Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 63019 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1218 

[Docket No. CPSC–2010–0028] 

Safety Standard for Bassinets and 

Cradles 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Danny Keysar Child 

Product Safety Notification Act, Section 

104 of 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 issuing a 

safety standard for bassinets and cradles 

in response to the direction under 

Section 104(b) of the CPSIA. 

DATES: The rule will become effective 

on April 23, 2014, with the exception of 

§ 1218.2(b)(3)(i) through (iv), (b)(5), and 

(b)(7), which will become effective on 

April 23, 2015. The incorporation by 

reference of the publication listed in 

this rule is approved by the Director of 

the Federal Register as of April 23, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Dewgard, Directorate for 

Compliance, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, telephone: 301–504–7599; 

email: WDewgard@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. 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) of the 

CPSIA as a durable infant or toddler 

product. 

On April 28 2010, the Commission 

issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPR) for bassinets and cradles. 75 FR 

22303. The NPR proposed to 

incorporate by reference the voluntary 

standard, ASTM F2194–07a ε1, Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for 

Bassinets and Cradles, with certain 

changes to provisions in the voluntary 

standard to strengthen the ASTM 

standard. 

The Commission published a 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNPR) on October 18, 2012. 

77 FR 64055. The SNPR proposed to 

incorporate the voluntary standard, 

ASTM F2194–12, with: (1) 

Modifications to sections pertaining to 

scope and terminology and the stability 

test procedure, and (2) the addition of 

new provisions for a segmented mattress 

flatness test and a removable bed 

stability requirement. 

In this document, the Commission is 

issuing a safety standard for bassinets 

and cradles. 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 standard, largely 

through the ASTM process. The rule 

incorporates the voluntary standard, 

ASTM F2194–13, Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Bassinets and 

Cradles (ASTM F2194–13), by reference, 

with the following modifications and 

additions: a clarification to the scope of 

the bassinet/cradle standard; a change to 

the pass/fail criterion for the mattress 

flatness test; an exemption from the 

mattress flatness requirement for 

bassinets that are less than 15 inches 

across; the addition of a removable bed 

stability requirement; and a change to 

the stability test procedure requiring the 

use of a newborn CAMI dummy rather 

than an infant CAMI dummy. 

II. The Product 

ASTM F2194–13 defines ‘‘bassinet/

cradle’’ as a ‘‘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 position, a 

bassinet/cradle is intended to have a 

sleep surface less than or equal to 10° 

from horizontal. The bassinet/cradle is 

not intended to be used beyond the age 

of approximately five months or when 

a child is able to push up on his hands 

and knees. Bassinet and cradle 

attachments for non-full-size cribs or 

play yards are considered part of the 

bassinet/cradle category, as are bedside 

sleepers that can be converted to foursided bassinets not attached to a bed. 

Cribs, Moses baskets, and products 

used in conjunction with an inclined 

infant swing or stroller, and products 

that are intended to provide only an 

inclined sleep surface of greater than 10 

degrees horizontal, are not included 

under the category of ‘‘bassinets/

cradles.’’ (A Moses basket is a portable 

cradle for a newborn or infant, often 

made of straw or wicker, that can be 

used with a variety of rocking and 

stationary stands. As with other 

bassinets and cradles, Moses baskets are 

not intended for use after a child can 

push up on its hands and knees.) 

However, Moses baskets and carriage 

accessories that can be converted to a 

bassinet or cradle by attachment to a 

separate base/stand would be 

considered bassinets/cradles when used 

with the base/stand. Similarly, products 

that could be used at an incline of 10 

degrees or less from horizontal, as well 

as more than 10 degrees from 

horizontal, would be considered 

bassinets/cradles when in the flatter 

configuration(s). 

III. Incident Data 

The preamble to the SNPR 

summarized incident data involving 

bassinets and cradles reported to the 

Commission as of January 18, 2012. 77 

FR 64055 (October 18, 2012). CPSC’s 

Directorate for Epidemiology, Division 

of Hazard Analysis has updated this 

information to include bassinet- and 

cradle-related incident data reported to 

the Commission from January 18, 2012 

through March 31, 2013. A search of the 

CPSC epidemiological databases 

showed that there were 71 new 

incidents related to bassinets and 

cradles reported during this time frame. 

Thirty-eight of the 71 were fatal, and 33 

were nonfatal. Sixteen of the nonfatal 

incidents involved injuries. Almost all 

of the new incidents reportedly 

occurred between 2010 and 2012. 

Reporting is ongoing, however, so the 

incident totals are subject to change. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
63020 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

A. Fatalities 

The majority of the deaths (32 out of 

38) 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 

additional bedding. All but four of the 

38 decedents were five months or less 

in age, the ASTM-recommended age 

range for bassinet use; three of the 

decedents were six months old and 

another was an eight-month-old. 

Two of the 38 deaths were associated 

with design aspects of the product. One 

of these was a suffocation death in a 

corner of the bassinet whose rocking 

feature contributed to its non-level 

resting position; the other fatality 

occurred when the bassinet was 

knocked over by an older sibling. 

There were three fatalities with 

insufficient information and one fatality 

with confounding information 

preventing CPSC from determining the 

hazard scenario. 

B. Nonfatal Incidents 

A total of 33 bassinet-related nonfatal 

incidents were reported from January 

18, 2012 through March 31, 2013. Of 

these, 16 reports indicated an injury to 

an infant using the bassinet or cradle at 

the time of the incident. The majority of 

these injuries (11 out of 16, or 69 

percent) were due to falls out of the 

bassinets. All 11 fall injuries were 

reported through NEISS, with little or 

no circumstantial information on how 

the fall occurred. However, the reports 

do indicate that 55 percent of the 

injured infants who fell out of bassinets 

were older than the ASTMrecommended maximum age limit of 

five months. All of the falls resulted in 

head injuries. Among the remaining five 

nonfatal injuries, mostly head injuries, 

no hospitalizations were reported. All 

but six of the injured were five months 

or less in age. 

The remaining 17 incident reports 

indicated that no injury had occurred or 

provided no information about any 

injury. However, many of the 

descriptions indicated the potential for 

a serious injury or even death. 

C. Hazard Pattern Identification 

The hazard patterns identified in the 

71 new incident reports were similar to 

the hazard patterns that were identified 

in the incidents considered for the 

SNPR and are grouped in the following 

categories (in descending order of 

frequency of incidents): 

1. Non-product-related issues: Thirtyfour of the 71 reports (48 percent) 

concerned incidents that involved no 

product defect or failure. This category 

consisted of 32 fatalities that were 

associated with the use of soft/extra 

bedding, prone positioning, and/or the 

infant getting wedged between the side 

of the bassinet and additional bedding. 

In addition, there were two nonfatal 

injury incidents that did not involve any 

product-related issues. 

2. Product-related issues: The hazard 

scenarios in 25 of the 71 reported 

incidents (35 percent) were attributed to 

a failure/defect or a potential design 

flaw in the product. This category 

includes one fatality and 13 injuries. 

Listed below are the reported problems, 

beginning with the most frequently 

reported concerns: 

• Reports of infants falling or 

climbing out of bassinets/cradles 

accounted for a total of 13 incidents, all 

of which were received from emergency 

departments around the United States. 

Eleven of the incidents reported a 

nonfatal injury; the remaining two 

infants were reported to be uninjured. 

• Lack of structural integrity, which 

includes issues such as instability, loose 

hardware, and product collapse, among 

others, was reported in nine incidents— 

one with a fatality and two with 

nonfatal injuries. 

• Problems with accessories (such as 

the stand or sheets), which were sold 

with the bassinets, were reported in two 

incidents. However, no injuries were 

reported. 

• One other product-related problem, 

involving the battery compartment of an 

older product, was reported in one noninjury incident. 

3. Recalled product-related issues: 

There were six reports (eight percent) 

that were associated with three different 

recalled product-related issues. (Two of 

the recalls were published since the 

incident data for the SNPR briefing 

package was presented; at the time, 

these issues were classified under the 

‘‘structural integrity’’ and ‘‘rocking’’ 

categories.) Although there were no 

injuries, there was a fatality included 

among the six incident reports. In the 

fatal incident, it is reported that the 

tilting of the bassinet caused the 

decedent to roll and press up against the 

side and suffocate. 

4. Miscellaneous other issues: The 

remaining six incident reports (eight 

percent) were related to other 

unspecified issues. The reports 

described the incidents with insufficient 

specificity or provided confounding 

information, preventing CPSC staff from 

identifying the hazard scenario. There 

were four fatalities, one nonfatal injury, 

and one non-injury incident reported in 

this category. 

IV. Overview of ASTM F2194 

ASTM F2194, Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Bassinets and 

Cradles, establishes safety performance 

requirements, test methods, and labeling 

requirements to minimize the identified 

hazard patterns associated with the use 

of bassinets/cradles. ASTM first 

published a consumer product safety 

standard for bassinets and cradles in 

2002. The standard was revised several 

times over the next 11 years. The 

current version of the standard is ASTM 

F2194–13. The more significant 

requirements of ASTM F2194 include: 

• Scope—describes the types of 

products intended to be covered under 

the standard. 

• Spacing of rigid side components— 

is intended to prevent child entrapment 

between both uniformly and nonuniformly spaced components, such as 

slats. 

• Openings for mesh/fabric—is 

intended to prevent the entrapment of 

children’s fingers and toes, as well as 

button ensnarement. 

• Static load test—is intended to 

ensure structural integrity even when a 

child three times the recommended (or 

95th percentile) weight uses the 

product. 

• Stability requirements—is intended 

to ensure that the product does not tip 

over when pulled on by a two-year-old 

male. 

• Sleeping pad thickness and 

dimensions—is intended to minimize 

gaps and the possibility of suffocation 

due to excessive padding. 

• Tests of locking and latching 

mechanisms—is intended to prevent 

unintentional folding while in use. 

• Suffocation warning label—is 

intended to help prevent soft bedding 

incidents. 

• Fabric-sided openings test—is 

intended to prevent entrapments. 

• Rock/swing angle requirement—is 

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. 

• Occupant restraints—is intended to 

prevent incidents where unused 

restraints have entrapped and strangled 

children. 

• Side height requirement—is 

intended to prevent falls. 

• Segmented mattress flatness—is 

intended to address suffocation hazards 

associated with ‘‘V’’ shapes that can be 

created by the segmented mattress folds. 

The voluntary standard also includes: 

(1) Torque and tension tests to prevent 

components from being removed; (2) 

requirements for several bassinet/cradle 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 63021 

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 

pacifier cords, ribbons, necklaces, or 

clothing that a child may be wearing 

from catching on a projection. 

V. The SNPR and ASTM F2194–13 

The SNPR proposed to incorporate by 

reference ASTM F2194–12, with four 

modifications/additions to the voluntary 

standard: 

(1) Scope and Terminology: The 

SNPR proposed excluding inclined 

products from the scope of the standard, 

by revising the scope and including a 

detailed note with examples of what 

products were and were not included in 

the scope of the standard. The SNPR 

also proposed two existing definitions 

be revised for clarity. 

(2) Segmented Mattress Flatness Test: 

The SNPR proposed a new test 

requirement and associated test 

procedure to address suffocation 

incidents in segmented mattresses. As 

discussed in the preamble to the SNPR, 

the mattress flatness requirement is 

primarily aimed at incidents involving 

bassinet/play yard combination 

products that tend to use segmented 

mattresses, where seams could pose a 

suffocation and positional asphyxiation 

hazard. Under the Commission’s pass/

fail criteria proposed in the SNPR, a 

bassinet attachment with a segmented 

mattress would fail if any tested seam 

creates an angle greater than 10 degrees. 

