Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22303 

Dated: March 24, 2010 

Todd Stevenson, 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6947 Filed 4–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1218 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2010–0028] 

Safety Standard for Bassinets and 

Cradles: Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Section 104(b) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’) requires the 

United States Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

to promulgate consumer product safety 

standards for durable infant or toddler 

products. These standards are to be 

‘‘substantially the same as’’ applicable 

voluntary standards or more stringent 

than the voluntary standard if the 

Commission concludes that more 

stringent requirements would further 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

the product. The Commission is 

proposing a more stringent safety 

standard for bassinets and cradles that 

will further reduce the risk of injury 

associated with these products. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by July 12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments relating to the 

instructional literature and marking 

required by the proposed rule relating to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act should be 

directed to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC 

Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–6974, or 

e-mailed to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Other comments, identified by Docket 

No. CPSC–2010–llll, may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

accepting comments submitted by 

electronic mail (e-mail) except through 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions in the 

following way: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions), 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of 

the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided, to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

electronically. Such information should 

be submitted in writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Han 

Lim, Project Manager, Directorate for 

Engineering Sciences, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 4330 EastWest Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7538; 

hlim@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background and Statutory Authority 

The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 

110–314 (‘‘CPSIA’’) was enacted on 

August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the 

CPSIA requires the Commission 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 document the 

Commission proposes a safety standard 

for bassinets and cradles. The proposed 

standard is more stringent in some 

respects than the voluntary standard 

developed by ASTM International 

(formerly the American Society for 

Testing and Materials), ASTM F 2194– 

07a ε1, ‘‘Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Bassinets and Cradles.’’ 

The proposed modifications, if 

finalized, will further reduce the risk of 

injury associated with bassinets and 

cradles. 

B. The Product 

A bassinet or cradle is a small bed for 

infants supported by free-standing legs, 

a wheeled base, a rocking base, or that 

can swing relative to a stationary base. 

A bassinet or cradle is not intended to 

be used with children who are beyond 

the age of approximately 5 months. 

Bassinet and cradle attachments for 

non-full-size cribs or play yards are 

considered a part of this product 

category, as are bedside sleeper 

bassinets that can be converted to a 

four-sided bassinet not attached to a 

bed. 

Full-size cribs and infant swings are 

not included under the definition of 

bassinet or cradle. Products used in 

conjunction with infant swings or 

strollers or Moses baskets (handcarrying baskets) are not included under 

the definition of bassinet or cradle. 

However, a Moses basket or a similar 

product used with infant swings or 

strollers that can attach to a separate 

base which can convert it to a bassinet 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28AP10.006</GPH>
22304 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

or cradle is considered a bassinet or 

cradle. 

While the current ASTM F 2194– 

07a ε1 standard does not explicitly state 

that infant hammocks are within the 

scope of the standard, the Juvenile 

Products Manufacturers Association, 

(JPMA), historically has certified infant 

hammocks under the bassinet/cradle 

standard. Two firms have hammocks 

certified by JPMA to the ASTM F 

2194—07a ε1 standard. 

By nature of their design, most 

hammocks do not have a rigid sleep 

surface. The Commission believes that 

many of the current designs it has been 

studying result in uneven suspension of 

the product, which can cause the 

hammock to tip to one side, trapping the 

baby in a face down position and 

increasing the risk of positional 

asphyxia or suffocation. Because of this 

hazard pattern, CPSC recently recalled 

an infant hammock. Since the sleeping 

environment of most hammocks differs 

from that of bassinets and cradles, the 

Commission believes a separate 

standard for hammocks may be 

necessary. Most hammocks have 

mattresses that are flexible and conform 

to the body contours of the infant, 

whereas bassinets and cradles have flat 

mattresses with solid or fabric sides. In 

a November 17, 2009 CPSC/ASTM 

teleconference, ASTM agreed to form a 

subcommittee to develop requirements 

for a new hammock standard. Until a 

separate standard for hammocks is 

developed, the Commission believes it 

is prudent to include hammocks under 

the proposed rule for bassinets and 

cradles as an interim measure because 

the proposed rule addresses the hazard 

pattern which causes the infant to roll/ 

press up against the side or corner of the 

product, posing a risk of positional 

asphyxia or suffocation. The 

Commission is aware that, by their 

nature, most infant hammocks will 

likely be unable to meet the proposed 

performance criteria of a 5° rest angle, 

5° flatness angle, and a 20° maximum 

rock/swing angle in this proposed 

standard, and will thus be effectively 

banned. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether such action is 

necessary given the risk of positional 

asphyxia the rule attempts to address. 

The Commission may remove 

hammocks from the scope of a 

bassinets/cradles standard in the future, 

should ASTM develop an effective 

voluntary standard for hammocks. The 

Commission seeks information 

regarding proposals for an infant 

hammock standard. 

Applying American Baby Group 

survey data from 2005 to the most 

recent U.S. birth data from the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC) yields annual estimates of about 

1.4 million bassinets, 333,000 cradles, 

596,000 portable play yards with 

bassinet attachments, and 749,000 fullsize play yards with bassinet 

attachments. (The data collected for the 

Baby Products Tracking Study does not 

represent an unbiased statistical 

sample.) This yields a total of 

approximately 3.1 million units sold per 

year. 

C. ASTM Voluntary Standard 

ASTM first approved and published 

the voluntary standard for bassinets and 

cradles in 2002 as ASTM F 2194, 

Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Bassinets and Cradles. 

ASTM has revised the standard a 

number of times since 2002, with the 

current version, ASTM F 2194–07a ε1, 

published in November 2007. ASTM F 

2194–07 ε1 contains requirements to 

address the following: 

• Lead in paint; 

• Hazardous sharp edges or points; 

• Small parts; 

• Wood parts; 

• Scissoring, shearing, pinching; 

• Unintentional folding; 

• Openings; 

• Labeling; 

• Fasteners; 

• Corner posts; 

• Toy accessories; 

• Bassinet/cradle attachments to play 

yards/non-full sized cribs; 

• Spacing of rigid sided bassinet/ 

cradle components; 

• Openings for mesh/fabric-sided 

bassinet/cradle; 

• Static load; 

• Stability; 

• Sleeping pad properties; and 

• Protective components. 

JPMA operates a certification program 

to certify bassinets and cradles to the 

voluntary standard. To obtain JPMA 

certification, manufacturers submit their 

products to an independent test 

laboratory for conformance testing to the 

most current voluntary standard. 

Currently, bassinets or cradles supplied 

by eight small manufacturers and four 

small importers are JPMA certified to 

ASTM F 2194–07a ε1. 

D. Incident Data 

1. Categories of Incidents 

The CPSC Directorate for 

Epidemiology reports that there have 

been 209 incidents related to bassinets 

and cradles since 2006, of which there 

were 61 fatalities, 38 non-fatal injuries, 

and 110 non-injury incidents. The 

incidents were grouped into five 

categories: (a) Product-related issues, in 

which sufficient information was 

available to describe the product failure 

modes or defects; (b) non-productrelated issues; (c) unknown issues 

(incidents that lacked specificity), (d) 

recalled product-related issues; and (e) 

miscellaneous other issues. 

a. Product-Related Issues. Eightyseven of the 209 incidents, or 

approximately 42%, involved hardware 

failures or design issues related to the 

product. The reported problems are 

listed below, beginning with the most 

frequently reported problems: 

• Inadequate structural integrity, 

which included unstable bassinets or 

cradles, loose hardware, collapse of the 

product, loose wheels, etc.; 

• Locking or tilting issues with the 

bassinets or cradles, which cause the 

infant to roll or press up against the side 

or corner of the product, posing a 

suffocation hazard; 

• Problems with mattress flatness, 

such as mattresses that would not 

remain horizontal because of metal rods 

or other structures designed to be 

positioned underneath the mattress, 

lack of rigid mattress support, and 

failure of straps or hooks designed to 

hold bassinets inside play yards. One 

death was associated with a mattress 

flatness issue; and 

• Problems with battery-powered 

bassinet mobiles which had components 

that overheated, smoked, or sparked. 

b. Non-Product-Related Issues. Sixty 

of the 209 incident reports, or 29%, 

were of deaths or injuries that could not 

be attributed to a product defect or 

failure. Fifty-seven of the 60 incidents 

were deaths where a determination of 

causation or association was 

complicated by the inappropriate use of 

pillows, blankets, or mattresses. 

c. Unknown Issues. Twenty-six of the 

incidents, or 12%, had little or no 

information. Twenty-five of these 

reported a fall of the infant out of the 

bassinet or cradle. 

d. Recalled Product-Related Issues. 

