50328 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

AIRAC Date State City Airport FDC No. FDC Date Subject 

9/19/13 ......... IA Waterloo ................. Waterloo Rgnl ......................... 3/5798 7/29/13 RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Orig 

9/19/13 ......... NJ Teterboro ................ Teterboro ................................. 3/6313 7/29/13 VOR RWY 24, Orig-C 

9/19/13 ......... SC Moncks Corner ....... Berkeley County ...................... 3/6939 7/29/13 RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig 

9/19/13 ......... IL Chicago/Aurora ....... Aurora Muni ............................. 3/7234 7/29/13 ILS OR LOC RWY 9, Amdt 3 

9/19/13 ......... IL Chicago/Aurora ....... Aurora Muni ............................. 3/7238 7/29/13 RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1B 

9/19/13 ......... MN Minneapolis ............. Anoka County—Blaine Arpt 

(Janes Field).

3/7330 7/29/13 VOR RWY 9, Amdt 12A 

9/19/13 ......... MN Minneapolis ............. Anoka County—Blaine Arpt 

(Janes Field).

3/7332 7/29/13 RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig-C 

9/19/13 ......... MN Minneapolis ............. Anoka County—Blaine Arpt 

(Janes Field).

3/7333 7/29/13 RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig-C 

[FR Doc. 2013–19465 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1221 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2011–0064] 

RIN 3041–AC92 

Safety Standard for Play Yards 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States Consumer 

Product Safety Commission 

(Commission or CPSC or we) is issuing 

a final rule, amending the play yard 

mandatory standard. Currently, the 

CPSC play yard standard incorporates 

by reference ASTM F406–12a, Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for NonFull-Size Baby Cribs/Play Yards. In this 

final rule, the Commission is amending 

the play yard standard to incorporate by 

reference the most recent version of 

ASTM’s play yard standard, ASTM 

F406–13. Through this amendment, the 

Commission is addressing hazards 

associated with misassembly of play 

yard bassinet accessories. 

DATES: This rule will become effective 

on February 19, 2014 and will apply to 

all play yards manufactured or imported 

on or after that date. The incorporation 

by reference of the publication listed in 

this rule is approved by the Director of 

the Federal Register as of February 19, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Justin Jirgl, Compliance Officer, Office 

of Compliance and Field Investigations, 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; email: jjirgl@

cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

On August 29, 2012, the Commission 

published a final rule establishing a 

CPSC safety standard for play yards. 77 

FR 52220. On the same date, the 

Commission published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPR), seeking 

comments on the addition of a 

requirement to the play yard mandatory 

standard to address the hazards 

associated with play yard bassinet 

accessories that can be assembled 

without key structural elements. 77 FR 

52272. The NPR was prompted by the 

death of an infant in a play yard 

bassinet accessory, in which the end 

support rods, which attached two of the 

bassinet accessory’s four sides to the 

play yard rails, were omitted during 

assembly. The other two sides were 

attached with plastic clips. After the 

infant was left to sleep, one of the 

plastic clips that attached the bassinet 

accessory to the play yard detached. 

Because the support rods were not in 

place to secure the bassinet accessory, 

the bassinet sleep surface tilted, and the 

infant slid into the corner of the tilted 

bassinet accessory and suffocated. 

In the August 2012 NPR, we proposed 

a provision that would require that all 

‘‘key structural elements’’ be 

permanently attached to the bassinet 

accessory or pass the ‘‘catastrophic 

failure test,’’ which is described in more 

detail in section D of this preamble. In 

the August 2012 NPR, the term ‘‘key 

structural elements’’ included all 

structures that attach the bassinet 

accessory to the play yard, as well as all 

structures that reinforce the bassinet 

accessory mattress by keeping it flat and 

stable, such as the mattress support 

rods. 

Since publication of the August 2012 

NPR, the ASTM play yard subcommittee 

carefully assessed the incident that 

prompted this requirement. The 

subcommittee worked closely with the 

ASTM bassinet/cradle subcommittee 

and chose to address the hazards 

associated with bassinet accessory 

misassembly in two different ASTM 

standards: (1) The play yard standard, 

ASTM F406–13, now addresses safety 

issues related to bassinet accessory 

attachment components (i.e., structures 

that attach the bassinet accessory to the 

play yard); and (2) the bassinet 

standard, ASTM F2194–13, Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for 

Bassinets and Cradles, addresses safety 

issues related to mattress support rods 

(and all other structures that ensure that 

the bassinet accessory mattress is flat 

and stable) through the segmented 

mattress flatness test contained in the 

bassinet standard. That approach is now 

part of the current ASTM standard for 

play yards, ASTM F406–13, and for 

bassinets, ASTM F2194–13. Likewise, 

the Commission is following this 

approach in the CPSC standard for play 

yards and in the CPSC standard for 

bassinets and cradles. The Commission 

believes that this approach addresses 

the hazards known to CPSC staff 

associated with play yard bassinet 

misassembly. 

B. The Product 

ASTM F406–13 defines a ‘‘play yard’’ 

as a ‘‘framed enclosure that includes a 

floor and has mesh or fabric sided 

panels primarily intended to provide a 

play or sleeping environment for 

children. It may fold for storage or 

travel.’’ Play yards are intended for 

children who are less than 35 inches tall 

and who cannot climb out of the 

product. Some play yards include 

accessory items that attach to the 

product, such as mobiles, toy bars, 

canopies, bassinets, and changing 

tables. The accessory item usually 

attaches to the side rails or corner 

brackets of the play yard. 

A ‘‘bassinet/cradle accessory’’ is 

defined in ASTM F406–13 as ‘‘an 

elevated sleep surface that attaches to a 

play yard designed to convert the 

product into a bassinet/cradle intended 

to have a horizontal sleep surface while 

in a rest (non-rocking) position.’’ Play 

yard bassinet accessories commonly 

consist of a textile shell that provides an 

elevated sleep surface within the play 

yard. The floor of the bassinet accessory 

is typically the same dimensions as the 

play yard floor. Usually, the segmented 

mattress pad that is used on the floor of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 50329 

the play yard is inserted into the 

bassinet shell. The floor of the bassinet 

accessory is typically reinforced with 

mattress support rods to ensure a flat, 

stable sleep surface. The top edges of 

the sides of the bassinet accessory can 

be secured to the play yard top rails 

with any number of devices, but most 

often is done through plastic clips sewn 

onto the sides of the shell. Metal rods 

may also be used to secure the bassinet 

to the play yard. These metal rods are 

usually inserted into a sleeve on the top 

edge of the shell’s side wall and clipped 

into a play yard’s corner brackets. 