(3) Removable Bed Stability 

Requirement: The SNPR proposed a 

new test requirement and associated test 

procedure to address fatal and nonfatal 

incidents associated with bassinets that 

have removable bassinet beds. In the 

proposed requirement, a removable 

bassinet bed that was not properly 

attached or assembled to its base would 

be required to meet one of the following 

requirements: 

a. 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 

b. The lock/latch shall automatically 

engage under the weight of the bassinet 

bed (without any other force or action); 

or 

c. The stand/base shall not be capable 

of supporting the bassinet bed within 20 

degrees of horizontal; or 

d. The bassinet shall contain a visual 

indicator mechanism that shall be 

visible on both sides of the product to 

indicate whether the bassinet is 

properly attached to the base; or 

e. The bassinet shall not tip over and 

shall retain the CAMI newborn dummy 

when subjected to the stability test 

outlined in the standard. 

(4) Stability Test Procedure: The 

SNPR proposed a revised test procedure 

for stability. The revision specifies the 

use of a newborn CAMI dummy, rather 

than the six month CAMI dummy that 

is referenced in the ASTM standard. 

The SNPR’s provisions concerning the 

scope and terminology and the 

proposed segmented mattress flatness 

test requirement were balloted by ASTM 

in 2012, and the provisions are now 

included in the latest revision of the 

voluntary standard, ASTM F2194. 

Although the mattress flatness test 

procedure in ASTM F2194–13 is 

identical to what is proposed in the 

SNPR, the pass/fail criterion is different. 

As stated previously, under the 

Commission’s pass/fail criteria, as 

proposed in the SNPR, a bassinet 

attachment with a segmented mattress 

will fail if any tested seam creates an 

angle greater than 10 degrees. ASTM 

F2194–13 allows measured angles 

between 10 degrees and 14 degrees to 

pass, as long as the mean of three 

measurements on that seam is less than 

10 degrees. 

The removable bed stability 

requirement proposed in the SNPR is 

not in the current ASTM standard, but 

a similar version is expected to be 

balloted by ASTM for inclusion in the 

next revision. Similarly, the change in 

the stability test procedure proposed in 

the SNPR is not in ASTM F2194–13, but 

it is expected to be balloted by ASTM 

for inclusion in its next revision. 

VI. Response to Comments 

There were 27 comments received on 

the SNPR, including: one from Health 

Canada; one from a group of consumer’s 

groups (Kids In Danger, Consumers 

Union, American Academy of 

Pediatrics, Consumer Federation of 

America, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG); 

one from the Juvenile Products 

Manufacturers Association (JPMA); and 

two from bassinet manufacturers. The 

remaining 22 comments were from 

consumers, law students, or unaffiliated 

sources. The comments raised several 

issues, which resulted in two changes to 

the final rule. Several commenters made 

general statements supporting the 

overall purpose of the proposed rule. 

All of the comments can be viewed at: 

www.regulations.gov, by searching 

under the docket number of the 

rulemaking, CPSC–2010–0028. 

Following is a summary of and 

responses to the comments. 

Scope 

Comment: Two commenters provided 

almost identical comments and 

suggestions for changes to the scope. 

The commenters asserted that the scope 

was unclear about what products are 

included in the scope and under what 

conditions. For instance, one comment 

stated that it was not clear from the 

SNPR how products with an inclined 

seat back surface (reclined seat back), 

such as infant seats, infant bouncer 

seats, and infant rockers that do not 

provide an ‘‘inclined sleep surface’’ 

would be treated under the standard. 

Response: The scope that was 

proposed in the SNPR has subsequently 

been adopted by ASTM and is the scope 

in the current version of the ASTM 

standard, ASTM F2194–13. The 

comments received reflect continued 

ambiguity regarding some aspects of the 

scope. Therefore, the Commission is 

providing additional clarity in the final 

rule. 

Inclined products fall under a variety 

of different ASTM standards, depending 

on the product’s function. For instance, 

ASTM standards include a handheld 

carrier standard, an infant bouncer 

standard, and a new rocker standard 

that is currently under development. 

None of those products is intended for 

sleep. An inclined product intended for 

sleeping would fall under the inclined 

sleep product standard currently under 

development by ASTM. The 

Commission’s intent is that the scope of 

the bassinet standard exclude all 

inclined products when the incline is 

more than 10 degrees from horizontal. 

However, the Commission intends 

that any product that has both a flat (10 

degrees or less) sleep surface and an 

inclined surface greater than 10 degrees 

from horizontal shall fall under the 

scope of the bassinet standard when 

configured in the flat mode, and will fall 

under the scope of the appropriate 

inclined product standard(s) while in 

the inclined mode. In this manner, all 

uses of the product are addressed by 

safety standards. This type of product is 

considered a multimode product, or a 

combination product, i.e., the product 

can convert from one use mode to 

another. 

During the recent ASTM F15 juvenile 

products subcommittee meetings held 

in April 2013, scope clarity was raised 

in various product subcommittees 

where multimode products are 

commonly considered. Most of those 

product subcommittees proposed to 

modify the scope section of the 

appropriate standard to clarify that 

these combination products shall fall 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
63022 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

under the scope of all relevant standards 

when in the corresponding use mode. 

This intent to include multimode 

products under multiple standards is 

well established in ASTM standards, 

including the bassinet standard. One 

example of a multimode product is a 

carriage basket that is removable from a 

stroller base. The scope section of 

ASTM F2194–13 clearly states that 

products used in conjunction with a 

stroller are not covered by the standard. 

Yet, the current scope section also 

states: ‘‘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.’’ Clearly, the intent of the 

ASTM standard is to see that this 

multimode product falls within the 

scope of the stroller standard when 

attached to the stroller frame and falls 

within the scope of the bassinet 

standard when attached to a separate 

frame/stand. 

Thus, to remove any ambiguity 

regarding multimode products, the 

Commission’s standard modifies the 

note that accompanies the scope 

provision of ASTM F2194–13 to clarify 

that a multimode product with a 

bassinet-use mode must meet the 

bassinet standard when in the bassinetuse mode. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the scope of the standard needs 

more specific age restrictions. 

Response: The scope of a standard is 

intended to define broadly an entire 

product category. Within that category, 

manufacturers have the freedom to 

tailor their product to a specific market 

niche, which might be more specialized 

than other products in the same 

category. Providing too many specific 

restrictions within the scope of a 

standard makes the standard weaker by 

excluding many products that ought to 

be included. In general, ASTM 

standards are defined by their respective 

industries, using terms that produce a 

standard that is as useful as possible to 

that industry. The Commission agrees 

with the bassinet industry on the 

existing age recommendations in the 

ASTM standard. 

Removable Bassinet Bed Requirements 

Comment: One group of commenters 

suggested that the Commission 

eliminate the two ‘‘passive’’ pass 

conditions (20 degrees and passing 

stability) of the removable bassinet bed 

stability requirement in favor of the 

other pass criteria, which the group of 

commenters said they believe makes the 

user actively aware that the bassinet is 

not attached properly. 

Response: The SNPR proposed several 

options to meet the removable bassinet 

bed requirements. This approach is less 

restrictive than prescribing one pass 

criterion, and the approach allows for 

more innovation in product designs. By 

permitting five different options to meet 

this requirement, manufacturers have a 

variety of design choices available. 

Comment: Some commenters said 

they believe that allowing the bassinet 

to ‘‘fail’’ (by falling to the ground or to 

a 20 or more degree angle) encourages 

manufacturers to make products that are 

less stable to ensure that their bassinets 

pass this requirement. Another 

commenter stated that it was foreseeable 

that some caregivers may attempt to 

attach the bassinet bed to its stand while 

the child is in the product and that this 

might expose children to unnecessary 

hazards. 

Response: Two of the five options to 

pass the removable bed requirement are 

closely related to one another. These 

two options are: (1) The sleep surface 

shall be at least 20 degrees off from a 

horizontal plane; and (2) the bassinet 

bed falls from the stand and contacts the 

floor. These two requirements were 

added after consultations with 

stakeholders (ASTM task group 

members). Several stakeholders stated 

that if a bassinet stand was designed to 

support the bassinet bed only if it were 

locked properly, then the bassinet stand 

should be able to pass the requirement. 

For instance, in the case of a stand that 

looks like a saw horse, or ‘‘A’’ frame that 

has a lock/latch connection at the top of 

the ‘‘A’’ on the frame and on the 

underside of the bassinet bed, the 

caregiver would have to line up both 

halves of the lock/latch to attach the bed 

to the stand. It would be unreasonable 

to believe that caregivers would place 

the bassinet bed on an ‘‘A’’ frame stand 

without engaging the lock/latch because 

the design of the stand would cause the 

bassinet bed to fall to the ground if the 

lock was not engaged. 

Rather than specifying a design 

requirement, the task group converted 

the requirement to a performance 

requirement, by simulating what would 

happen if the unreasonable act 

occurred. In other words, this option 

requires the bassinet bed to fall to the 

ground if the lock is not properly 

engaged. 

Once that requirement was vetted by 

the task group, another stakeholder 

raised the possibility that the bassinet 

bed, in the act of falling, might get 

caught on the stand before hitting the 

ground. The stakeholder asserted that 

simply because the bassinet bed did not 

hit the ground should not constitute a 

failure. Thus, the 20-degree tilt option 

was added to address the possibility 

that the bassinet bed, in the process of 

falling, might get caught on the stand 

and to complement the fall-to-theground option. 

A bassinet that relies on either of 

these two options to pass the 

requirement would be considered to 

provide immediate positive feedback. 

Caregivers who attempt to place the 

bassinet bed on this type of stand 

without locking it in place will realize 

instantly that they did not engage the 

lock because the bassinet bed will not 

assume a stable position that allows the 

caregivers to release their grasp. The 

immediate feedback of instability will 

minimize the possible hazards, making 

falling unlikely. The Commission 

believes that the steep angle needed to 

pass is unlikely to allow consumers to 

let children fall. The instability of such 

a unit is immediately obvious to the 

user, precluding a delayed response. 

Consumers are likely to check the 

stability of the product before removing 

their hands from it. Even in the case of 

a caregiver who attempts to place an 

occupied bassinet bed on a stand using 

this option, the caregiver will be present 

and potentially will be able to prevent 

or arrest the fall of the bassinet bed. The 

Commission considers the possibility of 

a fall hazard in this scenario to be 

highly unlikely; and on the rare chance 

that a fall occurs, the fall in these 

circumstances would be considered less 

significant than an unattended fall to 

the floor. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the option—‘‘The lock/latch shall 

automatically engage under the weight 

of the bed (without any other force/

action)’’—should be a requirement for 

all bassinets. 

Response: The Commission is 

providing manufacturers with options to 

meet the removable bassinet bed 

requirements. This approach is less 

restrictive than prescribing one 

requirement and allows for more 

innovation in product designs. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

adding the removable bassinet bed 

stability requirement is premature. The 

commenter expressed the belief that the 

requirement should be removed from 

the regulation and that ASTM should be 

allowed to continue working on the 

issue. 

Response: The Commission is aware 

of two deaths associated with this 

hazard scenario. (One of these deaths 

occurred in Canada; thus, it was not 

included in incident data counts 

reported in the SNPR briefing package.) 

Therefore, the Commission does not 

believe that this requirement is 

premature. The Commission believes 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 63023 

that stakeholders have had plenty of 

time to test, review, discuss, and refine 

the proposed requirements before and 

after the SNPR was published. In fact, 

the language recommended for the final 

rule is essentially the same as what 

ASTM expects to ballot soon as a new 

requirement to address the same hazard. 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

color-only visual indicators should not 

be allowed as an option to pass the 

removable bassinet bed requirement 

because people who are color-blind 

would not be able to distinguish 

between locked and unlocked. 

