Safety Standard for Bassinets and Cradles, 63019-63036 [2013-24203]

Agencies

• Consumer Product Safety Commission

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63019-63036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24203]



[[Page 63019]]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1218

[Docket No. CPSC-2010-0028]


Safety Standard for Bassinets and Cradles

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, 
Section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 
(CPSIA), requires the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission 
(Commission or CPSC) to promulgate consumer product safety standards 
for durable infant or toddler products. These standards are to be 
``substantially the same as'' applicable voluntary standards or more 
stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that 
more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury 
associated with the product. The Commission is issuing a safety 
standard for bassinets and cradles in response to the direction under 
Section 104(b) of the CPSIA.

DATES: The rule will become effective on April 23, 2014, with the 
exception of Sec.  1218.2(b)(3)(i) through (iv), (b)(5), and (b)(7), 
which will become effective on April 23, 2015. The incorporation by 
reference of the publication listed in this rule is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register as of April 23, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Dewgard, Directorate for 
Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Commission, telephone: 301-504-
7599; email: WDewgard@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Statutory Authority

    The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA, Pub. L. 
110-314) was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, 
part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, 
requires the Commission to: (1) Examine and assess the effectiveness of 
voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or 
toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer 
groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product 
engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety 
standards for durable infant and toddler products. These standards are 
to be substantially the same as applicable voluntary standards or more 
stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that 
more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury 
associated with the product.
    The term ``durable infant or toddler product'' is defined in 
section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as ``a durable product intended for use, 
or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the 
age of 5 years.'' Bassinets and cradles are specifically identified in 
section 104(f)(2)(L) of the CPSIA as a durable infant or toddler 
product.
    On April 28 2010, the Commission issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPR) for bassinets and cradles. 75 FR 22303. The NPR 
proposed to incorporate by reference the voluntary standard, ASTM 
F2194-07a [egr]1, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Bassinets 
and Cradles, with certain changes to provisions in the voluntary 
standard to strengthen the ASTM standard.
    The Commission published a supplemental notice of proposed 
rulemaking (SNPR) on October 18, 2012. 77 FR 64055. The SNPR proposed 
to incorporate the voluntary standard, ASTM F2194-12, with: (1) 
Modifications to sections pertaining to scope and terminology and the 
stability test procedure, and (2) the addition of new provisions for a 
segmented mattress flatness test and a removable bed stability 
requirement.
    In this document, the Commission is issuing a safety standard for 
bassinets and cradles. Pursuant to Section 104(b)(1)(A), the Commission 
consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, 
laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and members of the 
public in the development of this standard, largely through the ASTM 
process. The rule incorporates the voluntary standard, ASTM F2194-13, 
Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Bassinets and Cradles (ASTM 
F2194-13), by reference, with the following modifications and 
additions: a clarification to the scope of the bassinet/cradle 
standard; a change to the pass/fail criterion for the mattress flatness 
test; an exemption from the mattress flatness requirement for bassinets 
that are less than 15 inches across; the addition of a removable bed 
stability requirement; and a change to the stability test procedure 
requiring the use of a newborn CAMI dummy rather than an infant CAMI 
dummy.

II. The Product

    ASTM F2194-13 defines ``bassinet/cradle'' as a ``small bed designed 
primarily to provide sleeping accommodations for infants, supported by 
free standing legs, a stationary frame/stand, a wheeled base, a rocking 
base, or which can swing relative to a stationary base.'' While in a 
rest position, a bassinet/cradle is intended to have a sleep surface 
less than or equal to 10[deg] from horizontal. The bassinet/cradle is 
not intended to be used beyond the age of approximately five months or 
when a child is able to push up on his hands and knees. Bassinet and 
cradle attachments for non-full-size cribs or play yards are considered 
part of the bassinet/cradle category, as are bedside sleepers that can 
be converted to four-sided bassinets not attached to a bed.
    Cribs, Moses baskets, and products used in conjunction with an 
inclined infant swing or stroller, and products that are intended to 
provide only an inclined sleep surface of greater than 10 degrees 
horizontal, are not included under the category of ``bassinets/
cradles.'' (A Moses basket is a portable cradle for a newborn or 
infant, often made of straw or wicker, that can be used with a variety 
of rocking and stationary stands. As with other bassinets and cradles, 
Moses baskets are not intended for use after a child can push up on its 
hands and knees.) However, Moses baskets and carriage accessories that 
can be converted to a bassinet or cradle by attachment to a separate 
base/stand would be considered bassinets/cradles when used with the 
base/stand. Similarly, products that could be used at an incline of 10 
degrees or less from horizontal, as well as more than 10 degrees from 
horizontal, would be considered bassinets/cradles when in the flatter 
configuration(s).

III. Incident Data

    The preamble to the SNPR summarized incident data involving 
bassinets and cradles reported to the Commission as of January 18, 
2012. 77 FR 64055 (October 18, 2012). CPSC's Directorate for 
Epidemiology, Division of Hazard Analysis has updated this information 
to include bassinet- and cradle-related incident data reported to the 
Commission from January 18, 2012 through March 31, 2013. A search of 
the CPSC epidemiological databases showed that there were 71 new 
incidents related to bassinets and cradles reported during this time 
frame. Thirty-eight of the 71 were fatal, and 33 were nonfatal. Sixteen 
of the nonfatal incidents involved injuries. Almost all of the new 
incidents reportedly occurred between 2010 and 2012. Reporting is 
ongoing, however, so the incident totals are subject to change.

[[Page 63020]]

A. Fatalities

    The majority of the deaths (32 out of 38) were asphyxiations due to 
the presence of soft or extra bedding in the bassinet, prone placement 
of the infant, and/or the infant getting wedged between the side of the 
bassinet and additional bedding. All but four of the 38 decedents were 
five months or less in age, the ASTM-recommended age range for bassinet 
use; three of the decedents were six months old and another was an 
eight-month-old.
    Two of the 38 deaths were associated with design aspects of the 
product. One of these was a suffocation death in a corner of the 
bassinet whose rocking feature contributed to its non-level resting 
position; the other fatality occurred when the bassinet was knocked 
over by an older sibling.
    There were three fatalities with insufficient information and one 
fatality with confounding information preventing CPSC from determining 
the hazard scenario.

B. Nonfatal Incidents

    A total of 33 bassinet-related nonfatal incidents were reported 
from January 18, 2012 through March 31, 2013. Of these, 16 reports 
indicated an injury to an infant using the bassinet or cradle at the 
time of the incident. The majority of these injuries (11 out of 16, or 
69 percent) were due to falls out of the bassinets. All 11 fall 
injuries were reported through NEISS, with little or no circumstantial 
information on how the fall occurred. However, the reports do indicate 
that 55 percent of the injured infants who fell out of bassinets were 
older than the ASTM-recommended maximum age limit of five months. All 
of the falls resulted in head injuries. Among the remaining five 
nonfatal injuries, mostly head injuries, no hospitalizations were 
reported. All but six of the injured were five months or less in age.
    The remaining 17 incident reports indicated that no injury had 
occurred or provided no information about any injury. However, many of 
the descriptions indicated the potential for a serious injury or even 
death.

C. Hazard Pattern Identification

    The hazard patterns identified in the 71 new incident reports were 
similar to the hazard patterns that were identified in the incidents 
considered for the SNPR and are grouped in the following categories (in 
descending order of frequency of incidents):
    1. Non-product-related issues: Thirty-four of the 71 reports (48 
percent) concerned incidents that involved no product defect or 
failure. This category consisted of 32 fatalities that were associated 
with the use of soft/extra bedding, prone positioning, and/or the 
infant getting wedged between the side of the bassinet and additional 
bedding. In addition, there were two nonfatal injury incidents that did 
not involve any product-related issues.
    2. Product-related issues: The hazard scenarios in 25 of the 71 
reported incidents (35 percent) were attributed to a failure/defect or 
a potential design flaw in the product. This category includes one 
fatality and 13 injuries. Listed below are the reported problems, 
beginning with the most frequently reported concerns:
     Reports of infants falling or climbing out of bassinets/
cradles accounted for a total of 13 incidents, all of which were 
received from emergency departments around the United States. Eleven of 
the incidents reported a nonfatal injury; the remaining two infants 
were reported to be uninjured.
     Lack of structural integrity, which includes issues such 
as instability, loose hardware, and product collapse, among others, was 
reported in nine incidents--one with a fatality and two with nonfatal 
injuries.
     Problems with accessories (such as the stand or sheets), 
which were sold with the bassinets, were reported in two incidents. 
However, no injuries were reported.
     One other product-related problem, involving the battery 
compartment of an older product, was reported in one non-injury 
incident.
    3. Recalled product-related issues: There were six reports (eight 
percent) that were associated with three different recalled product-
related issues. (Two of the recalls were published since the incident 
data for the SNPR briefing package was presented; at the time, these 
issues were classified under the ``structural integrity'' and 
``rocking'' categories.) Although there were no injuries, there was a 
fatality included among the six incident reports. In the fatal 
incident, it is reported that the tilting of the bassinet caused the 
decedent to roll and press up against the side and suffocate.
    4. Miscellaneous other issues: The remaining six incident reports 
(eight percent) were related to other unspecified issues. The reports 
described the incidents with insufficient specificity or provided 
confounding information, preventing CPSC staff from identifying the 
hazard scenario. There were four fatalities, one nonfatal injury, and 
one non-injury incident reported in this category.

IV. Overview of ASTM F2194

    ASTM F2194, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Bassinets 
and Cradles, establishes safety performance requirements, test methods, 
and labeling requirements to minimize the identified hazard patterns 
associated with the use of bassinets/cradles. ASTM first published a 
consumer product safety standard for bassinets and cradles in 2002. The 
standard was revised several times over the next 11 years. The current 
version of the standard is ASTM F2194-13. The more significant 
requirements of ASTM F2194 include:
     Scope--describes the types of products intended to be 
covered under the standard.
     Spacing of rigid side components--is intended to prevent 
child entrapment between both uniformly and non-uniformly spaced 
components, such as slats.
     Openings for mesh/fabric--is intended to prevent the 
entrapment of children's fingers and toes, as well as button 
ensnarement.
     Static load test--is intended to ensure structural 
integrity even when a child three times the recommended (or 95th 
percentile) weight uses the product.
     Stability requirements--is intended to ensure that the 
product does not tip over when pulled on by a two-year-old male.
     Sleeping pad thickness and dimensions--is intended to 
minimize gaps and the possibility of suffocation due to excessive 
padding.
     Tests of locking and latching mechanisms--is intended to 
prevent unintentional folding while in use.
     Suffocation warning label--is intended to help prevent 
soft bedding incidents.
     Fabric-sided openings test--is intended to prevent 
entrapments.
     Rock/swing angle requirement--is intended to address 
suffocation hazards that can occur when latch/lock problems and 
excessive rocking or swinging angles press children into the side of 
the bassinet/cradle.
     Occupant restraints--is intended to prevent incidents 
where unused restraints have entrapped and strangled children.
     Side height requirement--is intended to prevent falls.
     Segmented mattress flatness--is intended to address 
suffocation hazards associated with ``V'' shapes that can be created by 
the segmented mattress folds.
    The voluntary standard also includes: (1) Torque and tension tests 
to prevent components from being removed; (2) requirements for several 
bassinet/cradle

[[Page 63021]]

features to prevent entrapment and cuts (minimum and maximum opening 
size, small parts, hazardous sharp edges or points, and edges that can 
scissor, shear, or pinch); (3) requirements for the permanency and 
adhesion of labels; (4) requirements for instructional literature; and 
(5) corner post extension requirements intended to prevent pacifier 
cords, ribbons, necklaces, or clothing that a child may be wearing from 
catching on a projection.