There were 19 reports (9%) that 

involved recalled products. Among 

them were seven entrapments (three 

deaths, two non-fatal injuries, and two 

non-injury incidents) between the metal 

rods of the bassinet. The remaining 12 

reports were complaints or inquiries 

from consumers regarding a recalled 

product. 

e. Miscellaneous Other Issues. The 

remaining 17 incident reports involved 

a host of miscellaneous problems, 

including a tear in the bassinet fabric, 

odors, and product assembly or quality 

issues. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22305 

2. Deaths and Injuries 

All 61 fatalities reported to CPSC staff 

were asphyxiation deaths. The majority 

of deaths (57 out of 61) were 

asphyxiations where the incident report 

noted the presence of soft or extra 

bedding in the bassinet, prone 

placement of the infant, or the infant 

getting wedged between the side of the 

bassinet and mattress or bedding. Soft or 

extra bedding and the prone placement 

of an infant are associated with infant 

mortality from asphyxiation, 

independent of any design hazard. A 

few were reported as asphyxiation 

deaths, with no further information 

available. Only four of these deaths 

were determined to have resulted from 

design flaws of the product. Three of the 

four deaths were due to entrapment of 

the infant between the metal bars of a 

particular brand of bassinet. Of those 

three deaths, two of the three infants 

were six months old and should not 

have been using the bassinet or cradle 

because by definition they are only for 

use up to five months. The fourth death 

resulted from an infant suffocating in 

the corner of the bassinet when he 

rolled into that position due to the 

unlevel mattress pad. 

Thirty-eight incidents reported an 

injury to an infant. Twenty-three out of 

the 38 incidents, or 61%, were 

identified as falls out of the bassinets. 

Serious injuries included a skull 

fracture resulting from an infant falling 

out of the bassinet due to non-level 

mattress issues, an arm fracture 

resulting from a fall due to problems 

with a bassinet’s rocking feature, and a 

second-degree burn resulting from the 

bassinet’s overheated mobile. The 

remaining injuries were mostly limited 

to contusions and abrasions. 

3. Hammock Incidents 

The Commission is aware of three 

fatalities, six non-fatal injuries, and five 

non-injury incidents related to infant 

hammocks that were reported to have 

occurred since 2006. All three fatalities 

reported to CPSC were asphyxiation 

deaths. One five-month old infant was 

found rolled into a corner in a prone 

position with the bed in an inclined 

position. A four-month old infant was 

found with her face flat against the foam 

mattress. In the third case, the medical 

examiner reporting the fatality 

expressed concern about the safety of 

the hammock as a sleeping 

environment. However, the death of the 

six-month old infant, who was found in 

a prone position, was officially ruled to 

be asphyxiation due to respiratory 

infection. 

All six non-fatal injuries were 

reported through the National Electronic 

Injury Surveillance System (‘‘NEISS’’). 

Five of the injuries were reported to 

have been falls out of hammocks, while 

the sixth injury was sustained when a 

broken component of the hammock 

struck the infant. Little or no 

circumstantial information is available 

on how the falls occurred, except that 

three of the six infants were eight 

months or older. 

Two of the five non-injury reports 

involved infants (a seven-month old and 

a 12-month old) in near-strangulation 

incidents where the hammock flipped 

over with the infants dangling from 

restraints. The remaining three reports 

involved near-suffocation incidents 

where the infant rolled into a position 

from which it was unable to move or 

free itself. All three infants were under 

five months of age. 

E. Assessment of Voluntary Standard 

ASTM F 2194–07a ε1 and Description of 

Proposed Changes and the Proposed 

Rule 

1. Assessment of Voluntary Standard 

ASTM F 2194–07a ε1

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. This 

consultation process began in October 

2009 during the ASTM International 

subcommittee meeting regarding the 

ASTM bassinet and cradle voluntary 

standard. Consultations with members 

of this subcommittee are still ongoing. 

ASTM F 2194–07a ε1 contains several 

labeling and performance criteria. The 

standard addresses many of the same 

hazards associated with other durable 

nursery products and includes 

requirements for tip stability, 

unintentional folding of the product, 

lead in paints, sharp edges/sharp points, 

small parts, wood part splinters, 

scissoring/shearing/pinching, openings/ 

entrapments, warning labels, and toys 

(which includes battery-powered 

mobiles). The Commission believes that 

updates and modifications in certain 

areas also may address the hazards 

described in the incident data, such as 

suffocation due to mattress tilting, 

placing of inappropriate bedding 

materials (e.g., pillows, additional 

blankets, etc.), and entrapment in the 

frame structure. While overheating of 

battery-powered mobiles was identified 

in the incidents, those incidents were 

isolated to one company. 

2. Proposed Changes to the ASTM 

Standard’s Requirements 

Consistent with section 104(b) of the 

CPSIA, the Commission, through this 

proposed rule, would establish a new 16 

CFR part 1218, ‘‘Safety Standard for 

Bassinets and Cradles.’’ The new part 

would incorporate by reference the 

requirements for bassinets and cradles 

in ASTM F 2194–07a ε1 with certain 

changes to specific provisions and 

additions to the standard, as discussed 

below. The proposed modifications and 

additions to the standard will further 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

bassinets and cradles. Therefore, the 

proposed rule would adopt ASTM F 

2194–07a ε1 as the mandatory safety 

standard for bassinets and cradles with 

the following additions and 

modifications: 

• Specify in the scope that the 

standard is a performance specification 

for bassinets and cradles and that the 

intended use is for infants who are not 

able to push up on their hands and 

knees; 

• Add terminology that defines what 

constitutes a bassinet or cradle; 

• Add a performance requirement 

and test procedure for maximum 

allowable rocking angle, maximum 

allowable rest angle of the sleep surface, 

and maximum allowable flatness angle; 

• Add a performance requirement 

and test procedure for fabric-sided 

bassinets and cradles; 

• Add a performance requirement 

and test procedure for locking 

mechanisms intended to prevent 

rocking or swinging cradles from 

rocking or swinging the mattress bed; 

• Add updated warnings to address 

proper use of bedding materials by 

providing more emphasis and 

prominence to the warnings; and 

• Exclude strap restraints in bassinets 

and cradles. 

Following is a more detailed 

discussion of these additions and 

modifications. To best understand the 

proposed standard, it is helpful to view 

the current ASTM F 2194–07a ε1

standard for bassinets and cradles and 

the Commission’s proposed 

modifications along with the 

explanations provided in section E.2 of 

the preamble. The ASTM standard is 

available for viewing for this purpose 

during the comment period through this 

link: http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. 

a. Scope (Proposed § 1218.2(b)(1)(i)) 

Bassinets and cradles should only be 

used in the early stages of an infant’s 

development. Once an infant can push 

up by him/herself, a number of hazards 

are created, most notably falling 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
22306 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

hazards. Thus, the proposed rule would 

add objective criteria of an infant 

capable of pushing up on hands and 

knees to the scope of the standard to 

clarify which products would be 

considered bassinets or cradles. The 

proposed rule also would clarify that 

the bassinet or cradle should be used 

only for infants up to approximately five 

months of age. 

b. Newborn Infant CAMI Dummy 

(Proposed § 1218.2(b)(2)(i)) 

Because the proposed standard would 

require testing with a 7 pound Newborn 

CAMI Dummy in the Rock/Swing Angle 

test and the Bassinet/Cradle Flatness 

Angle test, proposed § 1218.2(b)(2) 

would provide this reference and a 

photograph. 

c. Definition of Bassinet/Cradle 

(Proposed § 1218.2(b)(3)(i)) 

Proposed § 1218.2(b)(3)(i) would 

improve the definition of bassinet/ 

cradle by identifying the products that 

are excluded from the standard. The 

updated definition would clarify that 

full-size and non-full size cribs are not 

covered. Also, because a bassinet or 

cradle is defined as a product that must 

be supported by a base, hand-carrying 

baskets would not be covered. 

d. Bassinet/Cradle Accessory (Proposed 

§ 1218.2(b)(4)(i)) 

The proposal would update the 

definition of a bassinet/cradle accessory 

to avoid confusion with accessories that 

can attach to products that are not 

intended exclusively for sleep, such as 

strollers. 

e. Double Action Release Mechanism 

(Proposed § 1218.2(b)(5)(i)) 

Section 5.6.3 of ASTM F 2194–07a–ε1 

requires that products with a ‘‘double 

action release mechanism’’ latching or 

locking device require two distinct and 

separate actions for release of the 

mechanism. The voluntary standard 

does not define ‘‘double action release 

mechanism.’’ The Commission has 

observed various multi-use products 

that can convert from a rocking bassinet 

to a stationary one. During this 

conversion, there are dual-action 

locking mechanisms that require 

rotating pop-out casters and then 

engaging a ‘‘tab’’-lock to prevent the 

casters from rolling. Despite 

appearances, such dual-action locking 

mechanisms are not double action 

release mechanisms. To avoid confusion 

in what constitutes a double action 

release mechanism and to ensure that 

the locking mechanism works as 

intended in resisting collapse and/or 

movement, the Commission is 

proposing to adopt the same definition 

as used in the voluntary ASTM high 

chair standard F 404–08. Specifically, 

the proposed rule would define a 

double action release mechanism as a 

‘‘mechanism requiring either two 

consecutive actions, the first of which 

must be maintained while the second is 

carried out or two separate and 

independent single action locking 

mechanisms that must be activated 

simultaneously to fully release.’’ 

f. Removable Cover (Proposed 

§ 1218.2(b)(5)(ii)) 

Because the term removable cover is 

referenced in the test procedure for 

evaluating possible scenarios of 

entrapment hazards from bounded areas 

of fabric and rigid sides of a bassinet or 

cradle in proposed § 1218.2(b)(11)(iii), 

the proposed rule would add a 

definition of ‘‘removable cover’’ to the 

standard. 

g. Maximum Deflection Angle and Rest 

Angle (Proposed § 1218.2(b)(5)(iii), 

1218.2(b)(5)(iv), 1218.2(b)(10), and 

1218.2(b)(11)) 

When a bassinet or cradle is not in a 

swinging or rocking mode, it needs to be 

level to facilitate a safe sleeping 

environment for infants. There was one 

death and several close calls associated 

with non-level bassinets/cradles. 