Response: The requirement for visual 

indicators allows manufacturers to 

design a visual indicator that can be 

recognized by a person with a color 

vision deficiency. In addition, there are 

many other options to pass the 

requirement, and individuals who are 

color-blind can choose to purchase a 

product that does not use color 

indicators. 

Comment: Some commenters 

expressed a belief that allowing 

removable bassinet beds to pass the 

stability test by tilting to a 20-degree 

angle was hazardous because consumers 

might think that a 20-degree angle is 

still usable, perhaps as an inclined 

sleeper. 

Response: The Commission believes 

that an angle of 20° or more is 

acceptable to demonstrate that the 

bassinet is not useable. A steeper angle 

would also be acceptable, but the 

Commission is not convinced this is 

needed. Twenty degrees is twice the 

maximum allowable tilt for bassinets, 

which are intended to have a flat 

sleeping surface. In deciding on the 20° 

angle, the ASTM task group noted an 

incident (101101HCC3107) where a 

consumer clearly saw that something 

was wrong with his bassinet when he 

saw it tilted and deemed it to be 

unusable. From the photos, the tilt was 

estimated to be approximately 17°. 

Mattress Flatness 

Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that the mattress flatness 

requirements should be limited to 8° 

from the horizontal rather than 10°. 

Response: Although the Commission 

would be amenable to using this more 

conservative margin of safety, i.e., a 

tolerance of 16° of motion rather than 

20°, the industry has maintained that a 

larger tolerance is necessary, due to the 

inherent variability of manufacturing 

products with fabric and foam. The 

industry claims that tighter tolerances 

on a segmented mattress made with the 

materials that are commonly used in 

these products would make it 

impossible to manufacture such 

mattresses. The Commission believes 

that the 10° limit is adequate to protect 

the expected user population. 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

that the threshold limit for flatness 

should be 14° to preserve test-retest 

reliability. 

Response: ASTM F2194–13 now 

includes the mattress flatness test 

requirement and procedure, as written 

in the SNPR, with the exception of the 

angle requirement. ASTM’s requirement 

allows the use of an average for 

measurements over 10° and under 14°, 

while the SNPR proposed a maximum 

allowable measurement of 10°. Based on 

testing performed by an ASTM task 

group that was established to assess the 

reliability and repeatability of the 

mattress flatness test, the reliability of 

the test is adequate when the test is 

performed on products designed to pass 

the test. The commenter did not provide 

any new or different information to the 

Commission to support the suggestion 

for using the averaging method; thus, 

the Commission continues to support 

the 10° flatness criterion as proposed in 

the SNPR. 

Comment: Some commenters 

questioned the use of a cylinder as a 

surrogate for a human occupant, and 

another commenter suggested that an 

automated human model would be more 

appropriate. 

Response: An automated human 

model is not readily available. It is 

customary in the juvenile product 

industry to use easily manufactured 

shapes made from common materials. 

This testing strategy enhances the 

repeatability of the test. An ASTM task 

group conducted a repeatability and 

reproducibility study to compare 

various surrogates for use in the 

mattress flatness test. The cylinder was 

the best choice, based on the study 

results. 

Comment: Some commenters 

suggested using the dummy in the test 

for mattress flatness so that infant 

position would be a factor. 

Response: The test cylinder is a 

repeatable method that identifies 

hazardous products to the satisfaction of 

industry and the Commission. 

Unfortunately, the CAMI dummy is too 

stiff to be useful for simulating 

suffocation positions and would not be 

suitable to serve that purpose. 

Comment: Some commenters wanted 

more explanation of how the cylinder 

sufficiently simulates an infant rolling 

into a mattress crease, as demonstrated 

in the mattress flatness test. 

Response: The Commission has 

examined bassinets that pass the test 

and bassinets that fail. When visual 

comparisons and measurements of 

angles are made to compare the 

movements of the mattresses during a 

test using an anthropomorphic dummy 

versus tests using a cylinder, few 

discernible differences are evident. The 

shape of the test weight does not seem 

to be as important as the mass of the test 

weight in identifying hazardous 

products. 

Comment: Two commenters offered 

opinions about the mattress flatness 

testing and designs of bassinet 

accessories that use support rods 

underneath the mattress. One of the two 

comments suggested that the mattress 

flatness test be performed with and 

without the bars in place. Moreover, the 

commenter suggested that if the bars are 

required to be in place to pass the 

flatness test, then they should be 

attached permanently. Similarly, the 

other comment suggested that the frame 

supporting the floor (mattress) should 

come preassembled to eliminate the 

possibility that the consumer can 

misassemble the product. 

Response: The Commission agrees 

with these comments. In January 2013, 

ASTM balloted a revised mattress 

flatness test, requiring that any 

segmented mattress that has consumerassembled mattress support rods, be 

tested with and without the mattress 

support rods. This requirement resulted 

from the Commission’s play yard 

misassembly NPR that was published in 

August 2012. The ballot item passed 

and is now part of ASTM F2194–13. 

The final rule incorporates by reference 

ASTM F2194–13; thus, the test will 

include the suggestion from the 

commenters. 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

that the mattress flatness test could not 

be performed on bassinets that were less 

than 15 inches wide because of the 

width of the cylinder and the block used 

in that test method. Furthermore, the 

commenter noted that such a small, 

narrow occupant-retention space would 

not present the same hazards involved 

in incidents with wider play yard 

bassinet accessories. 

Response: The Commission agrees 

that bassinets with occupant-retention 

spaces that are narrower than the test 

apparatus are unlikely to be used with 

an infant placed orthogonally between 

walls that are so narrow. In the case 

where an infant is placed in a narrow 

bassinet correctly and then moves or 

shifts 90°, the narrowness of the 

bassinet would likely not permit the 

infant to lie in a fully prone position, 

face down in an orthogonal seam. Thus, 

an exemption from the flatness test for 

mattress pad seams that run 

orthogonally between the sides of a 

bassinet with a width of 15 inches or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
63024 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

less seems reasonable. Therefore, the 

Commission is modifying the standard 

to exempt from the mattress flatness test 

bassinets that are narrower than 15 

inches. 

Effective Date 

Comment: We received several 

comments on the effective date 

proposed in the SNPR. One commenter, 

representing several advocacy groups, 

supported the six-month effective date 

proposed in the SNPR. A second 

commenter agreed, expressing concerns 

that if the date were extended and a 

death occurred, ‘‘consumers might view 

the death as the result of the CPSC 

putting the interests of for-profit entities 

. . . ahead of the safety of infants who 

use their products.’’ 

In contrast, several other commenters, 

including one manufacturer, 

recommended longer effective dates to 

reduce the impact of the rule, 

particularly for small businesses that 

have ‘‘fewer resources and connections 

within the industry’’ and that ‘‘may 

have to significantly alter their means of 

production.’’ Suggested effective dates 

ranged from 9 to 15.5 months, with 

commenters recommending that the 

CPSC focus on relief for firms that 

would be disproportionately impacted 

by the rule. Commenters suggested 

longer effective dates for firms newly 

covered by the expanded scope, and 

firms whose products would be subject 

to the removable bassinet bed 

requirement. 

A manufacturer commenting on the 

effective date stated that a longer 

effective date is needed for firms that 

will need to redesign their products to 

meet the removable bassinet bed 

requirement. This firm stated that an 

effective date of at least 15.5 months is 

needed to reflect accurately the 

challenges of redesigning the product. 

Response: The Commission 

recognizes that some manufacturers will 

be required to redesign, test new 

prototype products, and then retool 

their production process to meet the 

new removable bassinet bed provision. 

Based on a comment from one 

manufacturer who stated it would need 

a minimum of 15.5 months to redesign 

its product, the Commission considers 

18 months to be a reasonable time 

period to accommodate other 

manufacturers that might also need to 

redesign their products. Therefore, the 

Commission is implementing a sixmonth effective date for the final rule, 

with the specific exception of extending 

the effective date for the removable 

bassinet bed test requirement to 18 

months. 

Stability Testing—CAMI Dummy 

Comment: Some commenters 

suggested using an infant and a 

newborn dummy in the stability test 

methods, while others said they believe 

the incident data do not support the 

need to change from an infant dummy 

to a newborn dummy because this 

change neglects the evidence that larger 

infants also use bassinets and cradles. 

Response: The use of both dummies is 

unnecessary because the worst case 

scenario for stability is the smaller size 

dummy. The larger size dummy makes 

the product more stable. Therefore, if a 

product passes with a newborn, the 

product will also pass with an infant. 

Performing the test with two different 

dummies would be redundant and 

would only add to the cost of testing. 

The Commission is requiring use of 

the newborn CAMI to make the test 

more stringent. Even if a majority of the 

incidents were not directly attributable 

to product stability, the instability of the 

product, in many incidents, was to 

blame, including two fatal incidents 

(one of which was reported from 

Canada). 

Incident Data Analysis 

Comment: Some commenters asserted 

that a causal relationship could not be 

established for fatalities that the 

Commission attributed to design 

defects. They also stated that the 

information used by the Commission to 

analyze fall incidents was 

circumstantial. Other commenters 

suggested that additional information 

should be collected to determine the 

extent to which product design was at 

fault, to evaluate the cause of falls, and 

to ‘‘improve and expand on the 

regulations and guidelines set forth in 

the proposed rule.’’ 

Response: The Commission gathered 

as much information as possible on 

every cited product-related fatality 

through an in-depth, on-site field 

investigation. Although the Commission 

agrees with the commenters that 

additional information-gathering on all 

nonfatal injuries could be useful, given 

resource limitations, the Commission 

cannot follow up on every injury report 

with an in-depth investigation. Many of 

the nonfatal injuries were based on 

emergency department-treated cases 

from NEISS hospitals, and 

confidentiality requirements often 

prevent any additional contact with 

patients. In addition, even with cases 

that are followed, completion of the 

investigation is not guaranteed because 

of a lack of consumer cooperation or the 

inability to establish contact with the 

consumer. 

Short of a controlled experimental 

setting, causal links are difficult to 

establish from observational data based 

on un-witnessed incidents. However, 

the combined judgment of subject 

matter experts at CPSC, corroborated by 

investigating state/county/local officials, 

supports the conclusions. 

Comment: One set of commenters 

expressed the belief that the data 

presented in the SNPR is skewed and 

purposely misleading. There were 

specifics outlined in the comment, 

which are addressed in the response. 

Response: The Commission disagrees 

strongly with the commenters’ assertion 

regarding the way the data are 

presented. For fatalities, the 

commenters contend that almost all of 

the incidents were due to caregiver 

negligence, even the ones that the 

Commission considered to be product 

related. 

The commenters first argued that the 

Commission needed to gather more 

information on the fatalities deemed by 

the Commission to be product related. 

CPSC staff gathered as much 

information as possible on every cited 

product-related fatality through an indepth, on-site field investigation. 

Because these incidents were not 

witnessed, the judgments of subject 

matter experts at CPSC and state/

county/local investigating officials were 

combined to arrive at the conclusions 

about the manner of the deaths. 

Second, the commenters asserted that 

of the three deaths that were due to 

infants sliding out of the fabric-sided 

opening, two were of the infants were 

older than the recommended-user age. 

Hence, the commenters further asserted, 

these two deaths cannot be counted as 

product-related because they were the 

result of caregiver negligence. The 

Commission disagrees with this 

assertion because the third decedent, 

who died in the same manner, was well 

within the recommended age limit. 

Therefore, the age of the other two 

decedents, barely a month above the 

recommended age limit, was deemed 

not to be a factor in the entrapments. 