V. The SNPR and ASTM F2194-13

    The SNPR proposed to incorporate by reference ASTM F2194-12, with 
four modifications/additions to the voluntary standard:
    (1) Scope and Terminology: The SNPR proposed excluding inclined 
products from the scope of the standard, by revising the scope and 
including a detailed note with examples of what products were and were 
not included in the scope of the standard. The SNPR also proposed two 
existing definitions be revised for clarity.
    (2) Segmented Mattress Flatness Test: The SNPR proposed a new test 
requirement and associated test procedure to address suffocation 
incidents in segmented mattresses. As discussed in the preamble to the 
SNPR, the mattress flatness requirement is primarily aimed at incidents 
involving bassinet/play yard combination products that tend to use 
segmented mattresses, where seams could pose a suffocation and 
positional asphyxiation hazard. Under the Commission's pass/fail 
criteria proposed in the SNPR, a bassinet attachment with a segmented 
mattress would fail if any tested seam creates an angle greater than 10 
degrees.
    (3) Removable Bed Stability Requirement: The SNPR proposed a new 
test requirement and associated test procedure to address fatal and 
nonfatal incidents associated with bassinets that have removable 
bassinet beds. In the proposed requirement, a removable bassinet bed 
that was not properly attached or assembled to its base would be 
required to meet one of the following requirements:
    a. The base/stand shall not support the bassinet (i.e., the 
bassinet bed falls from the stand so that it is in contact with the 
floor); or
    b. The lock/latch shall automatically engage under the weight of 
the bassinet bed (without any other force or action); or
    c. The stand/base shall not be capable of supporting the bassinet 
bed within 20 degrees of horizontal; or
    d. The bassinet shall contain a visual indicator mechanism that 
shall be visible on both sides of the product to indicate whether the 
bassinet is properly attached to the base; or
    e. The bassinet shall not tip over and shall retain the CAMI 
newborn dummy when subjected to the stability test outlined in the 
standard.
    (4) Stability Test Procedure: The SNPR proposed a revised test 
procedure for stability. The revision specifies the use of a newborn 
CAMI dummy, rather than the six month CAMI dummy that is referenced in 
the ASTM standard.
    The SNPR's provisions concerning the scope and terminology and the 
proposed segmented mattress flatness test requirement were balloted by 
ASTM in 2012, and the provisions are now included in the latest 
revision of the voluntary standard, ASTM F2194. Although the mattress 
flatness test procedure in ASTM F2194-13 is identical to what is 
proposed in the SNPR, the pass/fail criterion is different. As stated 
previously, under the Commission's pass/fail criteria, as proposed in 
the SNPR, a bassinet attachment with a segmented mattress will fail if 
any tested seam creates an angle greater than 10 degrees. ASTM F2194-13 
allows measured angles between 10 degrees and 14 degrees to pass, as 
long as the mean of three measurements on that seam is less than 10 
degrees.
    The removable bed stability requirement proposed in the SNPR is not 
in the current ASTM standard, but a similar version is expected to be 
balloted by ASTM for inclusion in the next revision. Similarly, the 
change in the stability test procedure proposed in the SNPR is not in 
ASTM F2194-13, but it is expected to be balloted by ASTM for inclusion 
in its next revision.

VI. Response to Comments

    There were 27 comments received on the SNPR, including: one from 
Health Canada; one from a group of consumer's groups (Kids In Danger, 
Consumers Union, American Academy of Pediatrics, Consumer Federation of 
America, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG); one from the Juvenile Products 
Manufacturers Association (JPMA); and two from bassinet manufacturers. 
The remaining 22 comments were from consumers, law students, or 
unaffiliated sources. The comments raised several issues, which 
resulted in two changes to the final rule. Several commenters made 
general statements supporting the overall purpose of the proposed rule. 
All of the comments can be viewed at: www.regulations.gov, by searching 
under the docket number of the rulemaking, CPSC-2010-0028. Following is 
a summary of and responses to the comments.

Scope

    Comment: Two commenters provided almost identical comments and 
suggestions for changes to the scope. The commenters asserted that the 
scope was unclear about what products are included in the scope and 
under what conditions. For instance, one comment stated that it was not 
clear from the SNPR how products with an inclined seat back surface 
(reclined seat back), such as infant seats, infant bouncer seats, and 
infant rockers that do not provide an ``inclined sleep surface'' would 
be treated under the standard.
    Response: The scope that was proposed in the SNPR has subsequently 
been adopted by ASTM and is the scope in the current version of the 
ASTM standard, ASTM F2194-13. The comments received reflect continued 
ambiguity regarding some aspects of the scope. Therefore, the 
Commission is providing additional clarity in the final rule.
    Inclined products fall under a variety of different ASTM standards, 
depending on the product's function. For instance, ASTM standards 
include a handheld carrier standard, an infant bouncer standard, and a 
new rocker standard that is currently under development. None of those 
products is intended for sleep. An inclined product intended for 
sleeping would fall under the inclined sleep product standard currently 
under development by ASTM. The Commission's intent is that the scope of 
the bassinet standard exclude all inclined products when the incline is 
more than 10 degrees from horizontal.
    However, the Commission intends that any product that has both a 
flat (10 degrees or less) sleep surface and an inclined surface greater 
than 10 degrees from horizontal shall fall under the scope of the 
bassinet standard when configured in the flat mode, and will fall under 
the scope of the appropriate inclined product standard(s) while in the 
inclined mode. In this manner, all uses of the product are addressed by 
safety standards. This type of product is considered a multimode 
product, or a combination product, i.e., the product can convert from 
one use mode to another.
    During the recent ASTM F15 juvenile products subcommittee meetings 
held in April 2013, scope clarity was raised in various product 
subcommittees where multimode products are commonly considered. Most of 
those product subcommittees proposed to modify the scope section of the 
appropriate standard to clarify that these combination products shall 
fall

[[Page 63022]]

under the scope of all relevant standards when in the corresponding use 
mode.
    This intent to include multimode products under multiple standards 
is well established in ASTM standards, including the bassinet standard. 
One example of a multimode product is a carriage basket that is 
removable from a stroller base. The scope section of ASTM F2194-13 
clearly states that products used in conjunction with a stroller are 
not covered by the standard. Yet, the current scope section also 
states: ``Carriage baskets/bassinets that are removable from the 
stroller base are covered under the scope of this standard when the 
carriage basket/bassinet meets the definition of a bassinet/cradle 
found in 3.1.1.'' Clearly, the intent of the ASTM standard is to see 
that this multimode product falls within the scope of the stroller 
standard when attached to the stroller frame and falls within the scope 
of the bassinet standard when attached to a separate frame/stand.
    Thus, to remove any ambiguity regarding multimode products, the 
Commission's standard modifies the note that accompanies the scope 
provision of ASTM F2194-13 to clarify that a multimode product with a 
bassinet-use mode must meet the bassinet standard when in the bassinet-
use mode.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the scope of the standard 
needs more specific age restrictions.
    Response: The scope of a standard is intended to define broadly an 
entire product category. Within that category, manufacturers have the 
freedom to tailor their product to a specific market niche, which might 
be more specialized than other products in the same category. Providing 
too many specific restrictions within the scope of a standard makes the 
standard weaker by excluding many products that ought to be included. 
In general, ASTM standards are defined by their respective industries, 
using terms that produce a standard that is as useful as possible to 
that industry. The Commission agrees with the bassinet industry on the 
existing age recommendations in the ASTM standard.

Removable Bassinet Bed Requirements

    Comment: One group of commenters suggested that the Commission 
eliminate the two ``passive'' pass conditions (20 degrees and passing 
stability) of the removable bassinet bed stability requirement in favor 
of the other pass criteria, which the group of commenters said they 
believe makes the user actively aware that the bassinet is not attached 
properly.
    Response: The SNPR proposed several options to meet the removable 
bassinet bed requirements. This approach is less restrictive than 
prescribing one pass criterion, and the approach allows for more 
innovation in product designs. By permitting five different options to 
meet this requirement, manufacturers have a variety of design choices 
available.
    Comment: Some commenters said they believe that allowing the 
bassinet to ``fail'' (by falling to the ground or to a 20 or more 
degree angle) encourages manufacturers to make products that are less 
stable to ensure that their bassinets pass this requirement. Another 
commenter stated that it was foreseeable that some caregivers may 
attempt to attach the bassinet bed to its stand while the child is in 
the product and that this might expose children to unnecessary hazards.
    Response: Two of the five options to pass the removable bed 
requirement are closely related to one another. These two options are: 
(1) The sleep surface shall be at least 20 degrees off from a 
horizontal plane; and (2) the bassinet bed falls from the stand and 
contacts the floor. These two requirements were added after 
consultations with stakeholders (ASTM task group members). Several 
stakeholders stated that if a bassinet stand was designed to support 
the bassinet bed only if it were locked properly, then the bassinet 
stand should be able to pass the requirement. For instance, in the case 
of a stand that looks like a saw horse, or ``A'' frame that has a lock/
latch connection at the top of the ``A'' on the frame and on the 
underside of the bassinet bed, the caregiver would have to line up both 
halves of the lock/latch to attach the bed to the stand. It would be 
unreasonable to believe that caregivers would place the bassinet bed on 
an ``A'' frame stand without engaging the lock/latch because the design 
of the stand would cause the bassinet bed to fall to the ground if the 
lock was not engaged.
    Rather than specifying a design requirement, the task group 
converted the requirement to a performance requirement, by simulating 
what would happen if the unreasonable act occurred. In other words, 
this option requires the bassinet bed to fall to the ground if the lock 
is not properly engaged.
    Once that requirement was vetted by the task group, another 
stakeholder raised the possibility that the bassinet bed, in the act of 
falling, might get caught on the stand before hitting the ground. The 
stakeholder asserted that simply because the bassinet bed did not hit 
the ground should not constitute a failure. Thus, the 20-degree tilt 
option was added to address the possibility that the bassinet bed, in 
the process of falling, might get caught on the stand and to complement 
the fall-to-the-ground option.
    A bassinet that relies on either of these two options to pass the 
requirement would be considered to provide immediate positive feedback. 
Caregivers who attempt to place the bassinet bed on this type of stand 
without locking it in place will realize instantly that they did not 
engage the lock because the bassinet bed will not assume a stable 
position that allows the caregivers to release their grasp. The 
immediate feedback of instability will minimize the possible hazards, 
making falling unlikely. The Commission believes that the steep angle 
needed to pass is unlikely to allow consumers to let children fall. The 
instability of such a unit is immediately obvious to the user, 
precluding a delayed response. Consumers are likely to check the 
stability of the product before removing their hands from it. Even in 
the case of a caregiver who attempts to place an occupied bassinet bed 
on a stand using this option, the caregiver will be present and 
potentially will be able to prevent or arrest the fall of the bassinet 
bed. The Commission considers the possibility of a fall hazard in this 
scenario to be highly unlikely; and on the rare chance that a fall 
occurs, the fall in these circumstances would be considered less 
significant than an unattended fall to the floor.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the option--``The lock/latch 
shall automatically engage under the weight of the bed (without any 
other force/action)''--should be a requirement for all bassinets.
    Response: The Commission is providing manufacturers with options to 
meet the removable bassinet bed requirements. This approach is less 
restrictive than prescribing one requirement and allows for more 
innovation in product designs.
    Comment: One commenter stated that adding the removable bassinet 
bed stability requirement is premature. The commenter expressed the 
belief that the requirement should be removed from the regulation and 
that ASTM should be allowed to continue working on the issue.
    Response: The Commission is aware of two deaths associated with 
this hazard scenario. (One of these deaths occurred in Canada; thus, it 
was not included in incident data counts reported in the SNPR briefing 
package.) Therefore, the Commission does not believe that this 
requirement is premature. The Commission believes

[[Page 63023]]

that stakeholders have had plenty of time to test, review, discuss, and 
refine the proposed requirements before and after the SNPR was 
published. In fact, the language recommended for the final rule is 
essentially the same as what ASTM expects to ballot soon as a new 
requirement to address the same hazard.
    Comment: A commenter stated that color-only visual indicators 
should not be allowed as an option to pass the removable bassinet bed 
requirement because people who are color-blind would not be able to 
distinguish between locked and unlocked.
    Response: The requirement for visual indicators allows 
manufacturers to design a visual indicator that can be recognized by a 
person with a color vision deficiency. In addition, there are many 
other options to pass the requirement, and individuals who are color-
blind can choose to purchase a product that does not use color 
indicators.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed a belief that allowing removable 
bassinet beds to pass the stability test by tilting to a 20-degree 
angle was hazardous because consumers might think that a 20-degree 
angle is still usable, perhaps as an inclined sleeper.
    Response: The Commission believes that an angle of 20[deg] or more 
is acceptable to demonstrate that the bassinet is not useable. A 
steeper angle would also be acceptable, but the Commission is not 
convinced this is needed. Twenty degrees is twice the maximum allowable 
tilt for bassinets, which are intended to have a flat sleeping surface. 
In deciding on the 20[deg] angle, the ASTM task group noted an incident 
(101101HCC3107) where a consumer clearly saw that something was wrong 
with his bassinet when he saw it tilted and deemed it to be unusable. 
From the photos, the tilt was estimated to be approximately 17[deg].

