinet, 

prone placement of the infant, and/or 

the infant getting wedged between the 

side of the bassinet and an added 

mattress or pillow. All but two of the 82 

decedents were 5 months old or younger 

in age; one infant was 7 months old and 

another was 8 months old. There were 

four fatalities with not enough 

information to allow the CPSC to 

determine the hazard scenario. 

2. Nonfatal Injuries 

A total of 241 bassinet-related, 

nonfatal incidents were reported from 

November 2007 through December 

2011. Fifty-two of these incidents 

reported an injury to an infant using the 

bassinet or cradle. The majority of the 

injuries (30 out of 52), were identified 

as resulting from falls out of the 

bassinets. Because 28 of the 30 falls 

were reported through the emergency 

department-treated injury surveillance 

system, little or no circumstantial 

information is available on how the fall 

occurred. However, the reports do 

indicate that 76 percent of the injured 

infants who fell out of bassinets were 

older than the ASTM-recommended 

maximum age limit of 5 months, with 

four infants as old as 9 months of age 

falling out of bassinets. All of the falls 

resulted in head and facial injuries. 

Overall, there were six bassinetrelated injuries that reportedly required 

hospitalization. Four of them, all serious 

head injuries, resulted from a fall out of 

the bassinet. One injury, a leg fracture, 

resulted from a caregiver unknowingly 

attempting to lift an infant out of the 

bassinet while the infant’s leg was 

caught in a structural opening. The 

remaining hospitalized injury was due 

to a moldy bassinet pad that caused 

respiratory illness to the infant. 

Two additional serious injuries were 

reported, but neither of these infants 

was hospitalized. There was a report of 

a second-degree burn suffered by an 

infant from the bassinet’s overheated 

mobile and a report of an arm fracture 

from an infant’s arm getting caught in 

the bassinet. The remaining injuries 

were limited mostly to contusions and 

abrasions. 

The remaining 189 reports either 

indicated that no injury had occurred or 

provided no information about any 

injury. However, many of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 64057 

descriptions indicated the potential for 

a serious injury or even death. 

3. Hazard Analysis 

Based on the incident data, the 

Commission identified hazard patterns 

associated with bassinet and cradle 

incidents. The incidents were grouped 

into four broad categories: 

• Product-related issues; 

• Non-product-related issues; 

• Recalled product-related issues; and 

• Miscellaneous other issues. 

(1) Product-related issues: The hazard 

scenarios in 209 of the 335 incidents (62 

percent) reported were attributed to 

some sort of failure/defect or a potential 

design flaw in the product itself. This 

category includes five fatalities and 46 

injuries, five of which involved 

hospitalization. Listed below are the 

reported problems, beginning with the 

most frequently reported concerns: 

• Lack of structural integrity, which 

includes issues such as instability, loose 

hardware, collapse of the product, and 

loose wheels. This issue was reported in 

64 (about 19 percent) of the incidents. 

One death is associated with this issue. 

• Reports of infants falling or 

climbing out of bassinets/cradles. This 

category accounted for most of the 

bassinet-related injury reports that were 

received from emergency departments 

around the United States. While little 

product-/scenario-specific information 

was available in these reports, a 

majority indicated that the victims were 

over the ASTM-recommended upper age 

limit of 5 months. This issue was 

reported in 32 (about 10 percent) of the 

incidents. 

• Problems with mattress flatness in 

bassinet attachments to play yards. 

Examples include mattresses that would 

not remain level horizontally because of 

poorly designed metal rods/other 

structures that are meant to be 

positioned underneath the mattress; 

lack of rigid mattress support; and 

failure of straps/hooks/bars designed to 

hold the bassinet attachment inside the 

play yard. This issue was reported in 31 

(about 9 percent) of the incidents and 

was associated with three deaths. 

• Problems with rocking bassinets 

and cradles, with locking or tilting 

issues that caused the infant to roll/ 

press up against the side/corner of the 

product and posed a suffocation hazard. 

This issue was reported in 23 (about 7 

percent) of the incidents, including one 

death. 

• Problems with packaging of the 

product that resulted in broken/ 

damaged products during delivery. This 

issue was reported in 19 (about 6 

percent) of the incidents. 

• Problems with bassinet mobiles, 

where components overheated, smoked, 

or sparked. This issue was reported in 

13 (about 4 percent) of the incidents. 

• Miscellaneous other product-related 

problems, ranging from a tear in the 

bassinet fabric, to odors, to product 

assembly/quality issues. Twenty-seven 

(about 8 percent) of the incidents 

reported these issues. 

(2) Non-product-related issues: 

Eighty-three of the 335 reports (25 

percent) were about incidents that 

involved no product defect or failure. 

This category consisted of 82 fatalities, 

most of which were associated with the 

use of soft/extra bedding or prone 

positioning. There was also one nonfatal 

injury incident that did not involve any 

product-related issues. 

(3) Recalled product-related issues: 

There were 26 reports (8 percent) that 

involved recalled products. Some of the 

reports were received by CPSC staff 

prior to the recalls being published. 

There were three fatalities and two 

injuries due to entrapment and/or 

hanging of an infant between structural 

components of the bassinet. Most of the 

remaining reports were complaints or 

inquiries from consumers regarding a 

recalled product. 

(4) Miscellaneous other issues: The 

remaining 17 (5 percent) incident 

reports were related to miscellaneous 

other or unspecified issues. Some of 

these reported concerns from consumers 

about perceived safety hazards; others 

described incidents with insufficient 

specificity for CPSC staff to identify the 

hazard scenario. There were four 

fatalities (unknown circumstances) and 

three injuries, including a hospitalized 

injury, reported in this category. 

In summary, there are five productrelated issues associated with incident 

deaths and/or significant injuries: 

• Structural integrity/instability, 

• Mattress flatness, 

• Rocking, 

• Falling or climbing out, and 

• Entrapment in fabric sided products 

(recalled product-related). 

In addition, there are multiple deaths 

associated with the use of soft/extra 

bedding or prone positioning of the 

child that are considered non-product 

related. 

4. Recalls 

There have been a total of five 

consumer-level recalls involving 

bassinets from October 2006 through 

June 2012. 

One recall, involving 46,000 bassinets 

manufactured from July 2008 through 

May 2010, pertained to the latching 

system between the bassinet bed and the 

frame/stand. The latches that attach the 

bassinet bed onto the metal frame/stand 

could appear to be locked in place but 

still remain unlocked. This allowed the 

bassinet bed to become detached from 

the metal frame/stand, causing the 

bassinet bed to fall and the infant to be 

injured. There were seven incidents 

reported to CPSC and the manufacturer. 

One infant received a bruised cheek 

when the bassinet bed detached from 

the metal frame/stand and landed 

sideways on the floor with the infant 

inside. (The proposed Removable 

Bassinet Bed Attachment test, discussed 

in Sections F and G, would address this 

hazard.) 

Another recall, conducted on 

February 16, 2011, involved all 

bassinets manufactured by the company 

before June 2010. The cross-bracing rails 

on the bassinet stands were 

misinstalled, and thus, were not fully 

locked into position, resulting in the 

bassinet collapsing, which caused the 

infant to fall to the floor or fall within 

the bassinet and suffer injuries. The 

manufacturer received 10 reports of 

incidents in which two infants received 

minor injuries as a result of the 

collapses, including bruises to the head 

and shoulder. Consumers were supplied 

with better instructions and guidance on 

how to install the cross-braces properly. 

This was a very design-specific hazard, 

and CPSC staff has not seen similar 

incidents from other manufacturers. 

The third recall was conducted in 

December 2009 and involved five 

models that were bassinet accessories to 

play yards. This recall involved metal 

bars used to support the floorboard of 

the bassinet accessory that came out of 

the fabric sleeves and created an uneven 

sleeping surface, posing a risk of 

suffocation or positional asphyxiation. 

The manufacturer received no reports of 

injuries. (The proposed mattress flatness 

requirement, discussed in Sections F 

and G, would address this hazard.) 

A fourth recall, conducted in May 

2009 by the same manufacturer as in the 

third recall, also involved portable play 

yards. The convertible play yard 

included a bassinet accessory and 

changing station feature and was 

manufactured before December 1, 2008. 

This recall involved the play yard’s 

rocking bassinet accessory that was 

tilting, even when secured by straps in 

the non-rocking mode, or that stayed 

tilted without returning to a level 

sleeping surface while in the rocking 

mode. These conditions could cause an 

infant to roll to the corner or side of the 

bassinet and become wedged in the 

corner or pressed against the side or 

bottom of the bassinet, posing a risk of 

suffocation or positional asphyxiation. 

The manufacturer and CPSC received 10 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

64058 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

reports of infants rolling to one side, 

including six that had their faces 

pressed against the side or the bottom of 

the bassinet. One child reportedly was 

turning purple and was out of breath 

when discovered. No other injuries were 

reported. (The rock/swing angle test, 

proposed in the 2010 NPR and added to 

the ASTM standard in its 2012 iteration, 

would address this hazard.) 

The fifth recall, conducted in 

September 2008, involved 3-in-1 and 4- 

in-1 convertible bassinets that contained 

metal bars covered by an adjustable 

fabric flap attached with Velcro®. The 

fabric was folded down when the 

bassinet was converted into a bedside 

sleeper position. If the Velcro® was not 

resecured properly when the flap is 

adjusted, an infant could slip through 

the opening and become entrapped in 

the metal bars and suffocate. CPSC 

learned that on August 21, 2008, a 61⁄2- 

month-old girl died when she became 

entrapped and strangled between the 

bassinet’s metal bars. This is the second 

strangulation death that the CPSC 

learned of involving the co-sleeper 

bassinets. On September 29, 2007, a 4- 

month-old girl became entrapped in the 

metal bars of the bassinet and died. (The 

fabric-sided openings test, proposed in 

the 2010 NPR and added to the ASTM 

standard in its 2012 iteration, would 

address this hazard.) 

E. April 2010 NPR and Subsequent 

Changes to the ASTM Voluntary 

Standard 

In April 2010, the Commission 

approved a proposed rule on bassinets/ 

cradles that referenced the requirements 

specified in ASTM F2194–07aε1 as a 

mandatory standard for bassinets and 

cradles, with several modifications to 

further reduce injuries and deaths. The 

modifications and edits included the 

following: 

• Updated warnings; 

• Stability requirements; 

• Performance requirements for 

fabric-sided products to address 

entrapment incidents; 

• Performance requirements to limit 

the rocking/swinging angle to 20 

degrees and the rest angle of certain 

rocking/swinging cradles to 5 degrees; 

• Requirement to eliminate active 

restraints; 

• Changes to scope and terminology; 

and 

• Performance requirements 

specifying a mattress flatness angle of 5 

degrees to address suffocation incidents 

on segmented mattresses. 

The April 2010 NPR also proposed to 

include hammocks within in the scope 

of the standard. 

Many of the changes proposed in the 

April 2010 NPR have been incorporated 

in some capacity into ASTM F2194–12. 

Other changes to ASTM F 2194–12 have 

come about in response to comments to 

the April 2010 NPR. The Commission 

proposes to revise two of the proposed 

changes to the 2010 NPR (involving 

hammocks and the mattress-flatness 

requirement), based on review of public 

comments, further testing and analysis, 

and discussions with the ASTM task 

group on bassinets. 

1. Proposed Changes in April 2010 NPR 

Incorporated Into ASME F2194–12 

Restraints 

The 2010 NPR proposed to prohibit 

bassinets with restraints that require 

action on the part of the caregiver to 

secure the restraint. A commenter 

requested that bassinets be allowed to 

have restraints and provided several 

reasons why they should be allowed. 

The primary reason that the 

Commission believes restraints should 

not be allowed in bassinets is that most 

bassinet uses do not require a restraint, 

so consumers have a strong motivation 

to avoid using restraints, if they are 

provided. When unused, restraints have 

been known to entrap and strangle 

children in similar products, like 

swings, handheld infant carriers, and 

bouncers. While none of the bassinet 

incidents was associated with restraint 

harness strangulation, this is probably 

due to the fact that restraints are rare on 

bassinets and not because they would 

not pose a hazard if they were present. 

The 2012 version of F2194 contains a 

stronger requirement than that proposed 

in the April 2010 NPR that prohibits all 

restraints in bassinets. The Commission 

supports this change to the standard, 

and notes that it is more conservative 

than the restraints requirement 

proposed in the 2010 NPR. 