Third, the commenters stated that the 

non-product-related deaths appear to be 

due to caregiver negligence and do not 

justify CPSC’s increasing the economic 

burden on manufacturers through added 

regulations. This argument has no basis 

because CPSC’s regulation does not 

make any changes to the current 

voluntary standard based on these nonproduct-related fatalities. 

For the nonfatal injuries, the 

commenters said they believe there is 

no justification for placing a burden on 

manufacturers by including one injury, 

due to a moldy mattress, in the report. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 63025 

CPSC staff includes all in-scope 

incidents in its hazard sketch, even if 

the Commission is not proposing any 

provisions to address the issue. 

Therefore, the manner in which staff 

reports the incident data does not 

impose any burden on manufacturers. 

In addition, the commenters argued 

that six percent of the injuries from 

bassinets that were damaged during 

delivery were instances of blatant 

negligence on the part of the owners. 

First, to clarify, the Commission 

reported that six percent of the 

incidents, not injuries, involved 

bassinets damaged during delivery. 

Second, there were no injuries 

associated with these incidents, and the 

Commission did not propose any 

provisions to address the issue. 

Comment: Some commenters said that 

the Commission needs to provide 

justification for its statement that the 

descriptions in the noninjury incident 

reports indicated the potential for 

serious injury. The commenters stated 

that without any further explanation, 

the statement seems ‘‘arbitrary.’’ 

Response: CPSC staff has reviewed a 

number of incidents in which the 

caregiver was reported to be nearby and 

was able to rescue the infant from 

danger. Similar scenarios, with the 

infant unattended, have led to less 

favorable outcomes. Thus, the potential 

for serious consequences is not 

conjecture, and the statement is 

justified. 

Size and Weight Limits 

Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that the weight of an infant 

occupant should be considered in the 

standard’s scope to safeguard infants 

who exceed the recommended weight 

and size. 

Response: The maximum weight of an 

occupant is already considered in the 

static load requirements in ASTM 

F2194–13, which the rule incorporates 

by reference. The industry requires a 

bassinet to be loaded to three times the 

manufacturer’s recommended weight. 

The side heights are also intended to 

account for the largest infants who 

might still use the bassinet. 

Bassinet Misuse 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the possibility of consumer 

misuse of bassinets would negate any 

effects of the new requirements. 

Response: The Commission believes 

that strengthening the standard is the 

best way to improve product safety and 

that if significant product misuse 

becomes evident in injury reports, more 

developments are possible. 

Comment: Another commenter 

suggested that educational campaigns 

about the proper and improper uses of 

bassinets would be sufficient. 

Response: The Commission believes 

that educational campaigns play an 

important role in injury prevention but 

are best preceded by mechanical and 

physical safety requirements designed 

to make accidents as unlikely as 

possible to occur. 

Restraints 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

the belief that the lack of incidents with 

harnesses could be due to other factors, 

as much as to the lack of harnesses in 

bassinets. 

Response: Deaths and injuries in other 

infant products have been attributed to 

restraints/harness that were not used or 

were used improperly. Therefore the 

Commission is not making any changes 

regarding the current prohibition of 

restraints in bassinets. 

Warnings 

Comment: Some commenters 

recommended the use of pictures or 

visual aids to clarify the warning 

messages. 

Response: The Commission 

acknowledges that well-designed 

graphics can be useful in certain 

circumstances. However, the design of 

effective graphics can be difficult. Some 

seemingly obvious graphics are poorly 

understood and can give rise to 

interpretations that are opposite the 

intended meaning (so called ‘‘critical 

confusions’’); therefore, a warning 

pictogram should be developed with 

empirical study and well tested on the 

target audience. Although the 

Commission may take action in the 

future if it believes graphic symbols are 

needed to reduce the risk of injury 

associated with these products, the rule 

permits, but does not mandate, such 

supporting graphics. 

With respect to the idea of creating a 

pictogram to communicate the dangers 

of soft bedding, the Commission agrees 

that a well-developed and tested 

pictogram could increase 

comprehension and acknowledges that 

such elements could be developed with 

some empirical study; the Commission, 

however, does not have the resources 

for such a project at this time and could 

not validate a warning graphic without 

research. However, there are a number 

of products for which such a soft 

bedding pictogram could be useful, such 

as bedside sleepers, bassinets, cribs, 

play yards, inclined sleep products, and 

others. Because of this, an ASTM crossproduct ad hoc working group may be 

the best place to develop such a 

pictogram. This could foster crossproduct harmonization of such a 

pictogram and would allow testing and 

validation of the pictogram. CPSC staff 

will gladly participate in any such 

group, and should the need arise, staff 

will consider future action once such a 

graphic is developed. 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

adding statistics to the suffocation 

warning. 

Response: Crafting a warning requires 

balancing the brevity of the message 

with its attention-grabbing features and 

informational content. Too much 

information makes a long label that is 

likely to be ignored by consumers. On 

the other hand, too little information 

leaves consumers unsure of the 

message. CPSC staff’s opinion is that the 

addition of statistical information on the 

suffocation warning label will not 

increase the effectiveness of the 

warning. 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

that the warnings contain the maximum 

recommended age of the bassinet 

occupant, i.e., five months. 

Response: The current warning 

contains a developmental milestone, 

rather than an age maximum. 

Developmental milestones have the 

advantage of allowing for individual 

variability in use patterns. Some 

children will gain strength and 

coordination faster than others and will 

need to be removed from the bassinet 

sooner. Since children’s abilities are 

more important than their age when 

evaluating the applicability of the 

warning, the age is not included in the 

warning. 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

that the warnings should be displayed 

in a prominent position. 

Response: The ASTM standard, which 

the rule incorporates by reference, 

already contains a common definition 

for ‘‘conspicuous’’ warnings in Section 

3.3.3, with corresponding requirements 

in Sections 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5. 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

strengthening the warning labels by 

requiring mattress pads to have the 

following statement: ‘‘This padding has 

been tested to reduce the risk of 

suffocation to a minimal level,’’ adding 

that ‘‘additional padding increases this 

risk substantially and has caused 

fatalities.’’ 

Response: Although the standard does 

contain a requirement for the mattress 

pad to remain level, the standard does 

not contain a test for reducing the risk 

of suffocation created by the softness of 

the padding, which seems to be the 

assumption made by the commenter. 

The standard already contains a 

warning in Section 8.4.2, instructing 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
63026 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

against the use of additional bedding 

materials. This required warning must 

be visible to the consumer when the 

product is in the manufacturer’s 

recommended-use position. Thus, the 

warning will not be covered by sheets, 

which are allowed, and will be more 

effective than on the mattress pad where 

any messages will be covered. 

Comment: Another commenter 

suggested that consumers need to be 

warned of the hazards associated with 

segmented mattresses. 

Response: Warnings are the last stage 

at which attempts are made to remove 

a hazard from a product. Changing the 

product is more effective. The standard 

contains performance requirements 

designed to eliminate the hazards 

associated with segmented mattresses, 

so it is not necessary to include a 

warning. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that warnings should have 

larger fonts, duplication on opposing 

walls of the bassinet, duplication on the 

packaging and on the product, more 

detailed hazard descriptions, and more 

information in supporting educational 

materials and product advertisements. 

Response: Although CPSC staff agrees 

that any warning could be strengthened 

with a size, color, or other graphical 

features, the product’s final appearance 

also needs to be considered because 

exceptionally large or graphic warnings 

may cause consumers to remove or 

deface the warnings, thereby rendering 

them ineffective for later users. The 

current warning requirements match 

industry standards for many juvenile 

products. 

The Necessity for a Standard 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that the proposed standard for bassinets 

and cradles should not be adopted 

because the number of injuries and 

fatalities due to design defects was very 

low. 

Response: The Consumer Product 

Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) 

requires the Commission to issue a 

mandatory standard for bassinets and 

cradles, regardless of the number of 

incidents involving those products. 

Given the the CPSIA directive, the 

options are either to adopt the existing 

voluntary standard, as is, or revise the 

standard to make improvements. Even if 

a majority of the incidents were not 

directly attributable to defects in the 

product design, many incidents were. 

Congress mandated that CPSC adopt a 

more stringent standard if the 

Commission determined that a more 

stringent standard ‘‘would further 

reduce the risk of injury.’’ The 

Commission feels strongly that the final 

rule would do so. 

Mattress Thickness (Rigid Products and 

Falls) 

Comment: Some commenters 

expressed concern that the standard 

allows for rigid-sided bassinets with 

thicker mattresses than soft-sided 

bassinets. These commenters said they 

feel that thicker mattresses may pose 

more of a risk of babies falling out when 

a baby rolls to one side and the product 

tilts. 

Response: There are two requirements 

in the existing ASTM standard, which 

the rule incorporates by reference, 

which would prevent the scenario 

described by the commenters. The first 

is the side height requirement, which 

states that the side height of the bassinet 

be 7.5′′ above the uncompressed surface 

of the mattress. Thus, if a bassinet 

maker supplies a thick mattress with the 

rigid-sided bassinet, the side heights 

must account for the thicker mattress 

and still yield 7.5′′ of side height above 

the mattress surface. In addition, the 

standard has a rock/swing angle 

requirement that limits the maximum 

angle a rocking bassinet can have, as 

well as a maximum rest angle it can 

have. The rest angle is measured using 

a CAMI doll placed up against the side 

of the bassinet. Thus, the standard uses 

a worst-case placement scenario for the 

occupant during the testing. 

Health Canada Standard 

Comment: A representative of Health 

Canada corrected a statement in the 

SNPR and the corresponding staff 

briefing package, which states: ‘‘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.’’ The commenter 

noted that this overview statement was 

incorrect because on November 18, 

2010, the amended Cribs, Cradles, and 

Bassinets Regulations (SOR/2010–261) 

came into effect, and now bassinets are 

included in the scope. 

Response: The Commission thanks 

Health Canada staff for the correction 

and the subsequent information 

regarding how SOR 2010/261 

distinguishes bassinets, cradles, and 

cribs. As the Commission now 

understands, Health Canada defines 

these three products according to the 

sleep surface area contained in the 

product. 

Play Yard Misassembly Requirement in 

Docket CPSC–2011–0064 

Comment: The commenter repeated 

comments submitted for Docket CPSC– 

2011–0064, regarding the play yard 

misassembly requirement that was 

proposed in August 2012. 

Response: The Commission has 

addressed these comments in the final 

rule briefing package for Play Yard 

Misassembly Requirement, dated June 

26, 2013. 

International Standards 

Comment: Commenters remarked that 

more information regarding the 

international standards that were 

mentioned in the SNPR would be 

helpful. 

Response: The Commission provided 

the names and designations of the 

standards, plus a description of where 

they differed substantially from the 

ASTM standard. Due to copyright laws, 

the Commission was not able to provide 

full copies of the standards. All of the 

standards are available for purchase 

online by anyone who seeks more 

information. 

ASTM Copyright and Accessibility 

Comment: Some commenters stated 

that the ASTM standard for bassinets 

and cradles should not be the basis of 

a mandatory rule because, as a 

copyrighted standard, the ASTM 

standard is not easily accessible to the 

public and creates an undue financial 

burden on small manufacturers and the 

general public. 

Response: Section 104(b) of the CPSIA 

requires the Commission to issue 

standards for durable infant or toddler 

products that are substantially the same 

as applicable voluntary standards or are 

more stringent if more stringent 

standards would further reduce the risk 

of injury. Incorporating a voluntary 

standard, such as incorporating the 

ASTM standard by reference, is a wellrecognized procedure for agencies. The 

incorporation satisfies the requirement 

of publication in the Federal Register. 

See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1)(E) (‘‘matter 

reasonably available to the class of 

persons affected thereby is deemed 

published in the Federal Register when 

incorporated by reference therein with 

the approval of the Director of the 

Federal Register’’). 