Mattress Flatness

    Comment: Some commenters suggested that the mattress flatness 
requirements should be limited to 8[deg] from the horizontal rather 
than 10[deg].
    Response: Although the Commission would be amenable to using this 
more conservative margin of safety, i.e., a tolerance of 16[deg] of 
motion rather than 20[deg], the industry has maintained that a larger 
tolerance is necessary, due to the inherent variability of 
manufacturing products with fabric and foam. The industry claims that 
tighter tolerances on a segmented mattress made with the materials that 
are commonly used in these products would make it impossible to 
manufacture such mattresses. The Commission believes that the 10[deg] 
limit is adequate to protect the expected user population.
    Comment: A commenter suggested that the threshold limit for 
flatness should be 14[deg] to preserve test-retest reliability.
    Response: ASTM F2194-13 now includes the mattress flatness test 
requirement and procedure, as written in the SNPR, with the exception 
of the angle requirement. ASTM's requirement allows the use of an 
average for measurements over 10[deg] and under 14[deg], while the SNPR 
proposed a maximum allowable measurement of 10[deg]. Based on testing 
performed by an ASTM task group that was established to assess the 
reliability and repeatability of the mattress flatness test, the 
reliability of the test is adequate when the test is performed on 
products designed to pass the test. The commenter did not provide any 
new or different information to the Commission to support the 
suggestion for using the averaging method; thus, the Commission 
continues to support the 10[deg] flatness criterion as proposed in the 
SNPR.
    Comment: Some commenters questioned the use of a cylinder as a 
surrogate for a human occupant, and another commenter suggested that an 
automated human model would be more appropriate.
    Response: An automated human model is not readily available. It is 
customary in the juvenile product industry to use easily manufactured 
shapes made from common materials. This testing strategy enhances the 
repeatability of the test. An ASTM task group conducted a repeatability 
and reproducibility study to compare various surrogates for use in the 
mattress flatness test. The cylinder was the best choice, based on the 
study results.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested using the dummy in the test for 
mattress flatness so that infant position would be a factor.
    Response: The test cylinder is a repeatable method that identifies 
hazardous products to the satisfaction of industry and the Commission. 
Unfortunately, the CAMI dummy is too stiff to be useful for simulating 
suffocation positions and would not be suitable to serve that purpose.
    Comment: Some commenters wanted more explanation of how the 
cylinder sufficiently simulates an infant rolling into a mattress 
crease, as demonstrated in the mattress flatness test.
    Response: The Commission has examined bassinets that pass the test 
and bassinets that fail. When visual comparisons and measurements of 
angles are made to compare the movements of the mattresses during a 
test using an anthropomorphic dummy versus tests using a cylinder, few 
discernible differences are evident. The shape of the test weight does 
not seem to be as important as the mass of the test weight in 
identifying hazardous products.
    Comment: Two commenters offered opinions about the mattress 
flatness testing and designs of bassinet accessories that use support 
rods underneath the mattress. One of the two comments suggested that 
the mattress flatness test be performed with and without the bars in 
place. Moreover, the commenter suggested that if the bars are required 
to be in place to pass the flatness test, then they should be attached 
permanently. Similarly, the other comment suggested that the frame 
supporting the floor (mattress) should come preassembled to eliminate 
the possibility that the consumer can misassemble the product.
    Response: The Commission agrees with these comments. In January 
2013, ASTM balloted a revised mattress flatness test, requiring that 
any segmented mattress that has consumer-assembled mattress support 
rods, be tested with and without the mattress support rods. This 
requirement resulted from the Commission's play yard misassembly NPR 
that was published in August 2012. The ballot item passed and is now 
part of ASTM F2194-13. The final rule incorporates by reference ASTM 
F2194-13; thus, the test will include the suggestion from the 
commenters.
    Comment: A commenter stated that that the mattress flatness test 
could not be performed on bassinets that were less than 15 inches wide 
because of the width of the cylinder and the block used in that test 
method. Furthermore, the commenter noted that such a small, narrow 
occupant-retention space would not present the same hazards involved in 
incidents with wider play yard bassinet accessories.
    Response: The Commission agrees that bassinets with occupant-
retention spaces that are narrower than the test apparatus are unlikely 
to be used with an infant placed orthogonally between walls that are so 
narrow. In the case where an infant is placed in a narrow bassinet 
correctly and then moves or shifts 90[deg], the narrowness of the 
bassinet would likely not permit the infant to lie in a fully prone 
position, face down in an orthogonal seam. Thus, an exemption from the 
flatness test for mattress pad seams that run orthogonally between the 
sides of a bassinet with a width of 15 inches or

[[Page 63024]]

less seems reasonable. Therefore, the Commission is modifying the 
standard to exempt from the mattress flatness test bassinets that are 
narrower than 15 inches.

Effective Date

    Comment: We received several comments on the effective date 
proposed in the SNPR. One commenter, representing several advocacy 
groups, supported the six-month effective date proposed in the SNPR. A 
second commenter agreed, expressing concerns that if the date were 
extended and a death occurred, ``consumers might view the death as the 
result of the CPSC putting the interests of for-profit entities . . . 
ahead of the safety of infants who use their products.''
    In contrast, several other commenters, including one manufacturer, 
recommended longer effective dates to reduce the impact of the rule, 
particularly for small businesses that have ``fewer resources and 
connections within the industry'' and that ``may have to significantly 
alter their means of production.'' Suggested effective dates ranged 
from 9 to 15.5 months, with commenters recommending that the CPSC focus 
on relief for firms that would be disproportionately impacted by the 
rule. Commenters suggested longer effective dates for firms newly 
covered by the expanded scope, and firms whose products would be 
subject to the removable bassinet bed requirement.
    A manufacturer commenting on the effective date stated that a 
longer effective date is needed for firms that will need to redesign 
their products to meet the removable bassinet bed requirement. This 
firm stated that an effective date of at least 15.5 months is needed to 
reflect accurately the challenges of redesigning the product.
    Response: The Commission recognizes that some manufacturers will be 
required to redesign, test new prototype products, and then retool 
their production process to meet the new removable bassinet bed 
provision. Based on a comment from one manufacturer who stated it would 
need a minimum of 15.5 months to redesign its product, the Commission 
considers 18 months to be a reasonable time period to accommodate other 
manufacturers that might also need to redesign their products. 
Therefore, the Commission is implementing a six-month effective date 
for the final rule, with the specific exception of extending the 
effective date for the removable bassinet bed test requirement to 18 
months.

Stability Testing--CAMI Dummy

    Comment: Some commenters suggested using an infant and a newborn 
dummy in the stability test methods, while others said they believe the 
incident data do not support the need to change from an infant dummy to 
a newborn dummy because this change neglects the evidence that larger 
infants also use bassinets and cradles.
    Response: The use of both dummies is unnecessary because the worst 
case scenario for stability is the smaller size dummy. The larger size 
dummy makes the product more stable. Therefore, if a product passes 
with a newborn, the product will also pass with an infant. Performing 
the test with two different dummies would be redundant and would only 
add to the cost of testing.
    The Commission is requiring use of the newborn CAMI to make the 
test more stringent. Even if a majority of the incidents were not 
directly attributable to product stability, the instability of the 
product, in many incidents, was to blame, including two fatal incidents 
(one of which was reported from Canada).

Incident Data Analysis

    Comment: Some commenters asserted that a causal relationship could 
not be established for fatalities that the Commission attributed to 
design defects. They also stated that the information used by the 
Commission to analyze fall incidents was circumstantial. Other 
commenters suggested that additional information should be collected to 
determine the extent to which product design was at fault, to evaluate 
the cause of falls, and to ``improve and expand on the regulations and 
guidelines set forth in the proposed rule.''
    Response: The Commission gathered as much information as possible 
on every cited product-related fatality through an in-depth, on-site 
field investigation. Although the Commission agrees with the commenters 
that additional information-gathering on all nonfatal injuries could be 
useful, given resource limitations, the Commission cannot follow up on 
every injury report with an in-depth investigation. Many of the 
nonfatal injuries were based on emergency department-treated cases from 
NEISS hospitals, and confidentiality requirements often prevent any 
additional contact with patients. In addition, even with cases that are 
followed, completion of the investigation is not guaranteed because of 
a lack of consumer cooperation or the inability to establish contact 
with the consumer.
    Short of a controlled experimental setting, causal links are 
difficult to establish from observational data based on un-witnessed 
incidents. However, the combined judgment of subject matter experts at 
CPSC, corroborated by investigating state/county/local officials, 
supports the conclusions.
    Comment: One set of commenters expressed the belief that the data 
presented in the SNPR is skewed and purposely misleading. There were 
specifics outlined in the comment, which are addressed in the response.
    Response: The Commission disagrees strongly with the commenters' 
assertion regarding the way the data are presented. For fatalities, the 
commenters contend that almost all of the incidents were due to 
caregiver negligence, even the ones that the Commission considered to 
be product related.
    The commenters first argued that the Commission needed to gather 
more information on the fatalities deemed by the Commission to be 
product related. CPSC staff gathered as much information as possible on 
every cited product-related fatality through an in-depth, on-site field 
investigation. Because these incidents were not witnessed, the 
judgments of subject matter experts at CPSC and state/county/local 
investigating officials were combined to arrive at the conclusions 
about the manner of the deaths.
    Second, the commenters asserted that of the three deaths that were 
due to infants sliding out of the fabric-sided opening, two were of the 
infants were older than the recommended-user age. Hence, the commenters 
further asserted, these two deaths cannot be counted as product-related 
because they were the result of caregiver negligence. The Commission 
disagrees with this assertion because the third decedent, who died in 
the same manner, was well within the recommended age limit. Therefore, 
the age of the other two decedents, barely a month above the 
recommended age limit, was deemed not to be a factor in the 
entrapments.
    Third, the commenters stated that the non-product-related deaths 
appear to be due to caregiver negligence and do not justify CPSC's 
increasing the economic burden on manufacturers through added 
regulations. This argument has no basis because CPSC's regulation does 
not make any changes to the current voluntary standard based on these 
non-product-related fatalities.
    For the nonfatal injuries, the commenters said they believe there 
is no justification for placing a burden on manufacturers by including 
one injury, due to a moldy mattress, in the report.

[[Page 63025]]

CPSC staff includes all in-scope incidents in its hazard sketch, even 
if the Commission is not proposing any provisions to address the issue. 
Therefore, the manner in which staff reports the incident data does not 
impose any burden on manufacturers.
    In addition, the commenters argued that six percent of the injuries 
from bassinets that were damaged during delivery were instances of 
blatant negligence on the part of the owners. First, to clarify, the 
Commission reported that six percent of the incidents, not injuries, 
involved bassinets damaged during delivery. Second, there were no 
injuries associated with these incidents, and the Commission did not 
propose any provisions to address the issue.
    Comment: Some commenters said that the Commission needs to provide 
justification for its statement that the descriptions in the noninjury 
incident reports indicated the potential for serious injury. The 
commenters stated that without any further explanation, the statement 
seems ``arbitrary.''
    Response: CPSC staff has reviewed a number of incidents in which 
the caregiver was reported to be nearby and was able to rescue the 
infant from danger. Similar scenarios, with the infant unattended, have 
led to less favorable outcomes. Thus, the potential for serious 
consequences is not conjecture, and the statement is justified.