C. History of the Play Yard Mandatory 

Standard 

In the Federal Register of September 

20, 2011 (76 FR 58167), the Commission 

published an NPR to establish a safety 

standard for play yards. The NPR 

proposed incorporating by reference 

ASTM F406–11. It is important to note 

that ASTM F406 is the safety standard 

for both non-full-size cribs and play 

yards. The NPR for play yards indicated 

which sections of the ASTM standard 

would apply to play yards and excluded 

from CPSC’s play yard standard the 

provisions of ASTM F406 that apply to 

non-full-size cribs. After publication of 

the 2011 NPR, CPSC staff became aware 

of an incident, mentioned in section A 

of this preamble and described in more 

detail in section D of this preamble, 

where an infant died while sleeping in 

a play yard bassinet accessory that had 

been assembled without end supports. 

The Commission received a comment to 

the 2011 NPR requesting that we 

address play yard bassinet accessory 

misassembly. 

On August 29, 2012, the Commission 

published a final rule to establish a 

safety standard for play yards that 

incorporated by reference ASTM F406– 

12a. 77 FR 52220. The final rule did not 

address the hazards associated with the 

use of play yard bassinet accessories 

that can be assembled missing key 

structural elements. On the same date, 

the Commission published an NPR 

proposing an addition to the play yard 

mandatory standard to address the 

hazards associated with the use of play 

yard bassinet accessories that can be 

assembled missing key structural 

elements and asking for comments on 

the proposal. 77 FR 52272. 

D. The Play Yard Bassinet Accessory 

Misassembly Provision 

1. Summary of the Hazard and the 

Infant Fatality 

Many play yards are sold with 

accessories that attach to the product, 

such as mobiles, toy bars, canopies, 

bassinets, and changing tables. Play 

yard bassinet accessories are unique 

among play yard accessories because 

they are intended to be used as a 

sleeping environment, and infants are 

meant to be left unsupervised in them 

for extended periods of time. Serious 

injuries or fatalities can result if a play 

yard bassinet accessory has been 

assembled without support structures. 

Those structures are intended to attach 

the bassinet accessory to the side of the 

play yard, as well as support the 

bassinet accessory mattress in order to 

keep the sleep surface flat and level. A 

tilt in the sleeping surface of the 

bassinet can result in an infant getting 

into a position where he or she is unable 

to breathe and is at risk of suffocation. 

In August 2011, the CPSC received a 

report of an infant fatality that occurred 

in the bassinet accessory of a play yard. 

The child died when the sleeping 

surface of the bassinet tilted, causing the 

child to slip into the corner of the 

bassinet accessory, where she 

suffocated. A review of the In-Depth 

Investigation Report (IDI), as well as 

CPSC staff testing on an exemplar model 

of the bassinet accessory and play yard 

involved in the fatality, led CPSC staff 

to conclude that the incident was 

caused by the omission of metal support 

rods that were used to secure two of the 

bassinet accessory’s ends to the side of 

the play yard. The bassinet accessory 

also had sewn-on plastic clips that 

attached the product to the side rails of 

the play yard. Sometime after the child 

was placed in the bassinet accessory, 

one of the plastic clips detached. If the 

metal support rods had been used in the 

assembly of the play yard, the 

detachment of the plastic clip would not 

have been enough to cause the tilt in the 

sleeping surface that led to the fatality. 

However, the plastic clips caused the 

consumer to assume erroneously that 

the product was safe when key 

structural elements, the end support 

rods that secured the bassinet 

accessory’s ends to the play yard end 

rails, were missing. The omission of the 

metal support rods caused the fatal tilt 

of the bassinet accessory sleep surface 

and resulted in the infant’s death. 

As in this case, a consumer initially 

may not see that supporting rods are 

missing. If the misassembled accessory 

supports an infant without a 

catastrophic and obvious change to the 

sleep surface, a consumer may continue 

to use the accessory and inadvertently 

place a child in danger. If the bassinet’s 

sleep surface tilts while the child is 

unsupervised, the caregiver may not 

discover the condition for hours, 

placing the child in a potentially fatal 

situation. 

2. The Bassinet Misassembly 

Requirement Contained in the August 

2012 NPR 

The requirement the Commission 

proposed in the August 2012 NPR was 

designed to address the hazards that can 

occur when play yard bassinet 

accessories are misassembled by 

omitting key structural elements during 

assembly. The NPR proposed two 

compliance options. First, the bassinet 

accessory would meet the requirement if 

all of the key structural elements were 

attached permanently to the bassinet 

accessory. This would prevent any 

support rods, tubes, bars, and hooks 

from being omitted inadvertently when 

the consumer assembles the bassinet 

accessory. Manufacturers who choose to 

affix all key structural elements to their 

bassinets permanently would not need 

to conduct further testing on their 

product to meet the requirement. 

The second method for compliance 

proposed in the NPR involved a test 

method that CPSC refers to as the 

‘‘catastrophic failure test.’’ If a 

manufacturer chooses not to attach 

support rods, tubes, bars, or hooks 

permanently to the bassinet, the 

bassinet would have to be tested by 

removing each key structural element 

and numbering each from 1 through n. 

Subsequently, all of the key structural 

elements would be put back into place. 

Key structural element number 1 would 

then be removed from the bassinet. To 

pass the test when an anthropomorphic 

infant dummy is placed in the center of 

the sleep surface, the product must: (1) 

Collapse completely, or (2) tilt more 

than 30°. The angle of 30° represents a 

safety factor of three times the 10° 

maximum safe sleep surface angle of 

incline. CPSC Human Factors staff 

concluded that an angle of 30° would be 

sufficiently obvious to a consumer to 

discourage the consumer from 

continuing to use the bassinet. The test 

would continue until each key 

structural element has been tested 

individually (thus, key structural 

element number 1 would be inserted 

back into the product, key structural 

element number 2 would be removed, 

and the test would be repeated.) 