The Prominence of Warnings About Soft 

Bedding 

The 2010 NPR proposed a stronger 

warning label to address suffocation 

hazards. The current ASTM standard for 

bassinets, F2194–12, includes an 

enhancement of the soft bedding 

warnings by: (1) Increasing the font size 

for the suffocation warning label to 0.4 

inches or higher; and (2) adding 

emphasis by stating that ‘‘Infants have 

suffocated * * *,’’ rather than stating 

‘‘Infants can suffocate * * *.’’ 

Maximum Rock/Swing and Rest Angles 

The Commission’s 2010 NPR 

proposed a maximum rock/swing angle 

of 20 degrees and a maximum rest angle 

of 5 degrees for rocking cradles. Several 

commenters recommended a maximum 

rock/swing angle of 20 degrees and a 

maximum rest angle of 7 degrees for 

rocking cradles. The 5-degree angle was 

based on the Australian standard for 

rocking cradles. In the Australian 

standard, the angle is measured with the 

CAMI infant dummy placed in the 

center of the cradle. The intent is to 

ensure that the rocking cradle returns to 

a level position and provides a flat 

sleeping surface for the infant. In ASTM 

F2194–12, the angle is measured with 

the CAMI dummy placed to one side of 

the cradle. The Commission believes 

that the placement of the CAMI to one 

side results in a more stringent 

requirement than the Australian 

standard. For this reason, a 7-degree rest 

angle is a reasonable and achievable 

requirement for bassinets that will 

address suffocation hazards associated 

with an angled sleep surface. Therefore, 

the Commission is not making any 

recommendations with respect to this 

issue. 

Fabric-Sided Enclosed Openings Test 

The performance requirements for 

fabric-sided products included in 

F2194–12 to address entrapment 

incidents are the same as in the 2010 

NPR, except for editorial changes made 

to clarify the requirement and test 

procedure. 

Stability 

The stability requirements are 

intended to ensure that the product does 

not tip over when pulled on by a 2-yearold male. The 2010 NPR clarified that 

the stability requirement applies to all 

manufacturer-recommended use 

positions, including the position where 

the locks are engaged to prevent 

rocking/swinging motion. ASTM 

incorporated this change in ASTM 

F2194–11; therefore, it is included in 

the latest version, ASTM F2194–12. 

2. Changes to ASTM F2194 That Arose 

Out of a Response to Comments 

Received on the April 2010 NPR 

Baby Size Limits 

In response to the 2010 NPR, one 

commenter noted that because 

‘‘bassinets provide an important tool for 

parents to monitor premature babies,’’ a 

target age range for infant occupants 

may be necessary to enhance the 

understanding of the developmental 

milestones used in the warnings. They 

also suggested that if there is ‘‘a size at 

which a bassinet becomes unsafe for a 

baby,’’ then that factor should be listed 

in the product’s instructions and 

warnings. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 64059 

The 2012 version of the ASTM 

standard includes a reference to the 

maximum recommended weight in the 

FALL HAZARD warning label. The 

Commission supports this addition to 

the standard. 

Static Load 

The static load test is intended to 

ensure structural integrity even when a 

child three times the recommended (or 

95th percentile) weight uses it. This has 

been modified following publication of 

the April 2010 NPR to also test play 

yard bassinet accessories at all four 

corners to ensure structural integrity of 

the product. 

Side Height Requirement 

This requirement, which is intended 

to prevent falls, was added to F2194–12 

in response to comments to the 2010 

NPR. The side height requirement in 

F2914–12 requires that the bassinet/ 

cradle side height be at least 71⁄2; inches 

from the top of the uncompressed 

mattress surface. 

3. Revisions to Proposed Changes in 

2010 NPR 

Hammocks 

The Commission’s 2010 NPR 

proposed to include infant hammocks in 

the scope of the standard. The voluntary 

standard for bassinets and cradles does 

not state explicitly whether infant 

hammocks are included within the 

scope of the standard. However, the 

Juvenile Products Manufacturers 

Association (JPMA) historically has 

certified some infant hammocks to the 

bassinet standard because there was not 

a separate standard for infant hammocks 

and other inclined sleep products. 

Including infant hammocks in the scope 

would effectively ban most infant 

hammocks currently on the market 

because, by their nature, they would be 

unable to meet the performance criteria 

in the bassinet standard addressing rest 

angle, segmented mattress flatness 

angle, and rock/swing angle. 

Several comments were received 

regarding the inclusion of infant 

hammocks and other inclined sleeping 

products in the scope of the 2010 NPR. 

The comments were universally against 

such inclusion, asserting that this would 

effectively ban a product that has utility. 

The comments also opined that banning 

them might increase hazardous sleeping 

arrangements, causing consumers to 

resort to a substitute product such as a 

car seat or makeshift soft bedding to 

prop up an infant. The Commission 

agrees that alternative products or 

makeshift products would present 

additional hazards if consumers chose 

to use them instead of cribs, bassinets, 

or other common juvenile products 

intended for sleep. 

An inclined sleeper differs from a 

bassinet in that it is intended to have an 

inclined sleep surface and it conforms 

to the contour of the occupant. Most 

hammocks have mattresses that are also 

inclined in a manner that elevates the 

head, as well as conforming to the body 

contours of the infant. They are also 

intended to allow swinging or bouncing 

motions. These special features, 

especially elevating the head, are 

sometimes intended to help prevent 

reflux. Features that allow head 

elevation, swinging, and bouncing 

motions distinguish these products from 

common bassinets and cradles, which 

generally have flat mattresses with solid 

or fabric-covered framed sides. The 

Commission believes that a separate 

standard targeted specifically to these 

products will more effectively address 

any hazards associated with them. Due 

to the significant progress in the 

development of a separate voluntary 

standard to address hammocks and 

inclined sleeping products, the 

Commission is not including them 

within the scope of this proposed rule. 

Mattress Flatness 

In the 2010 NPR, a mattress flatness 

performance test for all types of 

bassinets and cradles was included. The 

performance requirement specified a 

mattress flatness angle of 5 degrees to 

address suffocation incidents on 

mattresses. The mattress flatness 

performance requirement that the 

Commission is proposing in this 

document only applies to segmented 

mattresses because the CPSC’s review of 

the data showed that only segmented 

mattresses used in play yards were 

involved in incidents. In addition, the 

Commission determined that an angle of 

10 degrees or less would still provide 

protection; allow for testing variances; 

and also address design and 

manufacturability concerns with 

segmented mattress pads. The 

Commission’s new proposal has 

additional requirements for twooccupant bassinets. The test method 

now uses a rigid cylinder to simulate 

the infant, rather than a soft/deformable 

CAMI dummy. This change provides 

more consistent test results. The 

mattress flatness test is discussed in 

more detail in Section F. 

F. Assessment of ASTM Voluntary 

Standard and International Standards 

The Commission believes that ASTM 

F2194–12 addresses many of the general 

hazards associated with durable nursery 

products, such as lead in paints, sharp 

edges/sharp points, small parts, wood 

part splinters, scissoring/shearing/ 

pinching, openings/entrapments, 

warning labels, and toys. The standard 

also includes specific requirements for 

tip stability, unintentional folding of the 

product, and static load. 

From the incident data and hazard 

patterns associated with bassinets and 

cradles (as discussed in Section C), the 

Commission identified six addressable 

hazards: (1) Suffocation due to the 

addition of soft bedding; (2) suffocation/ 

positional asphyxia due to excess 

mattress pad angle; (3) entrapments in 

fabric-sided openings; (4) suffocation 

due to excess rock/swing angles; (5) 

misassembly of removable bassinet 

beds; and (6) falls and climb-outs. 

Following is an analysis of the adequacy 

of ASTM F2194–12 in addressing these 

hazards. 

1. Suffocation Due to the Addition of 

Soft Bedding. The majority of the deaths 

associated with bassinets and cradles 

were asphyxiations due to the presence 

of soft or extra bedding in the bassinet, 

prone placement of the infant, and/or 

the infant getting wedged between the 

side of the bassinet and an added 

mattress or pillow. 

As mentioned in Section E of this 

preamble, since publication of the 2010 

NPR, ASTM F2194 has been revised to 

strengthen the suffocation warning. 

Specifically, ASTM F2194–12, includes 

an enhancement of the soft bedding 

warnings by: (1) Increasing the font size 

for the suffocation warning label to 0.4 

inches or higher; and (2) adding 

emphasis by stating: ‘‘Infants have 

suffocated * * *,’’ rather than 

indicating: ‘‘Infants can suffocate 

* * *.’’ 

The Commission supports the 

strengthening of the suffocation warning 

label as included in the latest revision 

of the ASTM voluntary standard and 

does not believe that there are 

additional requirements that can be put 

in place in the standard to address 

unsafe sleep environments and unsafe 

sleep practices. The Commission will 

continue information and education 

efforts, such as the Safe Sleep campaign, 

to address suffocation and other serious 

sleep hazards. 

2. Suffocation/Positional Asphyxia 

Due to Excess Mattress Pad Angle. 

Bassinets that are commonly sold as 

accessories to play yards use the floor of 

the play yard (a segmented mattress 

pad) as the floor of the bassinet. Seams 

between segments of folding play yard 

bassinet accessory mattress pads have 

been known to create a valley shape in 

a bassinet sleeping surface in the crease 

between adjoining segments of the 

mattress. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

64060 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

An inclined sleeping surface (on a 

product not intended to provide a 

contour or other means to contain the 

child) can contribute to an infant 

rolling, increasing the likelihood that 

they will be found face down and 

become trapped in a significant Vshaped crease. When lying prone in a 

valley (or V-shaped crease), infants may 

have more difficulty keeping their 

airways unobstructed than they would 

on a flat surface because their faces are 

trapped in the juncture between 

adjacent surfaces. Their heads cannot 

rotate to the side as much as when the 

sleeping surface is flat. Immature head 

control and weak neck muscles may not 

allow them to free their airways. Thus, 

infant sleeping surfaces need to be as 

firm, flat, and level as possible because 

soft, uneven and non-level surfaces may 

create a higher risk of suffocation than 

a level surface. 

The Commission has identified 

incidents associated with a sleeping 

surface (segmented mattress) that is not 

level or flat. The data include fatal and 

nonfatal incidents involving play yard 

attachment bassinets with insufficient 

mattress support. 

In one in-depth investigation (IDI), the 

product was apparently assembled 

without two key structural support bars 

beneath the mattress pad of a bassinet 

accessory that was intended by the 

manufacturer to be mounted from the 

top rails of the play yard. The incident 

summary states: 

A 3 month and 26 day old male victim was 

found deceased inside a play yard. The ME 

determined that the cause of the death was 

asphyxia. The victim was found face down in 

a crease produced by the mattress. He was 

pronounced deceased at the hospital. 

The Commission notes that 

requirements to ensure that key 

structural supports are properly 

installed by consumers would have 

helped prevent this incident from 

occurring. The Bassinet Misassembly 

Provision NPR, published on August 29, 

2012, is a Commission-directed NPR to 

amend the play yard mandatory 

standard to include a provision to 

address the hazards associated with 

play yard bassinet accessories that can 

be misassembled. (77 FR 52272). 

However, there has never been a 

requirement for sleeping surfaces to be 

flat or even nearly flat, which is the 

critical feature of the product that 

constitutes a hazard. A play yard could 

be designed to position the occupant in 

a valley, and it would still pass the play 

yard standard and the misassembly 

provision. The Commission believes 

both requirements are necessary to 

address these hazards: (1) A missing 

component requirement to prevent 

installation/use of a bassinet accessory 

that has a key component missing; and 

(2) a flatness requirement to ensure 

segmented mattresses, like those found 

in bassinet accessories, are flat when 

assembled according to manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

In another IDI, the victim was in a 

bassinet accessory to a play yard that 

was also misassembled. The incident 

summary states: 

A two month old male was found 

unresponsive in his * * * play yard with no 

signs of trauma. The child had rolled in the 

bassinet section causing his face to be placed 

in the corner of the bassinet. He was lying on 

a blanket with another blanket on top of him. 

Investigators who initially measured the 

bassinet at the scene reported that one side 

was five inches higher than the other. I 

observed during my investigation that 

depending on weight and movement that 

there will be a variance in height within the 

unit. 

Other risk factors also may have 

contributed to the incident (e.g., the 

placement of the infant to sleep in the 

prone position and the presence of a 

blanket under the infant), but the case 

nonetheless illustrates the potential for 

non-level sleeping surfaces to contribute 

to bassinet occupants getting into fatal 

positions from which they may not be 

able to remove themselves. 

A third fatality involved a victim with 

serious physical challenges who was 

placed face down to sleep (both of these 

are additional risk factors) and was 

found in a sagging bassinet accessory to 

a play yard. The incident report states: 

The mother was using the elevated playpen 

platform for her 5 month old male baby’s 

sleeping area. He was born with multiple 

physical complications including the 

inability to swallow and would drool 

constantly. The parents placed the infant in 

the playpen at night face down and awoke 

to find he had expired in the middle of the 

night. The playpen elevated platform showed 

sagging in the center possibly due to 

incorrect assembly of the playpen. 