Size and Weight Limits

    Comment: Some commenters suggested that the weight of an infant 
occupant should be considered in the standard's scope to safeguard 
infants who exceed the recommended weight and size.
    Response: The maximum weight of an occupant is already considered 
in the static load requirements in ASTM F2194-13, which the rule 
incorporates by reference. The industry requires a bassinet to be 
loaded to three times the manufacturer's recommended weight. The side 
heights are also intended to account for the largest infants who might 
still use the bassinet.

Bassinet Misuse

    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the possibility of 
consumer misuse of bassinets would negate any effects of the new 
requirements.
    Response: The Commission believes that strengthening the standard 
is the best way to improve product safety and that if significant 
product misuse becomes evident in injury reports, more developments are 
possible.
    Comment: Another commenter suggested that educational campaigns 
about the proper and improper uses of bassinets would be sufficient.
    Response: The Commission believes that educational campaigns play 
an important role in injury prevention but are best preceded by 
mechanical and physical safety requirements designed to make accidents 
as unlikely as possible to occur.

Restraints

    Comment: One commenter expressed the belief that the lack of 
incidents with harnesses could be due to other factors, as much as to 
the lack of harnesses in bassinets.
    Response: Deaths and injuries in other infant products have been 
attributed to restraints/harness that were not used or were used 
improperly. Therefore the Commission is not making any changes 
regarding the current prohibition of restraints in bassinets.

Warnings

    Comment: Some commenters recommended the use of pictures or visual 
aids to clarify the warning messages.
    Response: The Commission acknowledges that well-designed graphics 
can be useful in certain circumstances. However, the design of 
effective graphics can be difficult. Some seemingly obvious graphics 
are poorly understood and can give rise to interpretations that are 
opposite the intended meaning (so called ``critical confusions''); 
therefore, a warning pictogram should be developed with empirical study 
and well tested on the target audience. Although the Commission may 
take action in the future if it believes graphic symbols are needed to 
reduce the risk of injury associated with these products, the rule 
permits, but does not mandate, such supporting graphics.
    With respect to the idea of creating a pictogram to communicate the 
dangers of soft bedding, the Commission agrees that a well-developed 
and tested pictogram could increase comprehension and acknowledges that 
such elements could be developed with some empirical study; the 
Commission, however, does not have the resources for such a project at 
this time and could not validate a warning graphic without research. 
However, there are a number of products for which such a soft bedding 
pictogram could be useful, such as bedside sleepers, bassinets, cribs, 
play yards, inclined sleep products, and others. Because of this, an 
ASTM cross-product ad hoc working group may be the best place to 
develop such a pictogram. This could foster cross-product harmonization 
of such a pictogram and would allow testing and validation of the 
pictogram. CPSC staff will gladly participate in any such group, and 
should the need arise, staff will consider future action once such a 
graphic is developed.
    Comment: A commenter suggested adding statistics to the suffocation 
warning.
    Response: Crafting a warning requires balancing the brevity of the 
message with its attention-grabbing features and informational content. 
Too much information makes a long label that is likely to be ignored by 
consumers. On the other hand, too little information leaves consumers 
unsure of the message. CPSC staff's opinion is that the addition of 
statistical information on the suffocation warning label will not 
increase the effectiveness of the warning.
    Comment: A commenter suggested that the warnings contain the 
maximum recommended age of the bassinet occupant, i.e., five months.
    Response: The current warning contains a developmental milestone, 
rather than an age maximum. Developmental milestones have the advantage 
of allowing for individual variability in use patterns. Some children 
will gain strength and coordination faster than others and will need to 
be removed from the bassinet sooner. Since children's abilities are 
more important than their age when evaluating the applicability of the 
warning, the age is not included in the warning.
    Comment: A commenter suggested that the warnings should be 
displayed in a prominent position.
    Response: The ASTM standard, which the rule incorporates by 
reference, already contains a common definition for ``conspicuous'' 
warnings in Section 3.3.3, with corresponding requirements in Sections 
8.3, 8.4, and 8.5.
    Comment: A commenter suggested strengthening the warning labels by 
requiring mattress pads to have the following statement: ``This padding 
has been tested to reduce the risk of suffocation to a minimal level,'' 
adding that ``additional padding increases this risk substantially and 
has caused fatalities.''
    Response: Although the standard does contain a requirement for the 
mattress pad to remain level, the standard does not contain a test for 
reducing the risk of suffocation created by the softness of the 
padding, which seems to be the assumption made by the commenter. The 
standard already contains a warning in Section 8.4.2, instructing

[[Page 63026]]

against the use of additional bedding materials. This required warning 
must be visible to the consumer when the product is in the 
manufacturer's recommended-use position. Thus, the warning will not be 
covered by sheets, which are allowed, and will be more effective than 
on the mattress pad where any messages will be covered.
    Comment: Another commenter suggested that consumers need to be 
warned of the hazards associated with segmented mattresses.
    Response: Warnings are the last stage at which attempts are made to 
remove a hazard from a product. Changing the product is more effective. 
The standard contains performance requirements designed to eliminate 
the hazards associated with segmented mattresses, so it is not 
necessary to include a warning.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that warnings should have 
larger fonts, duplication on opposing walls of the bassinet, 
duplication on the packaging and on the product, more detailed hazard 
descriptions, and more information in supporting educational materials 
and product advertisements.
    Response: Although CPSC staff agrees that any warning could be 
strengthened with a size, color, or other graphical features, the 
product's final appearance also needs to be considered because 
exceptionally large or graphic warnings may cause consumers to remove 
or deface the warnings, thereby rendering them ineffective for later 
users. The current warning requirements match industry standards for 
many juvenile products.

The Necessity for a Standard

    Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed standard for 
bassinets and cradles should not be adopted because the number of 
injuries and fatalities due to design defects was very low.
    Response: The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) 
requires the Commission to issue a mandatory standard for bassinets and 
cradles, regardless of the number of incidents involving those 
products. Given the the CPSIA directive, the options are either to 
adopt the existing voluntary standard, as is, or revise the standard to 
make improvements. Even if a majority of the incidents were not 
directly attributable to defects in the product design, many incidents 
were. Congress mandated that CPSC adopt a more stringent standard if 
the Commission determined that a more stringent standard ``would 
further reduce the risk of injury.'' The Commission feels strongly that 
the final rule would do so.

Mattress Thickness (Rigid Products and Falls)

    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that the standard allows 
for rigid-sided bassinets with thicker mattresses than soft-sided 
bassinets. These commenters said they feel that thicker mattresses may 
pose more of a risk of babies falling out when a baby rolls to one side 
and the product tilts.
    Response: There are two requirements in the existing ASTM standard, 
which the rule incorporates by reference, which would prevent the 
scenario described by the commenters. The first is the side height 
requirement, which states that the side height of the bassinet be 7.5'' 
above the uncompressed surface of the mattress. Thus, if a bassinet 
maker supplies a thick mattress with the rigid-sided bassinet, the side 
heights must account for the thicker mattress and still yield 7.5'' of 
side height above the mattress surface. In addition, the standard has a 
rock/swing angle requirement that limits the maximum angle a rocking 
bassinet can have, as well as a maximum rest angle it can have. The 
rest angle is measured using a CAMI doll placed up against the side of 
the bassinet. Thus, the standard uses a worst-case placement scenario 
for the occupant during the testing.

Health Canada Standard

    Comment: A representative of Health Canada corrected a statement in 
the SNPR and the corresponding staff briefing package, which states: 
``The Canadian standard (SOR 86-962:2010) includes requirements for 
cribs and non-full-size cribs. This standard does not distinguish 
between a bassinet and non-full-size cribs.'' The commenter noted that 
this overview statement was incorrect because on November 18, 2010, the 
amended Cribs, Cradles, and Bassinets Regulations (SOR/2010-261) came 
into effect, and now bassinets are included in the scope.
    Response: The Commission thanks Health Canada staff for the 
correction and the subsequent information regarding how SOR 2010/261 
distinguishes bassinets, cradles, and cribs. As the Commission now 
understands, Health Canada defines these three products according to 
the sleep surface area contained in the product.

Play Yard Misassembly Requirement in Docket CPSC-2011-0064

    Comment: The commenter repeated comments submitted for Docket CPSC-
2011-0064, regarding the play yard misassembly requirement that was 
proposed in August 2012.
    Response: The Commission has addressed these comments in the final 
rule briefing package for Play Yard Misassembly Requirement, dated June 
26, 2013.

International Standards

    Comment: Commenters remarked that more information regarding the 
international standards that were mentioned in the SNPR would be 
helpful.
    Response: The Commission provided the names and designations of the 
standards, plus a description of where they differed substantially from 
the ASTM standard. Due to copyright laws, the Commission was not able 
to provide full copies of the standards. All of the standards are 
available for purchase online by anyone who seeks more information.

ASTM Copyright and Accessibility

    Comment: Some commenters stated that the ASTM standard for 
bassinets and cradles should not be the basis of a mandatory rule 
because, as a copyrighted standard, the ASTM standard is not easily 
accessible to the public and creates an undue financial burden on small 
manufacturers and the general public.
    Response: Section 104(b) of the CPSIA requires the Commission to 
issue standards for durable infant or toddler products that are 
substantially the same as applicable voluntary standards or are more 
stringent if more stringent standards would further reduce the risk of 
injury. Incorporating a voluntary standard, such as incorporating the 
ASTM standard by reference, is a well-recognized procedure for 
agencies. The incorporation satisfies the requirement of publication in 
the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1)(E) (``matter reasonably 
available to the class of persons affected thereby is deemed published 
in the Federal Register when incorporated by reference therein with the 
approval of the Director of the Federal Register'').

Falls From Bassinets/Side Height

    Comment: Some commenters suggested that the side height 
requirements need to be higher because consumers seem to be using 
bassinets with children older than the recommended ages. One commenter 
expressed the belief that the standard should match the Canadian side 
height requirement.
    Response: The ASTM subcommittee discussed the side heights of 
bassinets

[[Page 63027]]

for years. There was no side height requirement until recently. 
Consumers use the products longer than manufacturers recommend. High 
side heights could cause consumers to use their bassinets even longer 
than they have been using them because the older, larger children who 
can push up on their hands and sit unassisted will look safer in a 
bassinet with tall sides. The unintended consequence of taller sides 
might be an increase in falls from bassinets because older children are 
stronger and more agile than newborns. After much discussion, the ASTM 
subcommittee agreed to a 7.5-inch side height, based on the precedent 
set by the Canadians, who measure from the bottom of the bassinet 
rather than the mattress top. This difference in measurement landmarks 
makes it appear that the ASTM standard permits shorter sides; but in 
reality, the effective side height of a bassinet in Canada is the same 
as in the ASTM standard. This side height requirement did not 
necessitate drastic changes in the bassinet designs on the market; so 
it would be unlikely that instituting the requirement would have any 
effect on consumer behavior.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that side height requirements 
might not be effective against misuse. One commenter expressed the 
belief that the burden should be placed on caregivers and that the 
standard needs no modification to address falls. Another suggested that 
warning labels should be strengthened instead.
    Response: The side height requirement (7.5-inch minimum) is already 
part of ASTM F2194-13, which this rule incorporates by reference. The 
rule does not add anything further because the Commission believes that 
the requirements should be effective against misuse. The Commission 
believes that, at a minimum, this requirement will help protect infants 
who have not exceeded the maximum age requirement for bassinet use. 
Additionally, the Commission supports the current warnings in the ASTM 
standard.

Existing Inventory

    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the Commission did 
not address the existing cradle and bassinet inventory that would need 
``to be discarded or recalled'' when the regulation becomes effective.
    Response: The bassinet and cradle standard is prospective. It will 
apply to products manufactured or imported on or after the effective 
date. Therefore, existing inventory would not be affected.

Cost Benefit Analysis

    Comment: Several commenters expressed the belief that a cost-
benefit analysis should be performed, and they stated that the proposed 
rule should not be adopted because costs are likely to exceed benefits.
    Response: Section 104(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement 
Act (CPSIA), part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification 
Act, requires the CPSC to issue a standard at least as stringent as the 
voluntary standard, or more stringent if the Commission determines that 
a more stringent standard would further reduce the risk of injury 
associated with such products. Thus, the Commission must issue a 
mandatory standard for bassinets and cradles, regardless of the costs 
and benefits of the rule.

