Safety Standard for Infant Swings, 7011-7025 [2012-2820]

Agencies

• Consumer Product Safety Commission

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7011-7025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2820]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 
(``CPSIA'') requires the United States Consumer Product Safety 
Commission (``Commission,'' ``CPSC,'' ``we,'' or ``us'') to promulgate 
consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler 
products. These standards are to be ``substantially the same as'' 
applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary 
standard if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements 
would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. 
The Commission is proposing a safety standard for infant swings in 
response to the direction under the CPSIA.

DATES: Submit comments by April 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of 
the marking, labeling, and instructional literature of the proposed 
rule should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or emailed 
to: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.
    Other comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2012-0011, may be 
submitted electronically or in writing:
    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal at: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. To ensure timely processing of 
comments, we are no longer directly accepting comments submitted by 
electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov. We 
encourage you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal, as described above.
    Written Submissions: Submit written submissions in the following 
way: Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM 
submissions), preferably in five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received may be 
posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact 
information, or other personal information provided, to: https://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, 
trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information 
that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at 
all, such information should be submitted in writing.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to: https://www.regulations.gov, and insert the 
docket number, CPSC 2012-0011, into the ``Search'' box, and follow the 
prompts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Celestine T. Kiss, Project Manager, 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Directorate for Engineering 
Sciences, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; email: 
CKiss@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background and Statutory Authority

    The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, (``CPSIA,'' 
Pub L. 110-314) was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the 
CPSIA 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)(F) as a 
durable infant or toddler product.
    In this document, we propose a safety standard for infant swings. 
The proposed standard is based on the voluntary standard developed by 
ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and 
Materials), ASTM F 2088-11b, ``Standard Consumer Safety Specification 
for Infant Swings'' (``ASTM F 2088-11b''). The ASTM standard is 
copyrighted but can be viewed as a read-only document, only during the 
comment period for this proposal, at: https://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm, by 
permission of ASTM.
    The information discussed in this preamble supporting the proposed 
safety standard for infant swings can be found in the staff briefing 
package, which is available at https://www.cpsc.gov/.

B. The Product

1. Definition

    ASTM F 2088-11b defines an ``infant swing'' as a ``stationary unit 
with a frame and powered mechanism that

[[Page 7012]]

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 F 2088-11b also covers ``cradle swings,'' which 
are defined as ``an infant swing which is intended for use by a child 
lying flat.'' Cradle swings are distinguishable from other types of 
swings because they enable a child to lie flat on their back, even when 
the swing is in motion. ASTM F 2088-11b also covers ``travel swings,'' 
which are 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.''

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 determine if they meet 
the voluntary standard. Currently, infant swings produced by 5 of the 
10 firms, 4 manufacturers and 1 importer, have been certified by the 
JPMA as compliant with the ASTM voluntary infant swing standard.

C. Infant Swings and the ASTM Voluntary Standard

1. Introduction and Consultation Requirement

    Section 104(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA requires us to consult 
representatives of ``consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, 
and independent child product engineers and experts'' to ``examine and 
assess the effectiveness of any voluntary consumer product safety 
standards for durable infant or toddler products.'' ASTM F 2088 is the 
primary infant swing standard in effect in the United States. Through 
the ASTM process, we consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade 
organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and 
members of the public.

2. The ASTM Voluntary Standard

    ASTM F 2088 was first published in September 2001. It has been 
updated seven times, with the latest edition, ASTM F 2088-11b, 
published in November 2011. The key provisions of the current ASTM 
infant swing standard include: definitions; general requirements; 
performance requirements; specific test methods; and requirements for 
marking, labeling, and instructional literature.
    a. Definitions. ASTM F 2088-11b contains definitions for key terms 
found in the standard.
    b. General Requirements and Specific Test Methods. ASTM F 2088-11b 
contains general requirements that infant swings must meet, as well as 
mandated test methods that must be used to ensure that the product 
meets those requirements. It includes:
     Restrictions on sharp edges and points, small parts (as 
well as their protective caps), lead paint, and wood parts;
     Specifications to prevent scissoring, shearing, and 
pinching;
     Specifications on openings (intended to prevent finger and 
toe entrapment), labeling (intended to prevent labels from being 
removed and ingested or aspirated), and coil springs; and
     Requirements for toy accessory items, including mobiles 
that accompany infant swings.
    c. Performance Requirements and Specific Test Methods. ASTM F 2088-
11b contains performance requirements that infant swings must meet, as 
well as mandated test methods that must be used to ensure that the 
product meets those requirements. The standard includes:
     Structural integrity requirements, including dynamic and 
static load requirements, which are meant to ensure that the swing can 
withstand a certain amount of force;
     Stability requirements, meant to ensure that the swing 
does not tip over;
     Requirements to prevent unintentional folding of the 
swing;
     Restraint system requirements;
     A requirement to ensure that infants are not able to slip 
through the leg opening and strangle (because their bodies can slip 
through, but their heads cannot);
     Requirements for cradle swings to ensure that infants will 
remain flat; and
     Requirements for the battery compartment of swings, which 
require, for example that the compartment contain a means to prevent 
battery leakage.
    d. Marking, Labeling, and Instructional Literature. ASTM F 2088-11b 
has requirements for marking, labeling, and instructions that must 
accompany an infant swing, including warnings advising caregivers to:
     Always use the restraint system in the swing;
     Never leave an infant unattended in a swing;
     Stop using the swing when an infant is able to climb out 
of it;
     Always use the most reclined seat position in swings with 
a certain adjustable seat recline until the infant can hold their head 
up unassisted; and
     Never place travel swings on an elevated surface.

D. Incident Data

1. Introduction

    There have been 2,268 incidents reported to us regarding infant 
swings from January 1, 2002 through May 18, 2011. All the incidents 
involved children under the age of 3 years. Of those reported 
incidents, there were 15 fatalities, 600 nonfatal injuries, and 1,653 
noninjury incidents. We believe that the incidents captured in this 
data reflect the range of hazard patterns seen in infant swings.
    Table 1 is a summary of the 15 fatalities reported to us from 
January 1, 2002 through May 18, 2011. We analyzed each fatality and 
determined: (1) The cause of the infant's death, which is usually based 
on the conclusion of the medical examiner; and (2) whether the infant 
swing caused or contributed to the fatality. There were five deaths 
that can be categorized as slump-over deaths. These fatalities, as well 
as the two other fatalities that were caused by the infant swing, are 
explained in more detail in Section E of this preamble.
    Table 2 lists the hazards seen in infant swings. We determined the 
percentage of the incident reports attributable to each hazard, as well 
as the percentage of reported injuries attributable to each hazard. The 
percentages have been rounded up or down to represent a whole number. 
The hazards are explained in more detail in Section E of this preamble.
    Information on fatalities, injuries, and noninjury incident reports 
that are attributable to unreasonable product misuse are mentioned only 
in the tables in this section. Examples of unreasonable product misuse 
include: placing two children in a swing meant for one child, or 
failing to use the restraint system. In addition, information is 
included only in the tables in this section on fatalities,

[[Page 7013]]

injuries, and noninjury incident reports where: (1) it is unknown 
whether the infant swing contributed to the incident; or (2) there is 
insufficient information included in the report to determine what 
happened.
    Fatalities, injuries, and noninjury incidents where the swing 
caused or contributed to the incident are discussed fully in Section E 
of this preamble.