Falls From Bassinets/Side Height 

Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that the side height 

requirements need to be higher because 

consumers seem to be using bassinets 

with children older than the 

recommended ages. One commenter 

expressed the belief that the standard 

should match the Canadian side height 

requirement. 

Response: The ASTM subcommittee 

discussed the side heights of bassinets 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 63027 

for years. There was no side height 

requirement until recently. Consumers 

use the products longer than 

manufacturers recommend. High side 

heights could cause consumers to use 

their bassinets even longer than they 

have been using them because the older, 

larger children who can push up on 

their hands and sit unassisted will look 

safer in a bassinet with tall sides. The 

unintended consequence of taller sides 

might be an increase in falls from 

bassinets because older children are 

stronger and more agile than newborns. 

After much discussion, the ASTM 

subcommittee agreed to a 7.5-inch side 

height, based on the precedent set by 

the Canadians, who measure from the 

bottom of the bassinet rather than the 

mattress top. This difference in 

measurement landmarks makes it 

appear that the ASTM standard permits 

shorter sides; but in reality, the effective 

side height of a bassinet in Canada is the 

same as in the ASTM standard. This 

side height requirement did not 

necessitate drastic changes in the 

bassinet designs on the market; so it 

would be unlikely that instituting the 

requirement would have any effect on 

consumer behavior. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that side height requirements 

might not be effective against misuse. 

One commenter expressed the belief 

that the burden should be placed on 

caregivers and that the standard needs 

no modification to address falls. 

Another suggested that warning labels 

should be strengthened instead. 

Response: The side height 

requirement (7.5-inch minimum) is 

already part of ASTM F2194–13, which 

this rule incorporates by reference. The 

rule does not add anything further 

because the Commission believes that 

the requirements should be effective 

against misuse. The Commission 

believes that, at a minimum, this 

requirement will help protect infants 

who have not exceeded the maximum 

age requirement for bassinet use. 

Additionally, the Commission supports 

the current warnings in the ASTM 

standard. 

Existing Inventory 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the Commission did not 

address the existing cradle and bassinet 

inventory that would need ‘‘to be 

discarded or recalled’’ when the 

regulation becomes effective. 

Response: The bassinet and cradle 

standard is prospective. It will apply to 

products manufactured or imported on 

or after the effective date. Therefore, 

existing inventory would not be 

affected. 

Cost Benefit Analysis 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed the belief that a cost-benefit 

analysis should be performed, and they 

stated that the proposed rule should not 

be adopted because costs are likely to 

exceed benefits. 

Response: Section 104(b) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act (CPSIA), part of the Danny Keysar 

Child Product Safety Notification Act, 

requires the CPSC to issue a standard at 

least as stringent as the voluntary 

standard, or more stringent if the 

Commission determines that a more 

stringent standard would further reduce 

the risk of injury associated with such 

products. Thus, the Commission must 

issue a mandatory standard for bassinets 

and cradles, regardless of the costs and 

benefits of the rule. 

Third Party Testing Cost 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed concern about the 

‘‘substantial additional costs’’ that will 

result from a new requirement for third 

party testing that will be added by the 

bassinet/cradle standard. 

Response: The testing costs referred to 

by the commenters result from the third 

party testing and certification 

requirements imposed under sections 

14(a)(2) and 14(d)(2) of the Consumer 

Product Safety Act (CPSA), as amended 

by the CPSIA. The costs associated with 

testing will be substantially the same, 

regardless of the form the final bassinet/ 

cradle standard takes. 

Definition of a Small Business 

Comment: One commenter questioned 

defining ‘‘small manufacturers’’ as those 

with fewer than 500 employees. The 

commenter noted that business size can 

vary widely within such a broadly 

defined group. The commenter 

expressed concern that the economic 

impact could be disproportionately 

significant for the very smallest firms. 

Response: The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) is the source of 

the definition of ‘‘small manufacturers’’ 

of bassinets and cradles. Regardless of 

the desirability of a finer gradation in 

defining small businesses, the SBA 

definition governs the small business 

determination in the context of a 

regulatory flexibility analysis. 

Impact of Expanding the Scope 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern about the ‘‘adverse monetary 

impact’’ that expanding the scope of the 

standard to include Moses baskets 

would have upon some suppliers. The 

commenter felt that the alternative of 

ceasing to supply stands for these newly 

covered products requires further 

inquiry before ‘‘suggesting that this is a 

viable alternative.’’ Other commenters 

questioned methods firms might use to 

mitigate their ‘‘upfront costs,’’ including 

amortizing, ‘‘increased product sales,’’ 

and passing ‘‘the additional costs on to 

consumers.’’ 

Response: When used with a stand, 

Moses baskets meet the definition of a 

‘‘bassinet’’ (or ‘‘cradle,’’ in the case of a 

rocking stand), and therefore, they must 

be tested as a bassinet. Given that most 

suppliers of Moses baskets do not 

include stands, supplying Moses baskets 

without stands is one viable option that 

firms are already practicing. 

Similarly, the statement that ‘‘direct 

impact may be mitigated if costs are 

treated as new product expenses that 

can be amortized’’ recognizes one of the 

methods firms use routinely in the 

development of new products to reduce 

the immediate financial impact; rather 

than incurring all of the development 

costs up front, amortizing allows the 

firm to spread the impact over time. 

Finally, for most products, firms are 

usually able to pass on some, but not all, 

increases in production costs to 

consumer. The portion of costs that are 

passed on (i.e. not absorbed by the firm) 

partially offset or mitigate the impact of 

the rule. 

Aiding Small Businesses 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Commission ‘‘create a 

framework with which to aid some of 

the smaller manufacturers and 

distributors with finding the resources, 

information and connections they need 

to comply with the new standards.’’ 

Response: CPSC’s Small Business 

Ombudsman provides small businesses 

with guidance to assist them in 

complying with CPSC requirements. 

Assistance is available to firms in 

understanding and complying with 

CPSC regulations (http://www.cpsc.gov/ 

en/Business—Manufacturing/SmallBusiness-Resources/). 

Small Bedding Suppliers 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

the Commission put ‘‘less weight’’ on 

small bedding suppliers in the 

regulatory flexibility analysis. The 

commenter expressed concern that: 

‘‘[N]oncompliant bedding could 

potentially negate the efficiency of . . .’’ 

safety measures such as strangulation 

warnings ‘‘. . . or require manufacturers 

to take additional steps to correct 

noncompliant bedding.’’ 

Response: The standard does not 

include any bedding requirements. 

However, in investigating the bassinet/ 

cradle market, staff could not determine 

the underlying source of bassinets for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
63028 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

several suppliers of bassinets. The firms 

for whom the bassinet source could not 

be identified shared one major 

characteristic: They were primarily 

bedding suppliers who sold bassinets or 

cradles with the appropriate bedding 

covering the bassinet/cradle frame. 

Because these firms supply bassinets/

cradles, they are affected by the rule and 

impacts must be fully considered under 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Labeling Costs 

Comment: One commenter objected to 

the costs that will be associated with 

changing the warning labels. 

Response: The commenter 

misunderstood the information 

presented in the Paperwork Reduction 

Act section of the SNPR. The 

commenter interpreted the cost per 

burden hour associated with labeling 

($27.55) to be the increased cost per 

unit, which is an incorrect conclusion. 

VII. Assessment of Voluntary Standard 

ASTM F2194–13 and Description of 

Final Rule 

Consistent with section 104(b) of the 

CPSIA, this rule establishes new 16 CFR 

part 1218, ‘‘Safety Standard for 

Bassinets and Cradles.’’ The new part 

incorporates by reference the 

requirements for bassinets and cradles 

in ASTM F2194–13, with certain 

additions and changes to strengthen the 

ASTM standard, to further reduce the 

risk of injury. The following discussion 

describes the final rule, the changes, 

and the additions to the ASTM 

requirements. (The description of the 

amendment to 16 CFR part 1112 may be 

found in Section XIII of this preamble.) 

A. Scope (§ 1218.1) 

The final rule states that part 1218 

establishes a consumer product safety 

standard for bassinets and cradles 

manufactured or imported on or after 

the date that is six months after the date 

of publication of a final rule in the 

Federal Register, except that the 

effective date for the removable bassinet 

bed requirements would be 18 months 

after the date of publication of a final 

rule in the Federal Register. 

B. Incorporation by Reference (§ 1218.2) 

Section 1218.2(a) explains that, 

except as provided in § 1218.2(b), each 

bassinet and cradle must comply with 

all applicable provisions of ASTM 

F2194–13, ‘‘Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Bassinets and 

Cradles,’’ which is incorporated by 

reference. Section 1218.2(a) also 

provides information on how to obtain 

a copy of the ASTM standard or to 

inspect a copy of the standard at the 

CPSC. The Commission received no 

comments on this provision in the 

SNPR, but the Commission is changing 

the language in the incorporation in the 

final rule to refer to ASTM F2194–13, 

the current version of the ASTM 

standard. 

C. Changes to Requirements of ASTM 

F2194–13 

1. Clarification of Scope. 

(§ 1218.2(b)(1)(i)). The final rule 

modifies the scope of ASTM F2194–13 

to clarify that multimode combination 

products must meet the bassinet/cradle 

standard in any configuration where the 

seat incline is 10 degrees or less from 

horizontal. This modification resulted 

from comments on the SNPR seeking 

clarification on what products are 

included in the scope, as more fully 

discussed in Section VI. 

2. Change to Stability Test Procedure. 

(§ 1218.2(b)(2) and § 1218.2(b)(6)). In the 

SNPR, the Commission proposed that 

bassinet/cradle stability testing be 

conducted with a CAMI newborn 

dummy, rather than the CAMI infant 

dummy. Because ASTM has yet to adopt 

this modification (although it is 

expected to be balloted in the near 

future), the Commission is including it 

in the final rule. 

It is appropriate that the smaller 

newborn CAMI dummy be used for 

stability testing, because bassinets and 

cradles are intended to be used by very 

young children. The heavier (17.5- 

pound) infant CAMI currently specified 

for stability testing in ASTM F2194–13 

could make these products more stable 

when tested than they would actually be 

in a real-world situation. 

3. Removable Bassinet Bed. 

(§ 1218.(b)(3), (5), and (7)). In the SNPR, 

the Commission proposed adding a 

requirement for removable bassinet beds 

(along with test procedures and new 

definitions). As stated in the preamble 

of the SNPR (77 FR 64061), there have 

been several incidents involving 

bassinet beds that were designed to be 

removed from their stand, four of which 

have In-Depth Investigations. During the 

incidents, the bed portion of the unit 

was not locked completely or attached 

properly 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. 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, 46,000 bassinets 

that could appear to latch to the stand 

when they actually had not latched 

were recalled. (http://www.cpsc.gov/

cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12173.html). 

The SNPR proposed multiple options 

for a bassinet with a removable bed 

attachment to pass the proposed 

requirement. These options include: (1) 

Ensuring that the bed portion of the 

bassinet is inherently stable when the 

bassinet bed is placed on the stand 

unlatched; (2) use of a false lock/latch 

visual indicator mechanism; (3) use of a 

stand that collapses if the bassinet bed 

is not properly attached; and (4) the 

presence of an obvious unsafe angle 

(more than 20 degrees) or a bassinet bed 

falls to the floor when it is not properly 

attached to the stand. 

Since the issuance of the SNPR, 

ASTM has made several clarifying 

changes to the removable bassinet bed 

requirement, definitions, and test 

procedures, and ASTM is expected to 

send these changes out for ballot in the 

near future. Most of the differences are 

editorial changes to provide clarity to 

the test requirement and the test 

procedure. The significant, noneditorial 

differences between the requirement 

proposed in the SNPR and what ASTM 

is expected to ballot are as follows: 

• The next ASTM ballot is expected 

to exclude play yard bassinets, as 

defined in the standard, from the 

removable bassinet bed definition. 