Third Party Testing Cost

    Comment: Two commenters expressed concern about the ``substantial 
additional costs'' that will result from a new requirement for third 
party testing that will be added by the bassinet/cradle standard.
    Response: The testing costs referred to by the commenters result 
from the third party testing and certification requirements imposed 
under sections 14(a)(2) and 14(d)(2) of the Consumer Product Safety Act 
(CPSA), as amended by the CPSIA. The costs associated with testing will 
be substantially the same, regardless of the form the final bassinet/
cradle standard takes.

Definition of a Small Business

    Comment: One commenter questioned defining ``small manufacturers'' 
as those with fewer than 500 employees. The commenter noted that 
business size can vary widely within such a broadly defined group. The 
commenter expressed concern that the economic impact could be 
disproportionately significant for the very smallest firms.
    Response: The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is the 
source of the definition of ``small manufacturers'' of bassinets and 
cradles. Regardless of the desirability of a finer gradation in 
defining small businesses, the SBA definition governs the small 
business determination in the context of a regulatory flexibility 
analysis.

Impact of Expanding the Scope

    Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the ``adverse 
monetary impact'' that expanding the scope of the standard to include 
Moses baskets would have upon some suppliers. The commenter felt that 
the alternative of ceasing to supply stands for these newly covered 
products requires further inquiry before ``suggesting that this is a 
viable alternative.'' Other commenters questioned methods firms might 
use to mitigate their ``upfront costs,'' including amortizing, 
``increased product sales,'' and passing ``the additional costs on to 
consumers.''
    Response: When used with a stand, Moses baskets meet the definition 
of a ``bassinet'' (or ``cradle,'' in the case of a rocking stand), and 
therefore, they must be tested as a bassinet. Given that most suppliers 
of Moses baskets do not include stands, supplying Moses baskets without 
stands is one viable option that firms are already practicing.
    Similarly, the statement that ``direct impact may be mitigated if 
costs are treated as new product expenses that can be amortized'' 
recognizes one of the methods firms use routinely in the development of 
new products to reduce the immediate financial impact; rather than 
incurring all of the development costs up front, amortizing allows the 
firm to spread the impact over time. Finally, for most products, firms 
are usually able to pass on some, but not all, increases in production 
costs to consumer. The portion of costs that are passed on (i.e. not 
absorbed by the firm) partially offset or mitigate the impact of the 
rule.

Aiding Small Businesses

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Commission ``create a 
framework with which to aid some of the smaller manufacturers and 
distributors with finding the resources, information and connections 
they need to comply with the new standards.''
    Response: CPSC's Small Business Ombudsman provides small businesses 
with guidance to assist them in complying with CPSC requirements. 
Assistance is available to firms in understanding and complying with 
CPSC regulations (https://www.cpsc.gov/en/Business--Manufacturing/Small-
Business-Resources/).

Small Bedding Suppliers

    Comment: One commenter asked that the Commission put ``less 
weight'' on small bedding suppliers in the regulatory flexibility 
analysis. The commenter expressed concern that: ``[N]oncompliant 
bedding could potentially negate the efficiency of . . .'' safety 
measures such as strangulation warnings ``. . . or require 
manufacturers to take additional steps to correct noncompliant 
bedding.''
    Response: The standard does not include any bedding requirements. 
However, in investigating the bassinet/cradle market, staff could not 
determine the underlying source of bassinets for

[[Page 63028]]

several suppliers of bassinets. The firms for whom the bassinet source 
could not be identified shared one major characteristic: They were 
primarily bedding suppliers who sold bassinets or cradles with the 
appropriate bedding covering the bassinet/cradle frame. Because these 
firms supply bassinets/cradles, they are affected by the rule and 
impacts must be fully considered under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Labeling Costs

    Comment: One commenter objected to the costs that will be 
associated with changing the warning labels.
    Response: The commenter misunderstood the information presented in 
the Paperwork Reduction Act section of the SNPR. The commenter 
interpreted the cost per burden hour associated with labeling ($27.55) 
to be the increased cost per unit, which is an incorrect conclusion.

VII. Assessment of Voluntary Standard ASTM F2194-13 and Description of 
Final Rule

    Consistent with section 104(b) of the CPSIA, this rule establishes 
new 16 CFR part 1218, ``Safety Standard for Bassinets and Cradles.'' 
The new part incorporates by reference the requirements for bassinets 
and cradles in ASTM F2194-13, with certain additions and changes to 
strengthen the ASTM standard, to further reduce the risk of injury. The 
following discussion describes the final rule, the changes, and the 
additions to the ASTM requirements. (The description of the amendment 
to 16 CFR part 1112 may be found in Section XIII of this preamble.)

A. Scope (Sec.  1218.1)

    The final rule states that part 1218 establishes a consumer product 
safety standard for bassinets and cradles manufactured or imported on 
or after the date that is six months after the date of publication of a 
final rule in the Federal Register, except that the effective date for 
the removable bassinet bed requirements would be 18 months after the 
date of publication of a final rule in the Federal Register.

B. Incorporation by Reference (Sec.  1218.2)

    Section 1218.2(a) explains that, except as provided in Sec.  
1218.2(b), each bassinet and cradle must comply with all applicable 
provisions of ASTM F2194-13, ``Standard Consumer Safety Specification 
for Bassinets and Cradles,'' which is incorporated by reference. 
Section 1218.2(a) also provides information on how to obtain a copy of 
the ASTM standard or to inspect a copy of the standard at the CPSC. The 
Commission received no comments on this provision in the SNPR, but the 
Commission is changing the language in the incorporation in the final 
rule to refer to ASTM F2194-13, the current version of the ASTM 
standard.

C. Changes to Requirements of ASTM F2194-13

    1. Clarification of Scope. (Sec.  1218.2(b)(1)(i)). The final rule 
modifies the scope of ASTM F2194-13 to clarify that multimode 
combination products must meet the bassinet/cradle standard in any 
configuration where the seat incline is 10 degrees or less from 
horizontal. This modification resulted from comments on the SNPR 
seeking clarification on what products are included in the scope, as 
more fully discussed in Section VI.
    2. Change to Stability Test Procedure. (Sec.  1218.2(b)(2) and 
Sec.  1218.2(b)(6)). In the SNPR, the Commission proposed that 
bassinet/cradle stability testing be conducted with a CAMI newborn 
dummy, rather than the CAMI infant dummy. Because ASTM has yet to adopt 
this modification (although it is expected to be balloted in the near 
future), the Commission is including it in the final rule.
    It is appropriate that the smaller newborn CAMI dummy be used for 
stability testing, because bassinets and cradles are intended to be 
used by very young children. The heavier (17.5-pound) infant CAMI 
currently specified for stability testing in ASTM F2194-13 could make 
these products more stable when tested than they would actually be in a 
real-world situation.
    3. Removable Bassinet Bed. (Sec.  1218.(b)(3), (5), and (7)). In 
the SNPR, the Commission proposed adding a requirement for removable 
bassinet beds (along with test procedures and new definitions). As 
stated in the preamble of the SNPR (77 FR 64061), there have been 
several incidents involving bassinet beds that were designed to be 
removed from their stand, four of which have In-Depth Investigations. 
During the incidents, the bed portion of the unit was not locked 
completely or attached properly to its stand. The bed portion of the 
unit appeared to be stable, giving the caregivers a false sense of 
security. For various reasons, the bed portion fell or tilted off of 
its stand. There have also been nonfatal incidents involving bassinet 
beds that tipped over or fell off their base/stand when they were not 
properly locked/latched to their base/stand, or the latch failed to 
engage as intended. In May 2012, 46,000 bassinets that could appear to 
latch to the stand when they actually had not latched were recalled. 
(https://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12173.html).
    The SNPR proposed multiple options for a bassinet with a removable 
bed attachment to pass the proposed requirement. These options include: 
(1) Ensuring that the bed portion of the bassinet is inherently stable 
when the bassinet bed is placed on the stand unlatched; (2) use of a 
false lock/latch visual indicator mechanism; (3) use of a stand that 
collapses if the bassinet bed is not properly attached; and (4) the 
presence of an obvious unsafe angle (more than 20 degrees) or a 
bassinet bed falls to the floor when it is not properly attached to the 
stand.
    Since the issuance of the SNPR, ASTM has made several clarifying 
changes to the removable bassinet bed requirement, definitions, and 
test procedures, and ASTM is expected to send these changes out for 
ballot in the near future. Most of the differences are editorial 
changes to provide clarity to the test requirement and the test 
procedure. The significant, noneditorial differences between the 
requirement proposed in the SNPR and what ASTM is expected to ballot 
are as follows:
     The next ASTM ballot is expected to exclude play yard 
bassinets, as defined in the standard, from the removable bassinet bed 
definition. Thus, play yard bassinets would not be subject to the 
removable bassinet bed stability requirement.
     The next ASTM ballot is expected to expand on one of the 
pass criteria for the removable bed stability requirement, to allow 
bassinet stands that cannot remain in their proper use position unless 
the bassinet bed is properly attached.
    The Commission agrees with these revisions and is adding the 
revised removable bassinet bed requirement as part of the final 
bassinet/cradle rule.
    4. Mattress Flatness. (Sec.  1218.2(b)(4)(i)). A segmented mattress 
flatness requirement and associated test procedures were proposed by 
the Commission as part of the SNPR. ASTM adopted the requirement with 
modified, less stringent pass/fail criteria. The final rule modifies 
the pass/fail criteria in ASTM F2194-13 to mirror the SNPR proposal.
    As stated in Section V, the mattress flatness requirement is 
primarily aimed at incidents involving bassinet/play yard combination 
products that tend to use segmented mattresses, where seams could pose 
a suffocation and positional asphyxiation hazard. Under the 
Commission's pass/fail criteria, a bassinet attachment with a segmented 
mattress will fail if any tested seam creates an angle greater than 10 
degrees.

[[Page 63029]]

ASTM F2194-13 allows measured angles between 10 degrees and 14 degrees 
to pass, as long as the mean of three measurements on that seam is less 
than 10 degrees. As discussed in the preamble to the SNPR, the 14-
degree angle was based on an extrapolation of angles formed by 
dimensions of average infant faces. 77 FR 64060-64061. The Commission 
is uncomfortable using the average infant facial dimension as the basis 
for this requirement. Therefore, instead of using the average infant 
anthropometrics as a basis for the pass/fail criteria, the Commission 
continues to support using the smallest users' anthropometrics to set 
the test requirement of 10 degrees maximum for each measurement taken.
    5. Exemption from Mattress Flatness Requirement. (Sec.  
1218.2(b)(4)(i)). The final rule exempts from the mattress flatness 
requirement bassinets that are less than 15 inches across. These 
products do not pose the hazard the requirement is intended to address, 
and they are also not wide enough to test using the required procedures 
and equipment.

VIII. Effective Date

    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the 
effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of the 
final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The Commission is setting an effective 
date for the standard six months after publication for products 
manufactured or imported on or after that date, with the exception of 
the removable bassinet bed test requirement and procedure.
    The Commission recognizes that some manufacturers will be required 
to redesign, test new prototype products, and then retool their 
production process in order to meet the new removable bassinet bed 
provision. Based on a comment from a manufacturer who asked for a 
minimum of 15.5 months to redesign its product, the Commission 
considers 18 months to be a reasonable time period to take into account 
other manufacturers who might also need to redesign their product. 
Therefore, the Commission is setting an 18-month effective date for the 
removable bassinet bed test requirement.

