[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 7, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66703-66713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27027]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 66703]]
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1223
[CPSC Docket No. CPSC-2012-0011]
RIN 3041-AC90
Safety Standard for Infant Swings
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 104(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act
of 2008 (CPSIA), part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety
Notification Act, requires the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission (Commission, CPSC, or we) to promulgate consumer product
safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. These
standards are to be ``substantially the same as'' applicable voluntary
standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the
Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further
reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. In this final
rule, the Commission is issuing a safety standard for infant swings, as
required under section 104(b) of the CPSIA.
DATES: The rule is effective May 7, 2013 and applies to products
manufactured on or after that date. The incorporation by reference of
the publication listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of May 7, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keysha L. Watson, Office of Compliance
and Field Operations, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330
East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-6820; email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background: Section 104(b) of the CPSIA
The CPSIA was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the
CPSIA, part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act,
requires the Commission to promulgate consumer product safety standards
for durable infant and toddler products. These standards are to be
``substantially the same as'' applicable voluntary standards or more
stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that
more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury
associated with the product. The term ``durable infant or toddler
product'' is defined in section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as a durable
product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be
used, by children under the age of 5 years. Infant swings are one of
the products specifically identified in section 104(f)(2)(K) of the
CPSIA as a durable infant or toddler product.
In the Federal Register of February 29, 2012, the Commission
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) that proposed
incorporating by reference ASTM F2088-11b, Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Infant Swings, with several modifications to
strengthen the standard. 77 FR 7011. In this document, the Commission
is issuing a safety standard for infant swings, which incorporates by
reference, the new voluntary standard developed by ASTM International
(formerly the American Society for Testing Materials), ASTM F2088-12a,
Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Infant Swings, with the
addition of a labeling modification to strengthen the standard and a
revised test method to address an omission in the voluntary standard in
the test method for toy mobiles that are attached to the swing.
We summarize the final rule (including differences between the
proposal and the final rule) in section F of this preamble. The
information discussed in this preamble comes from CPSC staff's briefing
package for the infant swing rule, which is available on the CPSC's Web
site at http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia12/brief/infantswings.pdf.
B. The Product
1. Definition
ASTM F2088-12a, and its predecessors, ASTM F2088-11b and ASTM
F2088-12, define an ``infant swing'' as ``a stationary unit with a
frame and powered mechanism that enables an infant to swing in a seated
position. An infant swing is intended for use with infants from birth
until a child is able to sit up unassisted.'' ASTM F2088-12a, and its
predecessors, ASTM F2088-11b and ASTM F2088-12, also address ``cradle
swings,'' which are defined as ``an infant swing which is intended for
use by a child lying flat'' and ``travel swings,'' which are defined as
``a low profile, compact swing having a distance of 6 in. or less
between the underside of the seat bottom and the support surface
(floor) at any point in the seat's range of motion.'' The standard was
developed in response to incident data supplied by CPSC staff to
address hazards such as: Swings tipping over or collapsing, structural
failures, entanglement in the restraints, and entrapment in leg holes.
2. The Market
Based on a 2005 survey conducted by American Baby Group, titled,
``2006 Baby Products Tracking Study,'' and Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention birth data, we estimate that approximately 2.7 million
infant swings are sold in the United States each year. We estimate that
there are at least 10 manufacturers or importers supplying infant
swings to the U.S. market. Eight firms are domestic manufacturers, and
two are domestic importers with a foreign parent company.
The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) is the major
U.S. trade association that represents juvenile product manufacturers
and importers. The JPMA provides a certification program that allows
manufacturers and importers to use the JPMA seal if they voluntarily
submit their products for testing to an independent laboratory to
determine if their products meet the most current ASTM voluntary
standard. Currently, there are five manufacturers that sell JPMA-
certified infant swings.
[[Page 66704]]
C. Incident Data
1. Introduction
The preamble to the NPR (77 FR 7012 through 7013) summarized the
data for incidents with infant swings from January 1, 2002, through May
18, 2011. In this section, we discuss CPSC staff's analysis of
incidents collected between May 19, 2011 and May 23, 2012. During that
period, 351 new infant swing-related incidents were reported to the
CPSC. Almost all were reported to have occurred between 2009 and 2012.
The majority (333 out of 351 or 95 percent) of the reports were
submitted to the CPSC by retailers and manufacturers through the CPSC's
``Retailer Reporting System.'' The remaining 18 incident reports were
submitted to the CPSC from various sources, such as the CPSC Hotline,
Internet reports, newspaper clippings, medical examiners, and other
state/local authorities. Two of the 351 incidents were fatal, and 349
were nonfatal; 24 of the nonfatal incidents resulted in injuries.
2. Fatalities
Of the two decedents in the fatal incidents, one was a 2-month-old
who died when a blanket placed in the swing obstructed his airway, and
the other was a 3-month-old who died when she rolled over to a prone
position onto the soft surface of the infant swing. The report did not
state whether a restraint was in use at the time of the latter
incident.
3. Nonfatal Incidents
There were 24 injuries reported among the 349 nonfatal incidents.
Among the injured, 79 percent were 6 months old or younger; the
remaining injured infants were 7 and 8 months of age. Some reports
specifically mentioned the type of injury, while others only mentioned
an injury with no specifics. Among the injuries specified, bumps,
bruises, and lacerations were common. None required hospitalization.
Most of the injuries were related to various product-related issues,
such as swing seat, structural integrity, or restraint, similar to
those reported and addressed in the NPR and the latest version of the
voluntary standard.
4. National Injury Estimates \1\
There were an estimated total of 1,900 injuries (sample size = 73,
coefficient of variation = 0.18) related to infant swings that were
treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments during 2011. Although
this reflects a decrease from the 2010 estimate of 2,200 injuries, the
change was not statistically significant. Comparing with national
injury estimates from the prior years, no statistically significant
trend was observed over the 2002-2011 period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The source of the injury estimates is the National
Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), a statistically valid
injury surveillance system. NEISS injury data is gathered from
emergency departments of hospitals that are selected as a
probability sample of all the U.S. hospitals with emergency
departments. The surveillance data gathered from the sample
hospitals enable CPSC staff to make timely national estimates of the
number of injuries associated with specific consumer products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No deaths were reported through the NEISS. About 78 percent of the
injured were 6 months of age or younger, and about 91 percent were 12
months or younger. For the emergency department-treated injuries
related to infant swings, the following characteristics occurred most
frequently:
Hazard--falls (78%); a majority of the reports did not
specify the manner or cause of fall;
Injured body part--head (62%);
Injury type--internal organ injury (59%); and
Disposition--treated and released (97%).
5. Hazard Pattern Characterization Based on Incident Data
The hazard patterns identified among the 351 new incident reports
were similar to the hazard patterns that were identified among the
incidents considered for the NPR. Most of the issues were determined to
be product related. They are grouped as follows (in descending order of
frequency of incidents):
Swing seat issues, either seat design or seat failure,
were the most commonly reported hazard, accounting for 25 percent of
the 351 incident reports and four (17 percent) injuries. Seat design
issues caused the seats to lean to one side, or tilt forward or
backward. Seat failures resulted in seats folding up on the infant,
seat pads not staying in place, or seats falling off with no other
apparent component failure. With seats that leaned to one side, the
infant bumped into the swing frame; with the seat failures, the infant
almost always fell out of the swing.
