Final Rule Infant Swings

66703

Rules and Regulations

Federal Register
Vol. 77, No. 216
Wednesday, November 7, 2012

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.

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1223
[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2012–0011]
RIN 3041–AC90

Safety Standard for Infant Swings
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.

AGENCY:
ACTION:

Final rule.

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.

SUMMARY:

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.

DATES:

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with

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:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:07 Nov 06, 2012

Jkt 229001

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.

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

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.

E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM

07NOR1

66704

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

C. Incident Data
1. Introduction
The preamble to the NPR (77 FR 7012
through 7013) summarized the data for
incidents with infant swings from
January 1, 2002, through May 18, 2011.
In this section, we discuss CPSC staff’s
analysis of incidents collected between
May 19, 2011 and May 23, 2012. During
that period, 351 new infant swingrelated incidents were reported to the
CPSC. Almost all were reported to have
occurred between 2009 and 2012. The
majority (333 out of 351 or 95 percent)
of the reports were submitted to the
CPSC by retailers and manufacturers
through the CPSC’s ‘‘Retailer Reporting
System.’’ The remaining 18 incident
reports were submitted to the CPSC
from various sources, such as the CPSC
Hotline, Internet reports, newspaper
clippings, medical examiners, and other
state/local authorities. Two of the 351
incidents were fatal, and 349 were
nonfatal; 24 of the nonfatal incidents
resulted in injuries.
2. Fatalities
Of the two decedents in the fatal
incidents, one was a 2-month-old who
died when a blanket placed in the swing
obstructed his airway, and the other was
a 3-month-old who died when she
rolled over to a prone position onto the
soft surface of the infant swing. The
report did not state whether a restraint
was in use at the time of the latter
incident.
3. Nonfatal Incidents
There were 24 injuries reported
among the 349 nonfatal incidents.
Among the injured, 79 percent were 6
months old or younger; the remaining
injured infants were 7 and 8 months of
age. Some reports specifically
mentioned the type of injury, while
others only mentioned an injury with no
specifics. Among the injuries specified,
bumps, bruises, and lacerations were
common. None required hospitalization.
Most of the injuries were related to
various product-related issues, such as
swing seat, structural integrity, or
restraint, similar to those reported and
addressed in the NPR and the latest
version of the voluntary standard.
4. National Injury Estimates 1

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with

Therewere an estimated total of 1,900
injuries (sample size = 73, coefficient of
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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:07 Nov 06, 2012

Jkt 229001

variation = 0.18) related to infant swings
that were treated in U.S. hospital
emergency departments during 2011.
Although this reflects a decrease from
the 2010 estimate of 2,200 injuries, the
change was not statistically significant.
Comparing with national injury
estimates from the prior years, no
statistically significant trend was
observed over the 2002–2011 period.
No deaths were reported through the
NEISS. About 78 percent of the injured
were 6 months of age or younger, and
about 91 percent were 12 months or
younger. For the emergency departmenttreated injuries related to infant swings,
the following characteristics occurred
most frequently:
• Hazard—falls (78%); a majority of
the reports did not specify the manner
or cause of fall;
• Injured body part—head (62%);
• Injury type—internal organ injury
(59%); and
• Disposition—treated and released
(97%).
5. Hazard Pattern Characterization
Based on Incident Data
The hazard patterns identified among
the 351 new incident reports were
similar to the hazard patterns that were
identified among the incidents
considered for the NPR. Most of the
issues were determined to be product
related. They are grouped as follows (in
descending order of frequency of
incidents):
• Swing seat issues, either seat design
or seat failure, were the most commonly
reported hazard, accounting for 25
percent of the 351 incident reports and
four (17 percent) injuries. Seat design
issues caused the seats to lean to one
side, or tilt forward or backward. Seat
failures resulted in seats folding up on
the infant, seat pads not staying in
place, or seats falling off with no other
apparent component failure. With seats
that leaned to one side, the infant
bumped into the swing frame; with the
seat failures, the infant almost always
fell out of the swing.
• Broken, detached, or loose
components of the swing housing, such
as the arm, leg, motor housing, or
hardware, were the next most
commonly reported problems. They
accounted for 24 percent of the 351
incident reports and five (21 percent)
injuries.
• Restraint issues, either the
inadequate design of the restraint or the
failure of the restraint, were reported in
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.

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

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.