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act

A. Introduction

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that agencies review 
rules for their potential economic impact on small entities, including 
small businesses. 5 U.S.C. 604. Section 604 of the RFA requires that 
agencies prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when they 
promulgate a final rule, unless the head of the agency certifies that 
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The final regulatory flexibility analysis 
must describe the impact of the rule on small entities and identify any 
alternatives that may reduce the impact. Specifically, the final 
regulatory flexibility analysis must contain:
     A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis 
for, the rule;
     a summary of the significant issues raised by public 
comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a 
summary of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement 
of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments;
     a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the 
number of small entities to which the rule will apply;
     a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, 
and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of 
the classes of small entities subject to the requirements and the type 
of professional skills necessary for the preparation of reports or 
records; and
     a description of the steps the agency has taken to reduce 
the significant economic impact on small entities, consistent with the 
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the 
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative 
adopted in the rule, and why each one of the other significant 
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency, which affect the 
impact on small entities, was rejected.

B. The Market for Bassinets/Cradles

    Bassinets and cradles are typically produced and/or marketed by 
juvenile product manufacturers and distributors, or by furniture 
manufacturers and distributors, some of which have separate divisions 
for juvenile products. CPSC staff believes that there are currently at 
least 62 suppliers of bassinets and/or cradles to the U.S. market; 26 
are domestic manufacturers; 19 are domestic importers; three are 
domestic retailers; and two are domestic firms with unknown supply 
sources. Twelve foreign firms currently supply the U.S. market: 10 
manufacturers, one firm with an unknown supply source, and one importer 
that imports from foreign companies and distributes from outside of the 
United States. Eight additional firms specialize in children's bedding, 
some of which is sold with bassinets or cradles; the supply sources for 
these eight firms could not be identified.
    Bassinets and cradles from 11 of the 62 firms have been certified 
as compliant by the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA), 
the major U.S. trade association that represents juvenile product 
manufacturers and importers. Firms supplying bassinets or cradles would 
be certified to the ASTM voluntary standard F2194-12a, while firms 
supplying play yards with bassinet/cradle attachments would also have 
to meet F406-12a. (JPMA typically allows six months for products in 
their certification program to shift to a new standard once it is 
published. ASTM F2194-12a was published in September 2012, and 
therefore, the standard would have become effective in March 2013. The 
more recent standard, ASTM F2194-12b, was published in December 2012, 
and therefore, that standard was not yet effective when research for 
this rule was conducted.) Twenty-four additional firms claim compliance 
with the relevant ASTM standard for at least some of their bassinets 
and cradles. Whether the bassinets or cradles supplied by the eight 
bedding suppliers comply with ASTM F2194 is not known.
    According to a 2005 survey conducted by the American Baby Group 
(2006 Baby Products Tracking Study), 64 percent of new mothers own 
bassinets; 18 percent own cradles; and 39 percent own play yards with 
bassinet attachments. Approximately 50 percent of bassinets, 56 percent 
of cradles, and 18 percent of play yards were handed down or purchased 
secondhand. Thus, approximately 50 percent of bassinets, 44 percent of 
cradles, and 82 percent of play yards were acquired new. These 
statistics suggest annual sales of a total of approximately three 
million units sold per year, consisting of about 1.3 million bassinets 
(.5 x .64 x 4 million births per year), 317,000 cradles (.44 x .18 x 4 
million), and 1.3 million play yards with bassinet attachments (.82 x 
.39 x 4 million). (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for 
Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, ``Births: Final 
Data for 2010,'' National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 61, Number 1 
(August 28, 2012): Table I. Number of births in 2010 is rounded from 
3,999,386.)
    National injury estimates were not reported by the Directorate for 
Epidemiology in the supplemental NPR or in the current FR briefing 
package because the data failed to meet NEISS

[[Page 63030]]

publication criteria. However, emergency department injury estimates 
over the approximately five years covered by the supplemental NPR and 
the current FR briefing package, from 2008 through 2012, averaged less 
than 250 annually. Based on data from the 2006 Baby Products Tracking 
Study, approximately 4.8 million bassinets and cradles were owned by 
new mothers. Therefore, the injury rate may be on the order of about 
0.5 emergency department-treated injuries per 10,000 bassinets/cradles 
available for use in the households of new mothers ((250 injuries / 
4.84 million products in households of new mothers) x 10,000).

C. Reason for Agency Action and Legal Basis for the Rule

    The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act requires the 
CPSC to promulgate a mandatory standard for bassinets/cradles that is 
substantially the same as, or more stringent than, the voluntary 
standard. The Commission is adopting ASTM F2194-13 with five 
modifications or additions that reflect: (1) Changes proposed in the 
SNPR that are not part of F2194-13; (2) responses to public comments; 
and/or (3) additional work undertaken by ASTM, but not yet adopted. The 
changes will address a variety of known hazard patterns, including 
suffocation and positional asphyxia.

D. Requirements of the Final Rule

    As stated in Section VII, the Commission is incorporating the 
voluntary standard for bassinets/cradles, ASTM F2194-13, by reference, 
with five changes.
    The Commission is implementing two modifications to ASTM F2194-13 
in response to SNPR comments; neither is expected to have a negative 
impact on firms. The first is a modification to the scope that would 
clarify that multimode or combination products must meet the bassinet/
cradle standard in any configuration where the seat incline is 10 
degrees or less from horizontal. Because the clarifying modifications 
do not change the scope of the standard, the modifications have no 
additional impact. The second is an exemption from the mattress 
flatness requirement for bassinets that are less than 15 inches across. 
Because of the characteristics of the narrower bassinets, these 
products are not subject to the hazard that the requirement is intended 
to address. Additionally, these narrower bassinets are not wide enough 
to test using the required procedures and equipment.
    The Commission is implementing three additional changes to ASTM 
F2194-13, each of
1. Stability Testing
    As stated in Section V of this preamble, in the SNPR, the 
Commission proposed that bassinet/cradle stability testing be conducted 
with a CAMI newborn dummy, rather than the CAMI infant dummy. Because 
ASTM has yet to adopt this modification (although the modification is 
expected to be balloted in the near future), the Commission is 
including the modification in the final rule. Based on limited testing, 
many bassinets/cradles appear to be able to pass this modified test 
procedure without modification. However, a few products may potentially 
require modifications to meet the revised stability test procedure. 
Staff believes that the modified test procedure is likely to affect 
only a few manufacturers, and likely will not require product redesign. 
Affected firms would most likely increase the stability of their 
product by widening the structure, making the bassinet bed deeper, or 
making the base heavier. The cost of meeting the modified requirement 
could be more significant if a change to the hard tools used to 
manufacture the bassinet is necessary. During the production process, a 
hard tool, which is a mold of the desired bassinet component shape, is 
injected with plastic or another material using a molding machine.
2. Mattress Flatness
    A segmented mattress flatness requirement and associated test 
procedures were proposed by the Commission as part of the SNPR. ASTM 
adopted the requirement with modified (and less stringent) pass/fail 
criteria. The Commission is modifying the pass/fail criteria in ASTM 
F2194-13 to mirror the SNPR proposal.
    The mattress flatness requirement is primarily aimed at incidents 
involving bassinet/play yard combination products that tend to use 
segmented mattresses, where seams could pose a suffocation and 
positional asphyxiation hazard. Under the Commission's pass/fail 
criteria, a bassinet attachment with a segmented mattress will fail if 
any tested seam creates an angle greater than 10 degrees. ASTM F2194-13 
allows measured angles between 10 degrees and 14 degrees to pass, as 
long as the mean of three measurements on that seam is less than 10 
degrees.
    Based on staff's testing, the play yard bassinet attachments of 
many suppliers (both compliant and non-compliant) appear to pass the 
requirement without any modifications. Bassinet attachments that would 
require some modification would need to increase the mattress support 
in their bassinets. Additional mattress support could be accomplished, 
for example, by retrofitting play yard bassinets to use longer rods or 
a better-fitting mattress shell. The cost of such a retrofit is unknown 
and would likely vary from product to product; however, a retrofit 
generally is less expensive than a product redesign.
3. Removable Bassinet Bed
    As stated in Section V of this preamble, in the SNPR, the 
Commission proposed adding a requirement for removable bassinet beds 
(along with test procedures and new definitions). Since then, an ASTM 
task group has made several clarifying changes to the requirement, 
definitions, and test procedures and is expected to recommend them for 
ballot. The Commission is adopting the revised removable bassinet bed 
requirement as part of the final bassinet/cradle rule.
    There are several firms supplying bassinets with removable bassinet 
beds to the U.S. market. The majority will require no modifications to 
meet the requirement. However, at least three firms are expected to 
need changes to one or more of their bassinets. Firms could meet the 
removable bassinet requirement in a number of ways, including 
redesigning the product entirely. However, many firms are likely to opt 
for less expensive alternatives, such as more sensitive locks that 
activate with little pressure (i.e., with just the weight of the 
bassinet), where possible.
    The costs and time involved in a redesign could be significant; one 
manufacturer stated in SNPR comments that the manufacturer would 
require 15.5 months to redesign its product to meet the removable 
bassinet bed requirement. Therefore, the Commission is setting an 18-
month effective date for this requirement, while maintaining a six-
month effective date for the remainder of the final rule.

E. Other Federal or State Rules

    A final rule implementing sections 14(a)(2) and 14(i)(2) of the 
Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), as amended by the CPSIA, Testing 
and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification, 16 CFR part 1107, 
became effective on February 13, 2013 (the 1107 rule). Section 14(a)(2) 
of the CPSA requires every manufacturer of a children's product that is 
subject to a product safety rule to certify, based on third party 
testing, that the product complies

[[Page 63031]]

with all applicable safety rules. Section 14(i)(2) of the CPSA requires 
the Commission to establish protocols and standards: (i) For ensuring 
that a children's product is tested periodically and when there has 
been a material change in the product; (ii) for the testing of 
representative samples to ensure continued compliance; (iii) for 
verifying that a product tested by a conformity assessment body 
complies with applicable safety rules; and (iv) for safeguarding 
against the exercise of undue influence on a conformity assessment body 
by a manufacturer or private labeler.
    Because bassinets and cradles will be subject to a mandatory 
children's product safety rule, these products also will be subject to 
the third party testing requirements of section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA 
and the 1107 rule when the bassinet/cradle mandatory standard and the 
notice of requirements become effective.