According to an in-depth investigation 

(IDI) report, a two month old male died 

in a bassinet portion of a play yard. The 

infant rolled, causing his face to be 

placed in the corner of the bassinet. One 

side was approximately five inches 

higher than the other. The metal poles 

upon which the bassinet was seated 

were too short to keep the sleep surface 

level. In one non-fatal incident, a 

mother found her two-week old male 

infant with his face against the mattress, 

covering his nose and mouth after he 

had slid down the side of the mattress. 

The product involved was a play yardswinging bassinet combination. The IDI 

report states that the locking mechanism 

to prevent the swinging motion 

disengaged when the mother placed her 

son in the product. The infant was not 

injured, and the mother returned the 

product to the store. In another non-fatal 

incident, a mother found her fivemonth-old daughter in a bassinet-play 

yard combination asleep up against the 

back side of the bassinet portion. The 

infant was not injured when the strap 

holding the bassinet insert to the side of 

her play yard ripped, causing the 

bassinet to tip sideways. The 

photographs from the IDI report showed 

the bassinet sleep surface at a 

substantial angle when the strap failure 

occurred. The infant could have been 

trapped between the bassinet and side 

of the play yard. 

To ensure a level sleeping 

environment for infants, the proposal 

would establish a performance 

requirement and test method for the 

maximum allowable rock/swing angle 

and maximum allowable rest angle of 

the bassinet/cradle. CPSC staff worked 

with ASTM to develop these 

performance requirements and test 

procedures to reduce potential 

suffocations and entrapments. The 20ß 

maximum rock/swing angle 

recommendation is based on the 

Canadian regulation for cribs and 

cradles (SOR 86–962, available in its 

entirety at http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/ 

laws/regu/sor-86-962/latest/sor-86- 

962.html), as well as on observations 

and measurements made by the 

Commission on recent model bassinets 

and cradles. The Canadian crib and 

cradle regulation is a widely accepted 

standard. The Commission believes the 

20° limit included in the Canadian 

regulation allows sufficient rocking/ 

swinging motion while maintaining 

safety. The 5° recommendation for the 

mattress rest angle is based on 

conclusions from the Australian study, 

‘‘The Danger of Freely Rocking Cradles,’’ 

by S.M. Beal et al., Journal of Pediatric 

Child Health (1995) and the 

performance requirements from AS/NZS 

4385:1996 the Australian/New Zealand 

standard for infant’s rocking cradles. 

The conclusions from the Australian 

study suggest that a maximum 5° rest 

angle from rocking cradles could 

minimize the risk of an infant rolling 

and getting trapped in a corner or other 

entrapment/asphyxiation scenario. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

Australian study and any other 

literature that may be relevant to the 

recommendation on the mattress rest 

angle. 

The test method for the maximum 

allowable rock/swing angle and rest 

angle performance requirements, the 

‘‘Rock/Swing Angle test,’’ is found in 

proposed § 1218.2(b)(11)(i). The test 

method is based on the procedure 

developed by the Task Group of the 

ASTM subcommittee for bassinets and 

cradles, with specific changes proposed 

by the Commission. CPSC test data have 

shown that some products have better 

angle measurement results (i.e., a less 

steep angle) with the Newborn CAMI 

Dummy, and others get better results 

with the CAMI Dummy, Mark II. Thus, 

the proposal would require that the 

testing be done with the Newborn Infant 

CAMI Dummy, in addition to the CAMI 

Dummy, Mark II. Test data also showed 

that the placement of the dummy in the 

sleep surface can affect the results. For 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22307 

example, placing the dummy next to the 

wall in a rocking cradle may produce an 

angle that is more severe compared to 

placing the dummy in the center. 

Therefore, the proposed procedures 

would describe how the dummy should 

be placed in the sleep surface. The 

proposed rule would also provide 

specific angle measurement procedures. 

Finally, because some products can 

swing along the head-to-toe axis, the 

proposed rule would require such 

products to be tested in that direction as 

well. 

h. Flatness Angle (Proposed 

§ 1218.2(b)(5)(v), 1218.2(b)(10)(ii), and 

1218.2(b)(11)(ii) 

Incidents involving bassinet/play yard 

combinations suggest that a sloped 

surface or a mattress with multiple 

seams (mattresses that double as a play 

yard cover) may have the potential for 

an asphyxia suffocation hazard, as an 

infant’s head may become entrapped 

between the sloped mattress and 

bassinet wall surface. Proposed 

§ 1218.2(b)(10)(ii) would require that the 

angle of the bassinet or cradle sleeping 

support surface not be greater than 5° 

when tested in accordance with the test 

procedures in proposed 

§ 1218.2(b)(11)(ii). This is to ensure that 

the mattress does not deform and create 

a depression, sloped surface, or an 

appreciable gap between a bassinet wall 

surface and the mattress. 

Proposed § 1218.2(b)(11)(ii) includes 

testing with the CAMI Infant Dummy, 

Mark II and the Newborn CAMI 

Dummy. The test is intended to ensure 

that the sleep surface of the bassinet or 

cradle is flat and will not tilt when 

either CAMI dummy is placed in a 

corner or edge of the sleeping surface. 

A dynamic test, which is a force applied 

over a relatively short period of time, is 

needed because it will simulate children 

turning themselves over in the mattress 

bed area, particularly in a bassinet/play 

yard combination product with multiple 

segmented seams. 

i. Testing equipment (Proposed 

§ 1218.2(b)(6)) 

In the standardization and calibration 

section, proposed § 1218.2(b)(6) would 

specify the type of angle instrument and 

its measurement resolution to minimize 

angle measurement variability. Also, 

proposed § 1218.2(b)(6) would specify 

the tolerance and calibration interval for 

the force gauge required on several 

performance tests to minimize force 

measurement variability. 

j. Restraints (Proposed § 1218.2(b)(7)(i)) 

Infants lying on a flat surface do not 

need restraints and the use of restraints 

could contribute to a possible 

strangulation hazard. Therefore, 

proposed § 1218.2(b)(7)(i) would add 

language to the standard to clarify that 

bassinets should not include any 

restraint system that requires action on 

the part of the caregiver to secure the 

restraint. 

k. Spacing of Rigid and Fabric-Sided 

Bassinet/Cradle Components (Proposed 

§ 1218.2(b)(8), 1218.2(b)(10)(iii) and 

1218.2(b)(11)(iii)) 

Seven incidents (among them three 

deaths) involved recalled products 

where infants were trapped between 

structural members of the bassinet. 

Bassinets and cradles with fabric sides 

can present similar entrapment hazards 

from bounded areas of fabric and rigid 

sides of a bassinet or cradle. ASTM F 

2194—07a ε1 contains performance 

requirements and test methods for the 

spacing of rigid sided bassinet and 

cradle components, intended to 

minimize torso and/or head 

entrapments. Because similar hazards 

are presented by fabric-sided bassinets 

and cradles, the proposed rule would 

include performance requirements and 

test methods for fabric-sided bassinets 

and cradles as well. For some types of 

bassinets or cradles with fabric 

removable covers, it is foreseeable that 

a parent or caregiver will place fabric 

back loosely onto a bassinet or cradle 

after washing and forget to fasten the 

snaps, zippers, or other fasteners. If the 

fabric should slip and separate from the 

structural members of the bassinet/ 

cradle wall, an infant’s torso may 

become entrapped between two 

structural members of a bassinet/cradle. 

Also, it is possible that an infant can 

suffocate if he or she is trapped in a 

bounded area between structural 

members and fabric. Thus, the proposed 

rule would require testing in this 

configuration, i.e., where the fabric 

cover is placed loosely on the bassinet 

or cradle but is unfastened, as well. 