Broken, detached, or loose components of the swing
housing, such as the arm, leg, motor housing, or hardware, were the
next most commonly reported problems. They accounted for 24 percent of
the 351 incident reports and five (21 percent) injuries.
Restraint issues, either the inadequate design of the
restraint or the failure of the restraint, were reported in 23 percent
of the 351 reported incidents. These issues resulted in the highest
proportion of injuries (10 injuries or 42 percent). Common restraint-
design scenarios included: (1) Infant falling (or nearly falling) out
of the seat when leaning forward or sideways; and (2) infant putting
more weight toward the back of the seat, causing the seat to tilt back
and the restraint failing to prevent the infant from sliding out on
his/her head. Common restraint-failure scenarios included buckles or
straps breaking or detaching from the product altogether.
Electrical or battery-related issues were reported in 15
percent of the 351 reports. Overheating of the motor housing was the
most common scenario. However, there were no injuries reported related
to this issue.
Instability of the swing was reported in 5 percent of the
incident reports. In most of these cases, the swing was described as
lifting up one leg when swinging, or tipping over completely. The
latter scenario resulted in one injury.
Other product-related issues, such as inadequate clearance
between seat and swing frame, broken or detached toys and mobiles, and
problems with swing speed, seat fabric, and assembly instructions were
reported in 6 percent of the 351 incidents. One injury was reported.
Miscellaneous other issues accounted for the remaining 2
percent of the 351 incident reports. This category includes the two
fatalities, which were determined to be non-product-related. Also in
this category were five reports with insufficient information to
characterize any specific hazard, and one report of product misuse,
such as the intentional removal of the restraint; these nonfatal
incidents resulted in three injuries.
D. Response to Comments on the Proposed Rule
Below, we describe and respond to the comments on the proposed
rule. A summary of each of the commenter's topics is presented, and
each topic is followed by our response. Each ``Comment'' is numbered to
help distinguish between different topics. The number assigned to each
comment is for organizational purposes only, and it does not signify
the comment's value, or importance, or the order in which it was
received. We received 24 comments. All of the comments can be viewed on
www.regulations.gov, by searching under the docket number of the
rulemaking, CPSC-2012-0011.
[[Page 66705]]
1. Slump-Over Warning Label
(Comment 1) Sixteen comments recommend that the text of the warning
specify or clarify the hazard or the consequences of not avoiding the
hazard. Comments about the need to specify the consequences of not
avoiding the hazard generally recommend that the warning state
explicitly that there is a risk of serious injury, death, or both.
Comments about the need to clarify the hazard suggest explicit
references to ``asphyxiation'' or ``choking,'' or suggest references to
the slump-over position or to a hunched position with the ``chin
touching chest.'' Several of the comments recommend that the warning
specify the ages of the children at risk.
(Response 1) We believe that the current warning language
requirements pertaining to the slump-over hazard are insufficient and
agree that the warning should be revised to clarify the hazard and the
consequences of exposure to the hazard if the consumer cannot avoid it.
The current warning statement does not describe the slump-over hazard,
and the formatting of the warning implies that using the swing in the
most reclined seat position is an additional measure intended to
address the potential for the infant user to fall or strangle in the
straps. In addition, one could argue that the warning statement does
not describe the probable consequences of not avoiding the slump-over
hazard because the warning's reference to ``serious injury or death''
is specific to falls and strangulations.
The final rule separates the warning statement pertaining to the
slump-over hazard from the warnings about falls and strangulations and
strengthens this warning statement as follows:
Keep swing seat fully reclined until child is at least 4 months
old AND can hold up head without help. Young infants have limited
head and neck control. If seat is too upright, infant's head can
drop forward, compress the airway, and result in DEATH.
2. Warning Concerning Use of Cradle Swing
(Comment 2) Five comments recommend that the warning should state
that infants who cannot hold up their heads unassisted should use only
cradle swings. One comment states that such a change would not
substantially reduce the risk.
(Response 2) The proposed revisions to the slump-over warning
statement already improve the relevant warning statement in ASTM F2088-
12a, by describing the hazard more explicitly, the consequences of
exposure to the hazard, and the infants who are most at risk. The
language, ``Keep swing seat fully reclined until child is at least 4
months old AND can hold up head without help'' (emphasis added) is the
part of the revised slump-over warning intended to communicate the
appropriate hazard-avoidance behavior. Several comments recommend that
the highlighted portion of this statement be replaced with one that
instructs consumers to use only cradle swings.\2\ The effectiveness of
this change, therefore, depends upon whether the use of a cradle swing
with these children would address more incidents than fully reclining
the seat back on non-cradle swings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Section 3.1.2 of ASTM F2088-12a defines a ``cradle swing''
as ``an infant swing which is intended for use by a child lying
flat.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the staff's briefing package for the NPR, all known
swing fatalities occurred when the child was in the infant seat mode
rather than the cradle mode. However, CPSC staff concluded that, for
infant swings having an adjustable seat recline with a seat back angle
greater than 50 degrees, fully reclining the seat back until the infant
can hold up his or her head unassisted also would address the slump-
over hazard. Thus, we doubt that a warning that tells consumers to use
only cradle swings will be more effective than one that tells consumers
to recline the seat fully.
3. Warning on All Swings
(Comment 3) Five comments request that all infant swings, not just
reclining models with a seat back angle greater than 50 degrees, bear a
warning related to the slump-over hazard. One of these comments
recommends that all reclining swings, regardless of the seat back
angle, warn about placing the seat in the most reclined position for
infants who are younger than 3 months or who cannot hold up their heads
without assistance. The remaining comments recommend that certain
swings bear a warning prohibiting their use with infants who are
younger than 3 months or who cannot hold up their heads without
assistance. Of these, one recommends that such a warning be present on
all infant swings that do not lie ``flat''; one recommends displaying
the warning for all reclining swings, regardless of the seat back
angle; two recommend that such a warning be present on all non-
reclining models; and one of these two comments also recommends
displaying the warning for all reclining models with seat back angles
less than 50 degrees.
(Response 3) As far as the Commission knows, all infant swings
currently on the market are either cradle swings or reclining swings
with a maximum seat back angle greater than 50 degrees from horizontal
when measured in accordance with the ASTM standard. We are unaware of
any reclining swings with a maximum seat back angle less than 50
degrees from horizontal. Therefore, all reclining infant swings would
bear the warning label recommending that the seat be placed in the most
reclined position for infants who are younger than 4 months or who
cannot hold up their heads without assistance. As noted earlier, CPSC
staff has concluded that fully reclining the seat back on reclining
swings with a seat back angle greater than 50 degrees addresses the
slump-over hazard. Thus, although the final rule would not prevent
manufacturers from including the warning on reclining swings with a
maximum seat back angle less than 50 degrees from horizontal, we do not
believe that mandating such a warning on these products is necessary.
Cradle swings would not require the warning label because the seat back
angle on these swings is not inclined enough to create the slump-over
hazard.
4. Use of Pictures or Visual Aids
(Comment 4) Two comments recommend the use of pictures or visual
aids to clarify the warning message. One of these comments suggests
that this recommendation was intended for parents whose primary
language is not English, or who are not familiar with measurements
described in degrees.