2. Fatality Summary

Table 1--Infant Swings Fatality Summary, January 1, 2002 Through May 18,
                                  2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number of
                  Description of fatality                     fatalities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cause of Death (``COD'') Positional Asphyxia, Slump-Over               4
 Death.....................................................
COD Undetermined, Slump-Over Death.........................            1
COD Positional Asphyxia, Attributable to Swing Restraint               1
 Issue.....................................................
COD Undetermined, Attributable to Swing Seat Issue.........            1
COD Positional Asphyxia, Attributable to Product Misuse....            2
COD Undetermined, Attributable to Product Misuse...........            2
COD Undetermined, Unknown whether Swing Contributed to                 4
 Fatality..................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Incident Summary

 Table 2--Infant Swings Hazard Summary, January 1, 2002 Through May 18,
                                  2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Percentage of
              Hazard                   reported         Percentage of
                                       incidents      reported injuries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restraint Issues, Both Inadequate               27  33, including 1
 Restraint Design and Restraint                      fatality and 1 fall
 Failure.                                            that resulted in a
                                                     hospitalization.
Broken, Detached or Loose Swing                 25  20
 Components (e.g., arm, leg, motor
 housing or hardware).
Seat Issues, Both Inadequate Seat               16  12, including 1
 Design and Seat Failure.                            fatality.
Inadequate Clearance Between the                13  22
 Seat and the Swing Frame.
Electrical or Battery Issues......               9  1
Swing Instability.................               4  2, including 1 fall
                                                     that resulted in a
                                                     hospitalization.
Broken or Detached Toys or Mobiles               2  4
Miscellaneous, Including Reports                 4  7
 of Product Misuse and Reports
 with Insufficient Information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Assessment of Voluntary Standard ASTM F 2088-11b and Description of 
Proposed Changes to ASTM F 2088-11b

1. Introduction

    Infant swing hazards are best analyzed in conjunction with an 
assessment of the existing provisions of ASTM 2088-11b. In this 
section, we describe each hazard in detail. Following the description 
of the hazard is a summary of the requirements currently found in ASTM 
2088-11b, if any provisions exist in the standard that are meant to 
address the hazard. If the existing standards are not adequate to 
address the hazard, we present our recommended changes. In most cases, 
it is helpful to compare the existing language in ASTM F 2088-11b with 
the proposed language containing our recommended changes. When this is 
done, bold lettering indicates new language, and language that is 
struck through indicates language that we propose should be deleted. In 
each case, consistent with section 104 of the CPSIA, the change must be 
more stringent than the existing voluntary standard in order to further 
reduce the risk of injury associated with the hazard.

2. Slump-Over Deaths

a. Description of Hazard
    Of the 15 reported fatalities, 5 deaths have been deemed slump-over 
deaths. In 3 instances, the medical examiner or investigating officials 
specifically described the infant as being ``slumped over.'' In 2 
additional cases, the description of the infant's position suggests 
slump-over deaths. Slump-over deaths occur when very young children (in 
these cases, infants between the ages of 2 weeks old and 3 months old) 
lack the neck muscle tone and strength to keep their head up. In 4 of 
the 5 slump-over deaths, the official cause of death, as determined by 
the medical examiner, is positional asphyxia. Positional asphyxiation 
occurs when the position of the child's body (such as compression of 
their neck from their head being slumped over) prevents the child from 
breathing. In one case, the cause of death was undetermined, but we 
have concluded, based on a review of the fatality, that it was a slump-
over death.
b. Assessment of ASTM F 2088-11b
    Section 8.3.1(4) of ASTM F 2088-11b requires the following warning 
label on all infant swings that have an adjustable seat recline with a 
seat back angle greater than 50[deg]: ``Use only in most reclined seat 
position until infant can hold head up unassisted.'' Infant swings with 
a seat back angle greater than 50[deg] require the infant to be able to 
support their head, while a swing with a seat back angle less than 
50[deg] is more reclined and allows the infant to lay their head on the 
seat back.
    We have determined that there is no engineering solution, such as a 
restraint, that would adequately address slump-over deaths. By 
including the warning statement in ASTM F 2088-11b, the ASTM committee 
recognizes the need for the statement in order to prevent slump-over 
deaths in infant swings. We agree and are not proposing any additional 
changes to the voluntary standard to address this issue. However, we 
are seeking comments related to slump-over deaths in section L of this 
preamble.

[[Page 7014]]

3. Restraint Design and Restraint Failures

a. Description of Hazard
    Issues related to restraints comprised 27 percent of the reports we 
received from the public. Restraint issues accounted for 33 percent of 
the reported injuries. Most of the reported injuries are attributable 
to restraint design issues, while the remainder are attributable to 
restraint failure.
    Restraint design hazards arise when the restraint system is unable 
to contain a child in the swing seat, even when the restraint is 
assembled properly and is functioning according to the manufacturer's 
intent. Common reports in this category include infants who are able to 
lean forward or to the side and fall out of the seat. Some infants are 
strong enough to push themselves back and up with their feet, causing 
them to fall backward out of the swing, usually landing headfirst. One 
infant fatality and one fall that resulted in a hospitalization are 
attributable to restraint design problems.
    Restraint failures include belt buckles or straps that break. In 
some reports, the restraint system detaches from the swing completely. 
When the restraint system does fail in some way, the result is usually 
a fall from the swing, which can result in serious injuries.
b. Assessment of ASTM F 2088-11b
    Section 6.4 of ASTM F 2088-11b requires all infant swings to have a 
waist and crotch restraint system. The standard also requires that 
swing restraint systems be tested to ensure that the attachment points 
of the system can withstand a certain amount of force, comparable to 
the amount of force an infant might apply. Manufacturers must ensure 
that the restraint system is attached to the swing and will not become 
detached through normal use.
    ASTM F 2088-11b also contains a shoulder strap/harness requirement 
for infant swings with a seat back angle greater than 50[deg]. Infants 
seated in swings with a seat back angle greater than 50[deg] are much 
more likely to be able to lean forward or to the side, or be able to 
push backward. When this happens, the infant may fall out of the seat 
completely, or they may come into contact with the frame of the swing. 
Having shoulder straps on swings with a seat back angle exceeding 
50[deg] will aid in keeping the infant positioned in the swing seat.
c. Description of Proposed Changes
    The shoulder strap requirement is intended to address many 
restraint issues. The proposed rule would change section 7.12, which 
provides the method for testing seat back angles in order to determine 
whether the seat back angle is greater than 50[deg]. Currently, the 
method involves placing a hinged board in the seat swing and using an 
inclinometer to measure the seat back angle. The proposed rule would 
result in more accurate, repeatable testing, by clarifying the test 
method to include: (1) Placing the seat in the most upright use 
position (currently the language only requires placing the seat in 
``the most upright position''); (2) removing all positioning 
accessories, such as pillows, that might interfere with the 
measurement; (3) positioning the belt restraint systems in order to 
limit interference with the measurement; and (4) mandating that the 
hinged board be made of steel because it better replicates the weight 
of a child in a seat. Currently, the hinged board can be made of wood. 
These changes would result in a more stringent standard by ensuring 
that measurements are more accurate and repeatable, thus, reducing the 
number of injuries associated with swings.
d. Proposed Change in Standard
    Currently, ASTM F 2088-11b contains the following test method for 
measuring the seat back angle at section 7.12:

    7.12 Seat Back Angle Measurement--Place the back of the swing in 
the most upright position. Place the hinged boards with the hinged 
edge into the junction of the swing back and seat (see Fig. 8). 
Place the inclinometer on the floor and zero the reading. Manually 
pivot the swing to its furthermost back position. While maintaining 
this position, place the inclinometer up against the back recline 
board to obtain the seat back angle as shown in Fig. 9.

    We are proposing that section 7.12 of ASTM F 2088-11b be replaced 
by the following language:

    7.12 Seat Back Angle Measurement--Place the back of the swing in 
the most upright use position. Remove positioning accessories, 
including pillows. Orient the belt restraint segments to limit 
interaction with the hinged boards. Place the hinged boards with the 
hinged edge into the junction of the swing back and seat (see Fig. 
8). Place the inclinometer on the floor and zero the reading. 
Manually pivot the swing to its furthermost back position. While 
maintaining this position, place the inclinometer up against the 
back recline board to obtain the seat back angle as shown in Fig. 9. 
Hinged boards shall be made of C1020 steel using a 4 by 4 in. (101 
by 101 mm) plate hinged to a 4 by 9 in. (101 by 225 mm) plate. The 
thicknesses shall be adjusted so that the mass is equal to 17.5 lbm.