The test method for this performance 

requirement is found in proposed 

§ 1218.2(b)(11)(iii). Proposed 

§ 1218.2(b)(11)(iii) would require that 

fabric-sided bassinets or cradles comply 

with the crib spacing requirements in 16 

CFR Part 1509.4 when subjected to the 

20 pound (lb) probe test. The fabric 

must not fully release and form a 

completely bounded opening which 

would allow complete passage of the 

torso test probe. The bassinets and 

cradles must comply both when the 

fabric cover is fastened and when it is 

unfastened. The Commission believes it 

is reasonable to use the crib spacing 

requirements in 16 CFR Part 1509.4, 

given that infants of similar ages are 

utilizing bassinets or cradles and cribs. 

While the ASTM committee initially 

proposed a 35 lb force for the probe test, 

the Commission believes that 20 lbs 

appears to be consistent with the crib 

standard (16 CFR Part 1509.6) and is 

more realistic for infants in the age 

range of less than five months. ASTM 

subcommittee for bassinets and cradles, 

with CPSC staff’s input, developed the 

proposed test procedures. 

k. Stability (Proposed § 1218.2(b)(9)(i)) 

Because at least three of the 87 

product-related incidents involved a 

locking mechanism failure or 

malfunction, proposed rule 

§ 1218.2(b)(9)(i) would include test 

scenarios where the bassinet or cradle is 

tested with the locking mechanism(s) 

engaged if it is equipped with a locking 

mechanism to prevent swinging or 

rocking. This requirement would ensure 

the stability of the product in modes 

where the locks are engaged to prevent 

swinging or rocking. 

l. Marking and Labeling Section 

(Proposed §§ 1218.2(b)(12) Through 

(b)(14)) 

Because many deaths and non-fatal 

incidents involve suffocation due to 

caregivers and parents using bedding 

materials (such as pillows and blankets) 

that are not specified by the 

manufacturer, and because these 

incidents cannot be addressed by the 

design of the bassinet or cradle, it is 

imperative to improve the warning 

labels regarding padding and soft 

bedding in the standard. Consequently, 

proposed §§ 1218.2(b)(12) through (14) 

would require certain warning 

statements or labeling information 

regarding a suffocation hazard. 

F. Request for Comments 

This proposed rule begins a 

rulemaking proceeding under section 

104(b) of the CPSIA to issue a consumer 

product safety standard for bassinets 

and cradles. We invite all interested 

persons to submit comments on any 

aspect of the proposed rule. Comments 

should be submitted in accordance with 

the instructions in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice. 

G. 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). To allow time for 

bassinets and cradles to come into 

compliance, the Commission intends 

that the standard would become 

effective six months after publication of 

a final rule. The Commission seeks 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
22308 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

comment on how long it would take 

manufacturers of bassinets and cradles 

to come into compliance with the rule. 

H. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’) generally requires that agencies 

review proposed rules for their potential 

economic impact on small entities, 

including small businesses. 5 U.S.C. 

603. 

1. The Market 

Bassinets and cradles are typically 

produced and/or marketed by juvenile 

product manufacturers and distributors. 

There are currently at least 48 known 

manufacturers or importers supplying 

bassinets and/or cradles to the United 

States market. (These counts also 

include firms solely producing 

hammocks for infants as well. However, 

under the standard proposed by the 

Commission, most hammock products 

will no longer be able to conform. 

ASTM has started working on a new 

standard to cover these products.) Nine 

firms (19 percent) are domestic 

importers, 28 firms (58 percent) are 

domestic manufacturers, and 10 firms 

(21 percent) are foreign manufacturers. 

There is an additional domestic firm 

whose status as a manufacturer or 

importer could not be determined. 

Thirteen firms, including the firm 

whose means of supply could not be 

determined, supply infant hammocks to 

the United States market. (There is an 

additional hammock on the United 

States market whose supplier could not 

be determined, as well as a small cottage 

industry in knitted and crocheted infant 

hammocks.) The product lines for seven 

of these firms rely primarily or entirely 

on infant hammocks and related 

merchandise. (These determinations 

were made using information from Dun 

& Bradstreet and ReferenceUSAGov, as 

well as firm Web sites. Manufacturers 

include traditional manufacturers, as 

well as firms that send out their designs 

to be manufactured, and firms that 

import as well but are primarily 

manufacturers.) 

Under Small Business Administration 

(SBA) guidelines, a manufacturer of 

bassinets or cradles 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, 

22 of the domestic manufacturers and 

five of the domestic importers known to 

be supplying the United States market 

are small. The sizes of the four 

remaining domestic importers and two 

additional domestic manufacturers are 

unknown, but they are likely to be small 

as well, as is the firm whose supply 

source could not be determined. All of 

the firms supplying infant hammocks to 

the United States market are believed to 

be small. Two of these small firms are 

domestic manufacturers, four are 

domestic importers, six are foreign 

firms, and one is an unknown domestic 

firm. There are probably additional 

unknown small manufacturers and 

importers operating in the United States 

market. 

JPMA, the major United States trade 

association that represents juvenile 

product manufacturers and importers, 

operates a voluntary certification 

program for several juvenile products. 

Products voluntarily submitted by 

manufacturers are tested against the 

appropriate ASTM standard and only 

passing products are allowed to display 

JPMA’s Certification Seal. (See http:// 

www.jpma.org/pdfs/certfacts08.pdf for 

more information.) Approximately 33 

percent of firms supply bassinets/ 

cradles to the United States market that 

have been JPMA certified as compliant 

with the current ASTM voluntary 

standard (16 firms). Two of these firms 

supply more than one relevant product 

category, where one category of 

products is JPMA certified and another 

is not. (For example, one firm has JPMA 

certified bassinets, but its play yards are 

not JPMA certified.) Additionally, one 

firm claims compliance although its 

products have not been certified by 

JPMA, and one firm has recently had its 

product removed from JPMA’s list of 

certified products. Of the small 

domestic businesses (this includes firms 

suspected of being small as well those 

known to be small), 38 percent of 

manufacturers (nine of 24 firms) and 44 

percent of importers (four of nine firms) 

have products that are ASTM 

compliant. This includes the small 

manufacturer that claims compliance 

with the ASTM standard, but is not part 

of the JPMA Certification Program, as 

well as the firms with only some 

product categories JPMA certified. (It 

should be noted that non-JPMA certified 

products will not necessarily fail to 

comply with the ASTM standard. 

Although there is currently no testing to 

support such an assumption for 

bassinets and cradles, testing of other 

products has revealed a pattern of noncorrelation.) 

2. Compliance Requirements of the 

Proposed Rule 

Several of the recommended 

modifications and new requirements to 

the standard would be little to no 

burden on manufacturers or importers. 

The developmental limit modification 

(limiting the product use to when a 

child is able to push up on hands or 

knees), as well as the changes to 

suffocation warnings, would only 

require changes to instructional 

literature and packaging. The 

clarifications to what is included and 

excluded from the definition of the 

product would effectively eliminate 

some products from the scope of the 

proposed standard. This would exclude 

some firms from compliance 

requirements entirely, while reducing 

the number of products for others. As 

discussed herein, however, the 

inclusion of infant hammocks will have 

a substantial effect on many of these 

suppliers. The possible need to 

eliminate product restraints would only 

affect a few firms and the impact would 

be minimal. (It is possible that the lack 

of restraints could reduce product 

desirability from the consumer’s 

perspective. However, this effect would 

be felt equally across all firms and is not 

expected to cause a significant 

reduction in demand for these products 

as a whole. The Commission believes 

that restraints are unnecessary for 

infants who are lying on a flat surface 

and could pose a strangulation hazard.) 

Double action release mechanisms are 

typically used with multi-use products 

to convert a rocking bassinet to a 

stationary one. The expansion of locking 

and latching mechanism tests to cover 

double action release mechanisms, as 

well as the addition of stability testing 

with these locks engaged, are intended 

to resist collapsing or movement. There 

have been several cases where locking 

mechanisms have failed which caused 

the infant to roll and press up against 

the side or corner of the product, posing 

a suffocation hazard. (See Memorandum 

from Risana Chowdhury, EPI, 

Directorate for Epidemiology, dated 

February 3, 2010, Subject: Bassinets, 

Cradles, and Infant Hammocks-Related 

Deaths, Injuries and Potential Injuries; 

2006–Present. It should be noted that it 

is unclear how many of these lock 

failures were double action release 

mechanisms.) This modification is not 

expected to pose a substantial burden 

on firms. However, it is possible that a 

few firms might have to make product 

modifications to comply. This would 

most likely take the form of improved 

locking/latching mechanisms. 

Expanding spacing requirements to 

openings in soft-sided products could 

have a substantial effect on a small 

number of firms. Where products cannot 

pass the new requirements, substantial 

modifications and product 

redevelopment are likely. However, the 

Commission believes that the severity of 

the incidents involving these types of 

products and the recalls that resulted 

strongly support adding this 

requirement to the proposed standard. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22309 

There are currently no maximum 

requirements for rocking or rest angles 

on products intended to rock or swing. 