The proposed requirement was meant 

to ensure that the omission of a key 

structural element would be so visually 

obvious that the consumer would not 

use the product and place the child in 

danger inadvertently. To pass this test, 

the item must fail catastrophically when 

each key structural element is omitted. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
50330 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

3. The Bassinet Misassembly 

Requirement Contained in ASTM F406– 

13 and Incorporated in the Final Rule 

The work on the play yard bassinet 

accessory misassembly requirement 

began after we received a comment on 

the issue in response to the September 

2011 play yard NPR. CPSC staff worked 

with the ASTM play yard subcommittee 

for more than a year to develop the 

language to address this hazard. The 

ASTM play yard subcommittee is made 

up of key stakeholders, including 

manufacturers, retailers, third party test 

laboratories, independent consultants, 

consumer advocates, representatives 

from Health Canada, and CPSC staff. 

The result of this effort is the language 

now contained in ASTM F406–13, 

which this rule incorporates by 

reference. The requirement addressing 

play yard bassinet accessory 

misassembly is essentially the same as 

the requirement proposed in the August 

2012 NPR, with two important 

differences that were suggested in 

comments that the Commission received 

in response to the August 2012 NPR. 

The first difference involves 

addressing the bassinet accessory 

structural supporting elements in two 

different standards: Play yards and 

bassinets/cradles. In the August 2012 

NPR, the term ‘‘key structural 

elements,’’ included all rods, tubes, 

bars, and hooks that supported the 

bassinet accessory or that were used in 

assembling the bassinet accessory. Not 

only did the term include structures that 

attach the bassinet to the play yard, but 

the term also encompassed the mattress 

support rods and other structures that 

support the bassinet accessory mattress 

in order to keep the sleep surface flat 

and stable. The ASTM play yard 

subcommittee, working closely with the 

ASTM bassinet/cradle subcommittee, 

determined that any issues dealing with 

misassembly of the mattress support 

rods should be addressed in the bassinet 

standard. Thus, both ASTM 

subcommittees agreed that: (1) The play 

yard standard, ASTM F406–13, will 

address safety issues related to bassinet 

accessory attachment components (i.e., 

structures that attach the bassinet 

accessory to the play yard); and (2) the 

bassinet standard, ASTM F2194–13, 

will address mattress support rods (and 

all other structures that keep the 

bassinet accessory mattress flat and 

stable) through the segmented mattress 

flatness test contained in the bassinet 

standard. 

The second substantive difference is 

also the result of a comment received in 

response to the August 2012 NPR. As 

proposed in the August 2012 NPR, the 

catastrophic failure test is conducted 

with a 7.5-pound newborn CAMI 

dummy. ASTM F406–13 requires that 

the test be conducted with a four-pound 

test mass. This weight represents the 

mass of the smallest newborn known to 

staff that would be released from a 

hospital, and thus, the smallest 

expected play yard bassinet accessory 

occupant. Using a smaller test mass 

makes the play yard bassinet 

misassembly provision in ASTM F406– 

13 more stringent than the requirement 

the Commission proposed in the August 

2012 NPR. 

The final rule incorporates by 

reference ASTM F 406–13. By 

referencing this newer version of the 

ASTM play yard standard, the CPSC 

standard addresses the hazards known 

to CPSC staff posed by misassembly of 

play yard bassinet accessories in 

substantially the same manner as the 

Commission proposed in the 2012 NPR. 

The final rule continues to exclude from 

the CPSC’s play yard standard the 

provisions in ASTM F 406 that apply to 

non-full-size cribs. The Commission has 

a separate standard for non-full-size 

cribs. See 16 CFR part 1220. 

E. Response to Comments on the 

Proposed Rule 

The preamble to the NPR invited 

comments concerning all aspects of the 

proposed rule. We received 13 

comments. Many of the comments 

contained more than one issue. Thus, 

we organized our responses by issue, 

rather than respond to each commenter 

individually. All of the comments can 

be viewed on www.regulations.gov, by 

searching under the docket number for 

this rulemaking, CPSC–2011–0064. 

1. Generally Unsupportive 

(Comment 1)—Two commenters 

indicate that they generally do not 

support the requirement. Both 

commenters feel that the regulation is 

unnecessary because the hazard was 

caused by misassembly of the product. 

(Response 1) —The Danny Keysar 

Child Product Safety Notification Act, 

section 104 of the Consumer Product 

Safety Improvement Act of 2008 

(CPSIA) requires that we promulgate 

mandatory regulations for durable infant 

and toddler products, including play 

yards, that are substantially the same as 

an existing voluntary standard, or more 

stringent than the voluntary standard if 

the Commission determines that more 

stringent standards would reduce the 

risk of injury associated with the 

product. In this case, we believe that the 

proposed final rule incorporating by 

reference ASTM F406–13 is appropriate 

to reduce the risk of injury associated 

with play yards. Therefore, the issuance 

of this final rule fulfills a statutory 

mandate given to the CPSC by Congress. 

In addition, we disagree with the 

assertion that hazards caused by 

misassembly should not be addressed 

through mandatory regulations. The 

CPSC is often faced with hazards that 

result from the reasonably foreseeable 

use of consumer products. Preventing 

the possibility of misassembly is 

especially critical when the product in 

question has been designed to provide 

a safe sleep environment for an infant, 

and when the result of misassembly 

could be severe, such as an infant 

fatality. The CPSC must assess whether 

there are solutions that would minimize 

the possibility of misassembly. One 

solution could be to improve assembly 

instructions or warning labels. Another 

solution, and the one that has been 

chosen here, is to require that products 

that must be assembled by consumers be 

designed in such a way that they are 

very difficult to misassemble. 

(Comment 2)—One commenter 

expresses a number of concerns about 

the new requirement. Specifically, the 

commenter feels that the requirement: 

(1) Does not address completely the 

hazards that caused the infant fatality; 

(2) was created too quickly and the 

process rushed; (3) is design restrictive; 

and (4) will fail safe products. 