Thus, play yard bassinets would not be 

subject to the removable bassinet bed 

stability requirement. 

• The next ASTM ballot is expected 

to expand on one of the pass criteria for 

the removable bed stability requirement, 

to allow bassinet stands that cannot 

remain in their proper use position 

unless the bassinet bed is properly 

attached. 

The Commission agrees with these 

revisions and is adding the revised 

removable bassinet bed requirement as 

part of the final bassinet/cradle rule. 

4. Mattress Flatness. 

(§ 1218.2(b)(4)(i)). A segmented mattress 

flatness requirement and associated test 

procedures were proposed by the 

Commission as part of the SNPR. ASTM 

adopted the requirement with modified, 

less stringent pass/fail criteria. The final 

rule modifies the pass/fail criteria in 

ASTM F2194–13 to mirror the SNPR 

proposal. 

As stated in Section V, the mattress 

flatness requirement is primarily aimed 

at incidents involving bassinet/play 

yard combination products that tend to 

use segmented mattresses, where seams 

could pose a suffocation and positional 

asphyxiation hazard. Under the 

Commission’s pass/fail criteria, a 

bassinet attachment with a segmented 

mattress will fail if any tested seam 

creates an angle greater than 10 degrees. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 63029 

ASTM F2194–13 allows measured 

angles between 10 degrees and 14 

degrees to pass, as long as the mean of 

three measurements on that seam is less 

than 10 degrees. As discussed in the 

preamble to the SNPR, the 14-degree 

angle was based on an extrapolation of 

angles formed by dimensions of average 

infant faces. 77 FR 64060–64061. The 

Commission is uncomfortable using the 

average infant facial dimension as the 

basis for this requirement. Therefore, 

instead of using the average infant 

anthropometrics as a basis for the pass/ 

fail criteria, the Commission continues 

to support using the smallest users’ 

anthropometrics to set the test 

requirement of 10 degrees maximum for 

each measurement taken. 

5. Exemption from Mattress Flatness 

Requirement. (§ 1218.2(b)(4)(i)). The 

final rule exempts from the mattress 

flatness requirement bassinets that are 

less than 15 inches across. These 

products do not pose the hazard the 

requirement is intended to address, and 

they are also not wide enough to test 

using the required procedures and 

equipment. 

VIII. Effective Date 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) generally requires that the 

effective date of a rule be at least 30 

days after publication of the final rule. 

5 U.S.C. 553(d). The Commission is 

setting an effective date for the standard 

six months after publication for 

products manufactured or imported on 

or after that date, with the exception of 

the removable bassinet bed test 

requirement and procedure. 

The Commission recognizes that some 

manufacturers will be required to 

redesign, test new prototype products, 

and then retool their production process 

in order to meet the new removable 

bassinet bed provision. Based on a 

comment from a manufacturer who 

asked for a minimum of 15.5 months to 

redesign its product, the Commission 

considers 18 months to be a reasonable 

time period to take into account other 

manufacturers who might also need to 

redesign their product. Therefore, the 

Commission is setting an 18-month 

effective date for the removable bassinet 

bed test requirement. 

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

A. Introduction 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

requires that agencies review rules for 

their potential economic impact on 

small entities, including small 

businesses. 5 U.S.C. 604. Section 604 of 

the RFA requires that agencies prepare 

a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

when they promulgate a final rule, 

unless the head of the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The final 

regulatory flexibility analysis must 

describe the impact of the rule on small 

entities and identify any alternatives 

that may reduce the impact. 

Specifically, the final regulatory 

flexibility analysis must contain: 

• A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

rule; 

• a summary of the significant issues 

raised by public comments in response 

to the initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis, a summary of the assessment 

of the agency of such issues, and a 

statement of any changes made in the 

proposed rule as a result of such 

comments; 

• a description of, and, where 

feasible, an estimate of, the number of 

small entities to which the rule will 

apply; 

• a description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the 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 

• a description of the steps the agency 

has taken to reduce the significant 

economic impact on small entities, 

consistent with the stated objectives of 

applicable statutes, including a 

statement of the factual, policy, and 

legal reasons for selecting the alternative 

adopted in the rule, and why each one 

of the other significant alternatives to 

the rule considered by the agency, 

which affect the impact on small 

entities, was rejected. 

B. The Market for Bassinets/Cradles 

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. 

CPSC staff believes that there are 

currently at least 62 suppliers of 

bassinets and/or cradles to the U.S. 

market; 26 are domestic manufacturers; 

19 are domestic importers; three are 

domestic retailers; and two are domestic 

firms with unknown supply sources. 

Twelve foreign firms currently supply 

the U.S. market: 10 manufacturers, one 

firm with an unknown supply source, 

and one importer that imports from 

foreign companies and distributes from 

outside of the United States. Eight 

additional firms specialize in children’s 

bedding, some of which is sold with 

bassinets or cradles; the supply sources 

for these eight firms could not be 

identified. 

Bassinets and cradles from 11 of the 

62 firms have been certified as 

compliant by the Juvenile Products 

Manufacturers Association (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 F2194–12a, while firms 

supplying play yards with bassinet/

cradle attachments would also have to 

meet F406–12a. (JPMA typically allows 

six months for products in their 

certification program to shift to a new 

standard once it is published. ASTM 

F2194–12a was published in September 

2012, and therefore, the standard would 

have become effective in March 2013. 

The more recent standard, ASTM 

F2194–12b, was published in December 

2012, and therefore, that standard was 

not yet effective when research for this 

rule was conducted.) Twenty-four 

additional firms claim compliance with 

the relevant ASTM standard for at least 

some of their bassinets and cradles. 

Whether the bassinets or cradles 

supplied by the eight bedding suppliers 

comply with ASTM F2194 is not 

known. 

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 secondhand. Thus, 

approximately 50 percent of bassinets, 

44 percent of cradles, and 82 percent of 

play yards were acquired new. These 

statistics suggest annual sales of a total 

of approximately three million units 

sold per year, consisting of about 1.3 

million bassinets (.5 × .64 × 4 million 

births per year), 317,000 cradles (.44 × 

.18 × 4 million), and 1.3 million play 

yards with bassinet attachments (.82 × 

.39 × 4 million). (U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 

National Center for Health Statistics, 

National Vital Statistics System, ‘‘Births: 

Final Data for 2010,’’ National Vital 

Statistics Reports Volume 61, Number 1 

(August 28, 2012): Table I. Number of 

births in 2010 is rounded from 

3,999,386.) 

National injury estimates were not 

reported by the Directorate for 

Epidemiology in the supplemental NPR 

or in the current FR briefing package 

because the data failed to meet NEISS 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
63030 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

publication criteria. However, 

emergency department injury estimates 

over the approximately five years 

covered by the supplemental NPR and 

the current FR briefing package, from 

2008 through 2012, averaged less than 

250 annually. Based on data from the 

2006 Baby Products Tracking Study, 

approximately 4.8 million bassinets and 

cradles were owned by new mothers. 

Therefore, the injury rate may be on the 

order of about 0.5 emergency 

department-treated injuries per 10,000 

bassinets/cradles available for use in the 

households of new mothers ((250 

injuries ÷ 4.84 million products in 

households of new mothers) × 10,000). 

C. Reason for Agency Action and Legal 

Basis for the Rule 

The Danny Keysar Child Product 

Safety Notification Act requires the 

CPSC to promulgate a mandatory 

standard for bassinets/cradles that is 

substantially the same as, or more 

stringent than, the voluntary standard. 

The Commission is adopting ASTM 

F2194–13 with five modifications or 

additions that reflect: (1) Changes 

proposed in the SNPR that are not part 

of F2194–13; (2) responses to public 

comments; and/or (3) additional work 

undertaken by ASTM, but not yet 

adopted. The changes will address a 

variety of known hazard patterns, 

including suffocation and positional 

asphyxia. 

D. Requirements of the Final Rule 

As stated in Section VII, the 

Commission is incorporating the 

voluntary standard for bassinets/cradles, 

ASTM F2194–13, by reference, with five 

changes. 

The Commission is implementing two 

modifications to ASTM F2194–13 in 

response to SNPR comments; neither is 

expected to have a negative impact on 

firms. The first is a modification to the 

scope that would clarify that multimode 

or combination products must meet the 

bassinet/cradle standard in any 

configuration where the seat incline is 

10 degrees or less from horizontal. 

Because the clarifying modifications do 

not change the scope of the standard, 

the modifications have no additional 

impact. The second is an exemption 

from the mattress flatness requirement 

for bassinets that are less than 15 inches 

across. Because of the characteristics of 

the narrower bassinets, these products 

are not subject to the hazard that the 

requirement is intended to address. 

Additionally, these narrower bassinets 

are not wide enough to test using the 

required procedures and equipment. 

The Commission is implementing 

three additional changes to ASTM 

F2194–13, each of 

1. Stability Testing 

As stated in Section V of this 

preamble, in the SNPR, the Commission 

proposed that bassinet/cradle stability 

testing be conducted with a CAMI 

newborn dummy, rather than the CAMI 

infant dummy. Because ASTM has yet 

to adopt this modification (although the 

modification is expected to be balloted 

in the near future), the Commission is 

including the modification in the final 

rule. Based on limited testing, many 

bassinets/cradles appear to be able to 

pass this modified test procedure 

without modification. However, a few 

products may potentially require 

modifications to meet the revised 

stability test procedure. Staff believes 

that the modified test procedure is 

likely to affect only a few 

manufacturers, and likely will not 

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. The 

cost of meeting the modified 

requirement could be more significant if 

a change to the hard tools used to 

manufacture the bassinet is necessary. 

During the production process, a hard 

tool, which is a mold of the desired 

bassinet component shape, is injected 

with plastic or another material using a 

molding machine. 

2. Mattress Flatness 

A segmented mattress flatness 

requirement and associated test 

procedures were proposed by the 

Commission as part of the SNPR. ASTM 

adopted the requirement with modified 

(and less stringent) pass/fail criteria. 

The Commission is modifying the pass/ 

fail criteria in ASTM F2194–13 to 

mirror the SNPR proposal. 

The mattress flatness requirement is 

primarily aimed at incidents involving 

bassinet/play yard combination 

products that tend to use segmented 

mattresses, where seams could pose a 

suffocation and positional asphyxiation 

hazard. Under the Commission’s pass/

fail criteria, a bassinet attachment with 

a segmented mattress will fail if any 

tested seam creates an angle greater than 

10 degrees. ASTM F2194–13 allows 

measured angles between 10 degrees 

and 14 degrees to pass, as long as the 

mean of three measurements on that 

seam is less than 10 degrees. 

Based on staff’s testing, the play yard 

bassinet attachments of many suppliers 

(both compliant and non-compliant) 

appear to pass the requirement without 

any modifications. Bassinet attachments 

that would require some modification 

would need to increase the mattress 

support in their bassinets. Additional 

mattress support could be 

accomplished, for example, by 

retrofitting play yard bassinets to use 

longer rods or a better-fitting mattress 

shell. The cost of such a retrofit is 

unknown and would likely vary from 

product to product; however, a retrofit 

generally is less expensive than a 

product redesign. 

3. Removable Bassinet Bed 

As stated in Section V of this 

preamble, in the SNPR, the Commission 

proposed adding a requirement for 

removable bassinet beds (along with test 

procedures and new definitions). Since 

then, an ASTM task group has made 

several clarifying changes to the 

requirement, definitions, and test 

procedures and is expected to 

recommend them for ballot. The 

Commission is adopting the revised 

removable bassinet bed requirement as 

part of the final bassinet/cradle rule. 