4. Broken, Detached, or Loose Components

a. Description of Hazard
    Broken, detached, and loose components, such as arm, leg, motor 
housing, and hardware account for the third highest number of injuries 
(20%) and second most number of incident reports (25%). When part of 
the frame fails, or when hardware (such as screws) fall out of the 
product, the swing is likely to collapse with the infant seated inside 
the swing.
 b. Assessment of ASTM F 2088-11b
    Currently, the ASTM standard requires that the durability of a 
swing's arm, leg, motor housing, and hardware be tested by dropping a 
25 pound weight onto the seat of the swing 50 times, or cycles. This is 
called dynamic loading in the ASTM standard and is meant to test the 
structural integrity of the swing. If any part of the swing breaks, or 
changes in such a way that would cause the product not to fully support 
a child, the swing fails the test.
c. Description of Proposed Changes
    The proposed rule would make two changes to the dynamic load test 
that is found in section 7.2.1 of ASTM F 2088-11b. One change is a 
significant modification, and the other is a test clarification. The 
modification would increase the number of cycles from 50 to 500. We 
tested swing samples from different manufacturers, as well as a range 
of models and designs. The testing revealed that 500 cycles was the 
point at which the least robust swings started to show signs of fatigue 
that might result in structural failures of the swing components. 
Increasing the number of test cycles from 50 to 500 will lead to a 
reduction in injuries in infant swings that occur when the arm, leg, 
motor housing, or hardware of a swing fails.
    The proposal also would make a clarification to the dynamic load 
test. Currently, when setting up the swing, if the product has more 
than one height position, recline position, or facing direction, the 
product must be tested in the configuration most likely to fail. The 
proposed rule would account for tray positions and any other adjustable 
features. This will result in more repeatable and accurate testing, 
which will reduce the risk of injury in swings.
d. Proposed Change in Standard
    Currently, ASTM F 2088-11b contains the following test method at 
sections 7.2.1.2 and 7.2.1.3:

    7.2.1.2 Set-up the swing in accordance with the manufacturer's 
instructions. If the swing seat has more than one height position,

[[Page 7015]]

recline position, or facing direction, test the product in the 
configuration most likely to fail.
    7.2.1.3 Place the shot bag on the seating surface of the swing 
and allow swinging motion to come to rest. Secure the swing so that 
the seat cannot move during the test. The means of securing the seat 
shall not affect the outcome of the test. Raise the shot bag a 
distance of 1 in. above the seat of the swing. Drop the weight onto 
the seat 50 times with a cycle time of 4 +/- 1s/cycle. The drop 
height is to be adjusted to maintain the 1 in. drop height as is 
practical.

    We are proposing that sections 7.2.1.2 and 7.2.1.3 of ASTM F 2088-
11b be replaced by the following language:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10FE12.003

5. Seat Design and Seat Failures

a. Description of Hazard
    Seat issues account for 16 percent of reported incidents and 12 
percent of injuries. Seat issues can be broken down into two 
subcategories of hazards. One is seat design issues, and the other is 
seat failure issues. Reports included in the seat design subcategory 
include seats that lean, or deflect, to one side. If a seat deflects 
substantially, the infant could fall out of the swing or bump against 
the swing frame. Some reports include scenarios where infants attempt 
to reach an object outside the swing, the seat deflects, and the victim 
falls out of the seat. Swing seat deflection is most common in swings 
supported by a single swing arm, which offers less support.
    Seat failures include the following scenarios:
     The infant swing seat detaches from the swing frame 
completely;
     The back of the seat does not hold in the upright position 
and falls unexpectedly;
     The seat itself folds inward; and
     For swings with a fabric seat that fits over a frame, the 
fabric padding slips off.
    In most cases, if the seat fails, the infant will fall out of the 
seat. In one case, it was determined that a seat failure contributed to 
an infant's death.
 b. Assessment of ASTM F 2088-11b
    Currently, ASTM does not require testing for seat deflection. Our 
testing revealed that some swing seats deflect significantly. After 
reviewing the incidents reported to us, we noticed that swings 
supported by a single arm, which might make the swing less structurally 
sound, may be more likely to have seats that deflect in a way that 
could be dangerous for the occupant.
    Currently, seat failure issues are addressed by dynamic loading 
(described in section [E][4] of this preamble on broken, detached, and 
loose swing components) and by static loading, which requires the 
tester to place a 75-pound weight (or three times the manufacturer's 
maximum recommended weight, whichever is greater) in the center of the 
swing seat. At the conclusion of the static load test, if the swing 
seat fails in any way, for example by detaching from the frame or 
folding inward, the product fails the static load test.
c. Description of Proposed Changes
    In regard to seat design issues, the proposed rule would add a new 
performance requirement and a new test method to the static load 
requirements that would measure seat deflection. The proposed new test 
method would require the tester to place a 5-pound weight onto the seat 
and measure the distance from the lowest point on the swing seating 
surface to the floor. Nominally loading the seat with 5 pounds will 
account for the presence of cloth seats that relax significantly when 
not weighted, which could interfere with the measurement. The tester 
then would place a 75-pound weight (or three times the manufacturer's 
maximum recommended weight, whichever is greater) onto the swing and 
record the same measurement. The two measurements are compared, and the 
change in vertical deflection cannot be more than 4 inches. This test 
will reveal whether the swing is likely to deflect or deform under 
severe loading conditions. In addition to the seat deflection test, the 
swing must still meet the current static load requirement (using the 
same 75-pound weight) and cannot fail in any way that could create a 
hazardous environment for the child.
    In regard to seat failures, we believe that more robust dynamic 
load testing will reveal any seat failure issues that are likely to 
occur in the swing. The modification and testing clarification to the 
dynamic load test, as described in section (E)(4)(c) of this preamble, 
will enable testers to better assess any hazards related to the seat, 
such as the possibility that the seat will detach from the swing frame.
d. Proposed Change in Standard
    In addition to the modification and testing clarification to the 
dynamic load test, described in section (E)(4)(c) and contained in 
section (E)(4)(d) of this preamble, we propose a new static load 
performance requirement and test method. We are proposing that the 
following section 6.1.2.1 be added to ASTM F 2088-11b:

    6.1.2.1 The swing seat shall not have a change in vertical 
deflection greater than 4 in. The change in vertical deflection 
shall be calculated by subtracting the distance measured in 7.2.2.2 
from the distance measured in 7.2.2.3.

    Currently, ASTM F 2088-11b contains the following test method at 
section 7.2.2.2:

    7.2.2.2 By any necessary means, place a static load of 75 lb 
(34.1 kg) or 3 times the manufacturer's maximum recommended

[[Page 7016]]

weight, whichever is greater, in the center of the seat distributed 
by a wood block. Gradually apply the weight within 5 s and maintain 
for 60 s.

    We are proposing that section 7.2.2.2 be replaced by the following 
language and that the language currently found in 7.2.2.2 of ASTM F 
2088-11b be moved to 7.2.2.3 and changed as follows:

    7.2.2.2 Place a static load of 5 lbm (2.3 kg) in the center of 
the seat distributed by a wood block. Measure and record the 
vertical distance from the floor to the lowest point on the infant 
swing's seating surface. Remove the load.
    7.2.2.3 By any necessary means, place a static load of 75 lb 
(34.1 kg) or 3 times the manufacturer's maximum recommended weight, 
whichever is greater, in the center of the seat distributed by a 
wood block. Gradually apply the weight within 5 s and maintain for 
60 s. Measure and record the vertical distance from the floor to the 
lowest point on the loaded infant swing's seating surface.

6. Inadequate Clearance Between the Swing Seat and the Swing Frame

a. Description of Hazard
    Thirteen percent of reported incidents are attributable to 
inadequate space between the infant seat and the swing frame. This 
hazard is responsible for the second most number of injuries (22%). 
When there is inadequate clearance between the seat and frame, an 
infant's head can become caught, or the infant's limbs can hit the 
swing frame while the swing is in motion.
b. Assessment of ASTM F 2088-11b
    We believe that this hazard can be addressed by ensuring that the 
infant is kept securely within the seat's boundaries. If an infant is 
unable to maneuver outside the seat's boundaries, the infant's head is 
unlikely to be trapped in the swing frame or their limbs are unlikely 
to get into a position where they may hit the frame. The shoulder 
restraint requirement, mandated in ASTM F 2088-11b for swings with a 
seat back angle greater than 50[deg], is sufficient to address 
situations involving inadequate clearance between the seat and seat 
frame.
c. Description of Proposed Changes
    In section (E)(3)(c) of this preamble, we describe several 
clarifications to the seat back angle test used to determine which 
swings require a shoulder harness. These clarifications will result in 
a more stringent standard, by ensuring that measurements are more 
accurate and repeatable, thus, reducing the number of injuries 
associated with swings.
d. Proposed Change in Standard
    We propose adding several clarifications to the seat back angle 
test that is used to determine which swings require a shoulder harness. 
These clarifications have been discussed previously in section 
(E)(3)(c) of this preamble, and the proposed changes are contained in 
section (E)(3)(d) of the preamble.