In the fourth incident involving a 

fatality, a baby died in the corner of a 

tilted bassinet accessory on a play yard. 

A rod intended to be placed in a pocket 

at the end of the accessory was left out. 

When a clip on the corner of the 

bassinet came off for unknown reasons, 

the sleeping surface tilted downward, 

allowing the infant’s head to become 

entrapped. While the incident was 

included in data used for the final rule 

briefing package for play yards, it is 

included here because the manner of 

death is related to a non-level, 

segmented mattress. 

In addition to the fatal incidents, a 

nonfatal incident was found to be 

associated with the same hazard. In this 

incident, a child in a bassinet accessory 

of a play yard was observed rolling into 

seams on the sleep surface, but the child 

was not injured. The incident report 

states: 

No injury occurred to a five-month-old 

female, who while asleep in the bassinet 

section of a portable and collapsible play 

yard rolled into a seam of the removable 

changing pad used with the bassinet. The 

mother of the five-month old noticed that the 

five month old had a tendency to roll into 

seams of the mattress pad when it was used 

with the bassinet. 

There is no requirement for mattress 

flatness in ASTM 2194. The 2010 NPR 

proposed a mattress flatness 

requirement that specified a 5-degree 

maximum tilt angle for segmented 

sleeping surfaces, like those found in 

play yard bassinet accessories. The 

ASTM subcommittee for bassinets 

believed that the 5-degree maximum 

angle was not achievable within the 

tolerances necessary to manufacture 

play yard bassinet accessories; 

accordingly, they considered alternative 

test methods and requirements for 

sleeping surface flatness in products 

with segmented mattresses. 

In lieu of the 5 degrees proposed in 

the 2010 NPR for segmented mattresses, 

the ASTM subcommittee sent out to 

ballot a requirement that allowed up to 

14 degrees on either side of a valley 

formed at a seam, with higher inclines 

possible if the sum of the two angles on 

either side of the valley did not exceed 

28 degrees in total. The 14-degree angle 

was based on an extrapolation of angles 

formed by dimensions of average infant 

faces. By combining an infant’s 

mandible width with dimensions of 

nasal protrusion, an isosceles triangle 

can be created that represents a crosssection of the volume of space beneath 

the nose. From this cross-section, one 

can extrapolate both the angle of the 

valley and the angle of the incline of the 

surface that would contact a prone 

infant’s face. The angle resulting from 

the combination of the average facial 

dimensions is 15 degrees, from which 

the ASTM subcommittee subtracted a 

single degree for a factor of safety. This 

ASTM ballot item received many 

negative votes and was not approved for 

the standard. 

The Commission is uncomfortable 

using the average infant facial 

dimension as the basis for this 

requirement. A product that has a 14- 

degree angle in the valley formed at the 

seam of the mattress would leave about 

one-half of the potential occupant 

population unprotected from 

suffocation. While the ASTM 

Committee used an angle resulting from 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 64061 

the combination of average facial 

dimensions, the Commission generally 

recommends using the smallest users’ 

anthropometrics for justifying 

requirements of this nature. If the facial 

measurements of the smallest (5th 

percentile) infants are used to form the 

isosceles triangle, the resulting valley is 

158 degrees, which yields an 11-degree 

angle of sleep surface incline from the 

horizontal on each side. If a single 

degree is subtracted from this incline 

angle for a minor factor of safety, the 

requirement becomes a 10-degree 

maximum incline from the horizontal. 

In the Commission’s proposed test, each 

seam of a folding bassinet sleeping 

surface is tested with a pass/fail 

criterion of 10 degrees maximum for 

either side of the valley formed by a 

weighted cylinder. 

In August 2012, ASTM reballoted the 

mattress flatness test. Several 

modifications were made to the test 

procedure, and CPSC staff was involved 

throughout the development of this 

requirement. The actual test procedure 

that was reballotted by ASTM is 

identical to the Commission’s 

recommendation. However, the test 

requirement (the pass/fail criteria) is 

different. In the test procedure, a 

measurement is taken on each side of 

each seam of the mattress (for a total of 

6 or 8 measurements per bassinet). As 

mentioned, the Commission is 

proposing a test requirement of 10 

degrees maximum for each 

measurement taken. Under the ASTM 

ballot, 10 degrees or less for all 

measurements would pass, more than 

14 degrees for one or more 

measurements would fail, and any angle 

measurements between 10 and 14 

degrees would require a two-step 

process where the test lab would take 

two additional measurements, average 

them, and then use 10 degrees as the 

final pass/fail delineator. 

With regard to the test method itself, 

the 2010 NPR’s method for testing 

flatness used a CAMI dummy to weight 

the surface prior to measuring the side 

angles of the valley formed in the 

sleeping surface. However, the CPSC 

and the ASTM subcommittee prefer a 

rigid cylinder to help increase the 

reliability of the test across test 

laboratories. This is because CAMI 

dummies tend to vary slightly with age 

because of the nature of their 

construction. CPSC staff tested a variety 

of cylinder diameters and lengths and 

found that small differences in the 

footprint of the test cylinder were not 

critical to differentiating hazardous from 

nonhazardous products. The most 

critical factor was the design of the 

mattress support structure. An exact 

replica of the human form is not 

necessary for this type of screening, and 

the benefits of using standardized, 

readily available test methods are 

appreciated by industry. As previously 

mentioned, the test procedure that the 

Commission is proposing is identical to 

what ASTM recently balloted. 

3. Entrapments in fabric-sided 

openings. Three deaths associated with 

bassinets and cradles were due to 

entrapment and/or hanging that resulted 

after an infant’s body, but not head, 

slipped through the fabric covering and 

underlying structural components of a 

particular brand of convertible 

bassinets/bedside sleepers of a 

particular brand of convertible 

bassinets/bedside sleepers. These 

incidents occurred in one 

manufacturer’s bassinet that was 

recalled on August 28, 2008. 

As discussed in Section E, since 

publication of the 2010 NPR, ASTM has 

revised the bassinet standard to include 

a fabric-sided enclosed openings test. 

The test, as added to the 2012 version 

of the standard, is very close to what 

was included in the 2010 NPR. Thus, 

the Commission is not recommending 

any further changes relating to this 

hazard. 

4. Suffocation due to excess rock/ 

swing angles. Bassinets and cradles with 

locking or tilting issues that caused the 

infant to roll/press up against the side/ 

corner of the product pose a suffocation 

hazard. There have been several 

nonfatal incidents and one fatality 

associated with a rocking bassinet. In 

the fatal incident, a 1-month-old was 

found pressed up against the fabric side 

of a bassinet. It is not known whether 

the lock, which was designed to prevent 

rocking, was engaged properly, or 

wasn’t functioning correctly. 

As discussed in Section E, since 

publication of the Commission’s 2010 

NPR, ASTM has included a rock/swing 

angle requirement in its standard. The 

requirement specifies a maximum of 20 

degrees for the swing angle and 7 

degrees for the rest angle. The 

Commission believes that this 

requirement adequately addresses the 

hazard. Thus, the Commission is not 

proposing any further changes to the 

standard relating to this hazard. 

5. False latching/stability of 

removable bassinet beds. The 

Commission is aware of several 

incidents involving bassinets beds that 

were designed to be removed from their 

stand, four of which have IDIs. During 

the incidents, the bed portion of the unit 

was not completely locked or properly 

attached to its stand. The bed portion of 

the unit appeared to be stable, giving the 

caregivers a false sense of security. For 

various reasons, the bed portion fell or 

tilted off of its stand. In one case, a 3- 

month-old infant was killed. The 

Commission was also informed by 

Health Canada of a second death. In 

email correspondence from Health 

Canada staff, the following was 

reported: 

It strongly appears the bassinet was not 

attached to the base when the infant was put 

down for a nap. When the infant was found, 

the bassinet was perpendicular to the base 

and had fallen into the base opening at an 

angle suspending the infant. The straps and 

hooks attaching the bassinet to the base were 

not snapped in. 

There have also been nonfatal 

incidents involving bassinet beds that 

tipped over or fell off their base/stand 

when they were not properly locked/ 

latched to their base/stand, or the latch 

failed to engage as intended. In May 

2012, there was a recall of 46,000 

bassinets that could appear to latch to 

the stand when they actually had not 

latched. (http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/ 

prerel/prhtml12/12173.html). 

The reason that removable bassinet 

designs need inherent stability (or 

obvious instability) is consumers will 

sometimes avoid activating lock or latch 

mechanisms if it appears that the 

bassinet bed is stable when placed on its 

stand/base. Consumers may do this 

because the locks or latches seem 

redundant or because they are worried 

about making noise when activating 

locks or latches around a sleeping 

infant. Locks and latches also 

accidentally may give feedback that they 

are locked when they are not. This 

constitutes a ‘‘false latching’’ situation. 

Because of these foreseeable use 

patterns, this requirement will make 

bassinets with a removable bed portion 

inherently stable or have visible 

indicators to show when the bassinet 

bed is not properly attached to the 

stand. 

Commission staff has been actively 

involved in an ASTM task group that is 

currently developing requirements to 

address the hazards associated with 

bassinets with removable bed portions. 

To date, the language that the task group 

drafted has yet to be balloted. The 

Commission proposes adding a new 

requirement for the NPR, based on what 

the ASTM task group has developed to 

date. The proposed requirement allows 

multiple options to pass. These options 

will either ensure that the bed portion 

of the unit is inherently stable when it 

is placed on the stand unlatched, or it 

will give obvious feedback that the unit 

is not latched or stable. One option 

allows the unit to give an extreme 

appearance of instability by being tilted 

20 degrees or more. The 20-degree 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

64062 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

minimum is twice the allowable 

deviation from horizontal that staff 

recommends for sleeping surface 

flatness. This angle was extrapolated 

from an IDI report involving a caregiver 

who noticed that a bassinet was tilted. 

From photographs of the incident 

product, the ASTM task group assigned 

to examine the problem estimated that 

the unit produced about a 17-degree 

angle, which they felt would be 

reasonable to round up to 20 degrees for 

the standard. A sleeping surface at 20 

degrees from the horizontal seems 

severe enough that consumers would 

notice that it was not level. This 

proposed requirement is slightly less 

than the angle proposed to address 

similar hazards in the play yard 

standard (i.e., 30 degrees from the 

horizontal), but the ASTM 

subcommittee reasoned that bassinets 

are different in structural design and 

materials and will appear to be 

misassembled more easily than the 

suspended and segmented mattress 

supports used in play yards. 

In addition to the aforementioned 

options, a bassinet that has a removable 

bed would also pass the requirement if 

it has a visual indicator to alert a 

caregiver that the bassinet bed is not 

properly locked onto the stand. Or, the 

bassinet would also pass the 

requirement if it can pass the standard’s 

stability test while in an unlocked 

position. 

6. Falls and Climb-Outs. The majority 

of the nonfatal injuries (30 out of 52, or 

58 percent) were identified as falls from 

the bassinets. Because 28 of the 30 falls 

were reported through the emergency 

department-treated injury surveillance 

system, little or no information is 

available on how the falls occurred. 

However, the reports do indicate that 76 

percent of the injured infants who fell 

out of bassinets were older than the 

ASTM-recommended maximum age 

limit of 5 months, with four infants as 

old as 9 months of age. All of the falls 

resulted in head and facial injuries. 

The Commission believes the new 

side height requirement in ASTM 

F2194–12, which requires a bassinet 

side to be at least 7.5 inches above the 

mattress surface, as well as the proposed 

removable bassinet requirements, will 

help address fall hazards. 

In addition to the requirements for 

mattress flatness and removable bassinet 

bed attachments, the Commission is 

proposing changes to the scope of the 

standard and a revised test method for 

stability. 

Scope 

In order to clarify which products are 

covered under the scope of the proposed 

standard and to ensure more complete 

coverage of sleep products, the 

Commission is proposing the following 

with respect to the scope of the ASTM 

standard. The scope would encompass 

products with an incline of 10 degrees 

or less, but not products with a greater 

than 10-degree angle. This would 

include cradle swings within the scope, 

which, by definition, recline less than 

10 degrees. The Commission proposes 

including products that can be 

supported by a stationary frame/ 

standard, such as carriage attachments 

to strollers and Moses baskets, only 

when they are used with a stationary or 

rocking stand. (A Moses basket is a 

portable cradle, typically made from 

wicker or cloth, with no legs or a stand.) 