Tilting issues have resulted in 

suffocation hazards similar to those of 

locking mechanism failures. It is 

believed that adding maximum angle 

requirements to the proposed standard 

could reduce future incidents, while 

affecting only a small number of firms. 

The fact that these requirements are 

already a part of non-United States 

safety standards indicates that 

compliance has not proven difficult. 

However, it is possible that a few firms 

might require product modifications to 

achieve compliance with these new 

requirements. 

The maximum sleep surface angle 

requirement and test is primarily aimed 

at incidents involving bassinet/play 

yard combination products. These 

incidents suggest that products with 

sloped surfaces or mattresses with 

multiple seams could pose a suffocation 

hazard. (See Memorandum from Han 

Lim, ESME, Directorate for Engineering 

Sciences, dated February 16, 2010, 

Subject: Engineering Assessment of 

ASTM F 2194–07 a ε1, Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for 

Bassinets and Cradles; see also 

Memorandum from Risana Chowdhury, 

EPI, Directorate for Epidemiology, dated 

February 3, 2010, Subject: Bassinets, 

Cradles and Infant Hammocks-Related 

Deaths, Injuries and Potential Injuries; 

2006–Present.) There are numerous 

such combination products on the 

market, but only a few known suppliers; 

therefore, this requirement could 

require product modifications (and 

possibly product redesign) by a few 

firms. 

The rock/rest angles and sleep surface 

angles are likely to disproportionately 

affect most of the thirteen infant 

hammock suppliers. Infant hammocks 

typically hang from a standing base and 

rock naturally. Most have sleep surfaces 

that curve, molding to an infant’s body. 

However, two infant hammock 

suppliers have flat sleep surfaces. These 

two firms are not expected to require 

further modifications to comply with 

the recommended sleep surface angle 

requirement, and it is likely that they 

will be able to meet the rock/rest angle 

requirements inexpensively, with 

known fixes running no more than $5 

per unit. For example, they could add 

a clipping mechanism that has been 

recently developed to limit the swing 

angle for hammocks involved in product 

recalls. Alternatively, they may be able 

to change the number and placement of 

the ties from which the hammock hangs. 

For the remaining eleven firms 

supplying infant hammocks, even 

though it would be possible to 

inexpensively modify their products to 

meet both the rock/rest angle and sleep 

surface angle requirements, such 

modifications would change their 

products too extensively to remain in 

the market. A niche market exists 

among parents with colicky babies for 

hammocks that curve around babies’ 

bodies and rock naturally. The 

suppliers, both manufacturers and 

importers, are unlikely to make even 

inexpensive modifications to meet the 

requirements as proposed. Any known 

fix would eliminate their niche market, 

thereby eliminating demand for their 

products, and may drive them out of 

business. 

3. Impact of the Proposal on Small 

Business 

There are approximately 48 firms 

currently known to be marketing 

bassinets, cradles, and/or infant 

hammocks in the United States. Four 

are large domestic manufacturers and 

ten are foreign manufacturers or 

importers. The impact on the remaining 

34 small firms—24 small domestic 

manufacturers and 9 small domestic 

importers (one of these firms produces 

only hammocks, while another 

produces both hammocks and 

bassinets)—is the focus of the remainder 

of this analysis. Of these small firms, 

two domestic manufacturers and four 

domestic importers (as well as the 

unknown domestic firm) supply infant 

hammocks. 

Small Manufacturers (Other than 

Infant Hammock Manufacturers). The 

impact of the proposed standard (if 

finalized) on small manufacturers will 

differ based on whether they are 

currently compliant with the voluntary 

ASTM standard. For the 15 firms that 

are not complaint with the current 

voluntary standard, the proposed 

standard could have substantial impact 

because their products would most 

likely have to be redesigned. Product 

development costs include product 

design, development and marketing staff 

time, product testing, and focus group 

expenses. These costs can be high, but 

they can be treated as new product 

expenses and amortized over time, as 

can other one-time costs such as the 

retooling of manufacturing equipment. 

There also may be increased costs of 

production, particularly if modifications 

to structural integrity are required, 

which could include additional raw 

materials. This could potentially 

increase shipping costs as well. The 

actual cost of such an effort is unknown, 

but could be substantial for some firms, 

particularly those that rely primarily or 

entirely on bassinets/cradles and related 

products, such as bedding. 

The impact on most of the nine firms 

that comply with the current voluntary 

standard is expected to be less 

substantial. The majority of 

modifications recommended by the 

Commission are expected to have only 

minor effects on small manufacturers. 

There are, however, three recommended 

changes (rocking/rest angles, sleep 

surface angle, and spacing requirements 

for soft-sided products) that could 

require product modifications. While 

these requirements may affect only a 

few firms, they may require product 

redevelopment, which has the potential 

to impose unknown but substantial, 

costs. The Commission seeks comment 

on the cost associated with these 

product modifications. 

Even though the proposed standard 

could potentially affect a few small 

firms significantly, the costs associated 

with compliance could be gradually 

recouped over the sales of numerous 

units. Bassinets and cradles are unique 

products designed to provide a sleeping 

environment for very young children 

that is smaller and more like the womb. 

Therefore, other sleeping products are 

unlikely to be suitable substitutes for 

these products, allowing firms to pass at 

least some costs on to consumers and to 

still compete effectively. (There is also 

the possibility, however, that some 

consumers may instead use unsuitable 

sleeping environments, such as 

bouncers, as substitutes.) 

The scenario just described assumes 

that only those firms that are JPMAcertified or claim ASTM compliance 

will meet the voluntary standard’s 

requirements. This is not necessarily the 

case. CPSC has identified many cases 

where products not certified by JPMA 

do comply with the relevant ASTM 

standard; however, there is insufficient 

evidence of this for bassinets/cradles to 

quantify this impact. Additionally, the 

effect of the new and modified 

requirements may be less substantial 

than just outlined to the extent that 

some products may already comply 

with non-United States standards with 

some more rigorous requirements. For 

example, a product that complies with 

the Australian standard would pass the 

proposed rock angle requirement. 

However, there is insufficient 

information to quantify this effect. 

Small Importers (Other than Infant 

Hammock Importers). Four of the nine 

small importers are compliant with the 

current voluntary standard. Two of 

these compliant importers supply infant 

hammocks exclusively. Of the 

remaining five non-compliant 

importers, two supply infant hammocks 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
22310 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

exclusively. Therefore, if their existing 

supplier does not come into compliance 

with the proposed standard, these firms 

will need to find an alternate source of 

bassinets and cradles. Manufacturers are 

likely to pass at least some costs onto 

importers, making the bassinets/cradles 

more expensive. (These products would 

also be expected to be higher quality 

given the additional safety 

requirements.) However, importers can 

follow suit, passing some costs on to 

consumers. Even if importers responded 

to the rule by discontinuing the import 

of their non-complying bassinets and 

cradles, either replacing them with a 

complying product or another juvenile 

product, deciding to import an 

alternative product would be a 

reasonable and realistic way to offset 

any lost revenue given that most import 

a variety of products. To the extent that 

some firms may comply with the 

current voluntary standard or one or 

more of the new/modified requirements 

in the proposed standard, the impact of 

the proposed rule would be lower. 

Small Hammock Manufacturers and 

Importers. The impact of the proposed 

standard on small hammock 

manufacturers and importers depends 

primarily on two factors: (1) Whether 

their hammocks have a flat sleep 

surface; and (2) whether their product 

line consists (primarily or entirely) of 

infant hammocks and related products. 

If a supplier’s hammocks already have 

a flat sleep surface (as is the case with 

one known small domestic 

manufacturer), it is likely that it will 

modify its existing infant hammocks. 

This modification can be made 

inexpensively based upon a recent 

product recall fix that minimized the 

rock/rest angle of these types of 

products. (The known fixes are unlikely 

to cost more than $5 per unit.) However, 

the remaining small infant hammock 

suppliers, both manufacturers and 

importers, are unlikely to make even 

inexpensive modifications to meet the 

proposed requirements. Doing so would 

eliminate their niche market for 

naturally-rocking, flexible-sleep-surface 

products intended to calm colicky 

babies. Among the six small domestic 

firms supplying this niche market, four 

small importers and one unknown firm 

rely entirely (or almost entirely) upon 

infant hammocks and related products. 

Therefore, the proposed rule, if 

finalized, may be likely to put these 

firms out of business. The remaining 

small domestic manufacturer, however, 

does supply other products, and the 

likely elimination of infant hammocks 

from its product line is not expected to 

drive it out of business, although it is 

likely to have a substantial effect on its 

sales revenue. The Commission seeks 

comment on the effect of the proposed 

modifications to the standard on small 

hammock manufacturers and importers. 