(Response 2)—The bassinet accessory 

misassembly performance requirement 

and test method were fine-tuned for 

more than a year from January 2012 

through April 2013. The circumstances 

involving the infant fatality were 

analyzed in detail and significant 

changes were made to the requirement 

to ensure that it addressed the hazard in 

the least burdensome manner. Notably, 

the scope of the play yard bassinet 

accessory misassembly requirement was 

reduced by focusing only on accessory 

attachment components and not all key 

structural elements. This reduction in 

scope was a direct result of careful 

analysis of the circumstances that 

resulted in the infant fatality. 

The requirement was created and 

approved through consultation with 

members of the ASTM play yard 

subcommittee, which includes many 

play yard importers and manufacturers, 

as well as other stakeholders, such as 

retailers, testing laboratories, 

independent consultants, 

representatives from consumer 

advocacy groups, and representatives 

from Health Canada. 

To provide manufacturers with 

options, and to avoid creating a design 

restrictive standard, two methods of 

compliance were provided. A 

manufacturer can permanently attach all 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 50331 

accessory attachment components or 

design a product that passes the 

catastrophic failure test. Finally, if the 

standard is found to be too severe and 

is failing safe products, it can be 

updated as more data is received by the 

CPSC. 

2. Generally Supportive 

(Comment 3)—Several commenters 

support the new requirement. One 

commenter notes: ‘‘(o)ur organizations 

strongly support these specific 

requirements and test methods as well 

as the general principle that 

misassembly is a design safety issue and 

should be adequately addressed in 

product safety standards.’’ Another 

commenter indicates: ‘‘(w)hile I strongly 

support and would prefer to see all key 

structural elements permanently 

attached to the bassinet accessory, the 

catastrophic failure test provides an 

option for manufacturers to come into 

compliance and appears to address the 

hazards associated with play yard 

bassinet accessories.’’ Another 

commenter expresses ‘‘overall support’’ 

for the requirement and notes: ‘‘(o)ne 

infant death is too many, and the CPSC 

has acted quickly to develop a new 

safety standard for bassinet 

accessories.’’ 

(Response 3)—We agree with the 

commenters. 

3. Effective Date 

(Comment 4)—We received four 

comments addressing the appropriate 

effective date for this regulation. One 

individual indicates her agreement with 

the proposed six-month effective date. 

Other commenters recommend a shorter 

effective date. Some commenters 

suggest that a 90-day effective date 

would be more appropriate because 

safer products would be available 

sooner, and manufacturers have had 

adequate notice that the play yard 

bassinet accessory misassembly 

requirement will soon be mandatory. 

Some commenters note that only 

products manufactured after the 

effective date are impacted by the 

regulation. Thus, products made before 

the effective date (products that may not 

be in compliance with the bassinet 

accessory misassembly requirement 

contained in ASTM F406–13) can 

continue to be sold. 

(Response 4)—The CPSC has 

generally recommended a six-month 

effective date for rules issued under 

section 104 of the CPSIA and we find no 

compelling reason to deviate from this 

practice for this rule. We share concerns 

about noncompliant products, those 

manufactured or imported before the 

effective date, being available for years 

beyond the effective date. However, 

ongoing compliance activities would 

continue to be used to remove unsafe 

play yards from the market. 

4. Coordination Between the Play Yard 

and Bassinet Standard 

(Comment 5)—Four commenters 

discuss the overlap between the 

mattress flatness requirement contained 

in ASTM F2194–13, Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for 

Bassinets and Cradles, and the proposed 

play yard bassinet accessory 

misassembly requirements. The 

commenters state that the play yard 

bassinet accessory misassembly 

requirements, as published in the 

August 2012 NPR, contain requirements 

that are more appropriately addressed in 

the bassinet segmented mattress flatness 

requirement contained in the bassinet 

voluntary standard. 

(Response 5)—The CPSC agrees with 

these comments. As discussed above, 

the play yard bassinet accessory 

misassembly requirement contained in 

ASTM F406–13 now only applies to 

accessory attachment components (i.e., 

those structures that attach the bassinet 

accessory to the play yard). 

Misassembly issues related to mattress 

support rods are now addressed in 

ASTM F2194–13, the standard for 

bassinets and cradles. ASTM F2194–13 

requires that if the mattress support rods 

are not permanently attached, the 

bassinet must be tested pursuant to the 

mattress flatness test contained in 

ASTM F2194–13, and the product must 

pass the mattress flatness test both with 

and without the mattress support rods 

in place. The CPSC is finalizing a rule 

for bassinets/cradles that incorporates 

by reference ASTM F2194–13. 

5. Clarity of ‘‘Key Structural Element’’ 

Definition 

(Comment 6)—One commenter asks 

that the definition of ‘‘key structural 

element’’ be clarified. Specifically, the 

commenter asks if the following are key 

structural elements: (1) clips that are 

sewn to the play yard bassinet accessory 

shell; and (2) metal bars that provide 

support for the bassinet mattress. 

(Response 6)—The definition of ‘‘key 

structural element’’ presented in the 

August 2012 NPR has been modified. 

The final rule incorporates by reference 

ASTM F406–13. The language 

published in ASTM F406–13 now limits 

the scope of the play yard bassinet 

misassembly requirement by defining 

‘‘accessory attachment components’’ as 

‘‘the components that provide the 

means of attachment for a bassinet/

cradle accessory to a play yard.’’ 

Thus, clips sewn to the play yard 

bassinet accessory shell that attach the 

bassinet accessory to the play yard are 

accessory attachment components. 

Metal bars that provide support to the 

bassinet accessory mattress, and that do 

not attach the bassinet accessory to the 

play yard, are not accessory attachment 

components; therefore, they are not 

subject to the play yard bassinet 

accessory misassembly requirement 

contained in ASTM F406–13. 

6. Catastrophic Failure Test Is 

Confusing or Is Arbitrary and 

Capricious 

(Comment 7)—One commenter 

indicates that it would be easier, and 

cause less confusion, if the play yard 

bassinet accessory misassembly 

provision simply required that all key 

structural elements be permanently 

attached to the bassinet accessory 

instead of giving manufacturers the 

option of complying with the 

catastrophic failure test. Another 

commenter indicates that the permanent 

affixture test should be the only method 

of complying with the requirement and 

asserts that the catastrophic failure test 

is not the least burdensome requirement 

and violates the Administrative 

Procedure Act because it is arbitrary and 

capricious. 