Finally, the Commission proposes to 

specify that the standard covers 

products primarily used to provide 

sleeping accommodations. This would 

expand the scope beyond products only 

used to provide sleeping 

accommodations. This would ensure, 

for example, that a bassinet sold with a 

toy mobile that is meant to entertain an 

infant who is lying in the bassinet 

would still fall within the scope of the 

standard. 

Stability Test Dummy 

During evaluations of the test 

methods for removable bassinet beds, 

Commission staff made comparisons of 

the stability of products weighted with 

the newborn CAMI dummy (7.45 lbs) as 

opposed to the infant CAMI dummy 

(17.4 lbs). ASTM F2194–12 contains a 

stability requirement that uses the 

heavier infant CAMI dummy. There is 

no rationale included in the ASTM 

standard for why the heavier dummy 

was specified in the stability 

requirement. Use of the newborn CAMI, 

which is readily available to test labs 

and represents the 50th percentile 

newborn, would result in a more 

conservative stability test. In addition, 

bassinets are intended for use with 

newborns. For these reasons, the 

Commission is proposing a revised test 

procedure for bassinet stability, which 

uses a newborn CAMI instead of an 

infant CAMI. 

International Standards 

The Commission reviewed Canadian, 

European, and Australian standards for 

bassinets and/or cradles. Many of the 

requirements found in the 2012 ASTM 

standard can also be found in some of 

these international standards. 

The European Standard, EN 1130–1: 

1996, ‘‘Furniture—Cribs and Cradles for 

Domestic Use,’’ has several 

requirements not found in ASTM 

F2194–12. Most of these additional 

requirements address hazards associated 

with cribs intended for use with older 

children (in excess of the 5-month 

recommended maximum age for 

bassinets). Thus, they are not applicable 

to bassinets. 

The scope of the European Standard, 

EN 12790–2009, ‘‘Child Use and Care 

Articles—Reclined Cradles,’’ includes 

inclined bassinets/cradles, car seat 

carriers, hammocks, and bouncers. 

Some of the general requirements could 

apply, but because the scope of the 

product is not the same, most of the 

requirements are not applicable to 

bassinets. 

The Australian/New Zealand standard 

(AS/NZS 4385:1996) contains 

requirements for rocking and swinging 

angles that were used to develop some 

of the requirements in ASTM F2194. 

The ASTM rock/swing rest angle 

performance requirement, while based 

on AS/NZS 4385:1996, contains a more 

severe test method than that in AS/NZS 

4385:1996, due to the placement of the 

CAMI dummy. This is discussed more 

fully in Section E. 

The Canadian standard (SOR 86–962: 

2010) includes requirements for cribs 

and non-full-size cribs. This standard 

does not distinguish between a bassinet 

and non-full-size cribs. As a result, 

many of the requirements are not 

applicable for this NPR. However, the 

Canadian standard was used to develop 

the ASTM requirement for bassinet side 

height. 

The Commission believes that the 

current ASTM F2194–12 standard is the 

most comprehensive of the standards to 

address the incident hazards. There are 

some individual requirements in 

various foreign standards that are more 

stringent than ASTM; however, many of 

these requirements do not address the 

identified hazards in the incident data 

reported to the CPSC. 

G. Description of Proposed Changes to 

ASTM Standard 

The proposed rule would create a new 

part 1218 titled, ‘‘Safety Standard for 

Bassinets and Cradles.’’ The proposal 

would establish ASTM F2194–12, 

‘‘Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Bassinets and 

Cradles,’’ as a consumer product safety 

standard, but with certain changes. 

These proposed changes include a 

revision to an existing test method (the 

bassinet stability test method), two 

additional new requirements and 

associated test methods (for mattress 

flatness and removable bassinet bed 

attachments), and a revised scope and 

associated definitions or references to 

support these additions. They are 

detailed herein. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 64063 

1. Clarifying the Scope of the Standard 

and Associated Definitions (Sections 

1.3, 3.1.1, and 3.1.2) 

The Commission is proposing to 

revise the scope of ASTM F2194–12 and 

corresponding terminology to better 

define which products fall within or 

outside the scope of the standard. The 

current text of ASTM F2194–12 

provides that the ‘‘consumer safety 

performance specification covers 

products intended to provide sleeping 

accommodations only for an infant up 

to approximately 5 months in age, or 

when the child begins to push up on 

hands and knees, whichever comes 

first.’’ The Commission is proposing to 

change the scope and definition of a 

‘‘bassinet/cradle’’—from products meant 

exclusively for sleeping—to those 

intended primarily for sleeping. This 

would ensure that a bassinet sold with 

a toy mobile that is meant to entertain 

an infant who is lying in the bassinet, 

for instance, would still fall within the 

scope of the standard. 

The Commission is also proposing to 

amend the definitions of ‘‘bassinet/ 

cradle’’ and ‘‘bassinet/cradle 

accessories’’ to specify that the sleeping 

surface of these products, while in a rest 

(non-rocking or swinging) position, is 

intended to be less than or equal to 10 

degrees from horizontal. This change 

would complement the definition of 

‘‘inclined sleeper’’ in the draft ASTM 

inclined sleeper standard, which 

defines the ‘‘inclined sleeper’’ as having 

more than a 10-degree sleep surface 

incline. Thus, the following are covered 

under the standard: Cradle swings with 

inclines less than or equal to 10 degrees 

from horizontal while in rest position; 

carriage baskets/bassinets that are 

removable from the stroller base, when 

the carriage basket/bassinet meets the 

definition of ‘‘bassinet/cradle’’ found in 

the standard; bassinet/cradle 

attachments to cribs or play yards, when 

in bassinet/cradle-use mode. The 

following would not fall under the 

scope of the bassinet/cradle standard: 

Products used in conjunction with an 

inclined infant swing or stroller and 

products that are intended to provide an 

inclined sleep surface (defined as 

greater than 10 degrees from horizontal 

while in the rest (non-rocking) position). 

2. Segmented Mattress Flatness 

Requirement and Test Method (Sections 

6.9 and 7.10) 

In order to address the hazard of 

suffocation/positional asphyxia due to 

an excess mattress pad angle, the 

Commission is recommending 

performance requirements and a test 

method for the minimum flatness of 

segmented mattress surfaces. This 

requirement applies only to segmented 

mattresses, such as those seen in a 

bassinet accessory to a play yard. The 

Commission recommends that the 

segmented mattresses commonly used 

in play yards shall not create an angle 

greater than 10 degrees when tested 

using a 17-pound cylinder to simulate 

the weight of a 6-month-old infant. 

3. New Performance Requirement and 

Associated Definitions To Address 

Hazards Associated With the Stability of 

Removable Bassinet Beds (Sections 

3.1.3, 3.1.17, 3.1.18, 3.1.19, 3.1.20, 6.10, 

7.11) 

In order to address hazards associated 

with misassembly of removable bassinet 

bed and falls, the Commission is 

recommending performance 

requirements and a test method for 

products that have bassinet beds that 

attach to an elevated stand. The 

requirements apply to removable 

bassinet beds that are designed to 

separate from the stand/base without 

the use of tools. The Commission is 

proposing that if a removable bassinet 

bed is not properly attached or 

assembled to its base, it must meet one 

of the following requirements: 

• The base/stand shall not support 

the bassinet (i.e., the bassinet bed falls 

from the stand so that it is in contact 

with the floor); or 

• The lock/latch shall automatically 

engage under the weight of the bassinet 

bed (without any other force or action); 

or 

• The stand/base shall not be capable 

of supporting the bassinet bed within 20 

degrees of horizontal; or 

• The bassinet shall contain a visual 

indicator mechanism that shall be 

visible on both sides of the product; or 

• The bassinet bed shall not tip over 

and shall retain the CAMI newborn 

dummy when subjected to the stability 

test outlined in the standard. 

4. Revised Test Procedure for Bassinet 

Stability (Sections 2.3 and 7.4.4) 

For the reasons described in the 

previous Section, the Commission is 

proposing a revised test procedure for 

bassinet stability that uses a newborn 

CAMI instead of an infant CAMI. 

H. Effective Date 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) generally requires that the 

effective date of the rule be at least 30 

days after publication of the final rule. 

5 U.S.C. 553(d). To allow time for 

bassinets and cradles to come into 

compliance, the Commission proposes 

that the standard would become 

effective 6 months after publication of a 

final rule in the Federal Register. The 

Commission invites comment on how 

long it will take bassinet and cradle 

manufacturers to come into compliance 

with the rule. 

I. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Introduction 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires agencies to 

consider the impact of proposed rules 

on small entities, including small 

businesses. Section 603 of the RFA 

requires that the Commission prepare an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis and 

make it available to the public for 

comment when the notice of proposed 

rulemaking is published. The initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) 

must describe the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities and 

identify any alternatives that may 

reduce the impact. Specifically, the 

IRFA must contain: 

• A description of, and where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the proposed 

rule will apply; 

• A description of the reasons why 

action by the agency is being 

considered; 

• A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

proposed rule; 

• A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of 

the classes of small entities subject to 

the requirements, and the type of 

professional skills necessary for the 

preparation of reports or records; and 

• An identification, to the extent 

possible, of all relevant federal rules 

that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with the proposed rule. 

In addition, the IRFA must contain a 

description of any significant 

alternatives to the proposed rule that 

would accomplish the stated objectives 

of the proposed rule and, at the same 

time, reduce the economic impact on 

small businesses. 

The Market 

Bassinets and cradles are typically 

produced and/or marketed by juvenile 

product manufacturers and distributors, 

or by furniture manufacturers and 

distributors, some of which have 

separate divisions for juvenile products. 

The Commission believes that there are 

currently at least 55 suppliers of 

bassinets and/or cradles to the U.S. 

market; 24 are domestic manufacturers, 

and 11 are domestic importers. An 

additional 14 domestic firms have 

unknown bassinet/cradle supply 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

64064 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

sources; three of those firms are retailers 

and nine specialize in bedding, some of 

which is sold with bassinets or cradles. 

There are also six foreign firms 

supplying the U.S. market: Five 

manufacturers and one importer who 

imports from foreign companies and 

distributes from outside of the United 

States. 

Bassinets and cradles from 12 of the 

55 firms have been certified as 

compliant by the JPMA, the major U.S. 

trade association that represents 

juvenile product manufacturers and 

importers. Firms supplying bassinets or 

cradles would be certified to the ASTM 

voluntary standard F2194–10, while 

firms supplying play yards with 

bassinet/cradle attachments would also 

have to meet F406–11b. Nine additional 

firms claim compliance with the 

relevant ASTM standard for at least 

some of their bassinets and cradles. 

According to a 2005 survey conducted 

by the American Baby Group (2006 

Baby Products Tracking Study), 64 

percent of new mothers own bassinets; 

18 percent own cradles; and 39 percent 

own play yards with bassinet 

attachments. Approximately 50 percent 

of bassinets, 56 percent of cradles, and 

18 percent of play yards were handed 

down or purchased second-hand. Thus, 

about 50 percent of bassinets, 44 percent 

of cradles, and 82 percent of play yards 

were acquired new. This suggests 

annual sales of about 1.3 million 

bassinets (.5 × .64 × 4.1 million births 

per year); 325,000 cradles (.44 × .18 × 

4.1 million); and 1.3 million play yards 

with bassinet attachments (.82 × .39 × 

4.1 million). This yields a total of 

approximately 3 million units sold per 

year that could be affected by the 

proposed bassinet/cradle standard. 

Reason for Agency Action and Legal 

Basis for Proposed Rule. 

The Danny Keysar Child Product 

Safety Notification Act, section 104 of 

the CPSIA, requires the CPSC to 

promulgate a mandatory standard for 

bassinets/cradles that is substantially 

the same as, or more stringent than, the 

voluntary standard. CPSC worked 

closely with ASTM to develop the new 

requirements and test procedures that 

have been added to the voluntary 

standard since 2010. These new 

requirements address several known 

hazard patterns that will help to reduce 

injuries and deaths in bassinets and 

cradles, and they have resulted in the 

current voluntary standard, F2194–12, 

upon which the proposed rule is based. 

However, the Commission proposes 

adding two new requirements to F2194– 

12, as well as modifying the scope and 

the test CAMI dummy used in the 

existing stability test. The first new 

requirement would address suffocation 

and positional asphyxia hazards that 

have occurred as a result of problems 

with segmented mattress flatness in play 

yard bassinet accessories. The second 

would address the stability of bassinets 

with removable bassinet beds, 

particularly the attachment 

mechanisms. The Commission also 

proposes modifying the scope (and 

some of the terminology) to ensure that 

inclined sleepers (including infant 

hammocks) would no longer be covered 

under the bassinet/cradle standard, 

unless they recline to 10 degrees or less. 