F. Impact on Small Businesses

    At least 62 firms are currently known to be marketing bassinets 
and/or cradles in the United States. Under U.S. Small Business 
Administration (SBA) guidelines, a manufacturer of bassinets/cradles is 
small if the business has 500 or fewer employees; importers and 
wholesalers are considered small if they have 100 or fewer employees. 
Based on these guidelines, about 39 of the 62 total firms are small 
firms--21 domestic manufacturers, 16 domestic importers, and two firms 
with unknown supply sources. An additional eight small firms supplying 
bassinets/cradles along with their bedding; these may or may not 
originate from one of the 62 firms already accounted for. Other unknown 
small bassinet/cradle suppliers also may operate in the U.S. market.
Small Manufacturers
    The expected impact of the final standard on small manufacturers 
will differ based on whether their bassinets/cradles are already 
compliant with F2194-12a. (Play yards with bassinet attachments must 
comply with the effective play yard standard (F406), which includes a 
requirement that the attachment meet the bassinet/cradle standard.) In 
general, firms whose bassinets and cradles meet the requirements of 
F2194-12a are likely to continue to comply with the voluntary standard 
as new versions are published. Many of these firms are active in the 
ASTM standard development process, and compliance with the voluntary 
standard is part of an established business practice. Firms supplying 
bassinets and cradles that comply with ASTM F2194-12a are likely also 
to comply with F2194-13 before the final bassinet/cradle rule becomes 
effective.
    The majority of the changes to the voluntary standard (ASTM F2194-
13) are the same as at the SNPR level; only the expanded scope proposed 
in the SNPR has been completely incorporated into the voluntary 
standard. Therefore, the expected impact of the final rule remains 
substantially the same as the impact presented in the initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis for the SNPR.
    For manufacturers whose products are likely to meet the 
requirements of ASTM F2194-13 (14 of 21 firms), the direct impact could 
be significant for one or more firms if they must redesign their 
bassinets to meet the final rule. Although the products of all firms 
would be subject to the stability testing requirements, in most cases, 
modifications are unlikely to be required and the costs are not 
expected to be significant. The products of five firms could be 
affected by the mattress flatness requirement (i.e., they produce play 
yards with bassinet attachments), and at least three (and possibly 
five) of the known firms may be affected by the removable bassinet bed 
requirement. For the most part, the bassinets/cradles and bassinet 
cradle attachments supplied by these firms will be able to meet the 
changes to ASTM F2194-13 without modification. In cases where 
modifications are necessary, firms would most likely opt to retrofit 
their products, rather than undertake an expensive redesign. However, 
some products may require redesign, particularly to meet the new 
removable bassinet bed requirement, and therefore, costs could be 
significant in some cases. The Commission is adopting an 18-month 
effective date for the removable bassinet bed portion of the final rule 
to reduce the impact on affected firms.
    Meeting ASTM F2194-13's requirements could necessitate product 
redesign for at least some bassinets/cradles not believed to be 
compliant with F2194-12a (7 of 21 firms). These firms could require 
redesign regardless of the modifications. A redesign would be minor if 
most of the changes involve adding straps and fasteners or using 
different mesh or fabric, but could be more significant if changes to 
the frame are required, including changes to side height. One 
manufacturer estimated that a complete play yard redesign, including 
engineering time, prototype development, tooling, and other incidental 
costs, would cost approximately $500,000. The Commission believes that 
a bassinet redesign would tend to be comparable. Consequently, the 
final rule could potentially have a significant direct impact on small 
manufacturers whose products do not conform to F2194-12a. Any direct 
financial impact may be mitigated if a firm chooses to treat costs as 
new product expenses that can be amortized over time rather than a 
large, one time expense.
    Some firms whose bassinets/cradles are neither certified as 
compliant, nor claim compliance with F2194-12a, in fact, may be 
compliant with the standard. The Commission has identified many such 
cases with other products. To the extent that some of these firms may 
supply compliant bassinets/cradles and have developed a pattern of 
compliance with the voluntary standard, the direct impact of the final 
rule will be less significant than described above. If two small firms 
with unknown supply sources, none of whose products appear to comply 
with F2194-12a, are manufacturers, these firms also may need to 
redesign their products to meet the final rule.
    In addition to the direct impact of the final rule described above, 
the rule will have some indirect impacts. Once the new requirements 
become effective, all manufacturers will be subject to the additional 
costs associated with the third party testing and certification 
requirements under the testing rule, Testing and Labeling Pertaining to 
Product Certification (16 CFR part 1107). Third party testing will 
pertain to any physical and mechanical test requirements specified in 
the bassinet/cradle final rule; lead and phthalates testing is already 
required. Impacts of third party testing are not due directly to the 
bassinet/cradle rule's requirements, but are due to the testing rule's 
requirements. Consequently, impacts from the testing rule are indirect 
impacts from the bassinet/cradle final rule, and such indirect impacts 
could be significant.
    One manufacturer estimated that testing to the ASTM voluntary 
standard runs around $1,000 per model sample, although the manufacturer 
noted that the costs could be lower for some models where the primary 
difference is fabric rather than structure.
    On average, each small domestic play yard manufacturer supplies 
seven different models of bassinets/cradles and play yards with 
bassinet/cradle accessories to the U.S. market annually. Therefore, if 
third party testing were conducted every year on a single sample for 
each model, third party testing costs for each manufacturer would be 
about $7,000 annually. Based on a review of firm revenues, the impact 
of third party testing to ASTM F2194-13 is unlikely to

[[Page 63032]]

be significant if only one bassinet/cradle sample per model is 
required. However, if more than one sample would be needed to meet the 
testing requirements, third party testing costs could have a 
significant impact on a few of the small manufacturers.
Small Importers
    As with manufacturers of compliant bassinets/cradles, the seven 
small importers of bassinets/cradles currently in compliance with 
F2194-12a could experience significant direct impacts as a result of 
the final rule if product redesign is necessary. In the absence of 
regulation, these importing firms would likely continue to comply with 
the voluntary standard as it evolves, as well as the final mandatory 
standard. Any increase in production costs experienced by their 
suppliers may be passed on to the importers.
    Importers of bassinets/cradles would need to find an alternate 
source if their existing supplier does not come into compliance with 
the requirements of the final rule, which may be the case with the nine 
importers of bassinets/cradles not believed to be in compliance with 
F2194-12a. Some could respond to the rule by discontinuing the import 
of their noncomplying bassinets/cradles, possibly discontinuing the 
product line altogether. The impact of such a decision could be 
mitigated by replacing the noncompliant bassinet/cradle with a 
compliant bassinets/cradle, or by deciding to import an alternative 
product.
    As is the case with manufacturers, all importers will be subject to 
third party testing and certification requirements, and consequently, 
will experience costs similar to those for manufacturers if their 
supplying foreign firm(s) does not perform third party testing. The 
resulting costs could have a significant impact on a few small 
importers that must perform the testing themselves if more than one 
sample per model were required.
Other Possible Suppliers
    Eight known small firms specialize in the supply of bedding, 
including bedding for bassinets and cradles, and the eight firms sell 
bassinet and cradle bedding with a bassinet or cradle. Although these 
firms do not manufacture the bassinets or cradles themselves, whether 
they purchase the bassinets or cradles domestically or from overseas is 
not known. These firms may source the bassinets and cradles sold with 
bedding in full or in part from one of the 62 firms discussed above. If 
the eight firms do not source from one of the 62 firms, then the eight 
firms represent additional suppliers to the U.S. market.
    The eight firms with unknown supply sources would be affected in a 
manner similar to importers; they would need to find an alternate 
source if their existing supplier does not come into compliance with 
the requirements of the final rule. Unlike most importers, however, the 
firms would not have the option of replacing a noncompliant bassinet/
cradle with another product. Although the firms could opt to sell the 
bedding without the associated bassinet/cradle, such an approach would 
represent a change from their historical method of sale and might 
adversely impact their business strategy.
    As with manufacturers and importers, these eight firms will also be 
subject to third party testing and certification requirements, and will 
experience costs similar to those for manufacturers if their supplying 
firm(s) does not perform third party testing. The resulting costs could 
have a significant impact on some of these small bassinet or cradle 
suppliers that must perform the testing themselves.

G. Alternatives

    Under the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act of the 
CPSIA, one alternative that would reduce the impact on small entities 
is to make the voluntary standard mandatory with no modifications. 
Doing so would reduce the potential impact on firms whose bassinets/
cradles comply with the voluntary standard. However, because of the 
severity of the incidents associated with removable bassinet beds, 
instability, and mattress tilt, the Commission is not pursuing this 
alternative.
    The Commission is imposing a six-month effective date for the final 
rule with an 18-month effective date, supported by SNPR comments 
submitted by one manufacturer, for the removable bassinet bed 
requirement. Setting a later effective date for either part will allow 
suppliers additional time to modify and/or develop compliant bassinets/
cradles and spread the associated costs over a longer period of time.

X. Environmental Considerations

    The Commission's regulations address whether the Commission is 
required to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental 
impact statement. These regulations recognize that certain CPSC actions 
normally have ``little or no potential for affecting the human 
environment.'' One such action is establishing rules or safety 
standards for products. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). This rule falls within the 
categorical exclusion.

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains information collection requirements that are 
subject to public comment and review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3521). The preamble to the proposed rule (77 FR at 64055 through 64076) 
discussed the information collection burden of the proposed rule and 
specifically requested comments on the accuracy of our estimates. 
Briefly, sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F2194-13 contain requirements for 
marking, labeling, and instructional literature. These requirements 
fall within the definition of ``collection of information,'' as defined 
in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).
    OMB has assigned control number 3041-0157 to this information 
collection. The Commission did not receive any comments regarding the 
information collection burden of this proposal. However, the final rule 
makes modifications regarding the information collection burden because 
the number of estimated suppliers subject to the information collection 
burden is now estimated to be 62 firms, rather than the 55 firms 
initially estimated in the proposed rule.
    Accordingly, the estimated burden of this collection of information 
is modified as follows:

                                                       Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Number of       Frequency of     Total annual      Hours per       Total burden
                           16 CFR Section                              respondents       responses        responses         response          hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1218...............................................................              62                5              310                1              310
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 63033]]

    There are 62 known entities supplying bassinets to the U.S. market. 
All 62 firms are assumed to use labels already on both their products 
and their packaging, but they might need to make some modifications to 
their existing labels. The estimated time required to make these 
modifications is about one hour per model. Each entity supplies an 
average of five different models of bassinets; therefore, the estimated 
burden associated with labels is 1 hour per model x 55 entities x 5 
models per entity = 310 hours. We estimate that the hourly compensation 
for the time required to create and update labels is $27.55 (U.S. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for Employee 
Compensation,'' March 2012, Table 9, total compensation for all sales 
and office workers in goods-producing private industries: https://www.bls.gov/ncs/). Therefore, the estimated annual cost to industry 
associated with the labeling requirement is $8,540.50 ($27.55 per hour 
x 310 hours = $8,540.50).
    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), we have submitted the information collection requirements of 
this final rule to the OMB, and OMB has assigned control number 3041-
0157 to the information collection.

XII. Preemption

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

XIII. Certification and Notice of Requirements (NOR)

    Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the requirement that products 
subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a 
similar rule, ban, standard or regulation under any other act enforced 
by the Commission, must be certified as complying with all applicable 
CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Section 14(a)(2) of the 
CPSA requires that certification of children's products subject to a 
children's product safety rule be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-
accepted third party conformity assessment body. Section 14(a)(3) of 
the CPSA requires the Commission to publish a notice of requirements 
(NOR) for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies 
(or laboratories) to assess conformity with a children's product safety 
rule to which a children's product is subject. The safety standard for 
bassinets and cradles is a children's product safety rule that requires 
the Commission to issue an NOR.
    The Commission recently published a final rule, Requirements 
Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78 FR 15836 
(March 12, 2013), which is codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (referred to 
here as Part 1112). This rule became effective June 10, 2013. Part 1112 
establishes requirements for accreditation of third party conformity 
assessment bodies (or laboratories) to test for conformance with a 
children's product safety rule in accordance with Section14(a)(2) of 
the CPSA. Part 1112 also codifies a list of all of the NORs that the 
CPSC had published at the time part 1112 was issued. All NORs issued 
after the Commission published part 1112, such as the bassinet and 
cradle standard, require an amendment to part 1112. Accordingly, this 
rule amends part 1112 to include the bassinet and cradle standard in 
the list with the other children's product safety rules for which the 
CPSC has issued NORs.
    Laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third party 
conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for bassinets 
and cradles are required to meet the third party conformity assessment 
body accreditation requirements in part 1112. When a laboratory meets 
the requirements as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment 
body, it can apply to the CPSC to have 16 CFR part 1218, ``Safety 
Standard for Bassinets and Cradles,'' included in its scope of 
accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed for the laboratory on the 
CPSC Web site at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.
    In connection with the part 1112 rulemaking, CPSC staff conducted 
an analysis of the potential impacts on small entities of the rule 
establishing accreditation requirements, 78 FR 15836, 15855-58 (March 
12, 2013), as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and prepared a 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). Briefly, the FRFA 
concluded that the requirements would not have a significant adverse 
impact on a substantial number of small laboratories because no 
requirements are imposed on laboratories that do not intend to provide 
third party testing services under section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA. The 
only laboratories that are expected to provide such services are those 
that anticipate receiving sufficient revenue from providing the 
mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a business 
decision. Laboratories that do not expect to receive sufficient revenue 
from these services to justify accepting these requirements would not 
likely pursue accreditation for this purpose. Similarly, amending the 
part 1112 rule to include the NOR for the bassinet and cradle standard 
would not have a significant adverse impact on small laboratories. Most 
of these laboratories will have already been accredited to test for 
conformance to other juvenile product standards and the only costs to 
them would be the cost of adding the bassinet and cradle standard to 
their scope of accreditation. As a consequence, the Commission 
certifies that the notice requirements for the bassinet and cradle 
standard will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    To ease the transition to new third party testing requirements for 
bassinets and cradles subject to the standard and to avoid a 
``bottlenecking'' of products at laboratories at or near the effective 
date of required third party testing for bassinets and cradles, the 
Commission, will, under certain circumstances, accept certifications 
based on testing that occurred before the effective date for third 
party testing.
    The Commission will accept retrospective testing for 16 CFR part 
1218, safety standard for bassinets and cradles, if the following 
conditions are met:
     The children's product was tested by a third party 
conformity assessment body accredited to ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E) by a 
signatory to the ILAC-MRA at the time of the test. The scope of the 
third party conformity body accreditation must include testing in 
accordance with 16 CFR part 1218. For firewalled third party conformity 
assessment bodies, the firewalled third party conformity assessment 
body must be one that the Commission, by order, has accredited on or 
before the time that the children's product was tested, even if the 
order did not include the tests contained in the safety standard for 
bassinets and cradles at the time of initial Commission acceptance. For 
governmental third party conformity

[[Page 63034]]

assessment bodies, accreditation of the body must be accepted by the 
Commission, even if the scope of accreditation did not include the 
tests contained in the safety standard for bassinets and cradles at the 
time of initial CPSC acceptance.
     The test results show compliance with 16 CFR part 1218.
     The bassinet or cradle was tested, with the exception of 
the removable bassinet bed attachment requirements, on or after the 
date of publication in the Federal Register of the final rule for 16 
CFR part 1218 and before April 23, 2014. For bassinets or cradles that 
are subject to the removable bassinet bed attachment requirements, 
testing to the removable bassinet bed attachment requirements was 
conducted on or after the date of publication in the Federal Register 
of the final rule for 16 CFR part 1218 and before April 23, 2015.
     The laboratory's accreditation remains in effect through 
April 23, 2014.