(Response 4) We acknowledge that well-designed graphics might be
useful to illustrate the appropriate orientation of the seat back when
the infant swing is used with children 3 months old and younger.
However, we are not convinced that a graphic is necessary to convey
this message to most consumers, and CPSC staff's prior analyses of the
incident data associated with infant swings has not revealed a pattern
of incidents involving people who were not literate in English.
Moreover, the design of effective graphics can be difficult. Some
seemingly obvious graphics are poorly understood and can give rise to
interpretations that are opposite the intended meaning (so-called
``critical confusions''). Thus, although the Commission may take action
in the future if it believes graphic symbols are needed to reduce
further the risk of injury associated with these products, the rule
permits, but does not mandate, such supporting graphics.
Lastly, although the slump-over warning statement would be required
on infant swings that have an adjustable seat recline with a seat back
angle greater than 50 degrees, the warning
[[Page 66706]]
statement itself is not required to reference this 50-degree
measurement. The final rule does not include any revisions to the
slump-over warning statement that would introduce reference to
``degrees.''
5. Age Recommendations To Recline Settings
(Comment 5) One comment recommends that the infant swing recline
settings include age recommendations. However, this commenter also
acknowledges that developmentally delayed infants may be endangered
when the parent or caregiver follows the age-recommended settings.
(Response 5) The new warning label wording in the final rule
explicitly directs consumers to use the swing in the most reclined
position until the infant is 4 months of age and can hold their head up
without help. Once the infant is able to do this, the swing can be used
in any of the other settings. Therefore, adding age recommendations to
the swing settings is not necessary.
6. Additional Languages on Warning Labels
(Comment 6) One comment recommends that the slump-over warning be
required to be printed in languages in addition to English. The comment
suggests that the warning should be in English and Spanish at least.
(Response 6) The Commission does not dismiss the potential
usefulness of providing the slump-over warning and other warning
information in Spanish and other non-English languages, and it
recognizes that adding Spanish versions of the warnings most likely
would improve warning readability among the U.S. population more than
adding any other language. Nevertheless, as noted in the response to
comment 4 above, CPSC staff's prior analyses of the incident data
associated with infant swings has not revealed a pattern of incidents
involving people who were not literate in English. Thus, although the
final rule does not prohibit manufacturers from providing the required
warnings in languages other than English, the available information
provides no basis for mandating that manufacturers do so.
7. Additional Warning on the Label
(Comment 7) Two comments state that the product should include
warnings about the importance of using the restraint system. One of
these comments recommends the use of the phrase: ``DO NOT PLACE INFANT
IN SWING WITHOUT SECURING RESTRAINTS.'' The other comment states that
the warnings should ``address the risks associated with a caregiver's
failure to properly employ the use of restraints while the swing is in
use.'' One additional comment uses ``failing to use the restraint
system'' as an example of product misuse, which should be warned
against.
(Response 7) Section 8.3.1 of ASTM F2088-12a already warns about
the potential for ``serious injury or death from infants falling or
being strangled in straps'' and instructs consumers: ``[a]lways secure
infant in the restraint system provided.'' In addition, the latter
statement is nearly identical to the specific phrase recommended in the
first comment cited in the comment summary. Thus, we believe that the
current warning statements about this hazard are sufficient.
We do not believe that the product should include warnings about
general product misuse. Consumers are less likely to read numerous
warnings, especially about hazards that are highly unlikely. Therefore,
warning about general product misuse or about numerous instances of
product misuse that, individually, are very rare, would increase the
likelihood that consumers will not receive the most important hazard
information for the product.
8. Warnings Against Sleeping in Swings
(Comment 8) Three comments state that the product should warn
against allowing infants to sleep in the swing. One of the comments
suggests that the following language be added to the warning: ``Do not
use the swing for routine sleep.''
(Response 8) We do not believe that warning statements about not
allowing infants to sleep in the swing should be added. CPSC staff's
prior review of the available incident data suggests that the angle of
the seat back is more relevant to the potential for slump-over deaths
and that adjusting the seat back to the most reclined position would
have addressed these incidents. The warnings already include a
statement about adjusting the seat back to the most reclined position
for those children most at risk of slumping over, and the final rule
revises the warning statement to clarify this message. Thus, we believe
that warnings about not sleeping in infant swings are unlikely to
reduce further the incidence of slump-over deaths; additionally, the
data do not support mandating such a warning.
9. Warnings Limiting Swing Use
(Comment 9) One comment recommends that there be warnings about
limiting the amount of time that infants spend in the swing for
``health and developmental concerns,'' namely, positional/deformational
plagiocephaly and developmental delays from a lack of ``tummy time.''
(Response 9) Warnings are safety communications intended to inform
consumers about hazards, with the ultimate goal of reducing injuries
and deaths. Thus, while there may be exceptions, one generally should
not provide a warning, unless a significant hazard exists. We are not
aware of any reported incidents of positional/deformational
plagiocephaly involving infant swings. Even if one presumes that such
an association exists, CPSC staff has confirmed that this condition
does not pose a hazard to infants. Similarly, developmental delays from
a lack of ``tummy time'' are not hazards per se, and they do not
directly lead to injuries or deaths. Consequently, we do not believe
that this issue rises to the level that such a mandatory warning on the
product is necessary.
10. Seat Deflection Warning
(Comment 10) One comment recommends that swings supported by a
single arm include a warning about the increased likelihood of seat
deflection.
(Response 10) We do not believe that a warning about an increased
likelihood of seat deflection is necessary for single-arm infant
swings. Since publication of the NPR, CPSC staff has worked with the
ASTM Subcommittee on Infant Swings to develop new, improved performance
requirements intended to address seat deflection. We believe that these
requirements, which are part of the final rule, will effectively
address the risk associated with seat deflection, and therefore,
eliminate the need for a warning.
11. Electrical Cord Strangulation Warning
(Comment 11) One comment recommends that all swings with AC or
electrical power cords include a warning label on the cords similar to
that in the baby monitor standard, which warns about the strangulation
hazard that such cords pose.
(Response 11) We do not believe that mandating a strangulation
warning on the AC or electrical power cords that might accompany
certain infant swings is appropriate at this time. The recently
published voluntary standard for baby monitors, ASTM F2951-12, Standard
Consumer Safety Specification for Baby Monitors, does require
strangulation warnings on the cords of baby monitors, but specifies
different warnings, depending on whether the product is intended to be
attached to a crib or not.
[[Page 66707]]
For transmitters that are not intended to be attached to a crib, the
warning instructs consumers to keep the cord more than 3 feet away from
the child. For transmitters that are intended to be attached to a
crib--a situation more analogous to an infant swing that holds the
infant and has an electrical power cord attached--the warning instructs
consumers to use the manufacturer-supplied protective cord covering at
all times. However, infant swings are not required to provide
protective coverings for electrical power cords, so it is unclear how
consumers would comply with such a warning.
A general warning about the risk of strangulation from these cords
when the child is in the product might be more reasonable. However, we
are not aware of any incidents associated with this hazard scenario
involving infant swings, which suggests that this hazard does not rise
to the level that a mandatory warning is necessary. Manufacturers of
infant swings with cords are free to include strangulation warnings on
their cords, and we can revisit the possibility of mandating such
warnings if future incident data show that doing so would be
appropriate.