There are several firms supplying 

bassinets with removable bassinet beds 

to the U.S. market. The majority will 

require no modifications to meet the 

requirement. However, at least three 

firms are expected to need changes to 

one or more of their bassinets. Firms 

could meet the removable bassinet 

requirement in a number of ways, 

including redesigning the product 

entirely. However, many firms are likely 

to opt for less expensive alternatives, 

such as more sensitive locks that 

activate with little pressure (i.e., with 

just the weight of the bassinet), where 

possible. 

The costs and time involved in a 

redesign could be significant; one 

manufacturer stated in SNPR comments 

that the manufacturer would require 

15.5 months to redesign its product to 

meet the removable bassinet bed 

requirement. Therefore, the Commission 

is setting an 18-month effective date for 

this requirement, while maintaining a 

six-month effective date for the 

remainder of the final rule. 

E. Other Federal or State Rules 

A final rule implementing sections 

14(a)(2) and 14(i)(2) of the Consumer 

Product Safety Act (CPSA), as amended 

by the CPSIA, Testing and Labeling 

Pertaining to Product Certification, 16 

CFR part 1107, became effective on 

February 13, 2013 (the 1107 rule). 

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

every manufacturer of a children’s 

product that is subject to a product 

safety rule to certify, based on third 

party testing, that the product complies 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 63031 

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 and cradles will be 

subject to a mandatory children’s 

product safety rule, these products also 

will be subject to the third party testing 

requirements of section 14(a)(2) of the 

CPSA and the 1107 rule when the 

bassinet/cradle mandatory standard and 

the notice of requirements become 

effective. 

F. Impact on Small Businesses 

At least 62 firms are 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/ 

cradles is small if the business has 500 

or fewer employees; importers and 

wholesalers are considered small if they 

have 100 or fewer employees. Based on 

these guidelines, about 39 of the 62 total 

firms are small firms—21 domestic 

manufacturers, 16 domestic importers, 

and two firms with unknown supply 

sources. An additional eight small firms 

supplying bassinets/cradles along with 

their bedding; these may or may not 

originate from one of the 62 firms 

already accounted for. Other unknown 

small bassinet/cradle suppliers also may 

operate in the U.S. market. 

Small Manufacturers 

The expected impact of the final 

standard on small manufacturers will 

differ based on whether their bassinets/ 

cradles are already compliant with 

F2194–12a. (Play yards with bassinet 

attachments must comply with the 

effective play yard standard (F406), 

which includes a requirement that the 

attachment meet the bassinet/cradle 

standard.) In general, firms whose 

bassinets and cradles meet the 

requirements of F2194–12a are likely to 

continue to comply with the voluntary 

standard as new versions are published. 

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. Firms supplying 

bassinets and cradles that comply with 

ASTM F2194–12a are likely also to 

comply with F2194–13 before the final 

bassinet/cradle rule becomes effective. 

The majority of the changes to the 

voluntary standard (ASTM F2194–13) 

are the same as at the SNPR level; only 

the expanded scope proposed in the 

SNPR has been completely incorporated 

into the voluntary standard. Therefore, 

the expected impact of the final rule 

remains substantially the same as the 

impact presented in the initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis for the 

SNPR. 

For manufacturers whose products are 

likely to meet the requirements of 

ASTM F2194–13 (14 of 21 firms), the 

direct impact could be significant for 

one or more firms if they must redesign 

their bassinets to meet the final rule. 

Although the products of all firms 

would be subject to the stability testing 

requirements, in most cases, 

modifications are unlikely to be 

required and the costs are not expected 

to be significant. The products of five 

firms could be affected by the mattress 

flatness requirement (i.e., they produce 

play yards with bassinet attachments), 

and at least three (and possibly five) of 

the known firms may be affected by the 

removable bassinet bed requirement. 

For the most part, the bassinets/cradles 

and bassinet cradle attachments 

supplied by these firms will be able to 

meet the changes to ASTM F2194–13 

without modification. In cases where 

modifications are necessary, firms 

would most likely opt to retrofit their 

products, rather than undertake an 

expensive redesign. However, some 

products may require redesign, 

particularly to meet the new removable 

bassinet bed requirement, and therefore, 

costs could be significant in some cases. 

The Commission is adopting an 18- 

month effective date for the removable 

bassinet bed portion of the final rule to 

reduce the impact on affected firms. 

Meeting ASTM F2194–13’s 

requirements could necessitate product 

redesign for at least some bassinets/

cradles not believed to be compliant 

with F2194–12a (7 of 21 firms). These 

firms could require redesign regardless 

of the modifications. A redesign would 

be minor if most of the changes involve 

adding straps and fasteners or using 

different mesh or fabric, but 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 final rule could 

potentially have a significant direct 

impact on small manufacturers whose 

products do not conform to F2194–12a. 

Any direct financial impact may be 

mitigated if a firm chooses to treat costs 

as new product expenses that can be 

amortized over time rather than a large, 

one time expense. 

Some firms whose bassinets/cradles 

are neither certified as compliant, nor 

claim compliance with F2194–12a, in 

fact, may be compliant with the 

standard. 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 final rule will be less significant 

than described above. If two small firms 

with unknown supply sources, none of 

whose products appear to comply with 

F2194–12a, are manufacturers, these 

firms also may need to redesign their 

products to meet the final rule. 

In addition to the direct impact of the 

final rule described above, the rule will 

have some indirect impacts. Once the 

new requirements become effective, all 

manufacturers will be subject to the 

additional costs associated with the 

third party testing and certification 

requirements under the testing rule, 

Testing and Labeling Pertaining to 

Product Certification (16 CFR part 

1107). Third party testing will pertain to 

any physical and mechanical test 

requirements specified in the bassinet/ 

cradle final rule; lead and phthalates 

testing is already required. Impacts of 

third party testing are not due directly 

to the bassinet/cradle rule’s 

requirements, but are due to the testing 

rule’s requirements. Consequently, 

impacts from the testing rule are 

indirect impacts from the bassinet/

cradle final rule, and such indirect 

impacts could be significant. 

One manufacturer estimated that 

testing to the ASTM voluntary standard 

runs around $1,000 per model sample, 

although the manufacturer noted that 

the costs could be lower for some 

models where the primary difference is 

fabric rather than structure. 

On average, each small domestic play 

yard manufacturer supplies seven 

different models of bassinets/cradles 

and 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 manufacturer would be about 

$7,000 annually. Based on a review of 

firm revenues, the impact of third party 

testing to ASTM F2194–13 is unlikely to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
63032 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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 seven small 

importers of bassinets/cradles currently 

in compliance with F2194–12a could 

experience significant direct impacts as 

a result of the final rule if product 

redesign is necessary. In the absence of 

regulation, these importing firms would 

likely continue to comply with the 

voluntary standard as it evolves, as well 

as the final mandatory standard. Any 

increase in production costs 

experienced by their suppliers may be 

passed on to the importers. 

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 

final rule, which may be the case with 

the nine importers of bassinets/cradles 

not believed to be in compliance with 

F2194–12a. Some could respond to the 

rule by discontinuing the import of their 

noncomplying bassinets/cradles, 

possibly discontinuing the product line 

altogether. The impact of such a 

decision could be mitigated by replacing 

the noncompliant bassinet/cradle with a 

compliant bassinets/cradle, or by 

deciding to import an alternative 

product. 

As is the case with manufacturers, all 

importers will be subject to third party 

testing and certification requirements, 

and consequently, 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 that 

must perform the testing themselves if 

more than one sample per model were 

required. 

Other Possible Suppliers 

Eight known small firms specialize in 

the supply of bedding, including 

bedding for bassinets and cradles, and 

the eight firms sell bassinet and cradle 

bedding with a bassinet or cradle. 

Although these firms do not 

manufacture the bassinets or cradles 

themselves, whether they purchase the 

bassinets or cradles domestically or 

from overseas is not known. These firms 

may source the bassinets and cradles 

sold with bedding in full or in part from 

one of the 62 firms discussed above. If 

the eight firms do not source from one 

of the 62 firms, then the eight firms 

represent additional suppliers to the 

U.S. market. 

The eight firms with unknown supply 

sources would be affected in a manner 

similar to importers; they would need to 

find an alternate source if their existing 

supplier does not come into compliance 

with the requirements of the final rule. 

Unlike most importers, however, the 

firms would not have the option of 

replacing a noncompliant bassinet/

cradle with another product. Although 

the firms could opt to sell the bedding 

without the associated bassinet/cradle, 

such an approach would represent a 

change from their historical method of 

sale and might adversely impact their 

business strategy. 

As with manufacturers and importers, 

these eight firms will also be subject to 

third party testing and certification 

requirements, and 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 or cradle 

suppliers that must perform the testing 

themselves. 

G. Alternatives 

Under the Danny Keysar Child 

Product Safety Notification Act 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 

reduce the potential impact on firms 

whose bassinets/cradles comply with 

the voluntary standard. However, 

because of the severity of the incidents 

associated with removable bassinet 

beds, instability, and mattress tilt, the 

Commission is not pursuing this 

alternative. 

The Commission is imposing a sixmonth effective date for the final rule 

with an 18-month effective date, 

supported by SNPR comments 

submitted by one manufacturer, for the 

removable bassinet bed requirement. 

Setting a later effective date for either 

part will allow suppliers additional time 

to modify and/or develop compliant 

bassinets/cradles and spread the 

associated costs over a longer period of 

time. 

X. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations address 

whether the Commission is required to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

an environmental impact statement. 

These regulations recognize that certain 

CPSC actions normally have ‘‘little or no 

potential for affecting the human 

environment.’’ One such action is 

establishing rules or safety standards for 

products. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). This rule 

falls within the categorical exclusion. 

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This 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). The 

preamble to the proposed rule (77 FR at 

64055 through 64076) discussed the 

information collection burden of the 

proposed rule and specifically requested 

comments on the accuracy of our 

estimates. Briefly, sections 8 and 9 of 

ASTM F2194–13 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). 

OMB has assigned control number 

3041–0157 to this information 

collection. The Commission did not 

receive any comments regarding the 

information collection burden of this 

proposal. However, the final rule makes 

modifications regarding the information 

collection burden because the number 

of estimated suppliers subject to the 

information collection burden is now 

estimated to be 62 firms, rather than the 

55 firms initially estimated in the 

proposed rule. 

Accordingly, the estimated burden of 

this collection of information is 

modified as follows: 

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 ..................................................................................... 62 5 310 1 310 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 63033 

There are 62 known entities 

supplying bassinets to the U.S. market. 

All 62 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 one 

hour per model. Each entity supplies an 

average of five different models of 

bassinets; therefore, the estimated 

burden associated with labels is 1 hour 

per model × 55 entities × 5 models per 

entity = 310 hours. We estimate that 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 requirement is $8,540.50 

($27.55 per hour × 310 hours = 

$8,540.50). 

In compliance with the Paperwork 

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

3507(d)), we have submitted the 

information collection requirements of 

this final rule to the OMB, and OMB has 

assigned control number 3041–0157 to 

the information collection. 

XII. 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. 

XIII. 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 

safety standard for bassinets and cradles 

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). This rule 

became effective June 10, 2013. Part 

1112 establishes requirements for 

accreditation of third party conformity 

assessment bodies (or laboratories) to 

test for conformance with a children’s 

product safety rule in accordance with 

Section14(a)(2) of the CPSA. Part 1112 

also codifies a list of all of the NORs 

that the CPSC had published at the time 

part 1112 was issued. All NORs issued 

after the Commission published part 

1112, such as the bassinet and cradle 

standard, require an amendment to part 

1112. Accordingly, this rule amends 

part 1112 to include the bassinet and 

cradle standard in the list 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 are required to meet the third 

party conformity assessment body 

accreditation requirements in part 1112. 