7. Electrical or Battery Issues

a. Description of Hazard
    Infant swings typically rely on a/c power, batteries, or a 
combination of both, to operate the product. Nine percent of the 
reports we received related to electrical or battery issues associated 
with infant swings. Common reports included: The motor overheating, 
batteries leaking, or the detection of smoke. Issues related to 
electrical or battery problems accounted for 1 percent of all reported 
injuries.
b. Assessment of ASTM F 2088-11b
    Currently, ASTM F 2088-11b contains standards that regulate battery 
compartments only. Section 6.7 of ASTM 2088-11b requires that the 
battery compartment be marked permanently to show the correct battery 
polarity, size, and voltage. Battery compartments are also required to 
have a means to contain the electrolyte material in the event that the 
battery leaks. ASTM 2088-11b also contains a requirement prohibiting 
nonrechargeable batteries from being recharged with a/c power. In 
addition, section 8.4 of ASTM 2088-11b requires all swings that use 
more than one battery to contain warnings. The warnings advise 
consumers not to mix old and new batteries, not to mix different kinds 
of batteries, and not to leave batteries in the swing when storing the 
product for long periods of time. There are no other requirements 
regarding the design and operation of the electrical components of 
swings.
c. Description of Proposed Changes
    The proposed rule would impose several new requirements to address 
hazards related to the electrical components of swings. We are 
proposing: (1) An electrical overload test; (2) an accessible component 
temperature requirement; and (3) a requirement to ensure that swings 
that run on a/c power are safe.
    Electrical components (such as motors, batteries, and circuit 
boards) in a swing can overheat, and this can cause the components to 
melt, smoke, explode, or cause a fire. We are proposing a test to 
address this hazard; the proposed test is substantially similar to the 
test found in the ASTM F 963-08, ``Standard Consumer Safety 
Specification for Toy Safety'' (``ASTM F 963-08''). The proposed test 
would check to ensure that a normal electrical load cannot overload the 
electrical circuit. It would require the swing to be locked in a fixed 
position and operated continuously until a peak temperature can be 
recorded. For swings that operate continuously, the test would be 
stopped 60 minutes after the peak temperature is recorded. Under the 
proposal, a swing will fail the overload test if it causes battery 
leakage, explosion, smoke, or a fire. For swings that operate on 
batteries and a/c power, the proposal would require both power sources, 
as well as any type of battery that can be used, to be tested 
separately to ensure that they all meet the requirement.
    The proposed accessible component temperature requirement would 
state that, during the electrical overload test, no accessible 
component may achieve a temperature exceeding 160[deg]. Accessible 
components are those that a child or caregiver would be able to touch. 
This test is meant to protect the public from burns caused by very hot 
electrical components.
    The proposed rule also would require swings that run on a/c power 
(i.e., swings that come with an electrical cord that is plugged into a 
wall socket) to comply with 16 CFR part 1505, the requirements for 
electrically operated toys and other electrically operated articles 
intended for children. The regulations at 16 CFR part 1505 contain 
established labeling, manufacturing, design, construction, and 
performance requirements intended to ensure that toys and electrical 
items intended for children are safe for their use.
    The addition of new requirements for electrical components, 
including the electrical overload test, the accessible component 
temperature requirement, and the a/c power requirement, will reduce the 
number of injuries associated with swings. These provisions would 
ensure that motors and batteries do not overheat and catch fire, that 
accessible components do not become hot enough to burn a child or a 
caregiver, and that swings that run on a/c power are safe, as measured 
by well-established CPSC regulations already in place that govern 
electrical toys and other products intended for children.
d. Proposed Change in Standard
    Currently, the introductory heading of ASTM F 2088-11b section 6.7 
is:

    6.7 Swings Containing Battery Compartment(s) (remote control 
devices are exempt from the requirements in 6.7):


[[Page 7017]]


    We are proposing that the introductory heading of section 6.7 of 
ASTM F 2088-11b be replaced by the following:

    6.7 Electrically Powered Swings (remote control devices are 
exempt from the requirements in 6.7):

    In addition to complying with the existing sections 6.7.1, 6.7.2, 
and 6.7.3 of ASTM F 2088-11b (which deal with batteries and battery 
compartments only), we propose adding the following:

    6.7.4 The surfaces of the batteries, switch, motor, or any other 
accessible electrical components shall not achieve temperatures 
exceeding 160 [deg]F (71 [deg]C) when tested in accordance with 
7.13. At the conclusion of the test, the stalled motor condition 
shall not cause battery leakage, explosion, smoking, or a fire to 
any electrical component. This test shall be performed prior to 
conducting any other testing within the Performance Requirements 
section.
    6.7.5 Swings operating from an a/c power source, nominally a 
120-V branch circuit, shall conform to 16 CFR 1505.

    We also propose adding the following test method to ASTM F 2088-11b 
at section 7.13:

    7.13 Electrical Overload Test--The test shall be conducted using 
a new swing. The swing shall be tested using fresh alkaline 
batteries or an a/c power source. If the swing can be operated using 
both, then both batteries and a/c power must be tested separately. 
If another battery chemistry is specifically recommended by the 
manufacturer for use in the swing, repeat the test using the 
batteries specified by the manufacturer. If the swing will not 
operate using alkaline batteries, then test with the type of battery 
recommended by the manufacturer at the specified voltage. The test 
is to be carried out in a draft-free location, at an ambient 
temperature of 68  9 [deg]F (20  5 [deg]C).
    7.13.1 Operate the swing at the maximum speed setting with the 
swing seat locked in a fixed position. Do not disable any mechanical 
or electrical protective device, such as clutches or fuses. Operate 
the swing continuously, and record peak temperature. The test may be 
discontinued 60 min after the peak temperature is recorded. If the 
swing shuts off automatically or must be kept ``on'' by hand or 
foot, monitor temperatures for 30 s, resetting the swing as many 
times as necessary to complete the 30 s of operation. If the swing 
shuts off automatically after an operating time of greater than 30 
s, continue the test until the swing shuts off.