The expanded scope would also include 

Moses baskets and stroller carriage 

accessories when used in conjunction 

with a stationary stand. These 

modifications would also help eliminate 

gaps in product coverage (i.e., most 

products that may be used for infant 

sleep will be included under at least one 

durable nursery product standard). 

Finally, the Commission proposes that 

the CAMI newborn dummy be used for 

stability testing because it more closely 

resembles the characteristics of bassinet 

users than the CAMI infant dummy in 

F2194–12. 

4. Requirements of the Proposed Rule 

The Commission proposes adopting 

the voluntary ASTM standard for 

bassinets and cradles (F2194–12) with a 

new mattress flatness requirement, a 

new stability requirement for bassinets 

with removable beds, a revised scope, 

and a modified CAMI dummy for the 

existing stability requirement. Some of 

the more significant requirements of the 

current voluntary standard for bassinets 

and cradles (ASTM F2194–12) are listed 

below. The requirements that were 

added to the ASTM voluntary standard 

or modified since the 2010 NPR are 

italicized. 

• Spacing of rigid-side components— 

intended to prevent child entrapment 

between both uniformly and nonuniformly spaced components, such as 

slats. This has been modified for clarity 

to remove duplicative test references. 

• Openings for mesh/fabric— 

intended to prevent the entrapment of 

children’s fingers and toes, as well as 

button ensnarement. 

• Static load test—intended to ensure 

structural integrity even when a child 

three times the recommended (or 95th 

percentile) weight uses it. This has been 

modified to also test play yard bassinets 

in all four corners. 

• Stability requirements—intended to 

ensure that the product does not tip 

over when pulled on by a 2-year-old 

male. ASTM adopted the revised test 

requirements included in the 2010 NPR 

(includes testing with locks/latches 

engaged). 

• Sleeping pad thickness and 

dimensions—intended to minimize gaps 

and the possibility of suffocation due to 

excessive padding. F2194–12 allows 

thicker mattresses for rigid-sided 

products because a thicker mattress 

does not pose the same suffocation 

hazard when used in rigid-sided, rather 

than soft-sided, products. 

• Tests of locking and latching 

mechanisms—these are intended to 

prevent unintentional folding while in 

use. 

• Suffocation warning label— 

intended to help prevent soft bedding 

incidents. F2194–12 requires the 

warning to use a larger font than the 

2010 NPR. 

• Fabric-sided openings test— 

intended to prevent entrapments. This 

test was included in the 2010 NPR and 

has been adopted in F2194–12 with a 

few editorial changes. 

• Rock/swing angle requirement— 

intended to address suffocation hazards 

that can occur when latch/lock 

problems and excessive rocking or 

swinging angles press children into the 

side of the bassinet/cradle. The 2010 

NPR recommended a maximum rocking 

angle of 20 degrees and a maximum rest 

angle of 5 degrees. ASTM F2194–12 

adopts the maximum deflection angle of 

20 degrees, but includes a maximum 

rest angle of 7 degrees with a more 

severe test condition where the CAMI 

doll is positioned at the side, rather 

than the center, of the bassinet/cradle. 

• Occupant restraints—intended to 

prevent incidents where unused 

restraints have entrapped and strangled 

children. The 2010 NPR proposed that 

only passive restraints be allowed. 

ASTM F2194–12 is even stricter, 

allowing no restraints to be used in a 

bassinet/cradle configuration. 

• Side height requirement—intended 

to prevent falls. This requirement, which 

is new to F2194–12, arose from the 

comments to the 2010 NPR. A bassinet/ 

cradle side height of 71⁄2 inches from the 

top of the uncompressed mattress is 

now required. 

The voluntary standard also includes: 

(1) Torque and tension tests to ensure 

that components cannot be removed; (2) 

requirements for several bassinet/cradle 

features to prevent entrapment and cuts 

(minimum and maximum opening size, 

small parts, hazardous sharp edges or 

points, and edges that can scissor, shear, 

or pinch); (3) requirements for the 

permanency and adhesion of labels; (4) 

requirements for instructional literature; 

and (5) corner post extension 

requirements intended to prevent 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 64065 

pacifier cords, ribbons, necklaces, or 

clothing that a child may be wearing 

from catching on a projection. 

The Commission proposes modifying 

the scope, using the more appropriate 

infant CAMI dummy for stability 

testing, and adding new mattress 

flatness and attachment of removable 

bassinet bed requirements to ASTM 

F2194–12. As part of these changes, 

there would also be several new or 

revised definitions, including ‘‘bassinet/ 

cradle,’’ ‘‘bassinet/cradle accessory,’’ 

and ‘‘bassinet bed.’’ Following is a 

discussion of the impact of each of these 

changes. 

a. Scope 

There are three major proposed 

changes to the scope of the bassinet/ 

cradle standard: 

1. Specification that it is to cover 

products primarily used to provide 

sleeping accommodations. This expands 

the scope beyond products only used to 

provide sleeping accommodations. 

2. Products with an incline of 10 

degrees or less would be included, 

while products with a greater than 10 

degree incline would not. ASTM and 

CPSC have developed this demarcation 

across product standards to help ensure 

complete coverage of sleep products. 

This would include cradle swings 

which, by definition, recline less than 

10 degrees from horizontal. 

3. Specification that it includes 

products that can be supported by a 

stationary frame/stand. This would 

bring in carriage attachments to strollers 

and Moses baskets only when used with 

a stationary or rocking stand. 

These scope changes may affect 

suppliers in several ways. First, they 

would provide additional clarity to 

suppliers regarding which products 

would be covered under what 

standards. Reduced confusion means 

less time reviewing, testing, and making 

necessary modifications. Second, 

‘‘cradle swings,’’ defined by the infant 

swings standard, F2088–11a, as an 

infant swing intended for use by a child 

lying flat (i.e., horizontal), would be 

covered under both the bassinet 

standard and the infant swings 

standard. The Commission believes that 

cradle swings currently on the market 

should be able to meet the proposed 

standard for bassinets without 

additional modifications. Third, Moses 

baskets and carriage attachments to 

strollers would now be subject to the 

bassinet/cradle standard when used in 

conjunction with a separate stand. 

However, this would apply only to 

Moses baskets and carriages that are 

produced and sold by the same 

company that makes the stand, and 

therefore, are intended to be used 

together. Firms that supply bassinet/ 

cradle stands, as well as either Moses 

baskets or carriage attachments for 

strollers, would need to ensure that 

their Moses baskets and/or carriage 

attachments meet the bassinet/cradle 

standard when attached to the stand(s). 

This would likely require some 

redesign, most notably to meet the side 

height and stability requirements, and it 

would affect 10 known firms. 

Alternatively, they could stop supplying 

the stands. 

b. Stability Testing With Newborn 

CAMI Dummy 

Because bassinets and cradles are 

intended to be used by very young 

children, it is appropriate that the 

smaller newborn CAMI dummy be used 

for stability testing. The heavier (17.5 

pound) infant CAMI currently used for 

stability testing in F2194–12 could make 

these products more stable when tested 

than they actually would be in a realworld situation. Based on preliminary 

Commission testing, it appears that most 

bassinet/cradles will be able to pass this 

revised test procedure without 

modification. However, at least one 

product failed stability testing with the 

newborn CAMI and passed with the 

infant CAMI. It is possible that a few 

products may require modifications to 

meet the revised stability test procedure. 

It is likely to affect only a few 

manufacturers, but it is unlikely to 

require product redesign. Affected firms 

would most likely increase the stability 

of their product by widening the 

structure, making the bassinet bed 

deeper, or making the base heavier. If 

meeting the modified requirement 

necessitates a change to the hard tools 

used to manufacture the bassinet, the 

cost could be more significant. 

c. Mattress Flatness 

The Commission is proposing the 

addition of a mattress flatness 

requirement and test method to the 

standard, as well. The mattress flatness 

requirement is primarily aimed at 

incidents involving bassinet/play yard 

combination products that tend to use 

segmented mattresses. These incidents 

suggest that products with mattresses 

that have multiple seams could pose a 

suffocation hazard. Based on 

Commission testing, it appears that the 

play yard bassinet attachments of many 

suppliers (both compliant and 

noncompliant with F2194–10) would 

pass this requirement without any 

modifications. Those that do require 

modifications would need to increase 

the mattress support in their bassinets. 

This could be accomplished, for 

example, by retrofitting their play yard 

bassinets to use longer rods or a betterfitting mattress shell. The cost of such 

a retrofit is unknown and would likely 

vary from product to product; however, 

it should be less expensive than a 

product redesign. Based on this 

information, it appears that at least a 

few play yard bassinets may require 

modifications, which could include 

product redesign. However, it is 

believed that most firms would opt for 

the less expensive option of retrofitting 

their existing designs. 

d. Removable Bassinet Beds 

Finally, the Commission proposes 

adding a new requirement and test 

method to address the attachment of 

removable bassinet beds. There are 

several manufacturers with bassinet 

designs that allow for the bassinet bed 

to be removed from the stand easily (i.e., 

without the use of tools) and used 

separately. In many cases, the bassinet 

bed sits securely on the stand without 

any attachment mechanism. In other 

cases, clips or locks may be used to 

ensure that the stand retains the 

bassinet bed during use. Incidents have 

arisen where the attachments have 

either failed or have not been used, 

rendering the bassinet bed unstable. 

Therefore, CPSC, in conjunction with an 

ASTM task group, has developed a 

requirement and test methods to address 

the potential instability of some 

removable bassinet beds when used 

with a stand. 

There are several firms supplying 

bassinets with removable bassinet beds 

to the U.S. market. The majority will not 

need modifications to meet the 

proposed requirement. However, at least 

four firms will need to make changes to 

one or more of their bassinets. 

Essentially, the products will need to be 

modified so that they are either 

inherently stable (automatically lock or 

stable even without the locks) or 

obviously unstable (unsupportable or 

obviously tilted without locks or a 

visual indicator that locks not in use). 

There are numerous ways that firms 

could meet this new requirement if their 

product(s) required modification, 

including redesigning the product 

entirely. However, it seems likely that 

many firms would opt for less expensive 

alternatives, such as more sensitive 

locks that activate with little pressure 

(i.e., with just the weight of the 

bassinet). 

Other Federal or State Rules 

The Commission is in the process of 

implementing sections 14(a)(2) and 

14(i)(2) of the Consumer Product Safety 

Act (CPSA), as amended by the CPSIA. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

64066 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1Bassinet and cradle suppliers already must third 

party test their products to the lead and phthalate 

requirements. Therefore, these costs are left out of 

the analysis above. 

Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires 

every manufacturer of a children’s 

product that is subject to a children’s 

product safety rule to certify, based on 

third party testing, that the product 

complies with all applicable safety 

rules. Section 14(i)(2) of the CPSA 

requires the Commission to establish 

protocols and standards (i) for ensuring 

that a children’s product is tested 

periodically and when there has been a 

material change in the product, (ii) for 

the testing of representative samples to 

ensure continued compliance, (iii) for 

verifying that a product tested by a 

conformity assessment body complies 

with applicable safety rules, and (iv) for 

safeguarding against the exercise of 

undue influence on a conformity 

assessment body by a manufacturer or 

private labeler. 

Because bassinets/cradles will be 

subject to a mandatory standard, they 

will also be subject to the third party 

testing requirements of section 14(a)(2) 

of the CPSA when the mandatory 

standard and the notice of requirements 

become effective. 

Impact on Small Businesses 

There are approximately 55 firms 

currently known to be marketing 

bassinets and/or cradles in the United 

States. Under U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) guidelines, a 

manufacturer of bassinets or cradles is 

small if it has 500 or fewer employees, 

and importers and wholesalers are 

considered small if they have 100 or 

fewer employees. Based on these 

guidelines, 38 are small firms—19 

domestic manufacturers, 8 domestic 

importers, and 11 firms with unknown 

supply sources (including 9 specializing 

in bedding). The remaining firms are 

five large domestic manufacturers, three 

large domestic importers, three large 

retailers with unknown supply sources, 

and six foreign firms. There may be 

additional unknown small bassinet/ 

cradle suppliers operating in the U.S. 

market. 

Small manufacturers. The expected 

impact of the proposed standard on 

small manufacturers will differ based on 

whether their bassinets/cradles are 

already compliant with F2194–10. 

Firms whose bassinets and cradles meet 

the requirements of F2194–10 are likely 

to continue to comply with the 

voluntary standard as new versions are 

published. In addition, they are likely to 

meet any new standard within 6 months 

because this is the amount of time JPMA 

allows for products in their certification 

program to shift to a new standard. 