When a laboratory meets the 

requirements as a CPSC-accepted third 

party conformity assessment body, it 

can apply to the CPSC to have 16 CFR 

part 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. 

In connection with the part 1112 

rulemaking, CPSC staff conducted an 

analysis of the potential impacts on 

small entities of the rule establishing 

accreditation requirements, 78 FR 

15836, 15855–58 (March 12, 2013), as 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and prepared a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). Briefly, the 

FRFA concluded that the requirements 

would not have a significant adverse 

impact on a substantial number of small 

laboratories because no requirements 

are imposed on laboratories that do not 

intend to provide third party testing 

services under section 14(a)(2) of the 

CPSA. The only laboratories that are 

expected to provide such services are 

those that anticipate receiving sufficient 

revenue from providing the mandated 

testing to justify accepting the 

requirements as a business decision. 

Laboratories that do not expect to 

receive sufficient revenue from these 

services to justify accepting these 

requirements would not likely pursue 

accreditation for this purpose. Similarly, 

amending the part 1112 rule to include 

the NOR for the bassinet and cradle 

standard would not have a significant 

adverse impact on small laboratories. 

Most of these laboratories will have 

already been accredited to test for 

conformance to other juvenile product 

standards and the only costs to them 

would be the cost of adding the bassinet 

and cradle standard to their scope of 

accreditation. As a consequence, the 

Commission certifies that the notice 

requirements for the bassinet and cradle 

standard will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

To ease the transition to new third 

party testing requirements for bassinets 

and cradles subject to the standard and 

to avoid a ‘‘bottlenecking’’ of products 

at laboratories at or near the effective 

date of required third party testing for 

bassinets and cradles, the Commission, 

will, under certain circumstances, 

accept certifications based on testing 

that occurred before the effective date 

for third party testing. 

The Commission will accept 

retrospective testing for 16 CFR part 

1218, safety standard for bassinets and 

cradles, if the following conditions are 

met: 

• The children’s product was tested 

by a third party conformity assessment 

body accredited to ISO/IEC 

17025:2005(E) by a signatory to the 

ILAC–MRA at the time of the test. The 

scope of the third party conformity body 

accreditation must include testing in 

accordance with 16 CFR part 1218. 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 the tests 

contained in the safety standard for 

bassinets and cradles at the time of 

initial Commission acceptance. For 

governmental third party conformity 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
63034 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

assessment bodies, accreditation of the 

body must be accepted by the 

Commission, even if the scope of 

accreditation did not include the tests 

contained in the safety standard for 

bassinets and cradles at the time of 

initial CPSC acceptance. 

• The test results show compliance 

with 16 CFR part 1218. 

• The bassinet or cradle was tested, 

with the exception of the removable 

bassinet bed attachment requirements, 

on or after the date of publication in the 

Federal Register of the final rule for 16 

CFR part 1218 and before April 23, 

2014. For bassinets or cradles that are 

subject to the removable bassinet bed 

attachment requirements, testing to the 

removable bassinet bed attachment 

requirements was conducted on or after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of the final rule for 16 CFR part 

1218 and before April 23, 2015. 

• The laboratory’s accreditation 

remains in effect through April 23, 

2014. 

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 amends 16 

CFR 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: 15 U.S.C. 2063; Pub. L. 110– 

314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008). 

■ 2. Amend § 1112.15 by adding 

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 

or test method? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(33) 16 CFR part 1218, Safety 

Standard for Bassinets and Cradles. 

■ 3. Add a new 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: Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110–314, 122 

Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Pub. L. 112–28, 

125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011). 

§ 1218.1 Scope. 

This part establishes a consumer 

product safety standard for bassinets 

and cradles manufactured or imported 

on or after April 23, 2014, except for the 

removable bassinet bed attachment 

requirements at § 1218.2(b)(3)(i) through 

(iv), (b)(5), and (b)(7), which are 

effective April 23, 2015. 

§ 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 F2194–13, 

Standard Consumer Safety Specification 

for Bassinets and Cradles, approved on 

April 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/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 ASTM F2194–13 

standard with the following additions or 

exclusions: 

(1) Instead of complying with Note 1 

of section 1.3.1 of ASTM F2194–13, 

comply with the following: 

(i) Note 1—Cradle swings with an 

incline less than or equal to 10° from 

horizontal while in the rest (nonrocking) position are covered under the 

scope of this standard. A sleep product 

that only has inclined sleeping surfaces 

(intended to be greater than 10° from 

horizontal while in the rest (nonrocking) position) does not fall under 

the scope of this standard. If a product 

can be converted to a bassinet/cradle 

use mode and meets the definition of a 

bassinet/cradle found in 3.1.1 while in 

that mode, the product shall be 

included in the scope of this standard, 

when it is in the bassinet/cradle use 

mode. For example, 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. In addition, 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 

Figure 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 

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 Capital Street NW., 

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

Other References’’ and use the following 

figure: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 63035 

(3) In addition to complying with 

section 3.1.17 of ASTM F2194–13, 

comply with the following: 

(i) 3.1.18. bassinet bed, n—the 

sleeping area of the bassinet/cradle, 

containing the sleep surface and side 

walls. 

(ii) 3.1.19. removable bassinet bed, 

n—A bassinet bed that is designed to 

separate from the base/stand without 

the use of tools. Play yard bassinets, as 

defined in 3.1.13, are excluded from this 

definition. 

(iii) 3.1.20. false lock/latch visual 

indicator, n—a warning system, using 

contrasting colors, lights, or other 

similar means designed to visually alert 

caregivers when a removable bassinet 

bed is not properly locked onto its base/ 

stand. 

(iv) 3.1.21. 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. 

(4) Instead of complying with section 

6.7 of ASTM F2194–13, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 6.7. Bassinets with Segmented 

Mattresses: Flatness Test—If the 

bassinet or bassinet accessory has a 

folding or segmented mattress, or both, 

any angle when measured in 7.8 less 

than or equal to 10° is an immediate 

pass. Any angle when measured in 7.8 

greater than 10° is an immediate failure. 

Segmented bassinet mattresses that have 

seams (located between segments or 

where the mattress folds) that are less 

than 15 inches in length are excluded 

from this requirement. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(5) In addition to complying with 

section 6.9.2 of ASTM F2194–13, 

comply with the following: 

(i) 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 base/stand, shall 

comply with at least one of the 

following 6.10.1, 6.10.2, 6.10.3, 6.10.4 or 

6.10.5 when tested in accordance with 

7.12. 

(ii) 6.10.1. The base/stand shall not 

support the bassinet bed (i.e., the 

bassinet bed falls from the stand and 

contacts the floor or the base/stand 

collapses when the bassinet bed is not 

locked on the base/stand). 

(iii) 6.10.2. The lock/latch shall 

automatically engage under the weight 

of the bassinet bed (without any other 

force or action) in all lateral positions 

(Figure 24). 

(iv) 6.10.3. The sleep surface of the 

bassinet bed shall be at an angle of at 

least 20° from a horizontal plane when 

the bassinet bed is in an unlocked 

position. 

(v) 6.10.4. The bassinet/cradle shall 

provide a false latch/lock visual 

indicator(s). At a minimum, an indicator 

shall be visible to a person standing 

near both of the two longest sides of the 

product. 

(vi) 6.10.5. The bassinet bed shall not 

tip over and shall retain the CAMI 

newborn dummy when tested in 

accordance with 7.12.5.3. 

(6) Instead of complying with section 

7.4.4 of ASTM F2194–13, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 7.4.4. Place the CAMI Newborn 

Dummy, Mark II, 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] 

(7) In addition to complying with 

section 7.11.4 of ASTM F2194–13, 

comply with the following: 

(i) 7.12. Removable Bassinet Bed 

Attachment Tests 

(ii) 7.12.1. Assemble the bassinet/

cradle base/stand only, in accordance 

with manufacturer’s instructions in one 

of the manufacturer’s recommended use 

positions. If the base/stand does not 

remain in the use position when the 

bassinet bed is not locked onto it, the 

product meets the requirements of 

6.10.1. 

(iii) 7.12.2. Place the base/stand and 

the inclinometer on a flat level 

horizontal surface (0 ± ¥0.5°) to 

establish a test plane. Zero the 

inclinometer. 

(iv) 7.12.3. Remove the mattress pad 

from the bassinet bed. 

Note to paragraph (b)(7)(iv): For mattresses 

that are integral with the mattress support, do 

not remove the mattress and perform all 

angle measurements for 7.12 on a 6 by 6 by 

3⁄8-in. nominal aluminum block placed on 

the center of the mattress. 

(v) 7.12.4. Place the bassinet bed on 

the base/stand in the intended use 

orientation without engaging any latch 

or lock mechanism between the base/

stand and the bassinet bed. If the bed 

automatically engages to the base/stand 

do not disengage the lock/latch. If the 

bassinet bed can rest on the base/stand 

in its intended use orientation in one or 

more lateral unlocked position (Figure 

24), the unit shall be evaluated in the 

lateral position most likely to fail the 

requirements specified in 6.10. 

(vi) Figure 24: Bassinet Bed Resting 

on Stand, Showing Possible Alternate 

Lateral Positions. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULESER23OC13.000</GPH>
63036 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(vii) 7.12.4.1. If the base/stand 

supports the bassinet bed in any 

unlocked position, 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. 

(viii) 7.12.4.2. If the base/stand 

supports the bassinet bed and the angle 

of the mattress support surface 

measured in 7.12.4.1 is less than 20 

degrees from a horizontal plane, 

evaluate whether the bassinet has a false 

latch/lock visual indicator per 6.10.4. 

(ix) 7.12.4.3. If the base/stand 

supports the bassinet bed, and the angle 

of the mattress support surface 

measured in 7.12.4.1 is less than 20 

degrees from a horizontal plane, and the 

bassinet does not contain a false latch/ 

lock visual indicator, test the unit in 

accordance with sections 7.4.2 through 

7.4.7. 

(x) 7.12.5. Repeat 7.12.2 through 

7.12.4 for all of the manufacturer’s base/ 

stand recommended positions and use 

modes. 

(xi) 7.12.6. Repeat 7.12.4 through 

7.12.5 with the bassinet bed rotated 180 

degrees from the manufacturers 

recommended use orientation, if the 

base/stand supports the bassinet bed in 

this orientation. 

(A) Rationale. (1) 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 misaligned lock/

latch systems are a hidden hazard 

because they are 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) 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 base/stand, or 

(v) Have lock/latch mechanisms that 

are not necessary to provide needed 

stability. 

(B) [Reserved] 

Dated: September 30, 2013. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2013–24203 Filed 10–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 40 

[Docket Nos. RM12–1–000 and RM13–9– 

000; Order No. 786] 

Transmission Planning Reliability 

Standards 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the 

Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission approves 

Transmission Planning (TPL) Reliability 

Standard TPL–001–4, submitted by the 

North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation, the Commission-certified 

Electric Reliability Organization. 

Reliability Standard TPL–001–4 

introduces significant revisions and 

improvements by requiring annual 

assessments addressing near-term and 

long-term planning horizons for steady 

state, short circuit and stability 

conditions. Reliability Standard TPL– 

001–4 also includes a provision that 

allows a transmission planner to plan 

for non-consequential load loss 

following a single contingency by 

providing a blend of specific 

quantitative and qualitative parameters 

for the permissible use of planned nonconsequential load loss to address bulk 

electric system performance issues, 

including firm limitations on the 

maximum amount of load that an entity 

may plan to shed, safeguards to ensure 

against inconsistent results and arbitrary 

determinations that allow for the 

planned non-consequential load loss, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULESER23OC13.001</GPH>