12. Dynamic and Static Tests
(Comment 12) One comment states that the CPSC-proposed rule would
require the tester to use a 75-lb weight and to drop it 500 times on
the swing seat. The comment questions the new test method's predictive
ability to replicate real-world conditions and injuries, because, the
commenter states, the ASTM standard required a 25-lb weight dropped 50
times onto the seat. Next, the comment suggests that the total number
of drops could be increased beyond the current 500 drops. The total
number of drops could be based on a consumer survey, asking parents how
many times a day they put their baby in the swing and whether they used
it for one or more babies. Lastly, the comment states that it is
unclear why the test involves dropping. The force of an impact,
especially with a drop mass of 75 lbs repeated 500 times, could weaken
the infant swing at an unreasonable and unrepresentative rate. The
comment recommends instead that the test should measure the effect of a
static mass placed in the seat over a period of time. Another comment
questions the 75-lb requirement in the static load test and requests
the justification for this requirement.
(Response 12) The current ASTM standard, F2088-12a, has adopted the
CPSC staff recommendation to increase the number of drops from 50 to
500 in the dynamic load test. The additional cycles were based on CPSC
staff testing, which included life cycle testing. We believe a cyclic
test of 500 drops is an appropriate test to evaluate the potential for
structural failure in an infant swing. Continued testing beyond 500
cycles did not reveal any new issues, and it may place an unnecessary
burden on the manufacturers and test labs. Additionally, the dynamic
test specifies a 25-lb load not a 75-lb load, as suggested by the
comment. The 25-lb load is the approximate weight of a 95th percentile
10- to 12-month-old child, and we agree with the rationale listed in
the appendix of ASTM F2088-12a. The static load test included in the
standard is the only test that calls for the application of a 75-lb
load in the seat. The 75-lb static load has been part of the voluntary
standard since its inception in 2001; this is not something newly added
by the CPSC.
Finally, the dynamic test drop height is 1 inch. We consider the
forces applied from this drop to be consistent with actual forces
associated with swing use. Performing the dynamic test as specified in
the standard ensures consistent, repeatable testing results. Together,
these tests are intended to evaluate the structural integrity of the
infant swing, and we believe they are sufficient to address structural
issues that would occur over the life of the product.
13. Product Misassembly
(Comment 13) One comment states: ``Because of the constant use/
storage/lending use pattern of swings, we recommend that CPSC consider
including additional requirements in the standard for infant swings,
such as the provisions in the crib standard that seek to reduce
hardware loss or misassembly. This could include requiring hardware
that doesn't back out or become loose, captive hardware, performance
requirements to avoid misassembly, and a method to make sure
instructions stay with the product.''
(Response 13) The CPSC has considered or addressed misassembly
issues in the standards for bassinets, play yards, and cribs, based on
reported incidents and known usage patterns. We are aware of these
hazard patterns in other juvenile product incidents, but we have
concluded that ASTM has sufficiently addressed these issues by
requiring that all threaded fasteners connecting structural components
have a locking mechanism, such as lock washers, self-locking nuts, or
other features designed to prevent detachment due to vibration. A
product evaluation by CPSC staff revealed that many current swing
designs use other means, such as Valco-type (push) button fasteners,
which are permanently attached to the respective component. In most
swing designs, misassembly of a swing would make the frame overtly
unstable or result in an unnatural appearance that would be obvious to
the consumer. The addition of a misassembly requirement would add a
testing requirement for an incident pattern that is not evident among
the incidents reported and that is addressed by the existing standard.
14. Seat Deflection
(Comment 14) Multiple comments question the seat deflection test
and how it relates to injury reduction. Individual comments suggest
including a second test to account for the potential of increased
deflection over the life of the product. Another comment states that
the CPSC did not explain why the agency chose 4 inches as its
performance requirement.
(Response 14) Seat deflection is a design issue that should be
addressed during the product's development and verified with standard
testing. The seat deflection test proposed by the Commission was a
preliminary test procedure under development at the time of the NPR.
CPSC staff has continued to work with ASTM to refine the seat
deflection test for infant swings. ASTM's latest standard includes a
new test methodology and performance requirements that measure various
seat angles, as was suggested by one commenter, and it addresses
satisfactorily the seat deflection issues raised by CPSC staff.
15. Electrical Requirements
(Comment 15) One comment states that infant swings are not designed
to be operated by children. Instead, the comment states that infant
swings are designed to be used by children, but they are designed to be
operated by adults. Therefore, the comment asserts that infant swings
are not subject to 16 CFR part 1505, Requirements for electronically
operated toys or other electrically operated articles intended for use
by children. According to the comment, third party laboratories have
been interpreting 16 CFR part 1505 in this manner for many years.
Adding a new interpretation to 16 CFR part 1505, the comment suggests,
would create confusion and would be inconsistent with test protocols
currently employed.
(Response 15) While the NPR proposed that swings operating from an
a/c power source be required to conform to 16 CFR 1505, ASTM reworded
the provision in ASTM F2088-12a to address the issue of assuring that
AC
[[Page 66708]]
adapters meet all national safety standards. We agree with the new
language contained in ASTM F2088-12a, which is being incorporated into
the final rule. Therefore, it is unnecessary to include any reference
to part 1505 in the final rule.
16. Compliant Product Marking
(Comment 16) One comment recommends that the CPSC consider adding a
marking on products that are manufactured after the effective date so
that consumers can clearly identify new products that meet the new
mandatory standard.
(Response 16) A date code is already required to be on the product
under section 8.1.3 of ASTM F2088-12a and under the requirements for
consumer registration of durable infant or toddler products in 16 CFR
1130.3. In addition, future changes to the standard may come into
effect. Because it is not practicable to delineate every change to the
standard through a new mark on the product, we decline to take such
action.
17. Regulation Coverage
(Comment 17) One comment states: ``* * * the pre-existing voluntary
standards unaddressed by the new regulation is [sic] the sweeping
definition that places all infant swings in the same category for
children up to the age of five.''
(Response 17) The proposed rule and the voluntary standard both
indicate that the infant swings are ``intended for use with infants
from birth until a child is able to sit up unassisted.'' The comment
may have misunderstood the reference in the Federal Register notice,
where the ``definition of a `durable infant or toddler product' is
defined in section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as a durable product intended
for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children
under the age of 5 years.''
18. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Comment 18) One comment states that CPSC staff should try ``to
obtain a more accurate number of manufacturers who do not meet the ASTM
standard'' and suggests that we ``count those manufacturers that sell
at major retailers that require ASTM compliance'' as well. The comment
states that because ``just ten firms are making or importing swings,
CPSC could easily get direct information that would more clearly
identify costs.''
(Response 18) We have attempted to obtain accurate estimates of
small firms that do not conform to the ASTM voluntary standard for
infant swings and information on the likely costs of conformance.
Further effort would not change the results of the analysis. Nor is it
necessarily easy for firms to estimate prospectively the economic
impact that a regulation will have on their costs.
(Comment 19) One commenter states that the regulatory flexibility
analysis should consider the effect that a product recall would have on
firms `` * * * that are not known to be in compliance with the
voluntary standard.''
(Response 19) The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an evaluation
of the likely economic impacts of conforming to the standard that is
being proposed, not the economic impact of violating the standard. If
firms comply with the standard, recalls related to nonconformance would
be avoided.