3. Alternatives. Under section 104 of 

the CPSIA, the primary alternative that 

would reduce the impact on small 

entities is to make the voluntary 

standard mandatory with no additions 

or modifications. Adopting the current 

voluntary standard without any changes 

could potentially reduce the costs for 

nine of the 24 small manufacturers and 

four of the nine small importers who 

already comply with the voluntary 

standard. However, the actual reduction 

in impact for these firms is likely to be 

smaller, since many would likely not 

require substantial changes even under 

the proposed standard. For the six small 

domestic firms supplying infant 

hammocks to the United States market, 

making the current voluntary standard 

mandatory with no modifications would 

substantially reduce the impact. It 

would be likely to prevent five firms 

from going out of business, while the 

sixth might be spared a substantial 

decrease in sales revenue. It also should 

be noted that eliminating the market for 

potentially hazardous infant hammocks 

intended to lull colicky babies may have 

the unintended consequence of leading 

caregivers to use similar products 

intended for older children instead, 

thereby creating a potentially new 

hazard. 

4. Conclusion of Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis 

It is possible that the proposed 

standard, if finalized, could have a 

significant impact on a few small firms. 

Most firms supplying bassinets and/or 

cradles to the United States market are 

not JPMA-certified as compliant with 

ASTM’s voluntary standard and may 

therefore require at least some product 

modifications to achieve compliance. 

(To the extent that some of the products 

not certified by JPMA may still comply, 

the impact will be reduced.) For these 

firms, as well as a few of those who are 

JPMA-certified, additional changes to 

meet the more significant recommended 

requirements of the proposed standard 

may be required as well. The extent of 

these costs is unknown, but since 

product redevelopment would likely be 

necessary, it is possible that the costs 

could be large for some of the firms. 

However, at least some of these costs are 

expected to be passed on to consumers 

without a reduction in the firms’ ability 

to compete due to the unique features 

associated with these products. The 

Commission seeks comment on what 

these costs may be, whether they may be 

passed on to the consumer, and how 

these costs will impact small 

businesses. 

The small firms likely to be most 

significantly impacted by the staffrecommended rule, however, are those 

supplying infant hammocks intended 

for colicky babies. The majority of these 

firms have focused their entire product 

line on these goods and the required 

modifications would eliminate demand 

for their products, and may drive them 

out of business. 

I. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations 

provide a categorical exemption for the 

Commission’s rules from any 

requirement to prepare an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement as they 

‘‘have little or no potential for affecting 

the human environment.’’ 16 CFR 

1021.5(c)(2). This proposed rule falls 

within the categorical exemption. 

J. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains 

information collection requirements that 

are subject to public comment and 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

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

3520). We describe the provisions in 

this section of the document with an 

estimate of the annual reporting burden. 

Our estimate includes the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing each 

collection of information. 

We particularly invite comments on: 

(1) Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the CPSC’s functions, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of 

the CPSC’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques, 

when appropriate, and other forms of 

information technology. 

Title: Safety Standard for Bassinets 

and Cradles. 

Description: The proposed rule would 

require each bassinet and cradle to 

comply with ASTM F 2194–07a ε1, 

‘‘Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Bassinets and Cradles.’’ 

Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F 2194–07aε1


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22311 

contain requirements for marking and 

instructional literature. 

Description of Respondents: Persons 

who manufacture bassinets and cradles. 

We estimate the burden of this 

collection of information 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 

1218.2(a) .............................................................................. 30 7 30 0.5 105 

There are no capital costs or operating 

and maintenance costs associated with 

this collection of information. 

Our estimates are based on the 

following: 

Proposed § 1218.2(a) would require 

each bassinet and cradle to comply with 

ASTM F 2194–07a ε1. Sections 8 and 9 

of ASTM F 2194–07a ε1 contain 

requirements for marking and 

instructional literature that are 

disclosure requirements, thus falling 

within the definition of ‘‘collections of 

information’’ at 5 CFR 1320.3(c). 

Section 8.1.1 of ASTM F 2194–07aε1

requires that the name and either the 

place of business (city, State, and 

mailing address, including zip code) or 

telephone number, or both of the 

manufacturer, distributor, or seller be 

clearly and legibly marked on each 

product and its retail package. Section 

8.1.2 of ASTM F 2194–07a ε1 requires 

that a code mark or other means that 

identifies the date (month and year as a 

minimum) of manufacture’’ be clearly 

and legibly marked on ‘‘each product 

and its retail package. In both cases, the 

information must be placed on both the 

product and the retail package. 

There are 48 known firms supplying 

bassinets and/or cradles to the United 

States market. Eighteen of the 48 firms 

are known to already produce labels 

that comply with sections 8.1.1 and 

8.1.2 of the standard, so there would be 

no additional burden on these firms. 

The remaining 30 firms are assumed to 

already use labels on both their 

products and their packaging, but would 

need to make some modifications to 

their existing labels. The estimated time 

required to make these modification is 

about 30 minutes per model. Each of 

these firms supplies an average of 7 

different models of bassinets/cradles, 

therefore, the estimated burden hours 

associated with labels is 30 minutes × 

30 firms × 7 models per firm = 6,300 

minutes or 105 annual hours. 

The Commission estimates that 

hourly compensation for the time 

required to create and update labels is 

$27.78 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

September 2009, all workers, goodsproducing industries, Sales and office, 

Table 9). Therefore, the estimated 

annual cost associated with the 

Commission recommended labeling 

requirements is approximately $2,917 

($27.78 per hour × 105 hours = 

$2,916.90, which we have rounded up 

to $2,917). 

Section 9.1 of ASTM F 2194–07a ε1

requires instructions to be supplied 

with the product. Bassinets and cradles 

are products that generally require some 

installation and maintenance, and 

products sold without such information 

would not be able to successfully 

compete with products supplying this 

information. Under OMB’s regulations 

(5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)), the time, effort, 

and financial resources necessary to 

comply with a collection of information 

that would be incurred by persons in 

the ‘‘normal course of their activities’’ 

are excluded from a burden estimate 

where an agency demonstrates that the 

disclosure activities needed to comply 

are ‘‘usual and customary.’’ Therefore, 

because the CPSC is unaware of 

bassinets and cradles that: (a) Generally 

require some installation, but (b) lack 

any instructions to the user about such 

installation, we tentatively estimate that 

there are no burden hours associated 

with the instruction requirement in 

section 9.1 of ASTM F 2194–07a ε1

because any burden associated with 

supplying instructions with a bassinet 

or cradle would be ‘‘usual and 

customary’’ and not within the 

definition of ‘‘burden’’ under OMB’s 

regulations. 

Based on this analysis, the 

requirements of the Commissionrecommended bassinet and cradle rule 

would impose a burden to industry of 

105 hours at a cost of $2,917 annually. 

In compliance with the Paperwork 

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

3507(d)), we have submitted the 

information collection requirements of 

this rule to OMB for review. Interested 

persons are requested to fax comments 

regarding information collection by May 

28, 2010, to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see 

ADDRESSES). 

K. Preemption 

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

2075(a), provides that where a 

‘‘consumer product safety standard 

under [the CPSA]’’ 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. 

Furthermore, in Natural Resources 

Defense Council v. CPSC, 597 F. Supp. 

2d 370 (S.D. NY 2009), the court held 

that ‘‘[d]esignating the phthalate 

prohibitions [in section 108 of the 

CPSIA] as consumer product safety 

standards brings them within a well 

established statutory preemption 

scheme [of section 26(a) of the CPSA].’’ 

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. 

L. Certification 

Section 14(a) of the Consumer 

Product Safety Act (‘‘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, be 

certified as complying with all 

applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 

15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Such certification 

must be based on a test of each product 

or on a reasonable testing program or, 

for children’s products, on tests on a 

sufficient number of samples by a thirdparty conformity assessment body 

accredited by the Commission to test 

according to the applicable 

requirements. As discussed in Section 

K, section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA 

refers to standards issued under that 

section, such as the rule for bassinets 

and cradles being proposed in this 

notice, as ‘‘consumer product safety 

standards.’’ Furthermore, the 

designation as consumer product safety 

standards subjects such standards to 

certain sections of the CPSA, such as 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
22312 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

section 26(a), regarding preemption. By 

the same reasoning, such standards 

would also be subject to section 14 of 

the CPSA. Therefore, any such standard 

would be considered to be a consumer 

product safety rule to which products 

subject to the rule must be certified. 

In addition, the CPSIA is another act 

enforced by the Commission, and the 

standards issued under section 

104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA are similar to 

consumer product safety rules. For this 

reason also, bassinets and cradles will 

need to be tested and certified as 

complying with the safety standard 

when it becomes effective. Because 

bassinets and cradles are children’s 

products, they must be tested by a thirdparty conformity assessment body 

accredited by the Commission. In the 

future, the Commission will issue a 

notice of requirements to explain how 

laboratories can become accredited as a 

third-party conformity assessment body 

to test to the new safety standard. 