8. Instability

a. Description of Hazard
    Swing instability occurs when one leg of the swing lifts up or the 
swing tips over completely. Swing instability accounted for 4 percent 
of the reported incidents and 2 percent of the reported injuries 
involved. In some incidents, the swing was on an elevated surface and 
inched along until it fell off the surface. This scenario resulted in a 
hospitalization from the fall.
 b. Assessment of ASTM F 2088-11b
    ASTM F 2088-11b contains performance requirements and test methods 
meant to prevent swing instability. The first requirement and test 
method is the ``Unintentional Folding'' test, which requires a force to 
be applied to the end of the swing leg in the direction normally 
associated with folding. This test will ensure that the swing will not 
fold and collapse while in use.
    The second requirement and test method is the ``Stability in the 
Direction of Swing Motion'' test. This test is used on swings that have 
designs in which the swing moves back and forth with a horizontal swing 
motion. The test requires that the swing be placed on an inclined 
surface of 20[deg]. In this position, the swing cannot tip over or it 
fails the test. The swing is then rotated 180[deg] and again placed on 
the inclined surface where, again, it must not tip over in order to 
pass. For swings with a horizontal swing motion, this is the best test 
to ensure that they will not tip over.
    In addition, ASTM F 2088-11b has a warning label requirement to 
address situations where a consumer might put a swing, usually a 
smaller travel size swing, on an elevated surface. This action resulted 
in a very serious injury to a child when the swing fell off the 
elevated surface. Section 8.3.1(5) of ASTM F 2088-11b requires travel 
swings to have the following warning: ``Always place swing on floor. 
Never use on any elevated surface.''
c. Description of Proposed Changes
    The proposed rule would clarify the test methods for both the 
``Unintentional Folding'' test and the ``Stability in the Direction of 
Swing Motion'' test. The clarifications are meant to address swing 
designs that are not tested adequately using the existing requirements.
    The current ``Unintentional Folding'' test works well with swings 
that have an A-frame design. An A-frame swing has two legs that are 
shaped like the letter ``A,'' with a bar that connects the top of the 
``A's.'' Two arms hang from the bar and support the swing. However, 
some swings on the market have an L-shaped design. These swings have 
two L-shaped legs that come together at the top. Where the two ``Ls'' 
join, a single arm hangs down to support the swing. For swings with an 
L-shaped design, the current test (which requires the force to be 
placed on the end of the leg in the direction normally associated with 
folding) will not adequately test the swing to ensure that it will not 
fold while in use. Our testing on L-shaped infant swing designs 
revealed that forces placed at the end of the L-shaped legs created a 
twisting motion. This twisting motion may not exercise the latch to the 
same extent as a force applied to the end of a leg in an A-frame infant 
swing.
    Additionally, for this test, we want to clarify the location of the 
applied force. The phrase, ``end of the leg,'' could be interpreted 
inconsistently over various infant swing leg designs.
    Thus, the proposed rule would require that the test address all 
swing designs, and it would do so by adding language that would require 
the tester to put the force ``at the lowest point on the leg that 
results in the greatest force on the latch in the direction normally 
associated with folding.'' This will adequately test A-frame swings and 
L-shaped swings.
    The proposed rule would make clarifications to the stability test, 
as well. The current test is appropriate for swings with a horizontal 
swing motion. Swings with a horizontal swing motion move back and 
forth. However, some swings move from side to side or have another type 
of swing motion. For these swings, the current test will not adequately 
predict stability issues. Therefore, the proposal would change the 
stability test to account for swings with other types of swing motions. 
Swings with a horizontal swing motion would continue to be tested in 
the same way (placing the swing on an inclined surface and then 
rotating it 180[deg]). However, for swings with other than a horizontal 
motion, the proposed rule would require the tester to test the swing on 
the inclined surface in the most onerous swing orientations. This will 
ensure that all swings will be tested in the position most likely to 
fail.
    Currently, the stability test requires the tester to account for 
different height positions, recline positions, and facing directions in 
order to ensure that the swing is safe in any configuration. For both 
swings with a horizontal swing motion and swings with other types of 
swing motions, we propose taking into consideration the direction of 
motion, the tray position, and any other adjustable features to ensure 
that the swing will be tested adequately in all possible 
configurations.
    The test clarifications to the unintentional folding and stability 
tests will ensure that all types of swings, in all possible 
configurations, are adequately tested to ensure that the swing remains 
upright and functioning while the infant is placed in the swing.

[[Page 7018]]

This will reduce the number of injuries associated with swings that 
fold unexpectedly or tip over.
d. Proposed Change in Standard
    Currently, ASTM F 2088-11b contains the following test method at 
sections 7.3.2.3, 7.3.2.4 and 7.3.2.5:

    7.3.2.3 Position the product on the inclined surface with the 
axis of swinging motion parallel to the stop and the lower most 
frame member(s) in contact with the stop as shown in Fig. 5. If the 
product contains an axis of swinging motion that does not remain 
parallel to the stop during the full cycle of the swinging motion, 
the product shall be tested in the positions most likely to fail.
    7.3.2.4 If the swing seat has more than one height position, 
recline position, or facing direction, test the product in the 
configuration most likely to fail.
    7.3.2.5 Rotate the swing frame 180[deg] and repeat the steps in 
7.3.2.2-7.3.2.4.

    We are proposing that the following section 7.3.2.3 replace the 
existing sections 7.3.2.3, 7.3.2.4 and 7.3.2.5 of ASTM F 2088-11b:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10FE12.004

    To account for products with a swing motion that is not horizontal, 
we are proposing that the text of ASTM F 2088-11b section 7.3.2.4 be as 
follows:

    7.3.2.4 For a product with other than a horizontal axis of swing 
motion, position the product on the inclined surface in the most 
onerous swing orientation, such that the product is in contact with 
the stop. If the swing seat has more than one height position, 
recline position, facing direction, direction of motion, tray 
position, or other adjustable feature, test the product in the 
configuration most likely to fail.

    Currently, ASTM F 2088-11b contains the following test method at 
section 7.4.1:

    7.4.1 With the unit in the manufacturer's recommended use 
position, apply a force of 10 lbf (45 N) at the end of a leg in the 
direction normally associated with folding, while holding opposite 
leg(s) stationary. Gradually apply the force over 5 s, and maintain 
for an additional 10 s. Repeat this test on each leg.

    We are proposing to replace section 7.4.1 of ASTM F 2088-11b as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10FE12.005

9. Broken or Detached Toys and Mobiles

a. Description of Hazard
    Many swings come with infant toys or mobiles meant to entertain 
infants in the swing. Two percent of the incident reports and 4 percent 
of the injury reports are attributable to broken and detached toys and 
mobiles. Some injuries occurred when mobiles completely detached from 
the swing and fell onto the child.
 b. Assessment of ASTM F 2088-11b
    Currently, ASTM F 2088-11b requires toy mobiles included with 
infant swings to be tested for detachment. The test method, contained 
in section 7.11 of ASTM F 2088-11b, requires the tester to pull the 
mobile in a vertical downward direction toward where the occupant would 
be. A detachment, other than that of a soft toy, is considered a 
failure.
c. Description of Proposed Changes
    The proposed rule would clarify that the standard must account for 
mobiles that may fail if they are pulled in a direction other than 
straight downward vertically. It would require that the direction of 
force be in the most onerous position that is below the horizontal 
plane. In other words, a child in a swing will always be pulling in a 
downward direction, but under the proposal, the test would account for 
a child who pulls down, but slightly to the right or slightly to the 
left. To help manufacturers and third party conformity assessment 
bodies, we propose including a graphic in the standard illustrating the 
area below the horizontal plane. Our proposal would eliminate 
detachments that might occur from forces applied to the mobile in 
inadvertent directions, and the proposal will reduce the risk of 
injuries associated with this hazard.
d. Proposed Change in Standard
    Currently, ASTM F 2088-11b contains the following test method at 
section 7.11.3:

    7.11.3 Gradually apply a vertical downward force of 10 lbf in 
the direction of the occupant to the end of the mobile furthest from 
the swing attachment point. Apply the force within 5 s and maintain 
for an additional 10 s.

    The proposal would revise section 7.11.3 of ASTM F 2088-11b as 
follows:

[[Page 7019]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10FE12.009

    We also propose adding the following Figure 8a, Mobile Attachment 
Strength, to ASTM F 2088-11b:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10FE12.007

10. Miscellaneous

a. Description of Hazard
    Four percent of the reported incidents and 7 percent of all 
injuries are attributable to miscellaneous causes. Of the incidents 
that we found to be product related, most include small parts, 
including pieces of fabric that detach and can result in a choking 
hazard. Other reports involve sharp protrusions and surfaces that can 
cause cuts and scrapes.
b. Assessment of ASTM F 2088-11b
    We have evaluated these incidents and have determined that ASTM F 
2088-11b addresses these incidents. For example, there are already 
requirements that prohibit small parts and sharp edges that can pose 
injury hazards to children. Consequently, we are not proposing any 
changes based on the incidents reported in this category.

11. Summary of CPSC Recommended Changes to ASTM F 2088-11b

    In conclusion, the proposed rule would add two new requirements to 
ASTM F 2088-11b that will make the standard more stringent than the 
current voluntary standard and will 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 propose two major modifications to ASTM F 2088-11b 
that will make the standard more stringent than the current voluntary 
standard and will 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, the 
proposal would clarify the test methods for the dynamic load test, the 
stability test, the unintentional folding test, and the seat back angle 
measurement method. Each of these clarifications would make the 
resulting standard more stringent than the current voluntary standard 
and will result in a reduction of injuries because they will result in 
more accurate and repeatable testing of infant swings, which will lead 
to safer products.

F. Effective Date

    The Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'') generally requires that 
the effective date of the rule be at least 30 days after publication of 
the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). To allow time for infant swings to 
come into compliance, we intend for the standard to become effective 6 
months after the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. 
We invite comment on how long it will take infant swing manufacturers 
to come into compliance.