Many of these firms are active in the 

ASTM standard development process, 

and compliance with the voluntary 

standard is part of an established 

business practice. Therefore, it is likely 

that firms supplying bassinets and 

cradles that comply with ASTM F2194– 

10 (which went into effect for JPMA 

certification purposes in November 

2010) would also likely comply with 

F2194–12 by January 2013, even in the 

absence of a mandatory standard. 

It is possible that the direct impact for 

manufacturers whose products are 

likely to meet the requirements of 

ASTM F2194–12 (10 of 19 firms) could 

be significant for one or more firms if 

they must redesign their bassinets to 

meet the proposed rule. While none of 

these manufacturers would be newly 

covered due to the proposed change in 

scope, seven would be affected by the 

mattress flatness requirement (i.e., they 

produce play yards with bassinet 

attachments), and at least two (and 

possibly four) may be affected by the 

removable bassinet bed stability 

requirement. For the most part, the 

bassinets/cradles and bassinet cradle 

attachments supplied by these firms 

will be able to meet the staffrecommended changes to ASTM F2194– 

12, without modification. In cases 

where modifications are necessary, they 

would most likely opt to retrofit their 

products, rather than undertake an 

expensive redesign. However, it is 

possible that some products may require 

redesign, particularly to meet the new 

removable bassinet bed stability 

requirement; therefore, costs could be 

significant in some cases. 

Meeting ASTM F2194–12’s 

requirements could necessitate product 

redesign for at least some bassinets/ 

cradles that are believed not to be 

compliant with F2194–10 (9 of 19 

firms). Two of these firms produce 

either Moses baskets or carriage stroller 

attachments along with separate stands, 

and therefore, they are included only 

because of the proposed change in 

scope. (Since no Moses baskets or 

carriage attachments for strollers are 

currently tested to the ASTM bassinets/ 

cradles standard, it is assumed that 

none would meet ASTM F2194–12 

without modifications). The remaining 

seven firms could require redesign, 

regardless of the staff-recommended 

modifications. A redesign would be 

minor if most of the changes involve 

adding straps and fasteners or using 

different mesh or fabric, but it could be 

more significant if changes to the frame 

are required, including changes to side 

height. One manufacturer estimated that 

a complete play yard redesign, 

including engineering time, prototype 

development, tooling, and other 

incidental costs, would cost 

approximately $500,000. The 

Commission believes that a bassinet 

redesign would tend to be comparable. 

Consequently, the proposed rule could 

potentially have a significant direct 

impact on small manufacturers whose 

products do not conform to F2194–10. 

However, any direct impact might be 

mitigated if costs are treated as new 

product expenses that can be amortized. 

It is possible that some firms supply 

bassinets/cradles that are compliant 

with F2194–10, even though they are 

not certified or marketed as compliant. 

The Commission has identified many 

such cases with other products. To the 

extent that some of these firms may 

supply compliant bassinets/cradles and 

have developed a pattern of compliance 

with the voluntary standard, the direct 

impact of the proposed standard will be 

less significant than described above. 

There are also two small firms with 

unknown supply sources, none of 

which appear to comply with F2194–10 

(one is covered by the proposed rule 

due to the expanded scope). If these 

firms are manufacturers, they may also 

require redesign to meet the proposed 

standard. 

In addition to the direct impact of the 

proposed standard described above, 

there are indirect impacts. These 

impacts are considered indirect because 

they do not arise directly as a 

consequence of the bassinet/cradle 

rule’s requirements. Nonetheless, they 

could be significant. Once the rule 

becomes final and the notice of 

requirements is in effect, all 

manufacturers will be subject to the 

additional costs associated with the 

third party testing and certification 

requirements. This will include any 

physical and mechanical test 

requirements specified in the final rule; 

lead and phthalates testing is already 

required, and hence, not included here.1

One manufacturer estimated that 

testing to the ASTM voluntary standard 

runs around $1,000 per model sample, 

although they noted that the costs could 

be lower for some models where the 

primary difference is fabric rather than 

structure. Testing overseas could 

potentially reduce some testing costs, 

but this may not always be practical. 

On average, each small domestic 

manufacturer supplies eight different 

models of bassinets/cradles and/or play 

yards with bassinet/cradle accessories to 

the U.S. market annually. Therefore, if 

third party testing were conducted every 

year on a single sample for each model, 

third party testing costs for each 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 64067 

manufacturer would be about $8,000 

annually. Based on a review of firm 

revenues, the impact of third party 

testing to ASTM F2194–12 is unlikely to 

be significant if only one bassinet/cradle 

sample per model is required. However, 

if more than one sample would be 

needed to meet the testing requirements, 

third party testing costs could have a 

significant impact on a few of the small 

manufacturers. 

Small Importers 

As with manufacturers of compliant 

bassinets/cradles, the four small 

importers of bassinets/cradles currently 

in compliance with F2194–10 could 

experience significant direct impacts as 

a result of the proposed rule, if product 

redesign is necessary. In the absence of 

regulation, these firms would likely 

continue to comply with the voluntary 

standard as it evolves and likely the 

final mandatory standard as well. Any 

increase in production costs 

experienced by their suppliers may be 

passed on to them. 

Importers of bassinets/cradles would 

need to find an alternate source if their 

existing supplier does not come into 

compliance with the requirements of the 

proposed rule, which may be the case 

with the four importers of bassinets/ 

cradles believed not to be in compliance 

with F2194–10 (two of which are 

covered by the proposed rule due to the 

expanded scope). Some could respond 

to the rule by discontinuing the import 

of their noncompliant bassinets/cradles, 

possibly discontinuing the product line 

altogether. However, the impact of such 

a decision could be mitigated by 

replacing the noncompliant bassinets/ 

cradles with compliant bassinets/ 

cradles. Deciding to import an 

alternative product would be a 

reasonable and realistic way to offset 

any lost revenue. 

As is the case with manufacturers, all 

importers will be subject to third party 

testing and certification requirements, 

and consequently, they will experience 

costs similar to those for manufacturers 

if their supplying foreign firm(s) does 

not perform third party testing. The 

resulting costs could have a significant 

impact on a few small importers who 

must perform the testing themselves if 

more than one sample per model were 

required. 

Bedding Suppliers. There are nine 

known small firms specializing in the 

supply of bedding, including bedding 

for bassinets and cradles. Each firm sells 

basic bassinet or cradle shells, covered 

with their bassinet and cradle bedding. 

While it is clear that these firms do not 

manufacture the structural parts of the 

bassinets or cradles themselves, it is 

unclear whether they purchase them 

domestically or overseas. Regardless, 

these firms will be affected by the 

proposed rule in a manner similar to 

importers. 

Because none of these firms is 

believed to supply bassinets or cradles 

in compliance with F2194–10, they 

would need to find an alternate source 

if their existing supplier does not come 

into compliance with the requirements 

of the proposed rule. Unlike most 

importers, however, they would not 

have the option of replacing a 

noncompliant bassinet/cradle with 

another product. While they could opt 

to sell the bedding without the 

associated bassinet/cradle, this is the 

standard method of sale, and it might 

make it more difficult to compete in the 

bassinet/cradle market. 

As with manufacturers and importers, 

these firms will also be subject to third 

party testing and certification 

requirements, and they will experience 

costs similar to those for manufacturers 

if their supplying firm(s) does not 

perform third party testing. The 

resulting costs could have a significant 

impact on some of these small bassinet/ 

cradle suppliers who must perform the 

testing themselves. 

Alternatives 

Under the Danny Keysar Child 

Product Safety Notification Act, section 

104 of the CPSIA, one alternative that 

would reduce the impact on small 

entities is to make the voluntary 

standard mandatory with no 

modifications. Doing so would 

eliminate the impact on the six small 

firms that would be newly covered 

under the bassinet/cradle standard due 

to the proposed change in scope. These 

firms all supply Moses baskets or 

carriages, along with stationary stands; 

the Commission believes that these 

products require additional safety 

features when used for sleeping 

purposes. Adopting the voluntary 

standard without modifications could 

also reduce the impact on other small 

manufacturers and importers whose 

ASTM-compliant bassinets/cradles 

would require modifications due to the 

proposed changes. However, because of 

the severity of the incidents associated 

with instability and mattress tilt, the 

Commission does not recommend this 

alternative. 

A second alternative would be to set 

an effective date later than the proposed 

6 months that is generally considered 

sufficient time for suppliers to come 

into compliance with a proposed rule. 

Setting a later effective date would 

allow suppliers additional time to 

modify and/or develop compliant 

bassinets/cradles and spread the 

associated costs over a longer period of 

time. 

The Commission invites comments 

describing the possible impact of this 

rule on manufacturers and importers, as 

well as comments containing other 

information describing how this rule 

will affect small businesses. 

J. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations address 

whether we are required to prepare an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement. If our 

rule has ‘‘little or no potential for 

affecting the human environment’’ it 

will be categorically exempted from this 

requirement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The 

proposed rule falls within the 

categorical exemption. 

K. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains 

information collection requirements that 

are subject to public comment and 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3521). In this document, pursuant to 44 

U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth: 

• A title for the collection of 

information; 

• A summary of the collection of 

information; 

• A brief description of the need for 

the information and the proposed use of 

the information; 

• A description of the likely 

respondents and proposed frequency of 

response to the collection of 

information; 

• An estimate of the burden that shall 

result from the collection of 

information; and 

• Notice that comments may be 

submitted to the OMB. 

Title: Safety Standard for Bassinets 

and Cradles. 

Description: The proposed rule would 

require each bassinet and cradle to 

comply with ASTM F 2194–12, 

‘‘Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Bassinets and 

Cradles.’’ Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F 

2194–12 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 bassinets/ 

cradles. 

Estimated Burden: We estimate the 

burden of this collection of information 

as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

64068 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN

16 CFR Section Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

responses 

Total 

annual 

responses 

Hours per 

response 

Total 

burden 

hours 

1218 ..................................................................................... 55 5 275 1 275 

Our estimates are based on the 

following: 

Section 8.1.1 of ASTM F 2194–12 

requires that the name of the 

manufacturer, distributor, or seller and 

either the place of business (city, state, 

and mailing address, including zip 

code) or telephone number, or both, be 

marked clearly and legibly on each 

product and its retail package. Section 

8.1.2 of ASTM F 2194–12 requires a 

code mark or other means that identifies 

the date (month and year, at a 

minimum) of manufacture. 

There are 55 known entities 

supplying bassinets to the U.S. market. 

All 55 firms are assumed to use labels 

already on both their products and their 

packaging, but they might need to make 

some modifications to their existing 

labels. The estimated time required to 

make these modifications is about 1 

hour per model. Each entity supplies an 

average of eight different models of 

bassinets; therefore, the estimated 

burden associated with labels is 1 hour 

per model × 55 entities × 5 models per 

entity = 275 hours. We estimate the 

hourly compensation for the time 

required to create and update labels is 

$27.55 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

‘‘Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation,’’ March 2012, Table 9, 

total compensation for all sales and 

office workers in goods-producing 

private industries: http://www.bls.gov/

ncs/). Therefore, the estimated annual 

cost to industry associated with the 

labeling requirements is $7,576.25 

($27.55 per hour × 275 hours = 

$7,576.25). There are no operating, 

maintenance, or capital costs associated 

with the collection. 

Section 9.1 of ASTM F2194–12 

requires instructions to be supplied 

with the product. Bassinets and cradles 

are products that generally require 

assembly, and products sold without 

such information would not be able to 

compete successfully with products 

supplying this information. 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.’’ 

Therefore, because we are unaware of 

bassinets or cradles that generally 

require some installation, but lack any 

instructions to the user about such 

installation, we tentatively estimate that 

there are no burden hours associated 

with section 9.1 of ASTM F2194–12 

because any burden associated with 

supplying instructions with bassinets 

and cradles would be ‘‘usual and 

customary’’ and not within the 

definition of ‘‘burden’’ under the OMB’s 

regulations. 

Based on this analysis, the proposed 

standard for bassinets would impose a 

burden to industry of 275 hours at a cost 

of $7,576.25 annually. 

In compliance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

§ 3507(d)), we have submitted the 

information collection requirements of 

this rule to the OMB for review. 

Interested persons are requested to 

submit comments regarding information 

collection by November 19, 2012, to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, OMB (see the ADDRESSES section 

at the beginning of this notice). 

Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), 

we invite comments on: 

• Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the CPSC’s functions, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; 

• The accuracy of the CPSC’s estimate 

of the burden of the proposed collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; 

• Ways to reduce the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques, when 

appropriate, and other forms of 

information technology; and 

• The estimated burden hours 

associated with label modification, 

including any alternative estimates. 