(Response 7)—The catastrophic 

failure test can appear confusing and 

counterintuitive because, in order to 

pass the test, the product must fail 

catastrophically when one piece is 

missing. However, this test was 

thoroughly vetted during the ASTM 

process. The ASTM subcommittee 

stakeholders felt that the test is a sound 

alternative to permanently attaching all 

accessory attachment components. In 

fact, initially, CPSC staff suggested that 

the only method of compliance should 

be to require that all key structural 

elements be permanently attached. The 

catastrophic failure option was added at 

the request of manufacturers’ 

representatives. However, once the 

requirement goes into effect, both ASTM 

and the CPSC will monitor any issues 

that arise in using the catastrophic 

failure test to meet the requirement and 

will address them as necessary. 

Additionally, the catastrophic failure 

test is an alternative to the permanent 

affixture test. Although the CPSC does 

not feel that the permanent affixture test 

is design restrictive, providing as many 

alternatives for compliance as possible 

is important, so that products with 

drastically different designs are able to 

meet the requirement. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
50332 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

7. Catastrophic Failure Test and the 

Test Mass Size, Use, and Location 

(Comment 8)—One commenter 

questions the use of the newborn CAMI 

dummy (weighing 7.5 pounds), as 

proposed in the August 2012 NPR. The 

commenter ultimately questions the use 

of a test mass at all, hypothesizing that 

the requirement could be more severe if 

no test mass were used. Another 

commenter recommends that the CPSC 

consider a lighter test mass so that a 

greater proportion of the newborn 

population will be covered by the play 

yard bassinet accessory misassembly 

requirement. 

(Response 8)—We agree that the mass 

of the newborn CAMI dummy is too 

large. CPSC staff developed a new fourpound test mass and presented the fourpound test mass proposal to the ASTM 

play yard subcommittee for review and 

consideration. The play yard bassinet 

accessory misassembly requirement, 

contained in section 5.19 of ASTM 

F406–13, contains a rationale that states 

that the four-pound mass represents the 

weight of the smallest newborn who 

would be using the bassinet accessory 

because infants smaller than four 

pounds are unlikely to be released from 

a hospital. Using the smallest reasonable 

mass makes the play yard bassinet 

accessory misassembly requirement 

more stringent than the proposal in the 

August 2012 NPR. Eliminating the test 

mass entirely, as one commenter 

suggests, is unnecessarily restrictive. 

8. Catastrophic Failure Test and the 

Basis for the 30° Mattress Angle 

Requirement 

(Comment 9)—Several commenters 

object to the 30° tilt requirement in the 

catastrophic failure test. Many 

commenters feel that the requirement is 

not adequately supported by scientific 

data. 

(Response 9)—The angle of 30° 

represents a safety factor of three times 

the 10° maximum safe sleep surface 

angle of incline. CPSC Human Factors 

staff concluded that an angle of 30° 

would be sufficiently visually obvious 

to a consumer, such that the consumer 

would be discouraged from continuing 

to use the bassinet. Staff then 

recommended that the ASTM play yard 

subcommittee review and critique the 

30° angle. ASTM stakeholders agreed 

with CPSC staff that 30° was reasonable 

and would be considered by caregivers 

to be obviously hazardous. CPSC staff, 

as well as ASTM members, can 

reconsider the tilt angle requirement 

should evidence be presented indicating 

that the angle is too small or large. 

9. Redundant Product Safety Features 

(Comment 10)—One commenter states 

that the play yard bassinet accessory 

misassembly requirement, as contained 

in the August 2012 NPR, may result in 

manufacturers eliminating ‘‘redundant 

safety features that are already a 

component of the product.’’ The 

commenter mentions mattress support 

rods as an example of a structure that 

is not necessary to comply with the 

voluntary standard but does improve 

product safety, by helping to create a 

‘‘flatter and more stable sleeping 

position.’’ The commenter concludes 

that the added cost of being required to 

permanently affix redundant structures 

would lead to the elimination of the 

structures to avoid this cost, resulting in 

compliant but less safe products being 

sold. 

(Response 10)—Like many members 

of the ASTM play yard subcommittee, 

this commenter is concerned that 

regulating mattress support rods in the 

play yard rule through the bassinet 

accessory misassembly requirement is 

inappropriate. Members of the play yard 

and bassinet subcommittees resolved 

this issue by agreeing to regulate 

bassinet accessory attachment 

components in the play yard standard, 

and by agreeing to regulate bassinet 

accessory mattress support rods in the 

bassinet/cradle standard. As a result, the 

play yard bassinet accessory 

misassembly requirement in F406–13 

now only applies to accessory 

attachment components. Misassembly 

issues related to mattress support rods 

are now addressed in ASTM F2194–13, 

the voluntary standard for bassinets and 

cradles. ASTM F2194–13 requires that 

bassinets with removable mattress 

support rods be tested both with and 

without the mattress support rods. The 

bassinet must pass the segmented 

mattress flatness test contained in 

ASTM F2194–13 with and without the 

mattress support rods. In this way, all 

misassembly issues known to CPSC staff 

related to play yard bassinet accessories 

are addressed in either the play yard or 

the bassinet standard. 

10. Other Options for Compliance 

(Comment 11)—One commenter asks 

that a third option for compliance be 

considered in addition to the two 

already proposed in the August 2012 

NPR. The commenter suggests that a 

product be considered to be in 

compliance if the product continues to 

meet the standard’s requirements after 

all of the key structural elements are 

removed. 

(Response 11)—This approach has 

been adopted in the bassinet standard 

contained in ASTM F2194–13. ASTM 

F2194–13 requires that removable 

mattress support rods be tested pursuant 

to the segmented mattress flatness tests 

contained in ASTM F2194–13 without 

the rods in place. If the product passes 

the mattress flatness test, even without 

the mattress support rods in place, the 

product meets the requirements. 

We do not agree, however, that this 

commenter’s proposal should be an 

option for accessory attachment 

components meant to attach the bassinet 

accessory to the play yard rails. In the 

fatal incident, one of the accessory 

attachment components, the end 

support rods, was omitted and only the 

plastic clips were used. The fatality 

resulted when the caregiver assumed 

that the product was safe because no 

visually obvious cues suggested that the 

product was unsafe. Therefore, for 

accessory attachment components, we 

believe that the standard should require 

that the accessory attachment 

components be either permanently 

attached or pass the catastrophic failure 

test by obviously failing when an 

accessory attachment component is 

missing. 