[[Page 7020]]

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Introduction

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  601-
612, requires agencies to consider the impact of proposed rules on 
small entities, including small businesses. Section 603 of the RFA 
requires us to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and 
make it available to the public for comment when the notice of proposed 
rulemaking is published. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis 
must describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. In 
addition, it must identify any significant alternatives to the proposed 
rule that would accomplish the stated objectives of the rule and, at 
the same time, reduce the economic impact on small businesses. 
Specifically, the initial regulatory flexibility analysis must contain:
     A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the 
number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
     A description of the reasons why action by the agency is 
being considered;
     A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis 
for, the proposed rule;
     A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, 
and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities subject to the requirements, 
and the type of professional skills necessary for the preparation of 
reports or records; and
     Identification, to the extent possible, of all relevant 
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 
proposed rule.

2. The Market

    Based on a 2005 survey conducted by American Baby Group titled, 
``2006 Baby Products Tracking Study,'' along with 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 of these firms are 
domestic manufacturers, and two of these firms are domestic importers 
with foreign parent companies.
    Under the 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, six domestic manufacturers and 
both domestic importers known to supply infant swings to the U.S. 
market are small businesses. The remaining entities are two large 
domestic manufacturers. There may be additional unknown small 
manufacturers and importers operating in the U.S. market.
    The JPMA runs a voluntary certification program for juvenile 
products. Certification under the JPMA program is based on the ASTM 
voluntary infant swing standard. Two of the six small manufacturers 
produce swings that are certified as compliant with the ASTM voluntary 
infant swing standard by the JPMA. Of the importers, one imports swings 
that have been certified as compliant with the ASTM voluntary infant 
swing standard.

3. Impact on Small Business

a. Costs of Complying With the Voluntary Standard
    Section 104(b) of the CPSIA requires us 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 we conclude 
that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of 
injury associated with the product. The extent to which each firm will 
be impacted by the proposed rule depends on whether the firm's infant 
swings currently comply with the ASTM voluntary standard. Small firms 
whose infant swings already comply with the voluntary standard will 
only potentially incur costs related to our recommended additions and 
modifications to the standard.
b. Small Manufacturers
    Two of the small manufacturers have infant swings known to comply 
with the voluntary standard. The costs, if any, to these firms 
associated with our recommended changes are not expected to be 
significant. Any impact may be mitigated if the costs are treated as 
new product expenses and amortized over time.
    The costs to the four manufacturing firms whose infant swings may 
not be compliant with the voluntary standard could be more significant. 
Meeting the existing voluntary standard could require manufacturers to 
redesign their product. However, we believe that the actual costs to 
most manufacturers will not be high, and any costs that are incurred 
can be mitigated if they are treated as new product expenses and 
amortized over time. This scenario also assumes that the four firms 
whose swings are not JPMA certified do not meet the ASTM voluntary 
standard. In fact, we have identified many instances in which a 
juvenile product not certified by the JPMA does comply with the ASTM 
voluntary standard. To the extent that the firms may already supply 
infant swings that meet the ASTM voluntary standard, the costs incurred 
will be less.
c. Small Importers
    Importers of infant swings would need to find an alternate source 
if their existing supplier does not come into compliance with the 
proposed standard. Purchasing compliant, higher quality infant swings 
could increase the cost of the product. Importers could pass on some of 
these increased costs to consumers. Some importers could respond to the 
rule by discontinuing the import of infant swings. The impact of this 
decision could be mitigated by replacing swings with a different infant 
or toddler product. Deciding to import an alternative infant or toddler 
product would be a reasonable and realistic way to offset any lost 
revenue.
    Both of the known importers are subsidiaries importing their infant 
swings from a foreign parent company. Finding an alternative supply 
source would not be an option for these firms. However, they could 
respond to the rule by discontinuing the import of their noncompliant 
infant swings and replacing them with another infant or toddler 
product. This is more likely to be necessary for the importer supplying 
infant swings that are not believed to be compliant with the voluntary 
standard.
d. Costs of Complying With Our Recommended Changes
    We are proposing two new requirements, two major modifications, and 
several testing clarifications to ASTM F 2088-11b.
    The proposed electrical and battery requirements would result in 
low or no costs to small firms. A firm's inability to comply with these 
requirements would most likely be the result of a defect that would be 
remedied by replacing the battery or other power source. According to 
one source in the industry, it is already fairly common for 
manufacturers to test their products to ensure that the electrical 
system will not overheat.
    The proposed seat deflection test, depending on the swing design, 
would result in some costs to smaller firms. Swings likely to be 
affected are those in which a single swing arm supports the seat. In 
most cases, manufacturers of these types of swings would be able to 
produce infant swings that comply with the proposed requirement by 
using stronger materials. It is possible that a few firms may opt to 
redesign their

[[Page 7021]]

product, which would be more costly. In either case, only a small 
number of firms will be affected.
    The proposed modifications to the dynamic load test, which would 
increase the number of cycles in the test from 50 to 500, may have an 
impact on some swing manufacturers but have little or no impact on 
others. If there are modifications associated with this change, they 
might be substantial. Some products might only need stronger screws or 
a better way of attaching swing components. Some swings might require a 
complete product redesign. Therefore, it is unclear how many products 
will be affected by modifying this requirement and what the costs will 
be.
    We expect that the proposed modification to the infant mobile 
requirement would have a significant impact on swing manufacturers 
whose products require modifications to comply. Not only would these 
products need to be redesigned, the hard tool used to manufacture the 
swing component would need to be changed. The hard tool is the mold of 
the desired infant swing component shape. During the manufacturing 
process, the component is made by injecting plastic or other material 
into the tool. Hard tools are usually made by an outside firm, which 
means that production of the swing would cease until the tool is 
designed and created. While this will be costly for some firms, it is 
expected to impact only a small number of firms whose mobiles would not 
meet the proposed change.
    The testing clarifications would not require product modifications. 
These changes are meant to ensure that testing is consistent and 
repeatable. There would be no economic impact on small firms as a 
result of these changes.

4. Alternatives

    Under the CPSIA, we must promulgate consumer product safety 
standards that are substantially the same as the voluntary standards 
for durable infant or toddler products, or promulgate consumer product 
safety standards that are more stringent than the voluntary standards, 
if the Commission determines that more stringent standards would 
further reduce the risk of injury associated with such products. 
Adopting the voluntary standard without change is one alternative that 
could reduce the potential cost to small businesses. However, small 
firms that are not compliant with the voluntary rule still would incur 
costs to become compliant with the existing ASTM standard for infant 
swings, regardless of whether we recommend changes.
    A second alternative is to set an effective date longer than 6 
months to allow firms additional time to comply with the mandatory 
standard. More time would give manufacturers an opportunity to make any 
necessary changes to their product and provide importers time to find 
an alternative supply source or replace noncompliant swings with an 
alternative infant or toddler product, if necessary.

5. Conclusion of Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    It is possible that the proposed standard, if finalized, could have 
a significant impact on some small businesses whose infant swings are 
not ASTM compliant. Further, it is possible that some swings that are 
already ASTM compliant might incur costs associated with our 
recommended changes. For manufacturers, the extent of these costs could 
entail expensive product redesign. Importers may need to find 
alternative sources of infant swings or replace swings with another 
infant or toddler product.
    We invite comments describing:
     The possible impact of this rule on small manufacturers 
and importers; and
     Significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would 
accomplish the stated objectives of the proposed rule, and at the same 
time, reduce the economic impact on small businesses.

H. Environmental Considerations

    The Commission's regulations address whether we are required to 
prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact 
statement. If our rule has ``little or no potential for affecting the 
human environment'' it will be categorically exempted from this 
requirement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The proposed rule falls within the 
categorical exemption.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. Introduction

    This proposed rule contains information collection requirements 
that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of 
Management and Budget (``OMB'') under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In this document, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 
3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth:
     A title for the collection of information;
     A summary of the collection of information;
     A brief description of the need for the information and 
the proposed use of the information;
     A description of the likely respondents and proposed 
frequency of responses to the collection of information;
     An estimate of the burden that shall result from the 
collection of information; and
     Notice that comments may be submitted to the OMB.