(Bassinets and cradles also must comply 

with all other applicable CPSC 

requirements, such as the lead content 

and phthalate content requirements in 

sections 101 and 108 of the CPSIA, and 

the tracking label requirement in section 

14(a)(5) of the CPSA, and the consumer 

registration form requirements in 

section 104 of the CPSIA.) 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR 1218 

Consumer protection, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Infants and 

Children, Labeling, Law enforcement, 

and Toys. 

Therefore, the Commission proposes 

to amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations by adding a new part 1218 

to read as follows: 

PART 1218—SAFETY STANDARD FOR 

BASSINETS AND CRADLES 

Sec. 

1218.1 Scope, application and effective 

date. 

1218.2 Requirements for bassinets and 

cradles. 

Authority: The Consumer Product Safety 

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

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

§ 1218.1 Scope, application and effective 

date. 

This part establishes a consumer 

product safety standard for bassinets 

and cradles manufactured or imported 

on or after (insert date 6 months after 

date of publication of a final rule in the 

Federal Register). 

§ 1218.2 Requirements for bassinets and 

cradles. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, each bassinet and 

cradle must comply with all applicable 

provisions of ASTM F 2194–07a ε1, 

Standard Consumer Safety Specification 

for Bassinets and Cradles, approved 

October 1, 2007. 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 502, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301– 

504–7923, or at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

For information on the availability of 

this material at NARA, call 202–741– 

6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

(b) Comply with the ASTM F 2194– 

07aε1 standard with the following 

additions or exclusions: 

(1) Instead of complying with section 

1.3 of ASTM F 2194–07a ε1, comply 

with the following: 

(i) 1.3 This consumer safety 

performance specification covers 

products intended to provide sleeping 

accommodations only for infants up to 

approximately 5 months of age or when 

the child begins to push up on hands 

and knees, whichever comes first. 

Products used in conjunction with an 

infant swing are not covered by this 

specification. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(2) Following section 2.3 of ASTM F 

2194–07aε1, use the following figure: 

(ii) [Reserved] (3) Instead of complying with section 

3.1.1 of ASTM F 2194–07aε1, comply 

with the following: 

(i) 3.1.1 Bassinet/cradle, n—small 

bed designed exclusively to provide 

sleeping accommodations for infants 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28AP10.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22313 

supported by free standing legs, a 

wheeled base, a rocking base, or which 

can swing relative to a stationary base. 

Products such as swings, full and nonfull size cribs, hand carrying baskets, 

and travel beds are not included, unless 

the product is a bassinet/cradle 

attachment per the definition in Section 

3.1.2. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(4) Instead of complying with section 

3.1.2 of ASTM F 2194–07a ε1, comply 

with the following: 

(i) 3.1.2 bassinet/cradle accessory, 

n—accessory with a rigid frame that 

attaches to non-full size crib, play yard, 

or other base unit designed to convert 

the accessory into a bassinet/cradle. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(5) In addition to section 3.1.11 of 

ASTM F 2194–07a ε1, comply with the 

following: 

(i) 3.1.12 Double action release 

mechanism, n—mechanism requiring 

either two consecutive actions, the first 

of which must be maintained while the 

second is carried out or two separate 

and independent single action locking 

mechanisms that must be activated 

simultaneously to fully release. 

(ii) 3.1.13 removable cover, n—a 

fabric cover, containing snaps or other 

fasteners such as zippers, Velcro, or 

buttons used to attach to a bassinet/ 

cradle frame that requires consumer 

action as a step for removal or 

adjustment. 

(iii) 3.1.14 Maximum deflection 

angle, n—the maximum rock/swing 

angle measurement allowed by the 

product design in the manufacturer’s 

use position in the manner normally 

associated with rocking/swinging and 

intended by the manufacturer when 

tested in accordance with 7.8. 

(iv) 3.1.15 Rest angle, n—the 

resulting angle measurement of 

bassinet/cradle sleeping surface or tilt 

angle of the bassinet/cradle bed after the 

maximum deflection angle is applied 

and released and the product has come 

to a complete rest when tested in 

accordance with 7.8. 

(v) 3.1.16 Flatness angle, n—the 

resulting angle measurement of the 

sleep support surface or tilt angle of the 

bassinet/cradle bed when a compression 

force is applied to the chest of the CAMI 

dummy in accordance with 7.9. 

(6) In addition to section 4.5 of ASTM 

F 2194–07a ε1 comply with the 

following: 

(i) 4.6 Angle measurements shall be 

obtained using a digital inclinometer 

capable of 0.1° minimum resolution. 

(ii) 4.7 Equipment—Force gauge 

with a range of 0 to 25 lbf (110N), with 

a maximum tolerance of ± 0.25 lbf 

(1.11N) or a range of 0 to 50 lbf (222N) 

with a maximum tolerance of ± 0.25 lbf 

(1.11N). A calibration interval shall be 

maintained for the force gauges which 

will ensure that the accuracy does not 

drift beyond the stated tolerances. 

(7) In addition to section 5.12 of 

ASTM F 2194–07a ε1 comply with the 

following: 

(i) 5.13 Restraints— The bassinet 

shall not include any restraints system 

which requires action on the part of the 

caregiver to secure the restraint. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(8) Instead of complying with section 

6.1 of ASTM F 2194–07a ε1, comply 

with the following: 

(i) 6.1 Spacing of Rigid and FabricSided Bassinet/Cradle Components or 

Bassinet/Cradle attachment 

Components—Spacing must comply 

with 16 CFR Part 1509 Section 1509.4 

when tested according to 7.1 and 7.10. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(9) Instead of complying with section 

6.4 of ASTM F 2194–07a ε1, comply 

with the following: 

(i) 6.4 Stability—A product in all 

manufacturers’ recommended use 

positions, including positions where the 

locks are engaged for preventing 

rocking/swinging motion of the sleeping 

surface, shall not tip over and shall 

retain the CAMI Infant Dummy, Mark II, 

when subjected to the test described in 

7.4. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(10) In addition to section 6.6 of 

ASTM F 2194–07a ε1 comply with the 

following: 

(i) 6.7 Rock/Swing Angle—Bassinets 

or cradles that incorporate a rocking/ 

swinging feature shall meet the 

following: 

(A) 6.7.1 Maximum deflection angle 

measurement on any reading shall not 

exceed 20° when tested in accordance 

with 7.8. 

(B) 6.7.2 The arithmetic mean of the 

rest angle measurements shall not 

exceed 5° when tested in accordance 

with 7.8. 

(ii) 6.8: Bassinet/Cradle Surface— 

The angle of the bassinet or cradle 

sleeping support surface or the tilt angle 

of the bassinet/cradle bed shall not be 

greater than 5ß when tested in 

accordance with 7.9. 

(iii) 6.9 Fabric-Sided Enclosed 

Openings—For bassinets or cradles with 

fabric sides, the fabric shall not release 

and form a completely bounded opening 

that allows the complete passage of the 

torso probe (Figure 3A) when tested in 

accordance with Section 7.10. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28AP10.008</GPH>
22314 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(11) In addition to section 7.7 of 

ASTM F 2194–07aε1 comply with the 

following: 

(i) 7.8 Rock/Swing Angle Test: 

(A) 7.8.1 Side to Side Rock/Swing 

Test—for bassinets/cradles that have a 

side-to-side rocking/swinging feature. 

(B) 7.8.1.1 Assemble bassinet/cradle 

in accordance with manufacturer’s 

instructions and, if necessary, place the 

bassinet/cradle in rocking/swinging 

mode. 

(C) 7.8.1.2 Place the bassinet/cradle 

and the inclinometer on a flat level 

horizontal plane (0° ± 0.5°) to establish 

a reference plane. Zero the inclinometer. 

(D) 7.8.1.3 Disengage any locking 

mechanisms designed to prevent the 

unit from rocking/swinging, per the 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

(E) 7.8.1.4 Place the CAMI Infant 

Dummy, MARK II belly up, with both 

arms contacting the torso, and the right 

arm touching the left side wall in the 

bassinet cradle. See Figure 4A. 

(F) 7.8.1.5 Manually deflect and 

hold the bassinet/cradle to the 

maximum side-to-side rock/swing angle 

allowed by the product design in the 

manufacturer’s use position in the 

manner normally associated with 

rocking/swinging and intended by the 

manufacturer. Record the maximum 

deflection angle. 

(G) 7.8.1.6 Release the bassinet/ 

cradle and allow it to come to rest 

unassisted. 

(H) 7.8.1.7 Place the 6 in. x 6 in. 

wood block (ref. Section 7.3.2) less than 

1 in. from the dummy, where the 

horizontal center of the block is in line 

with the centerline of the mattress bed 

perpendicular to the head-to-toe axis of 

the dummy. See Figure 4A. If a block 

cannot be placed in the prescribed 

location inside the mattress bed area 

due to mattress size constraints, dummy 

position, or if the mattress is 

substantially curved, then mount a 1 in. 

aluminum angle (ref. Section 7.4.2) on 

top of the rigid bassinet frame. See 

Figure 4B. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28AP10.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22315 

(I) 7.8.1.8 Place the inclinometer on 

the top center of the 6 in. x 6 in. wood 

block or aluminum angle and record the 

resulting angle. 