11. Cost of Play Yard Bassinet Accessory 

Misassembly Requirement 

(Comment 12)—One commenter 

indicates that cost of ‘‘re-engineering’’ 

and ‘‘retooling’’ would be significant. 

The commenter also mentions that the 

requirement would necessitate a change 

to the packaging. The commenter 

believes that the issue merits additional 

research. 

(Response 12)—Although the new 

requirement might impose additional 

costs on manufacturers and importers, 

staff consulted and worked closely with 

members of the industry to devise an 

acceptable solution that would address 

the safety hazard but not impose 

unnecessary costs. 

12. Ability To Launder 

(Comment 13)—One commenter 

indicates that permanently affixing key 

structural elements to the product may 

interfere with the ability to launder the 

product. The commenter is specifically 

concerned about the metal rods that 

support a bassinet accessory shell or 

liner. If the metal rods were required to 

be affixed permanently to the liner, the 

bassinet accessory shell would be 

difficult to clean. 

(Response 13)—Although the CPSC’s 

primary concern is that play yards and 

bassinet accessories are safe, the CPSC 

does consider practical issues, such as 

the ability to launder, in connection 

with new standards and requirements. 

The commenter’s specific concern 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 50333 

regarding the ability to launder a 

bassinet accessory shell that is 

supported by metal support rods is no 

longer an issue addressable by the play 

yard bassinet accessory misassembly 

requirement because ASTM F406 no 

longer applies to mattress support rods. 

Instead, ASTM F406–13 focuses only on 

accessory attachment components that 

attach the bassinet accessory to the play 

yard. 

The bassinet standard applies to 

mattress support rods. However, the 

bassinet standard does not require the 

metal rods to be attached permanently 

to the liner. If the product passes the 

segmented mattress flatness test 

contained in the bassinet standard with 

the mattress support rods removed, the 

mattress support rods do not need to be 

permanently attached. 

13. Concern That Patent-Only 

Technology May Be Required 

(Comment 14)—One commenter 

indicates that there is a patent 

application pending detailing 10 

different methods to ‘‘stiffen a play yard 

mattress pad before it is used in a play 

yard bassinet accessory.’’ The 

commenter acknowledges that ‘‘there 

may not be any products on the market 

today that would be impacted by this 

patent application’’ but that the CPSC 

should ‘‘evaluate this issue and avoid 

design restrictions that limit 

marketplace competition.’’ 

(Response 14)—The concern 

regarding the means of stiffening a 

mattress pad is no longer an issue for 

the play yard rule because the play yard 

bassinet accessory misassembly 

requirement no longer applies to 

mattress support rods or any other 

methods that might be used to stiffen a 

mattress pad. Instead, the play yard rule 

only focuses on accessory attachment 

components that attach the bassinet 

accessory to the play yard. 

Likewise, the bassinet rule, which 

does address mattress flatness, does not 

require that a specific design be used to 

pass the standard. As a result, the 

bassinet mattress flatness test can be 

met in a variety of ways without 

necessarily implicating patented 

technology. 

14. International Harmonization/Impact 

on Trade 

(Comment 15)—One commenter 

expresses concerns that the requirement 

could impact trade agreements and 

emphasizes the importance of 

international standard harmonization. 

(Response 15)—When drafting the 

NPR for the play yard mandatory 

standard, published in September 2011, 

CPSC staff reviewed, compared, and 

considered a variety of play yard 

standards, including the Canadian 

standard, the European standard, and 

the Australian/New Zealand standard. 

These international standards vary in a 

variety of respects. Thus, even if we 

adopt all or part of an international 

standard, we still would not achieve 

complete international harmonization. 

We are aware of the utility of having 

harmonized standards in a global 

marketplace, and we continue to strive 

to achieve this harmonization whenever 

practicable. Notably, no other standard 

addresses the risks associated with play 

yard bassinet accessory misassembly. 

However, we will continue to monitor 

the effects that our standards have on 

international standards. 

15. Deference to ASTM Standard 

(Comment 16)—One commenter 

requests that staff defer to the ASTM 

standard. 

(Response 16)—Under section 104 of 

the CPSIA, the Commission must 

establish a mandatory standard for play 

yards and cannot defer to a voluntary 

standard. However, the CPSC is 

incorporating the current ASTM 

standard, ASTM F406–13, by reference. 

F. Effective Date 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) generally requires that the 

effective date of a rule be at least 30 

days after publication of the final rule. 

5 U.S.C. 553(d). We are providing a sixmonth effective date, as proposed in the 

NPR. The CPSC has generally 

recommended a six-month effective date 

for rules issued under section 104 of the 

CPSIA and we find no reason to deviate 

from this practice for this rule. 

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. Introduction 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

5 U.S.C. 601–605, requires that final 

rules be reviewed for their potential 

economic impact on small entities, 

including small businesses. Section 604 

of the RFA requires that we prepare a 

final regulatory flexibility analysis when 

promulgating final rules, unless the 

head of the agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. As explained in this section, we 

certify that the rule will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

2. The Market 

There are 26 firms known to be 

supplying play yards to the U.S. market. 

However, not all 26 firms supply 

bassinet accessories with the play yard. 

Of the 26 firms, 11 do not supply 

bassinet accessories. The remaining 15 

firms supply at least one model of a play 

yard that is accompanied by a bassinet 

accessory: 13 are domestic 

manufacturers or importers; one is a 

foreign manufacturer; and one is a 

foreign importer who imports from a 

foreign country and distributes the 

products from outside the United States. 

Under U.S. Small Business 

Administration Guidelines, eight of the 

15 firms are small firms (five domestic 

manufacturers and three domestic 

importers). 

3. Impact of the Standard on Small 

Businesses 

Currently, all but one of the 15 firms 

supplying play yards to the U.S. market 

that are accompanied by bassinet 

accessories have their accessory 

attachment components permanently 

attached to the bassinet accessory. The 

remaining firm has started developing a 

design that permanently attaches all of 

the accessory attachment components to 

the bassinet accessory. Therefore, the 

CPSC believes that this requirement is 

not likely to have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

H. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 

U.S.C. 3501–3521 

ASTM F406–12a, which is 

incorporated by reference into the play 

yard standard codified at 16 CFR Part 

1221, requires labels and instructions to 

be supplied with the product. The PRA 

requirements for the play yard standard 

codified at 16 CFR Part 1221 have been 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB), and OMB has 

assigned control number 3041–0152 to 

the information collection. We estimate 

that there are no additional burden 

hours associated with incorporating by 

reference ASTM F406–13. 

I. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations address 

whether we are required to prepare an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement. Our 

rules generally have ‘‘little or no 

potential for affecting the human 

environment,’’ and therefore, our rules 

are generally exempt from any 

requirement to prepare an 

environmental assessment or impact 

statement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). This 

rule falls within the categorical 

exclusion. 

J. Preemption 

Section 26(a) of the Consumer 

Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 

2075(a), provides that where a consumer 

product safety standard is in effect and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
50334 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

applies to a product, no state or political 

subdivision of a state may establish or 

continue in effect a requirement dealing 

with the same risk of injury, unless the 

state’s 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 the rule becomes effective. 

K. Certification and Notice of 

Requirements (NOR) 

1. Background 

Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires 

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 CPSCenforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 

2063(a). Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA 

requires that certification of children’s 

products subject to a children’s product 

safety rule be based on testing 

conducted by a CPSC-accepted third 

party conformity assessment body (or 

laboratory). Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA 

requires the Commission to publish a 

notice of requirements (NOR) for 

laboratories to assess conformity with a 

children’s product safety rule to which 

a children’s product is subject. The rule 

for 16 CFR Part 1221, ‘‘Safety Standard 

for Play Yards,’’ is a children’s product 

safety rule that requires the Commission 

to issue an NOR. 

The Commission recently published a 

final rule, ‘‘Requirements Pertaining to 

Third Party Conformity Assessment 

Bodies,’’ 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), 

which is codified at 16 CFR Part 1112 

(referred to here as part 1112), and 

became effective on June 10, 2013. Part 

1112 establishes requirements for 

accreditation for third party conformity 

assessment bodies to test for 

conformance with a children’s product 

safety rule in accordance with section 

14(a)(2) of the CPSA. The final rule also 

codifies a list of all the NORs that the 

CPSC had published, to date, at the time 

part 1112 was issued. The Commission 

published an NOR for the play yard rule 

in the final rule for part 1112. The play 

yard standard is listed along with all the 

other children’s product safety rules for 

which the CPSC has issued NORs. 

2. Play Yards 

Testing laboratories applying to be a 

CPSC-accepted third party conformity 

assessment body to test to the standard 

for play yards are required to meet the 

accreditation requirements in part 1112. 

When a laboratory meets the 

requirements as a CPSC-accepted third 

party conformity assessment body, the 

laboratory can apply to the CPSC to 

have 16 CFR Part 1221, ‘‘Safety 

Standard for Play Yards,’’ included in 

the laboratory’s scope of accreditation. 

All of the CPSC safety rules included in 

a laboratory’s scope of accreditation are 

listed on the CPSC Web site at: 

www.cpsc.gov/labsearch. 

Testing to Functionally Equivalent 

Provisions of ASTM F406–12a and 

ASTM 406–13 

For purposes of testing, the provisions 

of revised ASTM F406–13 are 

equivalent or functionally equivalent to 

ASTM F406–12a, with one significant 

exception discussed below. (By 

‘‘functionally equivalent,’’ we mean that 

the standards organization made certain 

changes in the revised standard 

compared to the earlier standard, but 

the changes are not substantial and do 

not affect the associated conformance 

testing.) 

Consequently, the Commission is 

continuing to recognize acceptance of 

accreditation of laboratories currently 

accredited under ASTM F406–12a for 

the provisions in ASTM F406–13 that 

are equivalent or functionally 

equivalent to their corresponding 

provisions in ASTM F406–12a. The 

laboratories should test play yards for 

compliance with ASTM F406–13, and 

based on such testing, manufacturers 

should issue certificates under section 

14(a)(2) of the CPSA. Laboratories that 

are accredited to test to provisions of 

ASTM F406–12a that are equivalent or 

functionally equivalent for children’s 

product certification purposes do not 

need to become accredited to ASTM 

F406–13 before the next time their 

accreditation body reassesses that 

laboratory and recognizes that the scope 

of the laboratory’s accreditation 

includes ASTM F406–13. In the course 

of applying to the CPSC for acceptance 

of their accreditation, the laboratory 

must submit CPSC Form 223 with the 

applicable accompanying documents to 

continue to have their accreditation to 

16 CFR Part 1221 (incorporating by 

reference ASTM F406–13) accepted. We 

will revise our listing for the laboratory 

when the laboratory becomes accredited 

to 16 CFR Part 1221 (incorporating by 

reference ASTM F406–13) and the CPSC 

accepts the laboratory’s application for 

accreditation. 

Testing to the New Bassinet 

Misassembly Provisions 

ASTM F406–13 added one new 

testing requirement that is not present 

in ASTM F406–12a. Section 8.31 of 

ASTM F406–13 adds a new test to 

evaluate conformity with a new 

substantive requirement found in 

section 5.19 regarding missing accessory 

attachment components for play yard 

bassinet/cradle accessories. Neither of 

these provisions existed in ASTM F406– 

12a. Third party testing for section 8.31, 

as required by the new performance 

requirement contained in section 5.19, 

is required only for play yards with 

bassinet/cradle accessories and applies 

to products manufactured or imported 

after this final rule becomes effective. 

If a laboratory wishes to test play 

yards for compliance with the play yard 

bassinet accessory misassembly 

requirement, the laboratory will need to 

become accredited under ASTM F406– 

13 first. This may mean that the 

laboratory will need to become 

accredited to ASTM F406–13 before the 

regularly scheduled reassessment by 

their accreditation body. 