2. Title and Description of the Collection of Information

    The title for this collection of information is ``Safety Standard 
for Infant Swings.'' The proposed rule would require each infant swing 
to comply with ASTM F 2088-11b, Standard Consumer Safety Specification 
for Infant Swings. Sections 8.1 and section 9.1 of ASTM F 2088-11b 
contain requirements for marking, labeling, and instructional 
literature. These requirements fall within the definition of 
``collection of information,'' as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3). 
Specifically, 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2) states that a collection of 
information includes information that an agency requires another 
entity, such as an infant swing manufacturer or importer, to obtain or 
compile for the purpose of disclosure to the public through labeling.
    Section 8.1 of ASTM F 2088-11b requires that the following items be 
clearly and legibly marked on each infant swing and its retail carton:
     The name and the place of business (city, state, and zip 
code) or telephone number of the manufacturer, importer distributor, or 
seller;
     A model number, stock number, catalog number, item number, 
or other symbol expressed numerically, or otherwise, such that only 
articles of identical construction, composition, and dimensions bear 
identical markings; and
     A code mark or other means that identifies the date (month 
and year, as a minimum) of manufacture.
    This information is necessary in order to assist us and consumers 
when there is a need to identify: (1) The firm supplying the infant 
swing, (2) the model number (or other identifying mark) of the infant 
swing, and (3) the date the swing was manufactured.
    Section 9.1 of ASTM F 2088-11b requires all firms supplying swings 
to provide written, easy to read, instructions regarding assembly, 
maintenance, cleaning, and use. Instructional literature ensures that 
consumers are aware of how to use the product as the manufacturer 
intended.
    The information required in sections 8.1 and 9.1 of ASTM F 2088-11b 
is intended to address safety issues that might arise with the product. 
The

[[Page 7022]]

instructional literature in section 9.1 of ASTM F 2088-11b is meant to 
prevent safety problems by providing assembly and maintenance 
information to consumers. The information required in section 8.1 of 
ASTM F 2088-11b is intended to help us and the consumer identify the 
firm and the product, should a safety issue arise.

3. Description of the Respondents and the Estimated Burden

    The respondents affected by this collection of information are 
manufacturers or importers of infant swings. We estimate the burden of 
this collection of information as follows:

                                   Table 3--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Number of     Frequency of    Total annual      Hours per     Total burden
         16 CFR Section             respondents      responses       responses       response          hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1223.2(a).......................               5               5              25               1              25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are 10 known entities supplying infant swings to the U.S. 
market. Five entities produce labels that comply with the standard. We 
assume these five entities produce labels that comply with the standard 
because they claim that their infant swings comply with ASTM F 2088-
11b, and the swings are certified by the JPMA as conforming to ASTM F 
2088-11b. Therefore, we assume that their products meet the marking and 
labeling requirements of ASTM F 2088-11b. For these entities, there 
would be no additional burden. Under the OMB's regulations at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b)(2), the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to 
comply with a collection of information that would be incurred by 
persons in the ``normal course of their activities'' are excluded from 
a burden estimate, where an agency demonstrates that the disclosure 
activities required to comply are ``usual and customary.'' Therefore, 
because these five entities already produce labels that comply with the 
standard, we estimate tentatively, that with respect to these five 
entities, there are no burden hours associated with section 8.1 of ASTM 
F 2088-11b because any burden associated with supplying these labels 
would be ``usual and customary'' and not within the definition of 
``burden'' under the OMB's regulations.
    We assume that the remaining five entities use labels on their 
products and their packaging but may need to modify their existing 
labels. Based on our experience with other rules under section 104 of 
the CPSIA, we estimate that the time required to make these 
modifications is about 1 hour per model. Each entity supplies an 
average of five different models of infant swings; therefore, the 
estimated burden hours associated with labels is 1 hour per model x 5 
entities x 5 models per entity = 25 hours.
    We estimate that the hourly compensation for the time required to 
create and update labels is $28.36. We base the hourly compensation 
figure on data available from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. This 
information can be found in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' 
September 2011 data in Table 9, ``Employer Costs for Employee 
Compensation,'' for all sales and office workers in goods-producing 
private industries, which can be found at: https://www/bls.gov/ncs. 
Therefore, the estimated annual cost to industry associated with the 
proposed labeling requirements is $709.00 ($28.36 per hour x 25 hours = 
$709.00).
    Section 9.1 of ASTM F 2088-11b requires instructions to be supplied 
with the product. Infant swings are products that generally require 
assembly, and products sold without such information would not be able 
to compete successfully with products supplying this information. Under 
the OMB's regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), the time, effort, and 
financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of 
information that would be incurred by persons in the ``normal course of 
their activities'' are excluded from a burden estimate, where an agency 
demonstrates that the disclosure activities required to comply are 
``usual and customary.'' Therefore, because we are unaware of infant 
swings that generally require some installation but lack any 
instructions to the user about such installation, we tentatively 
estimate that there are no burden hours associated with section 9.1 of 
ASTM F 2088-11b because any burden associated with supplying 
instructions with infant swings would be ``usual and customary'' and 
not within the definition of ``burden'' under the OMB's regulations.

4. Conclusion

    Based on this analysis, the proposed standard for infant swings 
would impose a burden to industry of 25 hours at a cost of $709.00 
annually.

5. Request for Comments

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), we have submitted the information collection requirements of 
this rule to the OMB for review. Anyone who would like to submit 
comments regarding information collection should do so by March 12, 
2012, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see the 
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice).
    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), we invite comments on:
     Whether the collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the CPSC's functions, including whether the 
information will have practical utility;
     The accuracy of the CPSC's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
     Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected;
     Ways to reduce the burden of the collection of information 
on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques, 
when appropriate, and other forms of information technology; and
     The estimated burden hours associated with label 
modification, including any alternative estimates.

J. Preemption

    Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that where a 
consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, 
no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or 
continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury 
unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. 
Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political 
subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption 
from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of the 
CPSIA refers to the rules to be issued under that section as ``consumer 
product safety rules,'' thus implying that the preemptive effect of 
section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply.

[[Page 7023]]

Therefore, a rule issued under section 104 of the CPSIA will invoke the 
preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA when the rule becomes 
effective.

K. 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 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.
    Before the requirement for third party testing and certification 
for infant swings can go into effect, we must issue a notice of 
requirements to explain how laboratories can become accredited as third 
party conformity assessment bodies to test infant swings to the new 
safety standard. We plan to issue the notice of requirements in the 
future.

L. 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 
infant swings. We invite all interested persons to submit comments on 
any aspect of the proposed rule. In particular, we seek comments on the 
following:
     We discuss slump-over deaths in section (E)(2) of this 
preamble. We invite comments related to whether it would reduce the 
risk of slump-over deaths if we revise the standard to state that 
infants who cannot hold their head up should not be placed in any 
infant swing, or in the alternative, whether infants who cannot hold 
their head up should only be placed in cradle swings, which allow an 
infant to lie flat. We invite comments related to whether the warning 
statement contained in section 8.3.1(4) of ASTM F 2088-11b (which 
requires the following warning label on all infant swings having an 
adjustable seat recline with a seat back angle greater than 50[deg]: 
``Use only in most reclined seat position until infant can hold head up 
unassisted'') is sufficient to warn caregivers of the risk of slump-
over deaths. We also invite comments related to whether 50[deg] is the 
appropriate seat back angle to use in the warning, and what warnings 
should be on swings that do not have an adjustable seat back; and
     We discuss seat deflection hazards in section (E)(5) of 
this preamble. If a swing seat deflects, or leans, substantially, an 
infant could fall out of the swing or bump against the frame. We invite 
comments on whether the proposed performance requirement and test 
method adequately will predict whether a swing seat is likely to 
deflect.
     We discuss electrical and battery issues in section (E)(7) 
of this preamble. Some swings operate using batteries but can be 
powered alternatively with an a/c adaptor. Our proposed test would 
require that each of the power sources meet the requirements. 
Additionally, if alternative batteries are specified by the 
manufacturer as usable to power the swing, they would also be required 
to be tested. The proposed test is to be conducted using new swings. 
This may require more than one swing to be tested in order to 
independently test each type of battery and/or a/c power adaptor that 
could be used with the swing. We invite comments describing whether 
there is an alternate test method that would accomplish the stated 
objectives of the test and, at the same time, reduce the cost on 
manufacturers.
     Infant swings are regulated by a children's product safety 
rule and are subject to testing that must be performed according to a 
notice of requirements. The Commission seeks comment on methods to 
ensure that, when the existing safety rule for infant swings and its 
notice of requirements must be amended, the effective dates of the 
notice of requirements and the amended infant swings safety rule are 
aligned such that no infant swings are subject to a notice of 
requirements that is inconsistent with the infant swings safety rule in 
effect.
    Comments should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in 
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.