E. ASTM Voluntary Standard
ASTM F2088, ``Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Infant
Swings,'' is the voluntary standard that was developed to address the
identified hazard patterns associated with the use of infant swings.
Section 104(b) of the CPSIA requires the Commission to assess the
effectiveness of the voluntary standard in consultation with
representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and
other experts. We have consulted with these groups regarding the ASTM
voluntary standard, ASTM F2088, throughout its development. The
standard was first approved in 2001, and revised in 2003, 2008, 2009,
twice in 2011, and twice in 2012. ASTM F2088-11b was the version of the
standard referenced in the NPR. In response to the proposed rule, the
ASTM Subcommittee on Infant Swings, in collaboration with CPSC staff,
approved and published two versions of the standard since publication
of the NPR, including, ASTM F2088-12a (approved on September 1, 2012,
and published in September 2012), which mainly incorporates the
proposed modifications in the proposed rule, with a few clarifications
and modifications that strengthen the standard. ASTM F2088-12a contains
more stringent requirements than its predecessor, ASTM F2088-11b, and
would reduce further the risk of injury associated with infant swings.
F. Assessment of the Voluntary Standard and Description of the Final
Rule
1. Changes to Requirements of the ASTM F2088 Voluntary Standard
In the NPR, the Commission proposed safety standards for infant
swings based on the voluntary standard for infant swings, ASTM F2088-
11b. We proposed additional requirements that were intended to
strengthen the voluntary standard. See 77 FR 12182. Since the
publication of this notice, ASTM has published two newer versions of
the standard, ASTM F2088-12 and ASTM F2088 12a. The newest version,
ASTM F 2088-12a, includes additional changes that were not addressed
previously, modifies the CPSC proposed language, or adopts the
proposal, with some differences.
The final rule incorporates by reference ASTM F2088-12a as a
mandatory standard, with two modifications. Some of the more
significant requirements of ASTM F2088-12a are listed below. The
requirements that have been added to the ASTM voluntary standard since
the NPR are in italics:
Stability test--intended to prevent tip over. Swing models
that rotate about the horizontal axis are positioned on an inclined
surface with the swing facing forward and then facing backward. Swings
that do not rotate about the horizontal axis are tested in the position
most likely to fail. This was modified in ASTM F2088-12 to clarify the
test procedure, as proposed by the Commission in the NPR.
Test to prevent unintentional folding--intended to ensure
that any locking/latching mechanisms remain functional after testing.
Tests on restraint system--intended to prevent slippage
and breakage during regular use.
Requirements for cradle swing orientation--intended to
ensure that the surface remains relatively flat both while in motion
and while at rest.
Requirements for electrically powered swings--intended to
prevent leakage and otherwise protect consumers. These requirements
originally applied only to battery-operated swings but were expanded in
ASTM F2088-12 to encompass all electrically powered swings, as proposed
by the Commission in the NPR. ASTM F2088-12a extends the compliance
requirements of all AC adaptors and includes a list of accepted
national safety standards. There are also some editorial differences
between the NPR and ASTM F2088-12a.
Requirement for toy mobiles--intended to ensure that toys
within a child's reach do not detach when pulled. This requirement was
new to the 2011a standard and was modified for the 2012 standard to
prevent detachment when pulled horizontally as well (as proposed in the
February 2012 NPR).
[[Page 66709]]
Shoulder strap requirement--In the NPR, we proposed that
shoulder straps be required for swing seats with angles greater than 50
degrees. The seat back angle measurement procedure has been updated
since the NPR. Now it addresses the issues that the CPSC proposed to
address with the seat deflection test included in the NPR. Now it now
addresses seats that fold up or tilt, by limiting the severity of
angles created by the seat and seat back, or by requiring shoulder
straps as part of the restraint system.
Dynamic and static load requirements--intended to ensure
that the infant swing can support these loads without breaking. The
dynamic load test procedure was modified in F2088-12 to mirror proposed
changes in the February 2012 NPR, including increasing the number of
times the weight is dropped.
The voluntary standard also includes: (1) Torque and tension tests
to ensure that components cannot be removed; (2) requirements for
several infant swing features to prevent entrapment and cuts (minimum
and maximum opening size, small parts, exposed coil springs, protective
components, hazardous sharp edges or points, and edges that can
scissor, shear, or pinch); (3) requirements for the permanency and
adhesion of labels; (4) a leg opening test to ensure that occupants
cannot slide out; (5) requirements for instructional literature; and
(6) restraint system requirements. Additionally, all testing must be
performed without adjusting or repositioning the swing, and swings with
multiple seat configurations must be placed in the most disadvantageous
position for testing. The following is a discussion of how the new
standard addresses the issues raised in the NPR.
a. Seat Deflection
The Commission proposed a preliminary test procedure to address the
seat deflection issue and specifically asked for comments on the
proposed test method in the NPR. In addition, the CPSC continued to
work with ASTM to refine the seat deflection test for infant swings.
ASTM F2088-12a includes new language that contains a more comprehensive
requirement based on maximum seat angle specifications, which includes
additional seat back angle measurements or shoulder strap requirements.
We believe this requirement addresses more adequately the incidents
where a child falls out of the seat due to seat deflection.
b. Stability Testing
We raised two issues in the NPR regarding stability testing and
both are addressed in ASTM F2088-12a. ASTM F2088-12a has added the
requirement for testing of alternative swing designs in the worst-case
orientation, as recommended by the Commission. So now not only are
traditional horizontal access swings tested for stability, but also
nontraditional, alternative designs with other than a horizontal axis
of swing motion must also be tested to the new requirements.
The second stability issue the CPSC raised was intended to refine
the testing on swings with ``L-'' shaped cantilevered legs. The CPSC
raised the issue out of concern that a test lab could interpret this
test to require that the force be applied at the end of the ``L-''
shaped leg that is not in the vertical plane of the latch. In this
case, the maximum force normally associated with folding is at the end
of the leg vertically under the latch. However, after further
discussions with ASTM, we have concluded that the current wording
allows testing to be performed as stated in the NPR, and the proper
testing location for this design is readily apparent to all involved.
Therefore, the infant swing unintentional folding test statement
proposed in the NPR, as a clarification to the existing test procedure,
is not included in the final rule.
c. Electrical Overload Requirements
The NPR proposed electrical testing requirements to reduce the
likelihood of overloading electrical components, battery leakage, or
electrical failures that could lead to fire. As part of these
requirements, ASTM F2088-12a does not include the following statement:
``The test shall be conducted using a new swing.'' However, the testing
on swing samples is done largely independent of the electrical
components. Therefore, the electrical components on a swing sample
normally can be considered ``new,'' even after other components have
been tested. By accepting deletion of that statement, the number of
samples required to complete a test is reduced. We accept the
electrical overload requirement--as stated in ASTM F2088-12a--as
sufficient.
d. Dynamic Drop Test Cycles
The NPR proposed increasing the dynamic drop test cycles from 50 to
500 cycles to improve structural integrity and reveal potential
structural issues of the swing components. Increasing the number of
dynamic impact cycles to which the swing will be tested will reduce the
possibility of structural failures, and it is expected to lead to a
decrease in the number and severity of injuries. ASTM included this
change in ASTM F2088-12a.
e. Modify Mobile and Toy Retention Requirements
The NPR proposed modifying mobile and toy retention requirements to
allow the force to be applied in any direction at or below the
horizontal plane, in the orientation most likely to fail. This change
is contained in ASTM F2088-12a.
f. Other Changes to ASTM F2088-12 and 12a
In addition to the changes discussed above, in response to the NPR,
ASTM made two other changes to ASTM F2088-12 and 12a, which we find
acceptable. One change deals with the seat back recline fixture. ASTM
accepted CPSC staff's recommendation to use steel plates--as opposed to
wood boards--for the seat back recline fixture and then added more
design changes to adjust the center of gravity of the fixture to
approximate more accurately the weight distribution of an actual child.