E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM

07NOR1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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:

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:07 Nov 06, 2012

Jkt 229001

fully reclined until child is at least 4
months old AND can hold up head
without help’’ (emphasis added) is the
part of the revised slump-over warning
intended to communicate the
appropriate hazard-avoidance behavior.
Several comments recommend that the
highlighted portion of this statement be
replaced with one that instructs
consumers to use only cradle swings.2
The effectiveness of this change,
therefore, depends upon whether the
use of a cradle swing with these
children would address more incidents
than fully reclining the seat back on
non-cradle swings.
As noted in the staff’s briefing
package for the NPR, all known swing
fatalities occurred when the child was
in the infant seat mode rather than the
cradle mode. However, CPSC staff
concluded that, for infant swings having
an adjustable seat recline with a seat
back angle greater than 50 degrees, fully
reclining the seat back until the infant
can hold up his or her head unassisted
also would address the slump-over
hazard. Thus, we doubt that a warning
that tells consumers to use only cradle
swings will be more effective than one
that tells consumers to recline the seat
fully.
3. Warning on All Swings
(Comment 3) Five comments request
that all infant swings, not just reclining
models with a seat back angle greater
than 50 degrees, bear a warning related
to the slump-over hazard. One of these
comments recommends that all
reclining swings, regardless of the seat
back angle, warn about placing the seat
in the most reclined position for infants
who are younger than 3 months or who
cannot hold up their heads without
assistance. The remaining comments
recommend that certain swings bear a
warning prohibiting their use with
infants who are younger than 3 months
or who cannot hold up their heads
without assistance. Of these, one
recommends that such a warning be
present on all infant swings that do not
lie ‘‘flat’’; one recommends displaying
the warning for all reclining swings,
regardless of the seat back angle; two
recommend that such a warning be
present on all non-reclining models; and
one of these two comments also
recommends displaying the warning for
all reclining models with seat back
angles less than 50 degrees.
(Response 3) As far as the
Commission knows, all infant swings
currently on the market are either cradle
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.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

66705

swings or reclining swings with a
maximum seat back angle greater than
50 degrees from horizontal when
measured in accordance with the ASTM
standard. We are unaware of any
reclining swings with a maximum seat
back angle less than 50 degrees from
horizontal. Therefore, all reclining
infant swings would bear the warning
label recommending that the seat be
placed in the most reclined position for
infants who are younger than 4 months
or who cannot hold up their heads
without assistance. As noted earlier,
CPSC staff has concluded that fully
reclining the seat back on reclining
swings with a seat back angle greater
than 50 degrees addresses the slumpover hazard. Thus, although the final
rule would not prevent manufacturers
from including the warning on reclining
swings with a maximum seat back angle
less than 50 degrees from horizontal, we
do not believe that mandating such a
warning on these products is necessary.
Cradle swings would not require the
warning label because the seat back
angle on these swings is not inclined
enough to create the slump-over hazard.
4. Use of Pictures or Visual Aids
(Comment 4) Two comments
recommend the use of pictures or visual
aids to clarify the warning message. One
of these comments suggests that this
recommendation was intended for
parents whose primary language is not
English, or who are not familiar with
measurements described in degrees.
(Response 4) We acknowledge that
well-designed graphics might be useful
to illustrate the appropriate orientation
of the seat back when the infant swing
is used with children 3 months old and
younger. However, we are not
convinced that a graphic is necessary to
convey this message to most consumers,
and CPSC staff’s prior analyses of the
incident data associated with infant
swings has not revealed a pattern of
incidents involving people who were
not literate in English. Moreover, the
design of effective graphics can be
difficult. Some seemingly obvious
graphics are poorly understood and can
give rise to interpretations that are
opposite the intended meaning (socalled ‘‘critical confusions’’). Thus,
although the Commission may take
action in the future if it believes graphic
symbols are needed to reduce further
the risk of injury associated with these
products, the rule permits, but does not
mandate, such supporting graphics.
Lastly, although the slump-over
warning statement would be required on
infant swings that have an adjustable
seat recline with a seat back angle
greater than 50 degrees, the warning

E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM

07NOR1

66706

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

statement itself is not required to
reference this 50-degree measurement.
The final rule does not include any
revisions to the slump-over warning
statement that would introduce
reference to ‘‘degrees.’’
5. Age Recommendations To Recline
Settings
(Comment 5) One comment
recommends that the infant swing
recline settings include age
recommendations. However, this
commenter also acknowledges that
developmentally delayed infants may be
endangered when the parent or
caregiver follows the age-recommended
settings.
(Response 5) The new warning label
wording in the final rule explicitly
directs consumers to use the swing in
the most reclined position until the
infant is 4 months of age and can hold
their head up without help. Once the
infant is able to do this, the swing can
be used in any of the other settings.
Therefore, adding age recommendations
to the swing settings is not necessary.