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 proposes to amend Title 16 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations by adding part 1223 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).


Sec.  1223.1  Scope.

    This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for infant 
swings.


Sec.  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 F 2088-
11b, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Infant Swings, approved 
on October 1, 2011. 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; https://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: https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal regulations/ibr_
locations.html.
    (b) Comply with the ASTM F 2088-11b standard with the following 
additions or exclusions:
    (1) In addition to complying with section 6.1.2 of ASTM 2088-11b, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 6.1.2.1 The swing seat shall not have a change in vertical 
deflection greater than 4 in. The change in vertical deflection shall 
be calculated by subtracting the distance measured in 7.2.2.2 from the 
distance measured in 7.2.2.3.
    (2) Instead of complying with the introductory heading in 6.7 of 
ASTM 2088-11b, comply with the following:
    (i) 6.7 Electrically Powered Swings (remote control devices are 
exempt from the requirements in 6.7):
    (3) In addition to complying with 6.7.3 of ASTM 2088-11b, comply 
with the following:
    (i) 6.7.4 The surfaces of the batteries, switch, motor, or any 
other accessible electrical components shall not achieve temperatures 
exceeding 160[emsp14][deg]F (71[deg] C) when tested in accordance with 
7.13. At the conclusion of the test, the stalled

[[Page 7024]]

motor condition shall not cause battery leakage, explosion, smoking, or 
a fire to any electrical component. This test shall be performed prior 
to conducting any other testing within the Performance Requirement 
section.
    (ii) 6.7.5 Swings operating from an a/c power source, nominally a 
120-V branch circuit, shall conform to 16 CFR 1505.
    (4) Instead of complying with section 7.2.1.2 of ASTM 2088-11b, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.2.1.2 Set-up the swing in accordance with the manufacturer's 
instructions. If the swing seat has more than one height position, 
recline position, facing direction, tray position, or other adjustable 
feature, test the product in the configuration most likely to fail.
    (5) Instead of complying with 7.2.1.3 of ASTM 2088-11b, comply with 
the following:
    (i) 7.2.1.3 Place the shot bag on the seating surface of the swing 
and allow swinging motion to come to rest. Secure the swing so that the 
seat cannot move during the test. The means of securing the seat shall 
not affect the outcome of the test. Raise the shot bag a distance of 1 
in. above the seat of the swing. Drop the weight onto the seat 500 
times, with a cycle time of 4  1s/cycle. The drop height is 
to be adjusted to maintain the 1 in. drop height as is practical.
    (6) Instead of complying with section 7.2.2.2 of ASTM 2088-11b, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.2.2.2 Place a static load of 5 lb (2.3 kg) in the center of 
the seat distributed by a wood block. Measure and record the vertical 
distance from the floor to the lowest point on the infant swing's 
seating surface. Remove the load.
    (7) In addition to complying with the changes to section 7.2.2.2 of 
ASTM 2088-11b as described in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, comply 
with the following:
    (i) 7.2.2.3 By any necessary means, place a static load of 75 lb 
(34.1 kg) or 3 times the manufacturer's maximum recommended weight, 
whichever is greater, in the center of the seat distributed by a wood 
block. Gradually apply the weight within 5 s and maintain for 60 s. 
Measure and record the vertical distance from the floor to the lowest 
point on the loaded infant swing's seating surface.
    (8) Instead of complying with section 7.3.2.3 of ASTM 2088-11b, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.3.2.3 For a product with a horizontal axis of swing motion, 
position the product on the inclined surface with the axis of swinging 
motion parallel to the stop and the lower most frame member(s) in 
contact with the stop as shown in Fig. 5. If the swing seat has more 
than one height position, recline position, facing direction, direction 
of motion, tray position, or other adjustable feature, test the product 
in the configuration most likely to fail. Rotate the swing frame 
180[deg] and repeat the procedure.
    (9) Instead of complying with section 7.3.2.4 of ASTM 2088-11b, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.3.2.4 For a product with other than a horizontal axis of 
swing motion, position the product on the inclined surface in the most 
onerous swing orientation such that the product is in contact with the 
stop. If the swing seat has more than one height position, recline 
position, facing direction, direction of motion, tray position, or 
other adjustable feature, test the product in the configuration most 
likely to fail.
    (10) Do not comply with 7.3.2.5 of ASTM 2088-11b.
    (11) Instead of complying with section 7.4.1 of ASTM 2088-11b, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.4.1 With the unit in the manufacturer's recommended use 
position, apply a force of 10 lbf (45 N) at the lowest point on the leg 
that results in the greatest force on the latch in the direction 
normally associated with folding, while holding the opposite leg(s) 
stationary. Gradually apply the force over 5 s, and maintain for an 
additional 10 s. Repeat this test on each leg.
    (12) Instead of complying with section 7.11.3 of ASTM 2088-11b, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.11.3 Gradually apply a force of 10 lbf to the end of the 
mobile or component furthest from the swing attachment point. The 
direction of force shall be in the most onerous direction that is at or 
below the horizontal plane passing through the point at which the force 
is applied (see Fig. 8a). Apply the force within 5 s, maintain for an 
additional 10 s, and release within 1 s. The test is complete after the 
release.
    (13) In addition to Figure 8 of ASTM 2088-11b, use the following:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10FE12.008
    

[[Page 7025]]


    (14) Instead of complying with section 7.12 of ASTM 2088-11b, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.12 Seat Back Angle Measurement--Place the back of the swing 
in the most upright use position. Remove positioning accessories, 
including pillows. Orient the belt restraint segments to limit the 
interaction with the hinged boards. Place the hinged boards with the 
hinged edge into the junction of the swing back and seat (see Fig. 8). 
Place the inclinometer on the floor, and zero the reading. Manually 
pivot the swing to its furthermost back position. While maintaining 
this position, place the inclinometer up against the back recline board 
to obtain the seat back angle as shown in Fig. 9. Hinged boards shall 
be made of C1020 steel using a 4 by 4 in. (101 by 101 mm) plate hinged 
to a 4 by 9 in. (101 by 225 mm) plate. The thicknesses shall be 
adjusted so that the mass is equal to 17.5 lbm.
    (15) In addition to complying with the changes to section 7.12 of 
ASTM 2088-11b as described in paragraph (b)(14) of this section, comply 
with the following:
    (i) 7.13 Electrical Overload Test--The test shall be conducted 
using a new swing. The swing shall be tested using fresh alkaline 
batteries or an a/c power source. If the swing can be operated using 
both, then both batteries and a/c power must be tested separately. If 
another battery chemistry is specifically recommended by the 
manufacturer for use in the swing, repeat the test using the batteries 
specified by the manufacturer. If the swing will not operate using 
alkaline batteries, then test with the type of battery recommended by 
the manufacturer at the specified voltage. The test is to be carried 
out in a draft-free location, at an ambient temperature of 68 +/-
9[emsp14][deg]F (20 +/-5[deg] C).
    (ii) 7.13.1 Operate the swing at the maximum speed setting with the 
swing seat locked in a fixed position. Do not disable any mechanical or 
electrical protective device, such as clutches or fuses. Operate the 
swing continuously, and record peak temperature. The test may be 
discontinued 60 min. after the peak temperature is recorded. If the 
swing shuts off automatically or must be kept ``on'' by hand or foot, 
monitor temperatures for 30 s, resetting the swing as many times as 
necessary to complete the 30 s of operation. If the swing shuts off 
automatically after an operating time of greater than 30 s, continue 
the test until the swing shuts off.

    Dated: February 2, 2012.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-2820 Filed 2-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P