The device is now identified as the ``Hinged Weight Gage-Infant,'' and
a drawing of the figure is included in the ASTM standard. This change
will improve the accuracy of testing, and therefore, improve the safety
of the standard. This change was not proposed in the NPR, but it was
developed with the participation of CPSC staff.
The other issue ASTM addressed was a clarification to the AC
adapters supplied with the product. ASTM F2088-12 states: ``6.1.5 AC
adapters supplied with the product must be compliant with the
appropriate current national standard for AC adapters.'' ASTM received
a number of comments after ASTM F2088-12 was published, asking for
clarification of what ``appropriate current national standard'' meant
in the requirement. ASTM added new wording and a note to make this
clearer, and ASTM F2088-12a includes those changes. We find these
changes to be acceptable.
2. Description of the Final Rule
a. Section 1223.1--Scope
Section 1223.1 of the final rule states that part 1223 establishes
a consumer product safety standard for infant swings. We received no
comments on this provision and are finalizing it without change.
b. Section 1223.2--Requirements for infant swings
Section 1223.2(a) of the final rule provides language to
incorporate by reference ASTM F2088-12a, Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for
[[Page 66710]]
Infant Swings. Section 1223.2(a) also provides information on how to
obtain a copy of the ASTM standard or to inspect a copy of the standard
at the CPSC or National Archives and Records Administration. We
received no comments on this provision, but we are changing the
language in the incorporation in the final rule to refer to ASTM F2088-
12a, the current version of the standard.
In the NPR, Sec. 1223.2(b) proposed to add two new requirements to
ASTM F2088-11b to make the standard more stringent than the current
voluntary standard and to reduce the risk of injury associated with
infant swings: (1) A performance requirement and test method to address
electrical overload in infant swing motors and batteries, as well as an
accessible component temperature requirement and a requirement to
ensure that swings that run on a/c power are safe; and (2) a
performance requirement and test method to address seat deflection. We
also proposed two major modifications to ASTM F2088-11b that would make
the standard more stringent than the voluntary standard at that time
and would reduce the risk of injury associated with infant swings: (1)
An increase in the number of test cycles used in the dynamic load test,
from 50 cycles to 500 cycles, and (2) a modification to the mobile test
to account for mobiles that can be pulled in downward directions other
than straight down vertically. Finally, in proposed Sec. 1223.2(b) of
the NPR, we proposed to clarify the test methods for the dynamic load
test, the stability test, the unintentional folding test, and the seat
back angle measurement method.
As discussed in the previous section of this preamble, the
additional requirements in proposed Sec. 1223.2(b) either have been
incorporated into ASTM F2088-12a, or we are satisfied with ASTM's
changes from the proposal or explanations regarding why some proposals
were not necessary. Therefore, the language in proposed Sec. 1223.2(b)
of the NPR is no longer necessary.
Finally, as discussed previously in the response to comment 1 in
section D of this preamble, we received many comments regarding the
inadequacy of the slump-over warnings in section 8.3 of ASTM F2088-11b.
Section 8.3 of ASTM F2088-12a contains the identical slump-over warning
contained in section 8.3 of ASTM F2088-11b that we proposed in the NPR.
We agree that the current warning language requirements pertaining to
the slump-over hazard in ASTM F2088-12a are insufficient and that the
warning should be revised to clarify the hazard and the consequences of
exposure to the hazard if the consumer cannot avoid it. The warning
statement required in ASTM F2088-12a does not describe the slump-over
hazard, and the formatting of the warning implies that using the swing
in the most reclined seat position is an additional measure intended to
address the potential for the infant user to fall or strangle in the
straps. In addition, one could argue that the warning statement does
not describe the probable consequences of not avoiding the slump-over
hazard because the warning's reference to ``serious injury or death''
is specific to falls and strangulations.
Therefore, in place of the language proposed in Sec. 1223.2(b) of
the NPR, Sec. 1223(b)(1) of the final rule requires that infant swings
must comply with the ASTM F2088-12a standard with two exceptions. In
the case of the first exception to the ASTM standard, instead of
complying with section 8.3.1 of ASTM F 2088-12a, infants swings are
required to have warning statements for products that have an
adjustable seat recline with a maximum seat back angle greater than 50
degrees from horizontal, measured in accordance with 7.13 of ASTM F
2088-12a, that address the following:
Keep swing seat fully reclined until child is at least 4 months
old AND can hold up head without help. Young infants have limited
head and neck control. If seat is too upright, infant's head can
drop forward, compress the airway, and result in DEATH.
Additionally, swings must have a warning statement to prevent serious
injury or death from infants falling or being strangled in straps:
Always secure infant in the restraint system provided.
Never leave infant unattended in swing.
Discontinue use of swing when infant attempts to climb
out.
Travel swings are required to have a warning indicating:
``Always place swing on floor. Never use on any elevated surface.''
A second exception to the requirements in ASTM F2088-12a specifies
the test method for testing toy mobiles that are attached to the swing.
The final rule provides new language for the test method described in
section 7.12.2 of ASTM F2088-12a. We are adding this language in
response to information from ASTM that ASTM had inadvertently omitted
updating the test method described in section 7.12.2 of ASTM F2088-12a
to reflect the latest revision that ASTM had made to the test fixture
used in section 7.12.2. We have added ASTM's revised version of the
test method language in the final rule text in Sec. 1223(b)(2). This
is the language that ASTM is balloting to revise section 7.12.2 in its
standard.
G. Effective Date
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the
effective date of the rule to be at least 30 days after publication of
the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The preamble to the proposed rule
indicated that the standard would become effective 6 months after
publication of the rule in the Federal Register. We sought comment on
how long it would take infant swing manufacturers to come into
compliance. We received one comment stating that the Commission should
``* * * consider extending the effective date to one year to help
minimize a possibility of a substantial loss of revenue from the
potential product recalls on the small manufacturers and importers.''
Almost all of the requirements proposed in the NPR were incorporated
into ASTM F2088-12a, and the final rule differs from the proposed rule
only in the requirement that an additional warning label regarding use
has been added. Therefore, we believe that an effective date of 6
months after publication of the final rule is sufficient to allow for
review of the new requirements thoroughly and to ensure that new infant
swings manufactured or imported after that date are in compliance with
the new requirements. The 6-month effective date is consistent with the
effective date established in most other rules issued under section 104
of the CPSIA. Accordingly, the final rule will be effective 6 months
after publication in the Federal Register, unchanged from the proposed
rule.
H. Testing and Certification
Once there is a safety standard in effect for infant swings, it
will be unlawful for anyone to manufacture, distribute, or import an
infant swing into the United States that is not in conformity with this
standard. 15 U.S.C. 2068(1).
In addition, section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2),
imposes the requirement that products subject to a children's product
safety rule must be tested by a third party conformity assessment body
accredited by the Commission to test the product. As discussed in
section A of this preamble, section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA refers to
standards issued under this section as ``consumer product safety
standards.'' Under section 14(f)(1) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2063(f)(1),
the term ``children's
[[Page 66711]]
product safety rule'' includes all standards enforced by the
Commission. Thus, the infant swing standard will be a children's
product safety rule, subject to third party testing and certification.
The Commission is required to issue a notice of requirements (NOR)
to explain how laboratories can become CPSC-accepted third party
conformity assessment bodies to test infant swings to the new safety
standard. On May 24, 2012, the Commission published in the Federal
Register the proposed rule, Requirements Pertaining to Third Party
Conformity Assessment Bodies, 77 FR 31086, which, when finalized, would
establish the general requirements and criteria concerning testing
laboratories, including a list of the children's product safety rules
for which the CPSC has published NORs for laboratories. The Commission
proposed a new NOR for the safety standard for infant swings in that
proposed rule. See 77 FR at 31113. The final NOR for the safety
standard for infant swings will be issued once the final rule for
Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies is
published in the Federal Register. That final rule will address the
issuance of the NOR for infant swings.
I. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Introduction
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that final rules be
reviewed for their potential economic impact on small entities,
including small businesses. Section 604 of the RFA requires that the
Commission prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when it
promulgates a final rule. The final regulatory flexibility analysis
must describe the impact of the rule on small entities and identify any
alternatives that may reduce the impact. Specifically, the final
regulatory flexibility analysis must contain:
A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis
for, the rule;
A summary of the significant issues raised by public
comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a
summary of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement
of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments;
A description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the
number of small entities to which the rule will apply;
A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping,
and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities subject to the requirements and the type
of professional skills necessary for the preparation of reports or
records; and
A description of the steps the agency has taken to reduce
the significant economic impact on small entities, consistent with the
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in the rule, and why each one of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency, which affect the
impact on small entities, was rejected.
The NPR for infant swings was based on the voluntary ASTM standard
for infant swings ASTM F2088-11b. The Commission proposed several
modifications, additions, and clarifications at that time. Most of the
proposed changes have been incorporated into ASTM F2088-12a, which the
final rule incorporates by reference, along with one additional change,
modifying the slump-over warning.
2. The Market for Swings
Infant swings are typically produced and/or marketed by juvenile
product manufacturers and distributors. We estimate that currently,
there are at least 9 domestic manufacturers and one domestic importer
supplying infant swings to the U.S. market. Infant swings from five of
the 10 firms have been certified as compliant with the ASTM voluntary
standard ASTM F2088-11b by JPMA, the major U.S. trade association that
represents juvenile product manufacturers and importers. Two additional
firms claim compliance with F2088-11b.
Information on annual sales of infant swings can be approximated
using information from the 2005 survey conducted by the American Baby
Group (2006 Baby Products Tracking Study). About 79 percent of new
mothers own at least one infant swing--61 percent own full-sized infant
swings, and 33 percent own smaller travel infant swings. Approximately
31 percent of full-sized infant swings and 26 percent of travel infant
swings were handed down or purchased secondhand. Thus, about 69 percent
of full-sized infant swings, and 74 percent of travel infant swings
were acquired new. This suggests annual sales of about 2.7 million
infant swings to households (.69 x .61 x 4.1 million births per year +
.74 x .33 x 4.1 million births per year).
Typically, infant swings are used for only a few months early in a
child's life. Therefore, we have estimated the risk of injury based on
the number of infant swings in the households of new mothers. Based on
data from the 2006 Baby Products Tracking Study, approximately 3.9
million infant swings are owned by new mothers (0.61 percent own full-
size x 4.1 million births + 0.33 percent own travel size x 4.1 million
births). This suggests that at least 3.9 million infant swings may be
available to children during the first year of their lives. During
2011, there were an estimated 1,900 emergency department-treated
injuries to children under age 5 related to infant swings.
Consequently, there would have been about 4.9 emergency department-
treated injuries annually for every 10,000 infant swings available for
use in the households of new mothers.
3. Impact of the Standard on Small Businesses
As noted earlier, there are approximately 10 domestic firms
currently known to be producing or selling infant swings in the United
States. Under U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines, a
manufacturer of infant swings is small if it has 500 or fewer
employees, and an importer is considered small if it has 100 or fewer
employees. Based on these guidelines, five domestic manufacturers are
small firms. The remaining firms are four large domestic manufacturers
and one large domestic importer. There may be additional unknown small
manufacturers and importers operating in the U.S. market.
Small Manufacturers
The expected impact of the final rule on small manufacturers will
differ based on whether their infant swings are compliant with ASTM
F2088-11b. Firms whose infant swings meet the requirements of ASTM
F2088-11b are generally expected to continue to do so as new versions
of the standard are published, typically within 6 months, which is the
amount of time JPMA allows for products in their certification program
to shift to a new standard. Many of these firms are active in the ASTM
standards development process, and compliance with the voluntary
standard is part of an established business practice. Therefore, it is
likely that firms supplying infant swings that comply with ASTM F2088-
11b (which went into effect for JPMA certification purposes in May
2012) would also comply with ASTM F2088-12a by March 2013, even in the
absence of a mandatory standard.
The direct impact on the three known small domestic manufacturers
whose infant swings are compliant with ASTM F2088-11b is not expected
to be significant. Each firm will need to
[[Page 66712]]
modify the slump-over warning label for their infant swings. This is
not generally expected to be costly; although some firms may experience
larger costs than others, depending upon their label development
process, and where the warning labels are affixed on their products.
One firm estimates that the one-time cost of changing their labels,
including development time and materials, would be approximately $1,000
per model.
Complying with ASTM F2088-12a's requirements could necessitate
product redesign for some infant swings believed not to be compliant
with ASTM F2088-11b. The redesign would be minor if most of the changes
involve adding straps and fasteners or using different mesh or fabric;
but the redesign could be more significant if changes to the frame are
required. Consequently, the final rule potentially could have a
significant direct impact on the two small manufacturers of infant
swings that are believed not to have conformed to ASTM F2088-11b,
regardless of how they choose to meet the staff-recommended warning
label requirement. One manufacturer estimated that a complete infant
swing redesign would cost approximately $400,000, not including
significant overhead costs, such as engineering time, which at $100 per
hour, easily could increase overall redesign costs by $100,000 or more.
However, a complete product redesign is unlikely to be necessary in
most cases, and any direct impact may be mitigated if costs are treated
as new product expenses that can be amortized.
It is possible that the two firms whose infant swings are neither
certified as compliant, nor claim to be compliant with ASTM F2088-11b,
in fact, are compliant with the standard. We have identified many such
cases with other products. To the extent that these firms may supply
compliant infant swings and have developed a pattern of compliance with
the voluntary standard, the direct impact of the final rule will be
less significant than described above.
Although the direct impact of the final rule should not be
significant for most small manufacturers, there are indirect impacts as
well. These impacts are considered indirect because they do not arise
directly as a consequence of the requirements of the final rule.
Nonetheless, these indirect costs could be significant. Once the final
rule becomes effective, and the notice of requirements is in effect,
all manufacturers will be subject to the additional costs associated
with the third party testing and certification requirements. This will
include the physical and mechanical test requirements specified in the
final rule; lead and phthalates testing is already required, and hence,
it is not included here.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Infant swing suppliers already must third party test their
products to the lead and phthalate requirements. Therefore, these
costs already exist and will not be affected by the final infant
swings standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on information provided by manufacturers, additional industry
input, and information obtained when staff was developing the third
party testing rule, third party testing costs for ASTM F2088-12a
(including toy testing, which is part of the infant swings voluntary
standard) are estimated to be around $900 per model sample. Testing
overseas potentially could reduce third party testing costs, but that
may not always be practical.
On average, each small domestic infant swing manufacturer supplies
six models of infant swings to the U.S. market annually. Therefore, if
third party testing was conducted every year, third party testing costs
for each manufacturer might add about $5,400 annually to the
manufacturer's costs, assuming only one sample of each model had to be
tested. Based on a review of firm revenues, the impact of third party
testing to ASTM F2088-12a is unlikely to be significant for small
manufacturers unless a large number of samples had to be tested for
each model.
Small Importers
CPSC staff was unable to identify any small importers currently
operating in the U.S. market. However, if any exist, they would need to
find an alternate source of infant swings if their existing supplier
does not come into compliance with the requirements of the staff-
recommended final rule. They could also discontinue importing any
noncomplying infant swings, possibly replacing them with another
juvenile product. As is the case with manufacturers, importers will be
subject to third party testing and certification requirements;
consequently, they would experience costs similar to those for
manufacturers, if their supplying foreign firm(s) does not perform
third party testing.
4. Alternatives
Under section 104 of the CPSIA, one alternative that would reduce
the impact on small entities would be to make the voluntary standard
mandatory with no modifications. However, while this alternative would
eliminate any additional costs associated with the slump-over label
change in the final rule, firms supplying noncompliant infant swings
could still require substantial product redesign in order to meet the
voluntary standard. Because of the frequency and severity of the
incidents associated with slump-over incidents, we do not recommend
this alternative.
A second alternative would be to set an effective date later than 6
months. This would allow suppliers additional time to modify and/or
develop compliant infant swings and spread the associated costs over a
longer period of time. We generally consider 6 months sufficient time
for suppliers to come into compliance with a mandatory standard; it is
common in the industry, representing the amount of time that the JPMA
allows for products in their ASTM certification program to shift to a
new standard.
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains information collection requirements that are
subject to public comment and review by the U.S. Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501-3520). The preamble to the proposed rule (77 FR 7021 through 7022)
discussed the information collection burden of the proposed rule and
specifically requested comments on the accuracy of our estimates. We
did not receive any comments from the public concerning the information
collection burden of the proposal. However, in response to a comment
made by OMB, the final rule makes a modification regarding the
information collection burden. OMB noted that all 10 firms identified
should be considered when accounting for the labeling burden.
As indicated in the NPR (77 FR 7021 through 7022), there are 10
known firms supplying infant swings to the U.S. market. In the NPR, we
estimated that five of the 10 firms already made product labels that
comply with ASTM F2088. We revise our burden estimate to assume that
all 10 firms already use labels on both their products and packaging,
but they might need to make some modifications to their existing
labels. Based on this revision, our revised burden estimate is as
follows: The estimated time required to make these modifications is
about 1 hour per model. Each of these firms supplies an average of five
different models of infant swings; therefore, the estimated burden
hours associated with labels is 1 hour x 10 firms x 5 models per firm =
50 annual hours.
We estimate that hourly compensation for the time required to
create and update labels is $28.36 (U.S.
[[Page 66713]]
Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation,'' September 2011, Table 9, total compensation for all
sales and office workers in goods-producing private industries: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/). Therefore, the estimated annual cost associated with
the proposed requirements is $1,418 ($28.36 per hour x 50 hours =
$1,418).
We have applied to OMB for a control number for this information
collection, and we will publish a notice in the Federal Register
providing the number when we receive approval from OMB.
K. Preemption
Section 26(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C.
2075(a), provides that where a consumer product safety standard is in
effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a
state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing
with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical
to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that
states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission
for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances.
Section 104(b) of the CPSIA refers to the rules to be issued under that
section as ``consumer product safety rules,'' thus implying that the
preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply. Therefore,
a rule issued under section 104 of the CPSIA will invoke the preemptive
effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA when the rule becomes effective.
L. Environmental Considerations
The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for
the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact statement because they ``have
little or no potential for affecting the human environment.'' 16 CFR
1021.5(c)(2). This final rule falls within the categorical exclusion,
so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is
required.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1223
Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants
and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, Safety and toys.
0
Therefore, the Commission amends Title 16 of the Code of Federal
Regulations by adding part 1223 to Chapter II to read as follows:
PART 1223--SAFETY STANDARD FOR INFANT SWINGS
Sec.
1223.1 Scope.
1223.2 Requirements for Infant Swings.
Authority: The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008,
Pub. L. 110-314, Sec. 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008).
Sec. 1223.1 Scope.
This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for infant
swings.
Sec. 1223.2 Requirements for infant swings.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each
infant swing must comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F2088--
12a, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Infant Swings, approved
on September 1, 2012. The Director of the Federal Register approves
this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from ASTM International, 100 Bar
Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://www.astm.org. You may inspect a copy at the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923, or at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal
regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b)(1) Instead of complying with section 8.3.1 of ASTM F2088-12a,
comply with the following:
(i) 8.3.1 The warning statements shall address the following at a
minimum:
(ii) 8.3.1.1 Products having an adjustable seat recline with a
maximum seatback angle greater than 50 degrees from horizontal measured
in accordance with 7.13 shall address the following:
Keep swing seat fully reclined until child is at least 4 months
old AND can hold up head without help. Young infants have limited
head and neck control. If seat is too upright, infant's head can
drop forward, compress the airway, and result in DEATH.
(iii) 8.3.1.2 To prevent serious injury or death from infants
falling or being strangled in straps:
(A) Always secure infant in the restraint system provided.
(B) Never leave infant unattended in swing.
(C) Discontinue use of swing when infant attempts to climb out.
(D) Travel swings (see 3.1.11) shall address the following:
Always place swing on floor. Never use on any elevated surface.
(2) Instead of complying with section 7.12.2 of ASTM F2088-12a,
comply with the following:
(i) 7.12.2 Place the back of the swing in the most upright
position. Remove positioning accessories, including pillows. Position
the segments of the restraint system to limit interaction with the
Hinged Weight Gage--Infant (see Fig. 10) when placed in the seat. Place
the Hinged Weight Gage--Infant with the hinge located at the junction
of the swing back and seat bottom (see Fig. 8). Determine if the lowest
point of the toy positioned over the occupant is within 25.25 in.
(641.5 mm) of the top surface of the Lower Plate (see Fig. 10)--
throughout the swing seat's range of motion. Proceed to 7.12.3 if the
distance is 25.25 in. (641.5 mm) or less. The toy is considered out of
reach and not tested to 7.12.3 if the distance is greater than 25.25
in. (641.5 mm).
(ii) [Reserved]
Dated: November 1, 2012.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-27027 Filed 11-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P