L. Preemption 

Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

2075(a), provides that where a consumer 

product safety standard is in effect and 

applies to a product, no state or political 

subdivision of a state may either 

establish or continue in effect a 

requirement dealing with the same risk 

of injury, unless the state requirement is 

identical to the federal standard. Section 

26(c) of the CPSA also provides that 

states or political subdivisions of states 

may apply to the Commission for an 

exemption from this preemption under 

certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of 

the CPSIA refers to the rules to be 

issued under that section as ‘‘consumer 

product safety rules,’’ thus implying 

that the preemptive effect of section 

26(a) of the CPSA would apply. 

Therefore, a rule issued under section 

104 of the CPSIA will invoke the 

preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the 

CPSA when it becomes effective. 

M. Certification and Notice of 

Requirements (NOR) 

Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the 

requirement that products subject to a 

consumer product safety rule under the 

CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation under any other 

act enforced by the Commission, must 

be certified as complying with all 

applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 

15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Section 14(a)(2) of the 

CPSA requires that certification of 

children’s products subject to a 

children’s product safety rule be based 

on testing conducted by a CPSCaccepted 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 1218, 

‘‘Safety Standard for Bassinets and 

Cradles,’’ when issued as a final rule, 

will be a children’s product safety rule 

that requires the issuance of an NOR. 

On May 24, 2012, the Commission 

published in the Federal Register the 

proposed rule, Requirements Pertaining 

to Third Party Conformity Assessment 

Bodies, 77 FR 331086, which, when 

finalized, would establish the general 

requirements and criteria concerning 

testing laboratories. These include the 

requirements and procedures for CPSC 

acceptance of the accreditation of a 

laboratory to test children’s products in 

support of the certification required by 

section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA. The 

proposed rule at 16 CFR part 1112, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 64069 

Requirements Pertaining to Third Party 

Conformity Assessment Bodies, lists the 

children’s product safety rules for 

which the CPSC has published NORs for 

laboratories. In this document, the 

Commission is proposing to amend the 

list in 16 CFR part 1112, once that rule 

becomes final, to include the bassinet 

standard, once finalized, along with the 

other children’s product safety rules for 

which the CPSC has issued NORs. 

Laboratories applying for acceptance 

as a CPSC-accepted third party 

conformity assessment body to test to 

the new standard for bassinets and 

cradles would be required to meet the 

third party conformity assessment body 

accreditation requirements in 16 CFR 

part 1112, Requirements Pertaining to 

Third Party Conformity Assessment 

Bodies, once that rule becomes final. 

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 

1218, Safety Standard for Bassinets and 

Cradles included in its scope of 

accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed 

for the laboratory on the CPSC Web site 

at www.cpsc.gov/labsearch. 

The final NOR will base the CPSC 

laboratory accreditation requirements 

on the performance standard set forth in 

the final rule for the safety standard for 

bassinets and cradles and the test 

methods incorporated within that 

standard. The Commission may 

recognize limited circumstances in 

which the Commission will accept 

certification based on product testing 

conducted before the Commission’s 

acceptance of accreditation of 

laboratories for testing bassinets and 

cradles (also known as retrospective 

testing) in the final NOR. The 

Commission seeks comments on any 

issues regarding the testing 

requirements of the proposed rule for 

bassinets and cradles and the 

accompanying proposed NOR. 

N. Request for Comments 

This proposed rule is part of a 

rulemaking proceeding under section 

104(b) of the CPSIA to issue a consumer 

product safety standard for bassinets 

and cradles. We invite all interested 

persons to submit comments on any 

aspect of the proposed rule. In 

particular, the Commission invites 

comments regarding the reliability of 

proposed 16 CFR 1218.2(b)(7)(ii)(C) 

(allowing the option of making the sleep 

surface of the bassinet bed at least 20 

degrees off from a horizontal plane 

when the bassinet bed is in an unlocked 

position as a means of meeting the 

stability requirement) with respect to 

notifying consumers that the bassinet 

bed is dangerously unstable as opposed 

to intentionally designed to rest at an 

angle. 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 1218 

Consumer protection, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Infants and 

Children, Labeling, Law Enforcement, 

and Toys. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Commission proposes to 

amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations Chapter II 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: Pub. L. 110–314, section 3, 122 

Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008); 15 U.S.C. 2063. 

2. In § 1112.15, add paragraph (b)(33) 

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) * * * 

(33) 16 CFR part 1218, Safety 

Standard for Bassinets and Cradles. 

3. Add part 1218 to read as follows: 

PART 1218—SAFETY STANDARD FOR 

BASSINETS AND CRADLES 

Sec. 

1218.1 Scope. 

1218.2 Requirements for bassinets and 

cradles. 

Authority: The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110–314, 

section 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008). 

§ 1218.1 Scope. 

This part establishes a consumer 

product safety standard for bassinets 

and cradles. 

§ 1218.2 Requirements for bassinets and 

cradles. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, each bassinet and 

cradle must comply with all applicable 

provisions of ASTM F 2194–12, 

Standard Consumer Safety Specification 

for Bassinets and Cradles, approved on 

June 1, 2012. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may 

obtain a copy from ASTM International, 

100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, 

West Conshohocken, PA 19428; http:// 

www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may 

inspect a copy at the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/code_of_federal 

regulations/ibr_locations.html. 

(b) Comply with the ASTM F 2194– 

12 standard with the following 

additions or exclusions: 

(1) Instead of complying with section 

1.3 of ASTM F 2194–12, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 1.3 This consumer safety 

performance specification covers 

products primarily intended to provide 

sleeping accommodations for an infant 

up to approximately 5 months in age, or 

when the child begins to push up on 

hands and knees, whichever comes first. 

Products used in conjunction with an 

inclined infant swing or stroller, or 

products that are intended to provide an 

inclined sleep surface (head-to-toe 

direction) of greater than 10° from 

horizontal, while in the rest (nonrocking) position, are not covered by 

this specification. 

Note to Paragraph (b)(1)(i): Cradle swings, 

with an incline less than or equal to 10° from 

horizontal while in the rest (non-rocking) 

position, are covered under the scope of this 

standard. A sleep product that has an 

inclined sleeping surface (intended to be 

greater than 10° from horizontal while in the 

rest (non-rocking) position) does not fall 

under the scope of this standard. Strollers 

that have a carriage/bassinet feature are 

covered by the stroller/carriage standard 

when in the stroller use mode. Carriage 

baskets/bassinets that are removable from the 

stroller base are covered under the scope of 

this standard when the carriage basket/ 

bassinet meets the definition of a bassinet/ 

cradle found in 3.1.1. Bassinet/cradle 

attachments to cribs or play yards, as defined 

in 3.1.2 or 3.1.12, are included in the scope 

of the standard when in the bassinet/cradle 

use mode. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(2) Add ‘‘CAMI Newborn Dummy (see 

Fig. 1A). Drawing numbers 126–0000 

through 126–0015 (sheets 1 through 3), 

126–0017 through 126–0027, a parts list 

entitled ‘‘Parts List for CAMI Newborn 

Dummy,’’ and a construction manual 

entitled ‘‘Construction of the Newborn 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

64070 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Infant Dummy’’ (July 1992). Copies of 

the materials may be inspected at 

NHTSA’s Docket Section, 400 Seventh 

Street SW., Room 5109, Washington, 

DC, or at the Office of the Federal 

Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., 

suite 700, Washington, DC.’’ to ‘‘2.3 

Other References’’ and use the following 

figure: 

(3) Instead of complying with section 

3.1.1 of ASTM F 2194–12, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 3.1.1 Bassinet/cradle, n—small 

bed designed primarily to provide 

sleeping accommodations for infants, 

supported by free-standing legs, a 

stationary frame/stand, a wheeled base, 

a rocking base, or which can swing 

relative to a stationary base; while in a 

rest (non-rocking or swinging) position, 

a bassinet/cradle is intended to have a 

sleep surface less than or equal to 10° 

from horizontal. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(4) Instead of complying with section 

3.1.2 of ASTM F 2194–12, comply with 

the following: 

(i) Bassinet/cradle accessory, n—a 

supported sleep surface that attaches to 

a crib or play yard designed to convert 

the product into a bassinet/cradle 

intended to have a sleep surface less 

than or equal to 10° from horizontal 

while in a rest (non-rocking or 

swinging) position. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(5) Instead of complying with section 

3.1.3 of ASTM F 2194–12, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 3.1.3 conspicuous, adj—describes 

a label or indicator that is visible, when 

the bassinet/cradle is in a 

manufacturer’s recommended use 

position, to a person standing near the 

bassinet/cradle at any one position 

around the bassinet/cradle but not 

necessarily visible from all other 

positions. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(6) In addition to complying with 

section 3.1.16 of ASTM F 2194–12, 

comply with the following: 

(i) 3.1.17 bassinet bed, n—the 

sleeping area of the bassinet, containing 

the sleep surface and side walls. 

(ii) 3.1.18 removable bassinet bed, 

n—A bassinet bed that is designed to 

separate from the base/stand without 

the use of tools. 

(iii) 3.1.19 false lock/latch visual 

indicator, n—a warning system, using 

contrasting bright colors, lights, or other 

similar means designed to visually alert 

caregivers when a removable bassinet 

bed is not properly locked onto its 

stand/base. 

(iv) 3.1.20 intended use orientation, 

n—The bassinet bed orientation (i.e., the 

position where the head and foot ends 

of the bassinet bed are located), with 

respect to the base/stand, as 

recommended by the manufacturer for 

intended use. 

(7) In addition to complying with 

section 6.8 of ASTM F 2194–12, comply 

with the following: 

(i) 6.9 Segmented Mattress 

Flatness—If the bassinet or bassinet 

accessory has a folding and/or 

segmented mattress, any angle when 

measured in section 7.10 shall be less 

than or equal to 10 degrees. 

(ii) 6.10 Removable Bassinet Bed 

Attachment—Any product containing a 

removable bassinet bed with a latching 

or locking device intended to secure the 

bassinet bed to the stand/base, shall 

comply with 6.10.1, 6.10.2, 6.10.3, 

6.10.4 or 6.10.5 when tested in 

accordance with 7.11. 

(A) 6.10.1 The base/stand shall not 

support the bassinet bed (i.e., the 

bassinet bed collapses from the stand 

and contacts the floor). 

(B) 6.10.2 The lock/latch shall 

automatically engage under the weight 

of the bassinet bed (without any other 

force or action). 

(C) 6.10.3 The sleep surface of the 

bassinet bed shall be at least 20° off 

from a horizontal plane when the 

bassinet bed is in an unlocked position. 

(D) 6.10.4 The bassinet shall provide 

a false latch/lock visual indicator(s) that 

is conspicuous, at a minimum, on the 

two longest sides of the product. 

(E) 6.10.5 The bassinet bed shall not 

tip over and shall retain the CAMI 

newborn dummy. 

(8) Instead of complying with section 

7.4.4 of ASTM F 2194–12, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 7.4.4 Place the CAMI Newborn 

Dummy on the sleeping pad in the 

center of the product face up with the 

arms and legs straightened. 

(A) Rationale. The newborn CAMI 

dummy represents a 50th percentile 

newborn infant, which is a more 

appropriate user of a bassinet than the 

CAMI infant dummy, which represents 

a 50th percentile 6-month-old infant. 

(B) [Reserved]. 

(ii) [Reserved]. 

(9) In addition to complying with 

section 7.9 of ASTM F 2194–12, comply 

with the following: 

(i) 7.10 Segmented Mattress Flatness 

Test. 

(A) 7.10.1 Angle measurement for 

bassinets intended for a single occupant. 

(B) 7.10.1.1 Establish a horizontal 

reference plane by placing an 

inclinometer, with an accuracy capable 

of 0.5° minimum resolution, on the floor 

of the testing area and zeroing it. 

(C) 7.10.1.2 Assemble the product 

according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions. If the product has more 

than one mode, assemble in the bassinet 

mode(s). Disable the rocking/swinging 

feature if the product is equipped with 

such a feature. 

(D) 7.10.1.3 Place the infant test 

cylinder, as shown in Fig. 13, in the 

center of the 1st seam (the seam 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP18OC12.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 64071 

between an end panel and its adjacent 

panel), as shown in Fig. 14, and allow 

the cylinder to come to rest in the seam. 

Note to Paragraph (b)(9)(i)(D): If the 

cylinder begins to roll out of the seam, place 

a stop(s) on the mattress surface against the 

cylinder to prevent movement. The stop(s) 

shall not influence the angle measurement 

and shall have a total weight no greater than 

0.25 lbs. 

(E) Figure 13. Infant Test Cylinder. 