(J) 7.8.1.9 Repeat steps 7.8.1.2 to 

7.8.1.8 four additional times. Record 

each side-to-side maximum deflection 

angle and each resulting side-to-side 

rest angle measurement. Calculate the 

arithmetic mean of the five side-to-side 

rest angle measurements. 

(K) 7.8.1.10 Repeat steps 7.8.1.2 to 

7.8.1.9 except place the CAMI infant 

Dummy, Mark II belly up, with both 

arms contacting the torso, and the left 

arm touching the right side wall in the 

bassinet/cradle. 

(L) 7.8.1.11 Repeat steps 7.8.1.2 to 

7.8.1.10 using a CAMI Newborn 

Dummy. 

(M) 7.8.2 Front-to-Back Rock/Swing 

Test—for bassinets/cradles that have a 

front-to-back (head-to-toe) rocking/ 

swinging feature. 

(N) 7.8.2.1 Assemble bassinet/cradle 

in accordance with manufacturer’s 

instructions and, if necessary, place the 

bassinet/cradle in the front-to-back 

rocking/swinging mode. 

(O) 7.8.2.2 Place the bassinet/cradle 

and the inclinometer on a flat level 

horizontal plane (0° ± 0.5°) to establish 

a test plane. Zero the inclinometer. 

(P) 7.8.2.3 Disengage any locking 

mechanisms designed to prevent the 

unit from rocking/swinging, per the 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

(Q) 7.8.2.4 Place the CAMI Infant 

Dummy, Mark II belly up, with both 

arms contacting the torso, and the 

crown of the dummy’s head touching 

the inside wall at one end of the sleep 

surface and the dummy’s head-to-toe 

centerline is in line with the centerline 

perpendicular to the short dimension of 

the sleep surface. See Figure 4C. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28AP10.010</GPH>
22316 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(R) 7.8.2.5 Manually deflect and 

hold the bassinet/cradle to the 

maximum rock/swing angle in the frontto-back direction allowed by the 

product design in the manufacturer’s 

use position in the manner normally 

associated with rocking and intended by 

the manufacturer. Record the maximum 

rock/swing angle. 

(S) 7.8.2.6 Release the bassinet/ 

cradle and allow it to come to rest 

unassisted. 

(T) 7.8.2.7 Place the 6 in. x 6 in. 

wood block (ref. Section 7.3.2) where 

the horizontal centerline of the wood 

block is in line with the horizontal 

centerline of the sleep surface. See 

Figure 4. If the wood block cannot be 

placed in the prescribed location on the 

mattress bed area due to mattress size 

constraints, dummy position, or if the 

mattress is substantially curved, then 

mount a 1 in. aluminum angle (ref. 

Section 7.4.2) spanning the top of the 

rigid bassinet frame in a direction 

parallel to the long dimension of the 

bassinet. 

(U) 7.8.2.8 Place the inclinometer on 

the top center of the 6 in. x 6 in. wood 

block or aluminum angle. Record the 

resulting rest angle. 

(V) 7.8.2.9 Repeat steps 7.8.2.2 to 

7.8.2.8 four additional times. Record 

each front-to-back maximum deflection 

angle and each resulting rest angle 

measurement. Calculate the arithmetic 

mean of the five rest angle 

measurements. 

(W) 7.8.2.10 Repeat 7.8.2.2 to 7.8.2.9 

with the CAMI Dummy, Mark II feet 

touching the inside at one end of the 

sleep surface and the dummy’s torso 

centerline in line with the centerline 

perpendicular to the short dimension of 

the sleep surface. 

(X) 7.8.2.11 Repeat 7.8.2.2 to 

7.8.2.10 with the Newborn CAMI 

Dummy. 

(ii) 7.9 Bassinet/Cradle Flatness 

Angle Test 

(A) 7.9.1 Disable the rocking/ 

swinging feature if the product is 

equipped with such a feature. Place the 

CAMI Infant Dummy, Mark II belly up, 

on the sleep surface in the location most 

prone to creating a depression, slope, or 

tilt (e.g., near a seam in the mattress, in 

a corner, etc.). 

(B) 7.9.2 Place the 6 in. x 6 in. wood 

block (ref. Section 7.3.2) on the chest of 

the dummy and apply a 10.0 ± 0.5 lb 

compression force within 2 seconds 

with a force gauge. Discontinue 

applying the force. 

(C) 7.9.3 Place the 6 in. x 6 in. wood 

block (ref. Section 7.3.2) less than 1 in. 

from the dummy, where the horizontal 

center of the block is in line with the 

horizontal centerline of the dummy. If 

the wood block cannot be placed inside 

the sleep surface of a rocking/swinging 

product due to mattress size constraints, 

dummy position, or if the mattress is 

substantially curved, then mount the 

1 in. aluminum angle (ref. Section 7.4.2) 

on top of the rigid bassinet frame. 

(D) 7.9.4 Record the resulting 

flatness angle along the dummy’s headto-toe axis and at 90° from the head-totoe axis. 

(E) 7.9.5 Repeat steps 7.9.1 to 7.9.4 

four additional times. Record each angle 

measurement and calculate the 

arithmetic mean of the five angle 

measurements in the head-to-toe 

direction and 90° from the head-to-toe 

axis. 

(F) 7.9.6 If the dummy’s height is 

equivalent to or less than the width of 

the sleep surface then rotate the dummy 

90° and repeat steps 7.9.1 to 7.9.5. See 

Figure 4D. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28AP10.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22317 

(G) 7.9.7 Repeat 7.9.1 to 7.9.6 with 

the Newborn CAMI Dummy. 

(iii) 7.10 Fabric Release Test 

Methods for Enclosed Openings. 

(A) 7.10.1 Assemble and place the 

bassinet/cradle in the manufacturers use 

position. 

(B) 7.10.2 With the torso test probe 

attached to a force gauge, place the 

small end of the probe against the fabric 

inside wall of the product and any 

structural elements in any locations 

deemed most likely to fail. 

(C) 7.10.3 Apply a 20 lb force to the 

probe over a period of 5 seconds and 

hold for an additional 5 seconds. 

(D) 7.10.4 Upon completion of 

7.10.3, if an opening occurs in a 

location, other than the location being 

tested, release the probe from the 

original test location and repeat 7.10.3 

at this additional location without 

adjusting the fabric. 

(E) 7.10.5 If the product has a 

removable cover, unfasten all fasteners 

and/or snaps and repeat 7.10.2 to 7.10.4. 

(F) 7.10.6 Repeat 7.10.1 to 7.10.5 in 

all manufacturers recommended use 

positions. For multiple use products, 

the test shall be performed in all 

possible use modes. 

(12) Instead of complying with section 

8.3.1 of ASTM F 2194–07a ε1, comply 

with the following: 

(i) 8.3.1 In the warning statements, 

the safety alert symbol 

and the word WARNING shall precede 

the warning statements at each location 

where warnings are provided and shall 

not be less than 0.2 in. (5 mm) high. The 

remainder of the text shall be in letters 

not less than 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) high 

except as specified in 8.4.2. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(13) Instead of complying with section 

8.4.2.1 of ASTM F 2194–07a ε1, comply 

with the following: 

(i) Infants have suffocated in gaps 

between extra padding and side of the 

bassinet/cradle and on soft bedding. Use 

only the pad provided by manufacturer. 

NEVER add a pillow, comforter, or 

another mattress for padding. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(14) In addition to the changes to 

ASTM F 2194–07aε1 in paragraph 

(b)(13), comply with the following: 

(i) 8.4.2.2 The words ‘‘SUFFOCATION 

HAZARD’’ shall be bold face type not 

less than 0.2 in. 

(5 mm) high. The words ‘‘Infants have 

suffocated’’ shall be in characters whose 

upper case is not less than 0.16 in. 

(4 mm) high. The remainder of the 

warning statement shall be standard 

type style whose upper case shall be at 

least 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) high. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

Dated: March 30, 2010. 

Alberta Mills, 

Acting Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7667 Filed 4–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

23 CFR Parts 1200 and 1300 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0054] 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Small Business Impacts of 

Motor Vehicle Safety 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of regulatory review; 

Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NHTSA seeks comments on 

the economic impact of its regulations 

on small entities. As required by section 

610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we 

are attempting to identify rules that may 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

We also request comments on ways to 

make these regulations easier to read 

and understand. The focus of this notice 

is rules that specifically relate to 

passenger cars, multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, 

incomplete vehicles, motorcycles, and 

motor vehicle equipment. 

DATES: You should submit comments 

early enough to ensure that Docket 

Management receives them not later 

than June 28, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

[identified by DOT Docket ID Number 

NHTSA–2010–0054] by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information see the Comments heading 

of the Supplementary Information 

section of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28AP10.012</GPH> EP28AP10.013</GPH>