List of Subjects

16 CFR Part 1112

    Administrative practice and procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Third party conformity 
assessment body.

16 CFR Part 1218

    Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants 
and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, and Toys.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends 16 
CFR chapter II as follows:

PART 1112--REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY CONFORMITY 
ASSESSMENT BODIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 1112 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2063; Pub. L. 110-314, section 3, 122 
Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008).


0
2. Amend Sec.  1112.15 by adding paragraph (b)(33) to read as follows:


Sec.   1112.15 When can a third party conformity assessment body apply 
for CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule or test method?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (33) 16 CFR part 1218, Safety Standard for Bassinets and Cradles.

0
3. Add a new part 1218 to read as follows:

PART 1218--SAFETY STANDARD FOR BASSINETS AND CRADLES

Sec.
1218.1 Scope.
1218.2 Requirements for bassinets and cradles.

    Authority:  Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 
14, 2008); Pub. L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).


Sec.  1218.1  Scope.

    This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for 
bassinets and cradles manufactured or imported on or after April 23, 
2014, except for the removable bassinet bed attachment requirements at 
Sec.  1218.2(b)(3)(i) through (iv), (b)(5), and (b)(7), which are 
effective April 23, 2015.


Sec.  1218.2  Requirements for bassinets and cradles.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each 
bassinet and cradle must comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM 
F2194-13, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Bassinets and 
Cradles, approved on April 1, 2013. The Director of the Federal 
Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from ASTM 
International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, 
PA 19428; https://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may inspect a copy at the 
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 
820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-
7923, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). 
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (b) Comply with ASTM F2194-13 standard with the following additions 
or exclusions:
    (1) Instead of complying with Note 1 of section 1.3.1 of ASTM 
F2194-13, comply with the following:
    (i) Note 1--Cradle swings with an incline less than or equal to 
10[deg] from horizontal while in the rest (non-rocking) position are 
covered under the scope of this standard. A sleep product that only has 
inclined sleeping surfaces (intended to be greater than 10[deg] from 
horizontal while in the rest (non-rocking) position) does not fall 
under the scope of this standard. If a product can be converted to a 
bassinet/cradle use mode and meets the definition of a bassinet/cradle 
found in 3.1.1 while in that mode, the product shall be included in the 
scope of this standard, when it is in the bassinet/cradle use mode. For 
example, strollers that have a carriage/bassinet feature are covered by 
the stroller/carriage standard when in the stroller use mode. Carriage 
baskets/bassinets that are removable from the stroller base are covered 
under the scope of this standard when the carriage basket/bassinet 
meets the definition of a bassinet/cradle found in 3.1.1. In addition, 
bassinet/cradle attachments to cribs or play yards, as defined in 3.1.2 
or 3.1.12, are included in the scope of the standard when in the 
bassinet/cradle use mode.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (2) Add ``CAMI Newborn Dummy (see Figure 1A). Drawing numbers 126-
0000 through 126-0015 (sheets 1 through 3), 126-0017 through 126-0027, 
a parts list entitled ``Parts List for CAMI Newborn Dummy,'' and a 
construction manual entitled ``Construction of the Newborn Infant 
Dummy'' (July 1992). Copies of the materials may be inspected at 
NHTSA's Docket Section, 400 Seventh Street SW., Room 5109, Washington, 
DC, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capital Street 
NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.'' to ``2.3 Other References'' and use 
the following figure:

[[Page 63035]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23OC13.000

    (3) In addition to complying with section 3.1.17 of ASTM F2194-13, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 3.1.18. bassinet bed, n--the sleeping area of the bassinet/
cradle, containing the sleep surface and side walls.
    (ii) 3.1.19. removable bassinet bed, n--A bassinet bed that is 
designed to separate from the base/stand without the use of tools. Play 
yard bassinets, as defined in 3.1.13, are excluded from this 
definition.
    (iii) 3.1.20. false lock/latch visual indicator, n--a warning 
system, using contrasting colors, lights, or other similar means 
designed to visually alert caregivers when a removable bassinet bed is 
not properly locked onto its base/stand.
    (iv) 3.1.21. intended use orientation, n--The bassinet bed 
orientation (i.e., the position where the head and foot ends of the 
bassinet bed are located), with respect to the base/stand, as 
recommended by the manufacturer for intended use.
    (4) Instead of complying with section 6.7 of ASTM F2194-13, comply 
with the following:
    (i) 6.7. Bassinets with Segmented Mattresses: Flatness Test--If the 
bassinet or bassinet accessory has a folding or segmented mattress, or 
both, any angle when measured in 7.8 less than or equal to 10[deg] is 
an immediate pass. Any angle when measured in 7.8 greater than 10[deg] 
is an immediate failure. Segmented bassinet mattresses that have seams 
(located between segments or where the mattress folds) that are less 
than 15 inches in length are excluded from this requirement.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) In addition to complying with section 6.9.2 of ASTM F2194-13, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 6.10. Removable Bassinet Bed Attachment--Any product containing 
a removable bassinet bed with a latching or locking device intended to 
secure the bassinet bed to the base/stand, shall comply with at least 
one of the following 6.10.1, 6.10.2, 6.10.3, 6.10.4 or 6.10.5 when 
tested in accordance with 7.12.
    (ii) 6.10.1. The base/stand shall not support the bassinet bed 
(i.e., the bassinet bed falls from the stand and contacts the floor or 
the base/stand collapses when the bassinet bed is not locked on the 
base/stand).
    (iii) 6.10.2. The lock/latch shall automatically engage under the 
weight of the bassinet bed (without any other force or action) in all 
lateral positions (Figure 24).
    (iv) 6.10.3. The sleep surface of the bassinet bed shall be at an 
angle of at least 20[deg] from a horizontal plane when the bassinet bed 
is in an unlocked position.
    (v) 6.10.4. The bassinet/cradle shall provide a false latch/lock 
visual indicator(s). At a minimum, an indicator shall be visible to a 
person standing near both of the two longest sides of the product.
    (vi) 6.10.5. The bassinet bed shall not tip over and shall retain 
the CAMI newborn dummy when tested in accordance with 7.12.5.3.
    (6) Instead of complying with section 7.4.4 of ASTM F2194-13, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.4.4. Place the CAMI Newborn Dummy, Mark II, on the sleeping 
pad in the center of the product face up with the arms and legs 
straightened.
    (A) Rationale. The newborn CAMI dummy represents a 50th percentile 
newborn infant, which is a more appropriate user of a bassinet than the 
CAMI infant dummy, which represents a 50th percentile 6-month-old 
infant.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (7) In addition to complying with section 7.11.4 of ASTM F2194-13, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.12. Removable Bassinet Bed Attachment Tests
    (ii) 7.12.1. Assemble the bassinet/cradle base/stand only, in 
accordance with manufacturer's instructions in one of the 
manufacturer's recommended use positions. If the base/stand does not 
remain in the use position when the bassinet bed is not locked onto it, 
the product meets the requirements of 6.10.1.
    (iii) 7.12.2. Place the base/stand and the inclinometer on a flat 
level horizontal surface (0  -0.5[deg]) to establish a test 
plane. Zero the inclinometer.
    (iv) 7.12.3. Remove the mattress pad from the bassinet bed.

    Note to paragraph (b)(7)(iv):  For mattresses that are integral 
with the mattress support, do not remove the mattress and perform 
all angle measurements for 7.12 on a 6 by 6 by \3/8\-in. nominal 
aluminum block placed on the center of the mattress.

    (v) 7.12.4. Place the bassinet bed on the base/stand in the 
intended use orientation without engaging any latch or lock mechanism 
between the base/stand and the bassinet bed. If the bed automatically 
engages to the base/stand do not disengage the lock/latch. If the 
bassinet bed can rest on the base/stand in its intended use orientation 
in one or more lateral unlocked position (Figure 24), the unit shall be 
evaluated in the lateral position most likely to fail the requirements 
specified in 6.10.
    (vi) Figure 24: Bassinet Bed Resting on Stand, Showing Possible 
Alternate Lateral Positions.

[[Page 63036]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23OC13.001

    (vii) 7.12.4.1. If the base/stand supports the bassinet bed in any 
unlocked position, place the inclinometer on the mattress support at 
the approximate center of the mattress support. Care should be taken to 
avoid seams, snap fasteners, or other items that may affect the 
measurement reading. Record the angle measurement.
    (viii) 7.12.4.2. If the base/stand supports the bassinet bed and 
the angle of the mattress support surface measured in 7.12.4.1 is less 
than 20 degrees from a horizontal plane, evaluate whether the bassinet 
has a false latch/lock visual indicator per 6.10.4.
    (ix) 7.12.4.3. If the base/stand supports the bassinet bed, and the 
angle of the mattress support surface measured in 7.12.4.1 is less than 
20 degrees from a horizontal plane, and the bassinet does not contain a 
false latch/lock visual indicator, test the unit in accordance with 
sections 7.4.2 through 7.4.7.
    (x) 7.12.5. Repeat 7.12.2 through 7.12.4 for all of the 
manufacturer's base/stand recommended positions and use modes.
    (xi) 7.12.6. Repeat 7.12.4 through 7.12.5 with the bassinet bed 
rotated 180 degrees from the manufacturers recommended use orientation, 
if the base/stand supports the bassinet bed in this orientation.
    (A) Rationale. (1) This test requirement addresses fatal and 
nonfatal incidents involving bassinet beds that tipped over or fell off 
their base/stand when they were not properly locked/latched to their 
base/stand or the latch failed to engage as intended. Products that 
appear to be in an intended use position when the lock or latch is not 
properly engaged can create a false sense of security by appearing to 
be stable. Unsecured or misaligned lock/latch systems are a hidden 
hazard because they are not easily seen by consumers due to being 
located beneath the bassinet or covered by decorative skirts. In 
addition, consumers will avoid activating lock/latch mechanisms for 
numerous reasons if a bassinet bed appears stable when placed on a 
stand/base. Because of these foreseeable use conditions, this 
requirement has been added to ensure that bassinets with a removable 
bassinet bed feature will be inherently stable or it is obvious that 
they are not properly secured.
    (2) 6.10 allows bassinet bed designs that:
    (i) Cannot be supported by the base/stand in an unlocked 
configuration,
    (ii) Automatically lock and cannot be placed in an unlocked 
position on the base/stand,
    (iii) Are clearly and obviously unstable when the lock/latch is 
misaligned or unused,
    (iv) Provide a visual warning to consumers when the product is not 
properly locked onto the base/stand, or
    (v) Have lock/latch mechanisms that are not necessary to provide 
needed stability.
    (B) [Reserved]

    Dated: September 30, 2013.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-24203 Filed 10-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P