(F) Figure 14. Cylinder placement on 

mattress seam. 

(G) 7.10.1.4 Place a 6′′ x 4′′ x 1⁄2′′ (152 

x 101.6 x 12.7 mm) nominal thickness 

steel block weighing 3.3 lbs. (+/¥ 0.2 

pounds) on the mattress panel in front 

of the cylinder with the 6′′ length of the 

block in line with the center line of the 

cylinder as shown in Fig. 15. Place the 

block within 1⁄2′′; (12.7 mm) of the 

cylinder. If the block slides and touches 

the cylinder, this is allowable. 

(H) 7.10.1.4.1 Where the play yard 

bassinet size constraints do not allow 

for placement of the steel block in front 

of the cylinder, move the cylinder off 

center, enough to allow placement of 

the block, as outlined above in 7.10.1.4. 

(I) 7.10.1.5 Place the inclinometer in 

the center of the block, and measure the 

angle formed with the horizontal along 

the line that is perpendicular to the 

longitudinal axis of the cylinder, as 

shown in Fig. 16. Ensure the 

inclinometer does not touch the 

mattress surface. 

Note to Paragraph (b)(9)(i)(I): If needed, an 

additional level block of negligible mass, no 

greater than 0.2 lb, may be placed atop the 

steel block in order to elevate the 

inclinometer, such that it does not touch the 

mattress surface. 

(J) Figure 15. Steel block in front of 

the cylinder for a single occupant 

bassinet. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP18OC12.004</GPH> EP18OC12.005</GPH>
64072 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(K) Figure 16. Inclinometer on steel 

block in front of the cylinder for a single 

occupant bassinet. 

(L) 7.10.1.6 Record the angle 

measurement. 

(M) 7.10.1.7 Repeat 7.10.1.4–7.10.1.5 

on the opposite side of the seam and 

record the measurement. 

(N) 7.10.1.8 Remove the cylinder 

from the bassinet. 

(O) 7.10.1.9 Repeat 7.10.1.3–7.10.1.8 

on each remaining seam of the mattress 

and record the angles. 

(P) 7.10.2 Angle measurement for 

bassinets intended for two occupants: 

(Q) 7.10.2.1 Establish a horizontal 

reference plane by placing an 

inclinometer, with an accuracy capable 

of 0.5° minimum resolution, on the floor 

of the testing area and zeroing it. 

(R) 7.10.2.2 Place one at a time, two 

identical newborn test cylinders (A and 

B), as shown in Fig. 17 in the occupant 

retention areas, as shown in Fig. 18, and 

allow them to come to rest in the seam. 

Note to Paragraph (b)(9)(i)(R): If the 

cylinder begins to roll out of the seam place 

a stop(s) on the mattress surface against the 

cylinder to prevent movement. The stop(s) 

shall not influence the angle measurement 

and shall have a total weight no greater than 

0.25 lbs. 

(S) Figure 17. Newborn Test Cylinder 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP18OC12.006</GPH> EP18OC12.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 64073 

(T) Figure 18. Placement of cylinders 

for a 2 occupant bassinet. 

(U) 7.10.2.3 Apply a 10.0 ± 0.5 lb 

compression force simultaneously with 

a force gauge onto the center of each 

cylinder, and hold for 10 seconds. 

(V) 7.10.2.4 Place a 6′′ x 4′′ x 1⁄2′′ (152 

x 101.6 x 12.7 mm) nominal thickness 

steel block weighing 3.3 lbs. (+/¥ 0.2 

pounds) on the mattress panel in front 

of cylinder A with the 6′′ length of the 

block in line with the center line of the 

cylinder, as shown in Fig. 19. Place the 

block within 1⁄2′′ (12.7 mm) of the 

cylinder. If the block slides and touches 

the cylinder, this is allowable. 

(W) 7.10.2.4.1 Where the play yard 

bassinet size constraints do not allow 

for placement of the steel block in front 

of the cylinder, move the cylinder off 

center enough to allow placement of the 

block as outlined above in 7.10.2.4. 

(X) 7.10.2.5 Place the inclinometer 

on the block, and measure the angle 

formed with the horizontal along the 

line that is perpendicular to the 

longitudinal axis of cylinder A, as 

shown in Fig. 20. Ensure that the 

inclinometer does not touch the 

mattress surface. 

Note to Paragraph (b)(9)(i)(X): If needed, 

an additional level block of negligible mass, 

no greater than 0.2 lb, may be placed atop the 

steel block in order to elevate the 

inclinometer, such that it does not touch the 

mattress surface. 

(Y) Figure 19. Steel block in front of 

the cylinder for a 2-occupant bassinet. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP18OC12.008</GPH> EP18OC12.009</GPH>
64074 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(Z) Figure 20. Inclinometer on Steel 

block in front of the cylinder for a 2- 

occupant bassinet. 

(AA) 7.10.2.6 Record the angle 

measurement. 

(BB) 7.10.2.7 Repeat 7.10.2.4– 

7.10.2.5 on the opposite side of the 

cylinder and record the measurement. 

(CC) 7.10.2.8 Repeat the angle 

measurements 7.10.2.4–7.10.2.7 for 

cylinder B and record the measurement. 

(DD) 7.10.2.9 Remove both cylinders 

and then place them in the occupant 

retention areas such that the side of the 

cylinders are in contact with the inside 

wall as shown in Fig. 21. 

(EE) 7.10.2.10 Apply a 10.0 ± 0.5 lb 

compression force simultaneously with 

a force gauge onto the center of each 

cylinder and hold for 10 seconds. 

(FF) Figure 21. Two cylinders (A and 

B) in contact with the inside wall. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP18OC12.010</GPH> EP18OC12.011</GPH> EP18OC12.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 64075 

(GG) 7.10.2.11 Place 6′′ x 4′′ x 1⁄2′′ 

(152 x 101.6 x 12.7 mm) nominal 

thickness steel block weighing 3.3 lbs. 

(+/¥ 0.2 pounds) on the mattress panel 

on one side perpendicular to the 

longitudinal axis of the cylinder, with 

the centerline of the block adjacent to 

the midpoint of the cylinder. Place the 

block within 1⁄2′′ (12.7 mm) of the 

cylinder. If the block slides and touches 

either the inside wall or the cylinder, 

this is allowable. 

(HH) 7.10.2.12 Place the 

inclinometer in the center of the block, 

and measure the angle formed with the 

horizontal along the line that is 

perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of 

cylinder A as shown in Fig. 22. 

(II) 7.10.2.13 Record the angle 

measurement. 

(JJ) 7.10.12.14 Place a 6′′ x 4′′ x 1⁄2′′ 

(152 x 101.6 x 12.7 mm) nominal 

thickness steel block weighing 3.3 lbs. 

(+/¥ 0.2 pounds) on the mattress panel 

on one side perpendicular to the 

longitudinal axis of the cylinder, with 

the centerline of the block adjacent to 

the midpoint of the cylinder. Place the 

block within 1⁄2′′ (12.7 mm) of the 

cylinder. If the block slides and touches 

the cylinder, this is allowable. 

(KK) 7.10.12.15 Place the 

inclinometer in the center of the block, 

and measure the angle formed with the 

horizontal along the line that is 

perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of 

cylinder B, as shown in Fig. 23. 

(LL) 7.10.2.16 Record the angle 

measurement. 

(MM) Figure 22. Angle measure in 

front of Cylinder A. 

(NN) Figure 23. Angle measure in 

front of Cylinder B. 

(OO) Rationale. (1) The cylinder used 

in 7.10.1 was copied from a European 

standard for baby walkers (EN 

1273:2005) and appears to be based on 

the weight and torso dimensions of a 

child between 6 and 8 months old. This 

represents the heaviest intended 

occupant, which will result in a more 

conservative test. 

(2) Because bassinet accessories 

intended for multiple births will have a 

shorter useful range of utility, the larger 

cylinder used in 7.10.2 was too heavy to 

represent the intended user population. 

The smaller cylinder used in 7.10.2 was 

based on the weight of an infant, 

matched to the height of the test 

cylinder in 7.10.1. 

(ii) [Reserved]. 

(10) In addition to the changes to 

ASTM F 2194–12 in paragraph (b)(10) of 

this section comply with the following: 

(i) 7.11 Removable Bassinet Bed 

Attachment Tests. 

(A) 7.11.1 Assemble the bassinet/ 

cradle base/stand only, in accordance 

with manufacturer’s instructions. 

(B) 7.11.2 Place the base/stand in 

one of the manufacturer’s recommended 

use positions. 

(C) 7.11.3 Place the base/stand and 

the inclinometer on a flat level 

horizontal surface (0 +/¥ 0.5°) to 

establish a test plane. Zero the 

inclinometer. 

(D) 7.11.4 Remove the mattress pad 

from the bassinet bed. 

Note to Paragraph (b)(10)(i)(D): For 

mattresses that are integral with the mattress 

support, do not remove the mattress and 

perform all angle measurements for 7.11 on 

a 6 by 6 by 3⁄8-in. nominal aluminum block 

placed on the center of the mattress. 

(E) 7.11.5 Place the bassinet bed on 

the base/stand in the intended use 

orientation without engaging any latch 

or lock mechanism. If the bassinet bed 

can rest on the base/stand in its 

intended use orientation in more than 

one lateral unlocked position (see 

Figure 24), the unit shall be evaluated 

in the lateral position most likely to fail 

the requirements outlined in 6.10. 

(F) Figure 24: Bassinet Bed Resting on 

Stand, Showing Possible Alternate 

Lateral Positions. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP18OC12.013</GPH> EP18OC12.014</GPH>
64076 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(G) 7.11.5.1 If the base/stand 

supports the bassinet bed, place the 

inclinometer on the mattress support at 

the approximate center of the mattress 

support. Care should be taken to avoid 

seams, snap fasteners, or other items 

that may affect the measurement 

reading. Record the angle measurement. 

(H) 7.11.5.2 If the base/stand 

supports the bassinet bed and the angle 

of the mattress support surface is less 

than 20 degrees of horizontal, evaluate 

whether the bassinet has a visual 

indicator per 6.10.4. 

(I) 7.11.5.3 If the base/stand 

supports the bassinet bed, and the angle 

of the mattress support surface is less 

than 20 degrees of horizontal, and the 

bassinet does not contain a false latch/ 

lock indicator, test the unit in 

accordance with sections 7.4.2–7.4.7. 

(J) 7.11.6 Repeat 7.11.3 through 

7.11.5.3 for all of the manufacturer’s 

base/stand positions. 

(K) 7.11.7 If the product design 

allows, repeat 7.11.2 through 7.11.6 

with the bassinet bed rotated 180° from 

the normal use orientation. 

(1) Rationale. This test requirement 

addresses fatal and nonfatal incidents 

involving bassinet beds that tipped over 

or fell off their base/stand when they 

were not properly locked/latched to 

their base/stand or the latch failed to 

engage as intended. Products that 

appear to be in an intended use position 

when the lock or latch is not properly 

engaged can create a false sense of 

security by appearing to be stable. 

Unsecured or mis-aligned lock/latch 

systems are a hidden hazard because 

they not easily seen by consumers due 

to being located beneath the bassinet or 

covered by decorative skirts. In 

addition, consumers will avoid 

activating lock/latch mechanisms for 

numerous reasons if a bassinet bed 

appears stable when placed on a stand/ 

base. Because of these foreseeable use 

conditions, this requirement has been 

added to ensure that bassinets with a 

removable bassinet bed feature will be 

inherently stable or it is obvious that 

they are not properly secured. 

(2) Section 6.10 allows bassinet bed 

designs that: 

(i) Cannot be supported by the base/ 

stand in an unlocked configuration, 

(ii) Automatically lock and cannot be 

placed in an unlocked position on the 

base/stand, 

(iii) Are clearly and obviously 

unstable when the lock/latch is 

misaligned or unused, 

(iv) Provide a visual warning to 

consumers when the product is not 

properly locked onto the stand/base, or 

(v) Have lock/latch mechanisms that 

are not necessary to provide needed 

stability. 

(ii) [Reserved]. 

Dated: October 4, 2012. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–24896 Filed 10–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 161 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–1024] 

RIN 1625–AB81 

Vessel Traffic Service Updates, 

Including Establishment of Vessel 

Traffic Service Requirements for Port 

Arthur, Texas and Expansion of VTS 

Special Operating Area in Puget Sound 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document contains a 

correction to the notice of proposed 

rulemaking published in the Federal 

Register on September 10, 2012 (77 FR 

55439), which proposes to revise and 

update the Vessel Traffic Service 

regulations in 33 CFR part 161. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must either be submitted to our online 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP18OC12.015</GPH>