New Applicants 

New third party conformity 

assessment body applicants that apply 

for CPSC acceptance on or after 

February 19, 2014, must be accredited to 

16 CFR Part 1221 (incorporating by 

reference ASTM F406–13), when 

applying for CPSC acceptance of their 

accreditation to test play yards 

3. Retrospective Testing 

Some laboratories may want to start 

testing play yards to assess conformity 

with the play yard bassinet accessory 

misassembly requirement before the 

Commission is able to accept their 

accreditation to 16 CFR Part 1221 

(incorporating by reference ASTM 

F406–13.) Laboratories may begin 

testing for conformance with the play 

yard bassinet accessory misassembly 

requirement before the CPSC accepts 

their accreditation, and their test results 

will be valid retrospectively, if the 

following conditions are met: 

• At the time of testing, the product 

was tested by a laboratory that was ISO/ 

IEC 17025:2005(E) accredited by an 

ILAC–MRA member at the time of the 

test. At the time of testing, the scope of 

the third party conformity body 

accreditation, as reported by the 

accreditation body, must include testing 

in accordance with ASTM F406–13 or 

16 CFR Part 1221 (incorporating by 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 50335 

reference ASTM F406–13). In addition, 

for firewalled third party conformity 

assessment bodies, the firewalled third 

party conformity assessment body must 

be one that the Commission, by order, 

has accredited on or before the time that 

the children’s product was tested, even 

if the order did not include ASTM 

F406–13 or 16 CFR Part 1221 

(incorporating by reference ASTM 

F406–13) at the time of initial 

Commission acceptance. For 

governmental third party conformity 

assessment bodies, accreditation of the 

body must be accepted by the 

Commission on or before the time that 

the children’s product was tested, even 

if the scope of accreditation did not 

include ASTM F406–13 or 16 CFR Part 

1221 (incorporating by reference ASTM 

F406–13) at the time of initial CPSC 

acceptance. 

• The test results show compliance 

with ASTM F406–13 or 16 CFR Part 

1221 (incorporating by reference ASTM 

F406–13). 

• The play yard was tested on or after 

May 1, 2013, the date that ASTM 

approved ASTM F406–13, and before 

February 19, 2014. 

• The laboratory’s accreditation 

remains in effect through February 19, 

2014. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1221 

Consumer Protection, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Infants and 

children, Labeling, Law enforcement, 

Safety and toys. 

Therefore, the Commission amends 

Title 16 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 1221—SAFETY STANDARD FOR 

PLAY YARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1221 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: The Consumer Product Safety 

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

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

■ 2. Revise § 1221.1 to read as follows: 

§ 1221.1 Scope. 

This part establishes a consumer 

product safety standard for play yards 

manufactured or imported on or after 

February 19, 2014. 

■ 3. Revise § 1221.2 to read as follows: 

§ 1221.2 Requirements for play yards. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, each play yard must 

comply with all applicable provisions of 

ASTM F406–13, Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Non-Full-Size 

Baby Cribs/Play Yards, approved on 

May 1, 2013. 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. 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 F406–13 

standard with the following exclusions: 

(1) Do not comply with section 5.17 

of ASTM F406–13. 

(2) Do not comply with section 5.20 

of ASTM F406–13. 

(3) Do not comply with section 6, 

Performance Requirements for RigidSided Products, of ASTM F406–13, in 

its entirety. 

(4) Do not comply with sections 8.1 

through 8.10.5 of ASTM F406–13. 

(5) Instead of complying with section 

9.4.2.10 of ASTM F406–13, comply only 

with the following: 

(i) 9.4.2.10 For products that have a 

separate mattress that is not 

permanently fixed in place: Use ONLY 

mattress/pad provided by manufacturer. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(6) Do not comply with section 

10.1.1.1 of ASTM F406–13. 

Dated: August 13, 2013. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission 

[FR Doc. 2013–19964 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Fiscal Service 

31 CFR Part 356 

[Docket No. Fiscal-BPD–2013–0001] 

Sale and Issue of Marketable BookEntry Treasury Bills, Notes, and Bonds 

Correction 

In rule document 2013–18178 

appearing on pages 46426–46445 in the 

issue of July 31, 2013, make the 

following corrections: 

Appendix B to Part 356 [Corrected] 

1. On page 46437, in the first column, 

in the third line from the bottom, ‘‘a1 = 

100 × max(r + s, 0)/360’’ should read ‘‘ai

= 100 × max(r + s, 0)/360’’. 

2. On the same page, in the second 

column, in the sixth line from the 

bottom, ‘‘a1’’ should read ‘‘ai’’. 

3. On the same page, in the same 

column, in the third line from the 

bottom, ‘‘T1’’ should read ‘‘Ti’’. 

4. On the same page, in the third 

column, in the seventh line above Table 

3, ‘‘0.004278267 + 0.00472818’’ should 

read ‘‘0.004278267 + 0.004472818’’. 

5. On page 46438, in the first column, 

in the third line, ‘‘Ti-1’’ should read ‘‘Ti

¥ Ti-1’’. 

6. On the same page, in the same 

column, in the ninth line, ‘‘Ai = 61 × 

0.000625077 = 0.038129697’’ should 

read ‘‘A1 = 61 × 0.000625077 = 

0.038129697’’. 

7. One the same page, in the second 

column, in the fourth line, ‘‘Bi = 1 + (r 

+ m) × (Ti ¥ 1)/360’’, should read ‘‘Bi

= 1 + (r + m) × (Ti ¥ Ti-1)/360’’. 

8. On page 46441, in Table 6, in the 

second column, in the first line, ‘‘TO ¥ 

T-1 = 31’’ should read ‘‘T0 ¥ T¥1 = 31’’. 

9. On the same page, in the second 

column, the tenth line above Table 4, 

‘‘Ti-1 and T1’’ should read ‘‘Ti-1 and Ti’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2013–18178 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 168 

[Docket No. USCG–2012–0975] 

RIN 1625–AB96 

Double Hull Tanker Escorts on the 

Waters of Prince William Sound, 

Alaska 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Interim rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending 

the escort requirements for certain 

tankers operating on the waters of 

Prince William Sound, Alaska (PWS). 

This interim rule is necessary to 

implement section 711 of the Coast 

Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Act), 

which mandates two tug escorts for 

double hull tankers over 5,000 gross 

tons transporting oil in bulk in PWS. 

The Act directed the Coast Guard to 

promulgate interim regulations as soon 

and practicable to ensure that tug escort 

requirements apply to certain double 

hull tankers. 

DATES: This interim rule is effective 

September 18, 2013. Comments and 

related material must either be 

submitted to our online docket via http: 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES