This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

66703 

Vol. 77, No. 216 

Wednesday, November 7, 2012 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1223 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2012–0011] 

RIN 3041–AC90 

Safety Standard for Infant Swings 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Section 104(b) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 (CPSIA), part of the Danny 

Keysar Child Product Safety 

Notification Act, requires the United 

States Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (Commission, CPSC, or we) 

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. In this final rule, the 

Commission is issuing a safety standard 

for infant swings, as required under 

section 104(b) of the CPSIA. 

DATES: The rule is effective May 7, 2013 

and applies to products manufactured 

on or after that date. The incorporation 

by reference of the publication listed in 

this rule is approved by the Director of 

the Federal Register as of May 7, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keysha L. Watson, Office of Compliance 

and Field Operations, U.S. Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 4330 East 

West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–6820; email: 

kwatson@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background: Section 104(b) of the 

CPSIA 

The CPSIA 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 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. Infant swings are one of the 

products specifically identified in 

section 104(f)(2)(K) of the CPSIA as a 

durable infant or toddler product. 

In the Federal Register of February 

29, 2012, the Commission published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) 

that proposed incorporating by 

reference ASTM F2088–11b, Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for 

Infant Swings, with several 

modifications to strengthen the 

standard. 77 FR 7011. In this document, 

the Commission is issuing a safety 

standard for infant swings, which 

incorporates by reference, the new 

voluntary standard developed by ASTM 

International (formerly the American 

Society for Testing Materials), ASTM 

F2088–12a, Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Infant Swings, with the 

addition of a labeling modification to 

strengthen the standard and a revised 

test method to address an omission in 

the voluntary standard in the test 

method for toy mobiles that are attached 

to the swing. 

We summarize the final rule 

(including differences between the 

proposal and the final rule) in section F 

of this preamble. The information 

discussed in this preamble comes from 

CPSC staff’s briefing package for the 

infant swing rule, which is available on 

the CPSC’s Web site at http://www.cpsc.

gov/library/foia/foia12/brief/

infantswings.pdf. 

B. The Product 

1. Definition 

ASTM F2088–12a, and its 

predecessors, ASTM F2088–11b and 

ASTM F2088–12, define an ‘‘infant 

swing’’ as ‘‘a stationary unit with a 

frame and powered mechanism that 

enables an infant to swing in a seated 

position. An infant swing is intended 

for use with infants from birth until a 

child is able to sit up unassisted.’’ 

ASTM F2088–12a, and its predecessors, 

ASTM F2088–11b and ASTM F2088–12, 

also address ‘‘cradle swings,’’ which are 

defined as ‘‘an infant swing which is 

intended for use by a child lying flat’’ 

and ‘‘travel swings,’’ which are defined 

as ‘‘a low profile, compact swing having 

a distance of 6 in. or less between the 

underside of the seat bottom and the 

support surface (floor) at any point in 

the seat’s range of motion.’’ The 

standard was developed in response to 

incident data supplied by CPSC staff to 

address hazards such as: Swings tipping 

over or collapsing, structural failures, 

entanglement in the restraints, and 

entrapment in leg holes. 

2. The Market 

Based on a 2005 survey conducted by 

American Baby Group, titled, ‘‘2006 

Baby Products Tracking Study,’’ and 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention birth data, we estimate that 

approximately 2.7 million infant swings 

are sold in the United States each year. 

We estimate that there are at least 10 

manufacturers or importers supplying 

infant swings to the U.S. market. Eight 

firms are domestic manufacturers, and 

two are domestic importers with a 

foreign parent company. 

The Juvenile Products Manufacturers 

Association (JPMA) is the major U.S. 

trade association that represents 

juvenile product manufacturers and 

importers. The JPMA provides a 

certification program that allows 

manufacturers and importers to use the 

JPMA seal if they voluntarily submit 

their products for testing to an 

independent laboratory to determine if 

their products meet the most current 

ASTM voluntary standard. Currently, 

there are five manufacturers that sell 

JPMA-certified infant swings. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
66704 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1The source of the injury estimates is the 

National Electronic Injury Surveillance System 

(NEISS), a statistically valid injury surveillance 

system. NEISS injury data is gathered from 

emergency departments of hospitals that are 

selected as a probability sample of all the U.S. 

hospitals with emergency departments. The 

surveillance data gathered from the sample 

hospitals enable CPSC staff to make timely national 

estimates of the number of injuries associated with 

specific consumer products. 

C. Incident Data 

1. Introduction 

The preamble to the NPR (77 FR 7012 

through 7013) summarized the data for 

incidents with infant swings from 

January 1, 2002, through May 18, 2011. 

In this section, we discuss CPSC staff’s 

analysis of incidents collected between 

May 19, 2011 and May 23, 2012. During 

that period, 351 new infant swingrelated incidents were reported to the 

CPSC. Almost all were reported to have 

occurred between 2009 and 2012. The 

majority (333 out of 351 or 95 percent) 

of the reports were submitted to the 

CPSC by retailers and manufacturers 

through the CPSC’s ‘‘Retailer Reporting 

System.’’ The remaining 18 incident 

reports were submitted to the CPSC 

from various sources, such as the CPSC 

Hotline, Internet reports, newspaper 

clippings, medical examiners, and other 

state/local authorities. Two of the 351 

incidents were fatal, and 349 were 

nonfatal; 24 of the nonfatal incidents 

resulted in injuries. 

2. Fatalities 

Of the two decedents in the fatal 

incidents, one was a 2-month-old who 

died when a blanket placed in the swing 

obstructed his airway, and the other was 

a 3-month-old who died when she 

rolled over to a prone position onto the 

soft surface of the infant swing. The 

report did not state whether a restraint 

was in use at the time of the latter 

incident. 

3. Nonfatal Incidents 

There were 24 injuries reported 

among the 349 nonfatal incidents. 

Among the injured, 79 percent were 6 

months old or younger; the remaining 

injured infants were 7 and 8 months of 

age. Some reports specifically 

mentioned the type of injury, while 

others only mentioned an injury with no 

specifics. Among the injuries specified, 

bumps, bruises, and lacerations were 

common. None required hospitalization. 

Most of the injuries were related to 

various product-related issues, such as 

swing seat, structural integrity, or 

restraint, similar to those reported and 

addressed in the NPR and the latest 

version of the voluntary standard. 

4. National Injury Estimates 1

Therewere an estimated total of 1,900 

injuries (sample size = 73, coefficient of 

variation = 0.18) related to infant swings 

that were treated in U.S. hospital 

emergency departments during 2011. 

Although this reflects a decrease from 

the 2010 estimate of 2,200 injuries, the 

change was not statistically significant. 

Comparing with national injury 

estimates from the prior years, no 

statistically significant trend was 

observed over the 2002–2011 period. 

No deaths were reported through the 

NEISS. About 78 percent of the injured 

were 6 months of age or younger, and 

about 91 percent were 12 months or 

younger. For the emergency departmenttreated injuries related to infant swings, 

the following characteristics occurred 

most frequently: 

• Hazard—falls (78%); a majority of 

the reports did not specify the manner 

or cause of fall; 

• Injured body part—head (62%); 

• Injury type—internal organ injury 

(59%); and 

• Disposition—treated and released 

(97%). 

5. Hazard Pattern Characterization 

Based on Incident Data 

The hazard patterns identified among 

the 351 new incident reports were 

similar to the hazard patterns that were 

identified among the incidents 

considered for the NPR. Most of the 

issues were determined to be product 

related. They are grouped as follows (in 

descending order of frequency of 

incidents): 

• Swing seat issues, either seat design 

or seat failure, were the most commonly 

reported hazard, accounting for 25 

percent of the 351 incident reports and 

four (17 percent) injuries. Seat design 

issues caused the seats to lean to one 

side, or tilt forward or backward. Seat 

failures resulted in seats folding up on 

the infant, seat pads not staying in 

place, or seats falling off with no other 

apparent component failure. With seats 

that leaned to one side, the infant 

bumped into the swing frame; with the 

seat failures, the infant almost always 

fell out of the swing. 

• Broken, detached, or loose 

components of the swing housing, such 

as the arm, leg, motor housing, or 

hardware, were the next most 

commonly reported problems. They 

accounted for 24 percent of the 351 

incident reports and five (21 percent) 

injuries. 

• Restraint issues, either the 

inadequate design of the restraint or the 

failure of the restraint, were reported in 

23 percent of the 351 reported incidents. 

These issues resulted in the highest 

proportion of injuries (10 injuries or 42 

percent). Common restraint-design 

scenarios included: (1) Infant falling (or 

nearly falling) out of the seat when 

leaning forward or sideways; and (2) 

infant putting more weight toward the 

back of the seat, causing the seat to tilt 

back and the restraint failing to prevent 

the infant from sliding out on his/her 

head. Common restraint-failure 

scenarios included buckles or straps 

breaking or detaching from the product 

altogether. 

• Electrical or battery-related issues 

were reported in 15 percent of the 351 

reports. Overheating of the motor 

housing was the most common scenario. 

However, there were no injuries 

reported related to this issue. 

• Instability of the swing was reported 

in 5 percent of the incident reports. In 

most of these cases, the swing was 

described as lifting up one leg when 

swinging, or tipping over completely. 

The latter scenario resulted in one 

injury. 

• Other product-related issues, such 

as inadequate clearance between seat 

and swing frame, broken or detached 

toys and mobiles, and problems with 

swing speed, seat fabric, and assembly 

instructions were reported in 6 percent 

of the 351 incidents. One injury was 

reported. 

• Miscellaneous other issues 

accounted for the remaining 2 percent of 

the 351 incident reports. This category 

includes the two fatalities, which were 

determined to be non-product-related. 

Also in this category were five reports 

with insufficient information to 

characterize any specific hazard, and 

one report of product misuse, such as 

the intentional removal of the restraint; 

these nonfatal incidents resulted in 

three injuries. 

D. Response to Comments on the 

Proposed Rule 

Below, we describe and respond to 

the comments on the proposed rule. A 

summary of each of the commenter’s 

topics is presented, and each topic is 

followed by our response. Each 

‘‘Comment’’ is numbered to help 

distinguish between different topics. 

The number assigned to each comment 

is for organizational purposes only, and 

it does not signify the comment’s value, 

or importance, or the order in which it 

was received. We received 24 

comments. All of the comments can be 

viewed on www.regulations.gov, by 

searching under the docket number of 

the rulemaking, CPSC–2012–0011. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 66705 

2Section 3.1.2 of ASTM F2088–12a defines a 

‘‘cradle swing’’ as ‘‘an infant swing which is 

intended for use by a child lying flat.’’ 

1. Slump-Over Warning Label 

(Comment 1) Sixteen comments 

recommend that the text of the warning 

specify or clarify the hazard or the 

consequences of not avoiding the 

hazard. Comments about the need to 

specify the consequences of not 

avoiding the hazard generally 

recommend that the warning state 

explicitly that there is a risk of serious 

injury, death, or both. Comments about 

the need to clarify the hazard suggest 

explicit references to ‘‘asphyxiation’’ or 

‘‘choking,’’ or suggest references to the 

slump-over position or to a hunched 

position with the ‘‘chin touching chest.’’ 

Several of the comments recommend 

that the warning specify the ages of the 

children at risk. 

(Response 1) We believe that the 

current warning language requirements 

pertaining to the slump-over hazard are 

insufficient and agree that the warning 

should be revised to clarify the hazard 

and the consequences of exposure to the 

hazard if the consumer cannot avoid it. 

The current warning statement does not 

describe the slump-over hazard, and the 

formatting of the warning implies that 

using the swing in the most reclined 

seat position is an additional measure 

intended to address the potential for the 

infant user to fall or strangle in the 

straps. In addition, one could argue that 

the warning statement does not describe 

the probable consequences of not 

avoiding the slump-over hazard because 

the warning’s reference to ‘‘serious 

injury or death’’ is specific to falls and 

strangulations. 

The final rule separates the warning 

statement pertaining to the slump-over 

hazard from the warnings about falls 

and strangulations and strengthens this 

warning statement as follows: 

Keep swing seat fully reclined until child 

is at least 4 months old AND can hold up 

head without help. Young infants have 

limited head and neck control. If seat is too 

upright, infant’s head can drop forward, 

compress the airway, and result in DEATH. 

2. Warning Concerning Use of Cradle 

Swing 

(Comment 2) Five comments 

recommend that the warning should 

state that infants who cannot hold up 

their heads unassisted should use only 

cradle swings. One comment states that 

such a change would not substantially 

reduce the risk. 

(Response 2) The proposed revisions 

to the slump-over warning statement 

already improve the relevant warning 

statement in ASTM F2088–12a, by 

describing the hazard more explicitly, 

the consequences of exposure to the 

hazard, and the infants who are most at 

risk. The language, ‘‘Keep swing seat 

fully reclined until child is at least 4 

months old AND can hold up head 

without help’’ (emphasis added) is the 

part of the revised slump-over warning 

intended to communicate the 

appropriate hazard-avoidance behavior. 

Several comments recommend that the 

highlighted portion of this statement be 

replaced with one that instructs 

consumers to use only cradle swings.2

The effectiveness of this change, 

therefore, depends upon whether the 

use of a cradle swing with these 

children would address more incidents 

than fully reclining the seat back on 

non-cradle swings. 

As noted in the staff’s briefing 

package for the NPR, all known swing 

fatalities occurred when the child was 

in the infant seat mode rather than the 

cradle mode. However, CPSC staff 

concluded that, for infant swings having 

an adjustable seat recline with a seat 

back angle greater than 50 degrees, fully 

reclining the seat back until the infant 

can hold up his or her head unassisted 

also would address the slump-over 

hazard. Thus, we doubt that a warning 

that tells consumers to use only cradle 

swings will be more effective than one 

that tells consumers to recline the seat 

fully. 

3. Warning on All Swings 

(Comment 3) Five comments request 

that all infant swings, not just reclining 

models with a seat back angle greater 

than 50 degrees, bear a warning related 

to the slump-over hazard. One of these 

comments recommends that all 

reclining swings, regardless of the seat 

back angle, warn about placing the seat 

in the most reclined position for infants 

who are younger than 3 months or who 

cannot hold up their heads without 

assistance. The remaining comments 

recommend that certain swings bear a 

warning prohibiting their use with 

infants who are younger than 3 months 

or who cannot hold up their heads 

without assistance. Of these, one 

recommends that such a warning be 

present on all infant swings that do not 

lie ‘‘flat’’; one recommends displaying 

the warning for all reclining swings, 

regardless of the seat back angle; two 

recommend that such a warning be 

present on all non-reclining models; and 

one of these two comments also 

recommends displaying the warning for 

all reclining models with seat back 

angles less than 50 degrees. 

(Response 3) As far as the 

Commission knows, all infant swings 

currently on the market are either cradle 

swings or reclining swings with a 

maximum seat back angle greater than 

50 degrees from horizontal when 

measured in accordance with the ASTM 

standard. We are unaware of any 

reclining swings with a maximum seat 

back angle less than 50 degrees from 

horizontal. Therefore, all reclining 

infant swings would bear the warning 

label recommending that the seat be 

placed in the most reclined position for 

infants who are younger than 4 months 

or who cannot hold up their heads 

without assistance. As noted earlier, 

CPSC staff has concluded that fully 

reclining the seat back on reclining 

swings with a seat back angle greater 

than 50 degrees addresses the slumpover hazard. Thus, although the final 

rule would not prevent manufacturers 

from including the warning on reclining 

swings with a maximum seat back angle 

less than 50 degrees from horizontal, we 

do not believe that mandating such a 

warning on these products is necessary. 

Cradle swings would not require the 

warning label because the seat back 

angle on these swings is not inclined 

enough to create the slump-over hazard. 

4. Use of Pictures or Visual Aids 

(Comment 4) Two comments 

recommend the use of pictures or visual 

aids to clarify the warning message. One 

of these comments suggests that this 

recommendation was intended for 

parents whose primary language is not 

English, or who are not familiar with 

measurements described in degrees. 

(Response 4) We acknowledge that 

well-designed graphics might be useful 

to illustrate the appropriate orientation 

of the seat back when the infant swing 

is used with children 3 months old and 

younger. However, we are not 

convinced that a graphic is necessary to 

convey this message to most consumers, 

and CPSC staff’s prior analyses of the 

incident data associated with infant 

swings has not revealed a pattern of 

incidents involving people who were 

not literate in English. Moreover, 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 (socalled ‘‘critical confusions’’). Thus, 

although the Commission may take 

action in the future if it believes graphic 

symbols are needed to reduce further 

the risk of injury associated with these 

products, the rule permits, but does not 

mandate, such supporting graphics. 

Lastly, although the slump-over 

warning statement would be required on 

infant swings that have an adjustable 

seat recline with a seat back angle 

greater than 50 degrees, the warning 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
66706 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

statement itself is not required to 

reference this 50-degree measurement. 

The final rule does not include any 

revisions to the slump-over warning 

statement that would introduce 

reference to ‘‘degrees.’’ 

5. Age Recommendations To Recline 

Settings 

(Comment 5) One comment 

recommends that the infant swing 

recline settings include age 

recommendations. However, this 

commenter also acknowledges that 

developmentally delayed infants may be 

endangered when the parent or 

caregiver follows the age-recommended 

settings. 

(Response 5) The new warning label 

wording in the final rule explicitly 

directs consumers to use the swing in 

the most reclined position until the 

infant is 4 months of age and can hold 

their head up without help. Once the 

infant is able to do this, the swing can 

be used in any of the other settings. 

Therefore, adding age recommendations 

to the swing settings is not necessary. 

6. Additional Languages on Warning 

Labels 

(Comment 6) One comment 

recommends that the slump-over 

warning be required to be printed in 

languages in addition to English. The 

comment suggests that the warning 

should be in English and Spanish at 

least. 

(Response 6) The Commission does 

not dismiss the potential usefulness of 

providing the slump-over warning and 

other warning information in Spanish 

and other non-English languages, and it 

recognizes that adding Spanish versions 

of the warnings most likely would 

improve warning readability among the 

U.S. population more than adding any 

other language. Nevertheless, as noted 

in the response to comment 4 above, 

CPSC staff’s prior analyses of the 

incident data associated with infant 

swings has not revealed a pattern of 

incidents involving people who were 

not literate in English. Thus, although 

the final rule does not prohibit 

manufacturers from providing the 

required warnings in languages other 

than English, the available information 

provides no basis for mandating that 

manufacturers do so. 

7. Additional Warning on the Label 

(Comment 7) Two comments state 

that the product should include 

warnings about the importance of using 

the restraint system. One of these 

comments recommends the use of the 

phrase: ‘‘DO NOT PLACE INFANT IN 

SWING WITHOUT SECURING 

RESTRAINTS.’’ The other comment 

states that the warnings should ‘‘address 

the risks associated with a caregiver’s 

failure to properly employ the use of 

restraints while the swing is in use.’’ 

One additional comment uses ‘‘failing to 

use the restraint system’’ as an example 

of product misuse, which should be 

warned against. 

(Response 7) Section 8.3.1 of ASTM 

F2088–12a already warns about the 

potential for ‘‘serious injury or death 

from infants falling or being strangled in 

straps’’ and instructs consumers: 

‘‘[a]lways secure infant in the restraint 

system provided.’’ In addition, the latter 

statement is nearly identical to the 

specific phrase recommended in the 

first comment cited in the comment 

summary. Thus, we believe that the 

current warning statements about this 

hazard are sufficient. 

We do not believe that the product 

should include warnings about general 

product misuse. Consumers are less 

likely to read numerous warnings, 

especially about hazards that are highly 

unlikely. Therefore, warning about 

general product misuse or about 

numerous instances of product misuse 

that, individually, are very rare, would 

increase the likelihood that consumers 

will not receive the most important 

hazard information for the product. 

8. Warnings Against Sleeping in Swings 

(Comment 8) Three comments state 

that the product should warn against 

allowing infants to sleep in the swing. 

One of the comments suggests that the 

following language be added to the 

warning: ‘‘Do not use the swing for 

routine sleep.’’ 

(Response 8) We do not believe that 

warning statements about not allowing 

infants to sleep in the swing should be 

added. CPSC staff’s prior review of the 

available incident data suggests that the 

angle of the seat back is more relevant 

to the potential for slump-over deaths 

and that adjusting the seat back to the 

most reclined position would have 

addressed these incidents. The warnings 

already include a statement about 

adjusting the seat back to the most 

reclined position for those children 

most at risk of slumping over, and the 

final rule revises the warning statement 

to clarify this message. Thus, we believe 

that warnings about not sleeping in 

infant swings are unlikely to reduce 

further the incidence of slump-over 

deaths; additionally, the data do not 

support mandating such a warning. 

9. Warnings Limiting Swing Use 

(Comment 9) One comment 

recommends that there be warnings 

about limiting the amount of time that 

infants spend in the swing for ‘‘health 

and developmental concerns,’’ namely, 

positional/deformational plagiocephaly 

and developmental delays from a lack of 

‘‘tummy time.’’ 

(Response 9) Warnings are safety 

communications intended to inform 

consumers about hazards, with the 

ultimate goal of reducing injuries and 

deaths. Thus, while there may be 

exceptions, one generally should not 

provide a warning, unless a significant 

hazard exists. We are not aware of any 

reported incidents of positional/ 

deformational plagiocephaly involving 

infant swings. Even if one presumes that 

such an association exists, CPSC staff 

has confirmed that this condition does 

not pose a hazard to infants. Similarly, 

developmental delays from a lack of 

‘‘tummy time’’ are not hazards per se, 

and they do not directly lead to injuries 

or deaths. Consequently, we do not 

believe that this issue rises to the level 

that such a mandatory warning on the 

product is necessary. 

10. Seat Deflection Warning 

(Comment 10) One comment 

recommends that swings supported by a 

single arm include a warning about the 

increased likelihood of seat deflection. 

(Response 10) We do not believe that 

a warning about an increased likelihood 

of seat deflection is necessary for singlearm infant swings. Since publication of 

the NPR, CPSC staff has worked with 

the ASTM Subcommittee on Infant 

Swings to develop new, improved 

performance requirements intended to 

address seat deflection. We believe that 

these requirements, which are part of 

the final rule, will effectively address 

the risk associated with seat deflection, 

and therefore, eliminate the need for a 

warning. 

11. Electrical Cord Strangulation 

Warning 

(Comment 11) One comment 

recommends that all swings with AC or 

electrical power cords include a 

warning label on the cords similar to 

that in the baby monitor standard, 

which warns about the strangulation 

hazard that such cords pose. 

(Response 11) We do not believe that 

mandating a strangulation warning on 

the AC or electrical power cords that 

might accompany certain infant swings 

is appropriate at this time. The recently 

published voluntary standard for baby 

monitors, ASTM F2951–12, Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for Baby 

Monitors, does require strangulation 

warnings on the cords of baby monitors, 

but specifies different warnings, 

depending on whether the product is 

intended to be attached to a crib or not. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 66707 

For transmitters that are not intended to 

be attached to a crib, the warning 

instructs consumers to keep the cord 

more than 3 feet away from the child. 

For transmitters that are intended to be 

attached to a crib—a situation more 

analogous to an infant swing that holds 

the infant and has an electrical power 

cord attached—the warning instructs 

consumers to use the manufacturersupplied protective cord covering at all 

times. However, infant swings are not 

required to provide protective coverings 

for electrical power cords, so it is 

unclear how consumers would comply 

with such a warning. 

A general warning about the risk of 

strangulation from these cords when the 

child is in the product might be more 

reasonable. However, we are not aware 

of any incidents associated with this 

hazard scenario involving infant swings, 

which suggests that this hazard does not 

rise to the level that a mandatory 

warning is necessary. Manufacturers of 

infant swings with cords are free to 

include strangulation warnings on their 

cords, and we can revisit the possibility 

of mandating such warnings if future 

incident data show that doing so would 

be appropriate. 

12. Dynamic and Static Tests 

(Comment 12) One comment states 

that the CPSC-proposed rule would 

require the tester to use a 75-lb weight 

and to drop it 500 times on the swing 

seat. The comment questions the new 

test method’s predictive ability to 

replicate real-world conditions and 

injuries, because, the commenter states, 

the ASTM standard required a 25-lb 

weight dropped 50 times onto the seat. 

Next, the comment suggests that the 

total number of drops could be 

increased beyond the current 500 drops. 

The total number of drops could be 

based on a consumer survey, asking 

parents how many times a day they put 

their baby in the swing and whether 

they used it for one or more babies. 

Lastly, the comment states that it is 

unclear why the test involves dropping. 

The force of an impact, especially with 

a drop mass of 75 lbs repeated 500 

times, could weaken the infant swing at 

an unreasonable and unrepresentative 

rate. The comment recommends instead 

that the test should measure the effect 

of a static mass placed in the seat over 

a period of time. Another comment 

questions the 75-lb requirement in the 

static load test and requests the 

justification for this requirement. 

(Response 12) The current ASTM 

standard, F2088–12a, has adopted the 

CPSC staff recommendation to increase 

the number of drops from 50 to 500 in 

the dynamic load test. The additional 

cycles were based on CPSC staff testing, 

which included life cycle testing. We 

believe a cyclic test of 500 drops is an 

appropriate test to evaluate the potential 

for structural failure in an infant swing. 

Continued testing beyond 500 cycles 

did not reveal any new issues, and it 

may place an unnecessary burden on 

the manufacturers and test labs. 

Additionally, the dynamic test specifies 

a 25-lb load not a 75-lb load, as 

suggested by the comment. The 25-lb 

load is the approximate weight of a 95th 

percentile 10- to 12-month-old child, 

and we agree with the rationale listed in 

the appendix of ASTM F2088–12a. The 

static load test included in the standard 

is the only test that calls for the 

application of a 75-lb load in the seat. 

The 75-lb static load has been part of the 

voluntary standard since its inception in 

2001; this is not something newly added 

by the CPSC. 

Finally, the dynamic test drop height 

is 1 inch. We consider the forces 

applied from this drop to be consistent 

with actual forces associated with swing 

use. Performing the dynamic test as 

specified in the standard ensures 

consistent, repeatable testing results. 

Together, these tests are intended to 

evaluate the structural integrity of the 

infant swing, and we believe they are 

sufficient to address structural issues 

that would occur over the life of the 

product. 

13. Product Misassembly 

(Comment 13) One comment states: 

‘‘Because of the constant use/storage/ 

lending use pattern of swings, we 

recommend that CPSC consider 

including additional requirements in 

the standard for infant swings, such as 

the provisions in the crib standard that 

seek to reduce hardware loss or 

misassembly. This could include 

requiring hardware that doesn’t back out 

or become loose, captive hardware, 

performance requirements to avoid 

misassembly, and a method to make 

sure instructions stay with the product.’’ 

(Response 13) The CPSC has 

considered or addressed misassembly 

issues in the standards for bassinets, 

play yards, and cribs, based on reported 

incidents and known usage patterns. We 

are aware of these hazard patterns in 

other juvenile product incidents, but we 

have concluded that ASTM has 

sufficiently addressed these issues by 

requiring that all threaded fasteners 

connecting structural components have 

a locking mechanism, such as lock 

washers, self-locking nuts, or other 

features designed to prevent detachment 

due to vibration. A product evaluation 

by CPSC staff revealed that many 

current swing designs use other means, 

such as Valco-type (push) button 

fasteners, which are permanently 

attached to the respective component. In 

most swing designs, misassembly of a 

swing would make the frame overtly 

unstable or result in an unnatural 

appearance that would be obvious to the 

consumer. The addition of a 

misassembly requirement would add a 

testing requirement for an incident 

pattern that is not evident among the 

incidents reported and that is addressed 

by the existing standard. 

14. Seat Deflection 

(Comment 14) Multiple comments 

question the seat deflection test and 

how it relates to injury reduction. 

Individual comments suggest including 

a second test to account for the potential 

of increased deflection over the life of 

the product. Another comment states 

that the CPSC did not explain why the 

agency chose 4 inches as its 

performance requirement. 

(Response 14) Seat deflection is a 

design issue that should be addressed 

during the product’s development and 

verified with standard testing. The seat 

deflection test proposed by the 

Commission was a preliminary test 

procedure under development at the 

time of the NPR. CPSC staff has 

continued to work with ASTM to refine 

the seat deflection test for infant swings. 

ASTM’s latest standard includes a new 

test methodology and performance 

requirements that measure various seat 

angles, as was suggested by one 

commenter, and it addresses 

satisfactorily the seat deflection issues 

raised by CPSC staff. 

15. Electrical Requirements 

(Comment 15) One comment states 

that infant swings are not designed to be 

operated by children. Instead, the 

comment states that infant swings are 

designed to be used by children, but 

they are designed to be operated by 

adults. Therefore, the comment asserts 

that infant swings are not subject to 16 

CFR part 1505, Requirements for 

electronically operated toys or other 

electrically operated articles intended 

for use by children. According to the 

comment, third party laboratories have 

been interpreting 16 CFR part 1505 in 

this manner for many years. Adding a 

new interpretation to 16 CFR part 1505, 

the comment suggests, would create 

confusion and would be inconsistent 

with test protocols currently employed. 

(Response 15) While the NPR 

proposed that swings operating from an 

a/c power source be required to conform 

to 16 CFR 1505, ASTM reworded the 

provision in ASTM F2088–12a to 

address the issue of assuring that AC 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
66708 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

adapters meet all national safety 

standards. We agree with the new 

language contained in ASTM F2088– 

12a, which is being incorporated into 

the final rule. Therefore, it is 

unnecessary to include any reference to 

part 1505 in the final rule. 

16. Compliant Product Marking 

(Comment 16) One comment 

recommends that the CPSC consider 

adding a marking on products that are 

manufactured after the effective date so 

that consumers can clearly identify new 

products that meet the new mandatory 

standard. 

(Response 16) A date code is already 

required to be on the product under 

section 8.1.3 of ASTM F2088–12a and 

under the requirements for consumer 

registration of durable infant or toddler 

products in 16 CFR 1130.3. In addition, 

future changes to the standard may 

come into effect. Because it is not 

practicable to delineate every change to 

the standard through a new mark on the 

product, we decline to take such action. 

17. Regulation Coverage 

(Comment 17) One comment states: 

‘‘* * * the pre-existing voluntary 

standards unaddressed by the new 

regulation is [sic] the sweeping 

definition that places all infant swings 

in the same category for children up to 

the age of five.’’ 

(Response 17) The proposed rule and 

the voluntary standard both indicate 

that the infant swings are ‘‘intended for 

use with infants from birth until a child 

is able to sit up unassisted.’’ The 

comment may have misunderstood the 

reference in the Federal Register notice, 

where the ‘‘definition of a ‘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.’’ 

18. The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(Comment 18) One comment states 

that CPSC staff should try ‘‘to obtain a 

more accurate number of manufacturers 

who do not meet the ASTM standard’’ 

and suggests that we ‘‘count those 

manufacturers that sell at major retailers 

that require ASTM compliance’’ as well. 

The comment states that because ‘‘just 

ten firms are making or importing 

swings, CPSC could easily get direct 

information that would more clearly 

identify costs.’’ 

(Response 18) We have attempted to 

obtain accurate estimates of small firms 

that do not conform to the ASTM 

voluntary standard for infant swings 

and information on the likely costs of 

conformance. Further effort would not 

change the results of the analysis. Nor 

is it necessarily easy for firms to 

estimate prospectively the economic 

impact that a regulation will have on 

their costs. 

(Comment 19) One commenter states 

that the regulatory flexibility analysis 

should consider the effect that a product 

recall would have on firms ‘‘ * * * that 

are not known to be in compliance with 

the voluntary standard.’’ 

(Response 19) The Regulatory 

Flexibility Act requires an evaluation of 

the likely economic impacts of 

conforming to the standard that is being 

proposed, not the economic impact of 

violating the standard. If firms comply 

with the standard, recalls related to 

nonconformance would be avoided. 

E. ASTM Voluntary Standard 

ASTM F2088, ‘‘Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Infant Swings,’’ 

is the voluntary standard that was 

developed to address the identified 

hazard patterns associated with the use 

of infant swings. Section 104(b) of the 

CPSIA requires the Commission to 

assess the effectiveness of the voluntary 

standard in consultation with 

representatives of consumer groups, 

juvenile product manufacturers, and 

other experts. We have consulted with 

these groups regarding the ASTM 

voluntary standard, ASTM F2088, 

throughout its development. The 

standard was first approved in 2001, 

and revised in 2003, 2008, 2009, twice 

in 2011, and twice in 2012. ASTM 

F2088–11b was the version of the 

standard referenced in the NPR. In 

response to the proposed rule, the 

ASTM Subcommittee on Infant Swings, 

in collaboration with CPSC staff, 

approved and published two versions of 

the standard since publication of the 

NPR, including, ASTM F2088–12a 

(approved on September 1, 2012, and 

published in September 2012), which 

mainly incorporates the proposed 

modifications in the proposed rule, with 

a few clarifications and modifications 

that strengthen the standard. ASTM 

F2088–12a contains more stringent 

requirements than its predecessor, 

ASTM F2088–11b, and would reduce 

further the risk of injury associated with 

infant swings. 

F. Assessment of the Voluntary 

Standard and Description of the Final 

Rule 

1. Changes to Requirements of the 

ASTM F2088 Voluntary Standard 

In the NPR, the Commission proposed 

safety standards for infant swings based 

on the voluntary standard for infant 

swings, ASTM F2088–11b. We proposed 

additional requirements that were 

intended to strengthen the voluntary 

standard. See 77 FR 12182. Since the 

publication of this notice, ASTM has 

published two newer versions of the 

standard, ASTM F2088–12 and ASTM 

F2088 12a. The newest version, ASTM 

F 2088–12a, includes additional 

changes that were not addressed 

previously, modifies the CPSC proposed 

language, or adopts the proposal, with 

some differences. 

The final rule incorporates by 

reference ASTM F2088–12a as a 

mandatory standard, with two 

modifications. Some of the more 

significant requirements of ASTM 

F2088–12a are listed below. The 

requirements that have been added to 

the ASTM voluntary standard since the 

NPR are in italics: 

• Stability test—intended to prevent 

tip over. Swing models that rotate about 

the horizontal axis are positioned on an 

inclined surface with the swing facing 

forward and then facing backward. 

Swings that do not rotate about the 

horizontal axis are tested in the position 

most likely to fail. This was modified in 

ASTM F2088–12 to clarify the test 

procedure, as proposed by the 

Commission in the NPR. 

• Test to prevent unintentional 

folding—intended to ensure that any 

locking/latching mechanisms remain 

functional after testing. 

• Tests on restraint system—intended 

to prevent slippage and breakage during 

regular use. 

• Requirements for cradle swing 

orientation—intended to ensure that the 

surface remains relatively flat both 

while in motion and while at rest. 

• Requirements for electrically 

powered swings—intended to prevent 

leakage and otherwise protect 

consumers. These requirements 

originally applied only to batteryoperated swings but were expanded in 

ASTM F2088–12 to encompass all 

electrically powered swings, as 

proposed by the Commission in the 

NPR. ASTM F2088–12a extends the 

compliance requirements of all AC 

adaptors and includes a list of accepted 

national safety standards. There are 

also some editorial differences between 

the NPR and ASTM F2088–12a. 

• Requirement for toy mobiles— 

intended to ensure that toys within a 

child’s reach do not detach when 

pulled. This requirement was new to the 

2011a standard and was modified for 

the 2012 standard to prevent 

detachment when pulled horizontally as 

well (as proposed in the February 2012 

NPR). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 66709 

• Shoulder strap requirement—In the 

NPR, we proposed that shoulder straps 

be required for swing seats with angles 

greater than 50 degrees. The seat back 

angle measurement procedure has been 

updated since the NPR. Now it 

addresses the issues that the CPSC 

proposed to address with the seat 

deflection test included in the NPR. 

Now it now addresses seats that fold up 

or tilt, by limiting the severity of angles 

created by the seat and seat back, or by 

requiring shoulder straps as part of the 

restraint system. 

• Dynamic and static load 

requirements—intended to ensure that 

the infant swing can support these loads 

without breaking. The dynamic load test 

procedure was modified in F2088–12 to 

mirror proposed changes in the 

February 2012 NPR, including 

increasing the number of times the 

weight is dropped. 

The voluntary standard also includes: 

(1) Torque and tension tests to ensure 

that components cannot be removed; (2) 

requirements for several infant swing 

features to prevent entrapment and cuts 

(minimum and maximum opening size, 

small parts, exposed coil springs, 

protective components, hazardous sharp 

edges or points, and edges that can 

scissor, shear, or pinch); (3) 

requirements for the permanency and 

adhesion of labels; (4) a leg opening test 

to ensure that occupants cannot slide 

out; (5) requirements for instructional 

literature; and (6) restraint system 

requirements. Additionally, all testing 

must be performed without adjusting or 

repositioning the swing, and swings 

with multiple seat configurations must 

be placed in the most disadvantageous 

position for testing. The following is a 

discussion of how the new standard 

addresses the issues raised in the NPR. 

a. Seat Deflection 

The Commission proposed a 

preliminary test procedure to address 

the seat deflection issue and specifically 

asked for comments on the proposed 

test method in the NPR. In addition, the 

CPSC continued to work with ASTM to 

refine the seat deflection test for infant 

swings. ASTM F2088–12a includes new 

language that contains a more 

comprehensive requirement based on 

maximum seat angle specifications, 

which includes additional seat back 

angle measurements or shoulder strap 

requirements. We believe this 

requirement addresses more adequately 

the incidents where a child falls out of 

the seat due to seat deflection. 

b. Stability Testing 

We raised two issues in the NPR 

regarding stability testing and both are 

addressed in ASTM F2088–12a. ASTM 

F2088–12a has added the requirement 

for testing of alternative swing designs 

in the worst-case orientation, as 

recommended by the Commission. So 

now not only are traditional horizontal 

access swings tested for stability, but 

also nontraditional, alternative designs 

with other than a horizontal axis of 

swing motion must also be tested to the 

new requirements. 

The second stability issue the CPSC 

raised was intended to refine the testing 

on swings with ‘‘L-’’ shaped 

cantilevered legs. The CPSC raised the 

issue out of concern that a test lab could 

interpret this test to require that the 

force be applied at the end of the ‘‘L-’’ 

shaped leg that is not in the vertical 

plane of the latch. In this case, the 

maximum force normally associated 

with folding is at the end of the leg 

vertically under the latch. However, 

after further discussions with ASTM, we 

have concluded that the current 

wording allows testing to be performed 

as stated in the NPR, and the proper 

testing location for this design is readily 

apparent to all involved. Therefore, the 

infant swing unintentional folding test 

statement proposed in the NPR, as a 

clarification to the existing test 

procedure, is not included in the final 

rule. 

c. Electrical Overload Requirements 

The NPR proposed electrical testing 

requirements to reduce the likelihood of 

overloading electrical components, 

battery leakage, or electrical failures that 

could lead to fire. As part of these 

requirements, ASTM F2088–12a does 

not include the following statement: 

‘‘The test shall be conducted using a 

new swing.’’ However, the testing on 

swing samples is done largely 

independent of the electrical 

components. Therefore, the electrical 

components on a swing sample 

normally can be considered ‘‘new,’’ 

even after other components have been 

tested. By accepting deletion of that 

statement, the number of samples 

required to complete a test is reduced. 

We accept the electrical overload 

requirement—as stated in ASTM 

F2088–12a—as sufficient. 

d. Dynamic Drop Test Cycles 

The NPR proposed increasing the 

dynamic drop test cycles from 50 to 500 

cycles to improve structural integrity 

and reveal potential structural issues of 

the swing components. Increasing the 

number of dynamic impact cycles to 

which the swing will be tested will 

reduce the possibility of structural 

failures, and it is expected to lead to a 

decrease in the number and severity of 

injuries. ASTM included this change in 

ASTM F2088–12a. 

e. Modify Mobile and Toy Retention 

Requirements 

The NPR proposed modifying mobile 

and toy retention requirements to allow 

the force to be applied in any direction 

at or below the horizontal plane, in the 

orientation most likely to fail. This 

change is contained in ASTM F2088– 

12a. 

f. Other Changes to ASTM F2088–12 

and 12a 

In addition to the changes discussed 

above, in response to the NPR, ASTM 

made two other changes to ASTM 

F2088–12 and 12a, which we find 

acceptable. One change deals with the 

seat back recline fixture. ASTM 

accepted CPSC staff’s recommendation 

to use steel plates—as opposed to wood 

boards—for the seat back recline fixture 

and then added more design changes to 

adjust the center of gravity of the fixture 

to approximate more accurately the 

weight distribution of an actual child. 

The device is now identified as the 

‘‘Hinged Weight Gage-Infant,’’ and a 

drawing of the figure is included in the 

ASTM standard. This change will 

improve the accuracy of testing, and 

therefore, improve the safety of the 

standard. This change was not proposed 

in the NPR, but it was developed with 

the participation of CPSC staff. 

The other issue ASTM addressed was 

a clarification to the AC adapters 

supplied with the product. ASTM 

F2088–12 states: ‘‘6.1.5 AC adapters 

supplied with the product must be 

compliant with the appropriate current 

national standard for AC adapters.’’ 

ASTM received a number of comments 

after ASTM F2088–12 was published, 

asking for clarification of what 

‘‘appropriate current national standard’’ 

meant in the requirement. ASTM added 

new wording and a note to make this 

clearer, and ASTM F2088–12a includes 

those changes. We find these changes to 

be acceptable. 

2. Description of the Final Rule 

a. Section 1223.1—Scope 

Section 1223.1 of the final rule states 

that part 1223 establishes a consumer 

product safety standard for infant 

swings. We received no comments on 

this provision and are finalizing it 

without change. 

b. Section 1223.2—Requirements for 

infant swings 

Section 1223.2(a) of the final rule 

provides language to incorporate by 

reference ASTM F2088–12a, Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
66710 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Infant Swings. Section 1223.2(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 or National Archives and Records 

Administration. We received no 

comments on this provision, but we are 

changing the language in the 

incorporation in the final rule to refer to 

ASTM F2088–12a, the current version 

of the standard. 

In the NPR, § 1223.2(b) proposed to 

add two new requirements to ASTM 

F2088–11b to make the standard more 

stringent than the current voluntary 

standard and to reduce the risk of injury 

associated with infant swings: (1) A 

performance requirement and test 

method to address electrical overload in 

infant swing motors and batteries, as 

well as an accessible component 

temperature requirement and a 

requirement to ensure that swings that 

run on a/c power are safe; and (2) a 

performance requirement and test 

method to address seat deflection. We 

also proposed two major modifications 

to ASTM F2088–11b that would make 

the standard more stringent than the 

voluntary standard at that time and 

would reduce the risk of injury 

associated with infant swings: (1) An 

increase in the number of test cycles 

used in the dynamic load test, from 50 

cycles to 500 cycles, and (2) a 

modification to the mobile test to 

account for mobiles that can be pulled 

in downward directions other than 

straight down vertically. Finally, in 

proposed § 1223.2(b) of the NPR, we 

proposed to clarify the test methods for 

the dynamic load test, the stability test, 

the unintentional folding test, and the 

seat back angle measurement method. 

As discussed in the previous section 

of this preamble, the additional 

requirements in proposed § 1223.2(b) 

either have been incorporated into 

ASTM F2088–12a, or we are satisfied 

with ASTM’s changes from the proposal 

or explanations regarding why some 

proposals were not necessary. 

Therefore, the language in proposed 

§ 1223.2(b) of the NPR is no longer 

necessary. 

Finally, as discussed previously in the 

response to comment 1 in section D of 

this preamble, we received many 

comments regarding the inadequacy of 

the slump-over warnings in section 8.3 

of ASTM F2088–11b. Section 8.3 of 

ASTM F2088–12a contains the identical 

slump-over warning contained in 

section 8.3 of ASTM F2088–11b that we 

proposed in the NPR. We agree that the 

current warning language requirements 

pertaining to the slump-over hazard in 

ASTM F2088–12a are insufficient and 

that the warning should be revised to 

clarify the hazard and the consequences 

of exposure to the hazard if the 

consumer cannot avoid it. The warning 

statement required in ASTM F2088–12a 

does not describe the slump-over 

hazard, and the formatting of the 

warning implies that using the swing in 

the most reclined seat position is an 

additional measure intended to address 

the potential for the infant user to fall 

or strangle in the straps. In addition, one 

could argue that the warning statement 

does not describe the probable 

consequences of not avoiding the 

slump-over hazard because the 

warning’s reference to ‘‘serious injury or 

death’’ is specific to falls and 

strangulations. 

Therefore, in place of the language 

proposed in § 1223.2(b) of the NPR, 

§ 1223(b)(1) of the final rule requires 

that infant swings must comply with the 

ASTM F2088–12a standard with two 

exceptions. In the case of the first 

exception to the ASTM standard, 

instead of complying with section 8.3.1 

of ASTM F 2088–12a, infants swings are 

required to have warning statements for 

products that have an adjustable seat 

recline with a maximum seat back angle 

greater than 50 degrees from horizontal, 

measured in accordance with 7.13 of 

ASTM F 2088–12a, that address the 

following: 

Keep swing seat fully reclined until child 

is at least 4 months old AND can hold up 

head without help. Young infants have 

limited head and neck control. If seat is too 

upright, infant’s head can drop forward, 

compress the airway, and result in DEATH. 

Additionally, swings must have a 

warning statement to prevent serious 

injury or death from infants falling or 

being strangled in straps: 

• Always secure infant in the 

restraint system provided. 

• Never leave infant unattended in 

swing. 

• Discontinue use of swing when 

infant attempts to climb out. 

• Travel swings are required to have 

a warning indicating: ‘‘Always place 

swing on floor. Never use on any 

elevated surface.’’ 

A second exception to the 

requirements in ASTM F2088–12a 

specifies the test method for testing toy 

mobiles that are attached to the swing. 

The final rule provides new language for 

the test method described in section 

7.12.2 of ASTM F2088–12a. We are 

adding this language in response to 

information from ASTM that ASTM had 

inadvertently omitted updating the test 

method described in section 7.12.2 of 

ASTM F2088–12a to reflect the latest 

revision that ASTM had made to the test 

fixture used in section 7.12.2. We have 

added ASTM’s revised version of the 

test method language in the final rule 

text in § 1223(b)(2). This is the language 

that ASTM is balloting to revise section 

7.12.2 in its standard. 

G. Effective Date 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) generally requires that the 

effective date of the rule to be at least 

30 days after publication of the final 

rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The preamble to 

the proposed rule indicated that the 

standard would become effective 6 

months after publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. We sought 

comment on how long it would take 

infant swing manufacturers to come into 

compliance. We received one comment 

stating that the Commission should 

‘‘* * * consider extending the effective 

date to one year to help minimize a 

possibility of a substantial loss of 

revenue from the potential product 

recalls on the small manufacturers and 

importers.’’ Almost all of the 

requirements proposed in the NPR were 

incorporated into ASTM F2088–12a, 

and the final rule differs from the 

proposed rule only in the requirement 

that an additional warning label 

regarding use has been added. 

Therefore, we believe that an effective 

date of 6 months after publication of the 

final rule is sufficient to allow for 

review of the new requirements 

thoroughly and to ensure that new 

infant swings manufactured or imported 

after that date are in compliance with 

the new requirements. The 6-month 

effective date is consistent with the 

effective date established in most other 

rules issued under section 104 of the 

CPSIA. Accordingly, the final rule will 

be effective 6 months after publication 

in the Federal Register, unchanged from 

the proposed rule. 

H. Testing and Certification 

Once there is a safety standard in 

effect for infant swings, it will be 

unlawful for anyone to manufacture, 

distribute, or import an infant swing 

into the United States that is not in 

conformity with this standard. 15 U.S.C. 

2068(1). 

In addition, section 14(a)(2) of the 

CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2), imposes the 

requirement that products subject to a 

children’s product safety rule must be 

tested by a third party conformity 

assessment body accredited by the 

Commission to test the product. As 

discussed in section A of this preamble, 

section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA refers 

to standards issued under this section as 

‘‘consumer product safety standards.’’ 

Under section 14(f)(1) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2063(f)(1), the term ‘‘children’s 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 66711 

product safety rule’’ includes all 

standards enforced by the Commission. 

Thus, the infant swing standard will be 

a children’s product safety rule, subject 

to third party testing and certification. 

The Commission is required to issue 

a notice of requirements (NOR) to 

explain how laboratories can become 

CPSC-accepted third party conformity 

assessment bodies to test infant swings 

to the new safety standard. On May 24, 

2012, the Commission published in the 

Federal Register the proposed rule, 

Requirements Pertaining to Third Party 

Conformity Assessment Bodies, 77 FR 

31086, which, when finalized, would 

establish the general requirements and 

criteria concerning testing laboratories, 

including a list of the children’s product 

safety rules for which the CPSC has 

published NORs for laboratories. The 

Commission proposed a new NOR for 

the safety standard for infant swings in 

that proposed rule. See 77 FR at 31113. 

The final NOR for the safety standard 

for infant swings will be issued once the 

final rule for Requirements Pertaining to 

Third Party Conformity Assessment 

Bodies is published in the Federal 

Register. That final rule will address the 

issuance of the NOR for infant swings. 

I. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. Introduction 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

requires that final rules be reviewed for 

their potential economic impact on 

small entities, including small 

businesses. Section 604 of the RFA 

requires that the Commission prepare a 

final regulatory flexibility analysis when 

it promulgates a final rule. 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. 

The NPR for infant swings was based 

on the voluntary ASTM standard for 

infant swings ASTM F2088–11b. The 

Commission proposed several 

modifications, additions, and 

clarifications at that time. Most of the 

proposed changes have been 

incorporated into ASTM F2088–12a, 

which the final rule incorporates by 

reference, along with one additional 

change, modifying the slump-over 

warning. 

2. The Market for Swings 

Infant swings are typically produced 

and/or marketed by juvenile product 

manufacturers and distributors. We 

estimate that currently, there are at least 

9 domestic manufacturers and one 

domestic importer supplying infant 

swings to the U.S. market. Infant swings 

from five of the 10 firms have been 

certified as compliant with the ASTM 

voluntary standard ASTM F2088–11b 

by JPMA, the major U.S. trade 

association that represents juvenile 

product manufacturers and importers. 

Two additional firms claim compliance 

with F2088–11b. 

Information on annual sales of infant 

swings can be approximated using 

information from the 2005 survey 

conducted by the American Baby Group 

(2006 Baby Products Tracking Study). 

About 79 percent of new mothers own 

at least one infant swing—61 percent 

own full-sized infant swings, and 33 

percent own smaller travel infant 

swings. Approximately 31 percent of 

full-sized infant swings and 26 percent 

of travel infant swings were handed 

down or purchased secondhand. Thus, 

about 69 percent of full-sized infant 

swings, and 74 percent of travel infant 

swings were acquired new. This 

suggests annual sales of about 2.7 

million infant swings to households (.69 

× .61 × 4.1 million births per year + .74 

× .33 × 4.1 million births per year). 

Typically, infant swings are used for 

only a few months early in a child’s life. 

Therefore, we have estimated the risk of 

injury based on the number of infant 

swings in the households of new 

mothers. Based on data from the 2006 

Baby Products Tracking Study, 

approximately 3.9 million infant swings 

are owned by new mothers (0.61 percent 

own full-size × 4.1 million births + 0.33 

percent own travel size × 4.1 million 

births). This suggests that at least 3.9 

million infant swings may be available 

to children during the first year of their 

lives. During 2011, there were an 

estimated 1,900 emergency departmenttreated injuries to children under age 5 

related to infant swings. Consequently, 

there would have been about 4.9 

emergency department-treated injuries 

annually for every 10,000 infant swings 

available for use in the households of 

new mothers. 

3. Impact of the Standard on Small 

Businesses 

As noted earlier, there are 

approximately 10 domestic firms 

currently known to be producing or 

selling infant swings in the United 

States. Under U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) guidelines, a 

manufacturer of infant swings is small 

if it has 500 or fewer employees, and an 

importer is considered small if it has 

100 or fewer employees. Based on these 

guidelines, five domestic manufacturers 

are small firms. The remaining firms are 

four large domestic manufacturers and 

one large domestic importer. There may 

be additional unknown small 

manufacturers and importers operating 

in the U.S. market. 

Small Manufacturers 

The expected impact of the final rule 

on small manufacturers will differ based 

on whether their infant swings are 

compliant with ASTM F2088–11b. 

Firms whose infant swings meet the 

requirements of ASTM F2088–11b are 

generally expected to continue to do so 

as new versions of the standard are 

published, typically within 6 months, 

which is the amount of time JPMA 

allows for products in their certification 

program to shift to a new standard. 

Many of these firms are active in the 

ASTM standards development process, 

and compliance with the voluntary 

standard is part of an established 

business practice. Therefore, it is likely 

that firms supplying infant swings that 

comply with ASTM F2088–11b (which 

went into effect for JPMA certification 

purposes in May 2012) would also 

comply with ASTM F2088–12a by 

March 2013, even in the absence of a 

mandatory standard. 

The direct impact on the three known 

small domestic manufacturers whose 

infant swings are compliant with ASTM 

F2088–11b is not expected to be 

significant. Each firm will need to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
66712 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

3 Infant swing suppliers already must third party 

test their products to the lead and phthalate 

requirements. Therefore, these costs already exist 

and will not be affected by the final infant swings 

standard. 

modify the slump-over warning label for 

their infant swings. This is not generally 

expected to be costly; although some 

firms may experience larger costs than 

others, depending upon their label 

development process, and where the 

warning labels are affixed on their 

products. One firm estimates that the 

one-time cost of changing their labels, 

including development time and 

materials, would be approximately 

$1,000 per model. 

Complying with ASTM F2088–12a’s 

requirements could necessitate product 

redesign for some infant swings 

believed not to be compliant with 

ASTM F2088–11b. The redesign would 

be minor if most of the changes involve 

adding straps and fasteners or using 

different mesh or fabric; but the 

redesign could be more significant if 

changes to the frame are required. 

Consequently, the final rule potentially 

could have a significant direct impact 

on the two small manufacturers of 

infant swings that are believed not to 

have conformed to ASTM F2088–11b, 

regardless of how they choose to meet 

the staff-recommended warning label 

requirement. One manufacturer 

estimated that a complete infant swing 

redesign would cost approximately 

$400,000, not including significant 

overhead costs, such as engineering 

time, which at $100 per hour, easily 

could increase overall redesign costs by 

$100,000 or more. However, a complete 

product redesign is unlikely to be 

necessary in most cases, and any direct 

impact may be mitigated if costs are 

treated as new product expenses that 

can be amortized. 

It is possible that the two firms whose 

infant swings are neither certified as 

compliant, nor claim to be compliant 

with ASTM F2088–11b, in fact, are 

compliant with the standard. We have 

identified many such cases with other 

products. To the extent that these firms 

may supply compliant infant swings 

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. 

Although the direct impact of the 

final rule should not be significant for 

most small manufacturers, there are 

indirect impacts as well. These impacts 

are considered indirect because they do 

not arise directly as a consequence of 

the requirements of the final rule. 

Nonetheless, these indirect costs could 

be significant. Once the final rule 

becomes effective, and the notice of 

requirements is in effect, all 

manufacturers will be subject to the 

additional costs associated with the 

third party testing and certification 

requirements. This will include the 

physical and mechanical test 

requirements specified in the final rule; 

lead and phthalates testing is already 

required, and hence, it is not included 

here.3

Based on information provided by 

manufacturers, additional industry 

input, and information obtained when 

staff was developing the third party 

testing rule, third party testing costs for 

ASTM F2088–12a (including toy testing, 

which is part of the infant swings 

voluntary standard) are estimated to be 

around $900 per model sample. Testing 

overseas potentially could reduce third 

party testing costs, but that may not 

always be practical. 

On average, each small domestic 

infant swing manufacturer supplies six 

models of infant swings to the U.S. 

market annually. Therefore, if third 

party testing was conducted every year, 

third party testing costs for each 

manufacturer might add about $5,400 

annually to the manufacturer’s costs, 

assuming only one sample of each 

model had to be tested. Based on a 

review of firm revenues, the impact of 

third party testing to ASTM F2088–12a 

is unlikely to be significant for small 

manufacturers unless a large number of 

samples had to be tested for each model. 

Small Importers 

CPSC staff was unable to identify any 

small importers currently operating in 

the U.S. market. However, if any exist, 

they would need to find an alternate 

source of infant swings if their existing 

supplier does not come into compliance 

with the requirements of the staffrecommended final rule. They could 

also discontinue importing any 

noncomplying infant swings, possibly 

replacing them with another juvenile 

product. As is the case with 

manufacturers, importers will be subject 

to third party testing and certification 

requirements; consequently, they would 

experience costs similar to those for 

manufacturers, if their supplying foreign 

firm(s) does not perform third party 

testing. 

4. Alternatives 

Under section 104 of the CPSIA, one 

alternative that would reduce the 

impact on small entities would be to 

make the voluntary standard mandatory 

with no modifications. However, while 

this alternative would eliminate any 

additional costs associated with the 

slump-over label change in the final 

rule, firms supplying noncompliant 

infant swings could still require 

substantial product redesign in order to 

meet the voluntary standard. Because of 

the frequency and severity of the 

incidents associated with slump-over 

incidents, we do not recommend this 

alternative. 

A second alternative would be to set 

an effective date later than 6 months. 

This would allow suppliers additional 

time to modify and/or develop 

compliant infant swings and spread the 

associated costs over a longer period of 

time. We generally consider 6 months 

sufficient time for suppliers to come 

into compliance with a mandatory 

standard; it is common in the industry, 

representing the amount of time that the 

JPMA allows for products in their 

ASTM certification program to shift to 

a new standard. 

J. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule contains information 

collection requirements that are subject 

to public comment and review by the 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The 

preamble to the proposed rule (77 FR 

7021 through 7022) discussed the 

information collection burden of the 

proposed rule and specifically requested 

comments on the accuracy of our 

estimates. We did not receive any 

comments from the public concerning 

the information collection burden of the 

proposal. However, in response to a 

comment made by OMB, the final rule 

makes a modification regarding the 

information collection burden. OMB 

noted that all 10 firms identified should 

be considered when accounting for the 

labeling burden. 

As indicated in the NPR (77 FR 7021 

through 7022), there are 10 known firms 

supplying infant swings to the U.S. 

market. In the NPR, we estimated that 

five of the 10 firms already made 

product labels that comply with ASTM 

F2088. We revise our burden estimate to 

assume that all 10 firms already use 

labels on both their products and 

packaging, but they might need to make 

some modifications to their existing 

labels. Based on this revision, our 

revised burden estimate is as follows: 

The estimated time required to make 

these modifications is about 1 hour per 

model. Each of these firms supplies an 

average of five different models of infant 

swings; therefore, the estimated burden 

hours associated with labels is 1 hour × 

10 firms × 5 models per firm = 50 

annual hours. 

We estimate that hourly 

compensation for the time required to 

create and update labels is $28.36 (U.S. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 66713 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Employer 

Costs for Employee Compensation,’’ 

September 2011, 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 

associated with the proposed 

requirements is $1,418 ($28.36 per hour 

× 50 hours = $1,418). 

We have applied to OMB for a control 

number for this information collection, 

and we will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register providing the number 

when we receive approval from OMB. 

K. Preemption 

Section 26(a) of the Consumer 

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

2075(a), provides that where a consumer 

product safety standard is in effect and 

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 the rule becomes effective. 

L. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations 

provide a categorical exclusion for the 

Commission’s rules from any 

requirement to prepare an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement 

because they ‘‘have little or no potential 

for affecting the human environment.’’ 

16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This final rule falls 

within the categorical exclusion, so no 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1223 

Consumer protection, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Infants and 

children, Labeling, Law enforcement, 

Safety and toys. 

■ Therefore, the Commission amends 

Title 16 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations by adding part 1223 to 

Chapter II to read as follows: 

PART 1223—SAFETY STANDARD FOR 

INFANT SWINGS 

Sec. 

1223.1 Scope. 

1223.2 Requirements for Infant Swings. 

Authority: The Consumer Product Safety 

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

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

§ 1223.1 Scope. 

This part establishes a consumer 

product safety standard for infant 

swings. 

§ 1223.2 Requirements for infant swings. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, each infant swing 

must comply with all applicable 

provisions of ASTM F2088—12a, 

Standard Consumer Safety Specification 

for Infant Swings, approved on 

September 1, 2012. The Director of the 

Federal Register approves this 

incorporation by reference in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy 

from ASTM International, 100 Bar 

Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428; http:// 

www.astm.org. 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)(1) Instead of complying with 

section 8.3.1 of ASTM F2088–12a, 

comply with the following: 

(i) 8.3.1 The warning statements 

shall address the following at a 

minimum: 

(ii) 8.3.1.1 Products having an 

adjustable seat recline with a maximum 

seatback angle greater than 50 degrees 

from horizontal measured in accordance 

with 7.13 shall address the following: 

Keep swing seat fully reclined until child 

is at least 4 months old AND can hold up 

head without help. Young infants have 

limited head and neck control. If seat is too 

upright, infant’s head can drop forward, 

compress the airway, and result in DEATH. 

(iii) 8.3.1.2 To prevent serious injury 

or death from infants falling or being 

strangled in straps: 

(A) Always secure infant in the 

restraint system provided. 

(B) Never leave infant unattended in 

swing. 

(C) Discontinue use of swing when 

infant attempts to climb out. 

(D) Travel swings (see 3.1.11) shall 

address the following: 

Always place swing on floor. Never 

use on any elevated surface. 

(2) Instead of complying with section 

7.12.2 of ASTM F2088–12a, comply 

with the following: 

(i) 7.12.2 Place the back of the swing 

in the most upright position. Remove 

positioning accessories, including 

pillows. Position the segments of the 

restraint system to limit interaction with 

the Hinged Weight Gage—Infant (see 

Fig. 10) when placed in the seat. Place 

the Hinged Weight Gage—Infant with 

the hinge located at the junction of the 

swing back and seat bottom (see Fig. 8). 

Determine if the lowest point of the toy 

positioned over the occupant is within 

25.25 in. (641.5 mm) of the top surface 

of the Lower Plate (see Fig. 10)— 

throughout the swing seat’s range of 

motion. Proceed to 7.12.3 if the distance 

is 25.25 in. (641.5 mm) or less. The toy 

is considered out of reach and not tested 

to 7.12.3 if the distance is greater than 

25.25 in. (641.5 mm). 

(ii) [Reserved] 

Dated: November 1, 2012. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–27027 Filed 11–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. USCG–2012–0946] 

Special Local Regulation; Southern 

California Annual Marine Events for 

the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce 

the Special Local Regulations in 33 CFR 

100.1101 from 7 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on 

November 11, 2012 on Mission Bay, CA 

in support of the San Diego Fall Classic. 

This action is necessary to restrict vessel 

movement and provide for the safety of 

the participants, crew, spectators, 

sponsor vessels of the race, and general 

users of the waterway. During the 

enforcement period, persons and vessels 

are prohibited from entering into, 

transiting through, or anchoring within 

this designated race area unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, or 

his designated representative. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with