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:07 Nov 06, 2012

Jkt 229001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

infants spend in the swing for ‘‘health
and developmental concerns,’’ namely,
positional/deformational plagiocephaly
and developmental delays from a lack of
‘‘tummy time.’’
(Response 9) Warnings are safety
communications intended to inform
consumers about hazards, with the
ultimate goal of reducing injuries and
deaths. Thus, while there may be
exceptions, one generally should not
provide a warning, unless a significant
hazard exists. We are not aware of any
reported incidents of positional/
deformational plagiocephaly involving
infant swings. Even if one presumes that
such an association exists, CPSC staff
has confirmed that this condition does
not pose a hazard to infants. Similarly,
developmental delays from a lack of
‘‘tummy time’’ are not hazards per se,
and they do not directly lead to injuries
or deaths. Consequently, we do not
believe that this issue rises to the level
that such a mandatory warning on the
product is necessary.
10. Seat Deflection Warning
(Comment 10) One comment
recommends that swings supported by a
single arm include a warning about the
increased likelihood of seat deflection.
(Response 10) We do not believe that
a warning about an increased likelihood
of seat deflection is necessary for singlearm infant swings. Since publication of
the NPR, CPSC staff has worked with
the ASTM Subcommittee on Infant
Swings to develop new, improved
performance requirements intended to
address seat deflection. We believe that
these requirements, which are part of
the final rule, will effectively address
the risk associated with seat deflection,
and therefore, eliminate the need for a
warning.
11. Electrical Cord Strangulation
Warning
(Comment 11) One comment
recommends that all swings with AC or
electrical power cords include a
warning label on the cords similar to
that in the baby monitor standard,
which warns about the strangulation
hazard that such cords pose.
(Response 11) We do not believe that
mandating a strangulation warning on
the AC or electrical power cords that
might accompany certain infant swings
is appropriate at this time. The recently
published voluntary standard for baby
monitors, ASTM F2951–12, Standard
Consumer Safety Specification for Baby
Monitors, does require strangulation
warnings on the cords of baby monitors,
but specifies different warnings,
depending on whether the product is
intended to be attached to a crib or not.

E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM

07NOR1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with

For transmitters that are not intended to
be attached to a crib, the warning
instructs consumers to keep the cord
more than 3 feet away from the child.
For transmitters that are intended to be
attached to a crib—a situation more
analogous to an infant swing that holds
the infant and has an electrical power
cord attached—the warning instructs
consumers to use the manufacturersupplied protective cord covering at all
times. However, infant swings are not
required to provide protective coverings
for electrical power cords, so it is
unclear how consumers would comply
with such a warning.
A general warning about the risk of
strangulation from these cords when the
child is in the product might be more
reasonable. However, we are not aware
of any incidents associated with this
hazard scenario involving infant swings,
which suggests that this hazard does not
rise to the level that a mandatory
warning is necessary. Manufacturers of
infant swings with cords are free to
include strangulation warnings on their
cords, and we can revisit the possibility
of mandating such warnings if future
incident data show that doing so would
be appropriate.
12. Dynamic and Static Tests
(Comment 12) One comment states
that the CPSC-proposed rule would
require the tester to use a 75-lb weight
and to drop it 500 times on the swing
seat. The comment questions the new
test method’s predictive ability to
replicate real-world conditions and
injuries, because, the commenter states,
the ASTM standard required a 25-lb
weight dropped 50 times onto the seat.
Next, the comment suggests that the
total number of drops could be
increased beyond the current 500 drops.
The total number of drops could be
based on a consumer survey, asking
parents how many times a day they put
their baby in the swing and whether
they used it for one or more babies.
Lastly, the comment states that it is
unclear why the test involves dropping.
The force of an impact, especially with
a drop mass of 75 lbs repeated 500
times, could weaken the infant swing at
an unreasonable and unrepresentative
rate. The comment recommends instead
that the test should measure the effect
of a static mass placed in the seat over
a period of time. Another comment
questions the 75-lb requirement in the
static load test and requests the
justification for this requirement.
(Response 12) The current ASTM
standard, F2088–12a, has adopted the
CPSC staff recommendation to increase
the number of drops from 50 to 500 in
the dynamic load test. The additional

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:07 Nov 06, 2012

Jkt 229001

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,

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

66707

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

E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM

07NOR1

66708

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

adapters meet all national safety
standards. We agree with the new
language contained in ASTM F2088–
12a, which is being incorporated into
the final rule. Therefore, it is
unnecessary to include any reference to
part 1505 in the final rule.
16. Compliant Product Marking
(Comment 16) One comment
recommends that the CPSC consider
adding a marking on products that are
manufactured after the effective date so
that consumers can clearly identify new
products that meet the new mandatory
standard.
(Response 16) A date code is already
required to be on the product under
section 8.1.3 of ASTM F2088–12a and
under the requirements for consumer
registration of durable infant or toddler
products in 16 CFR 1130.3. In addition,
future changes to the standard may
come into effect. Because it is not
practicable to delineate every change to
the standard through a new mark on the
product, we decline to take such action.

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:07 Nov 06, 2012

Jkt 229001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

swings, ASTM F2088–11b. We proposed
additional requirements that were
intended to strengthen the voluntary
standard. See 77 FR 12182. Since the
publication of this notice, ASTM has
published two newer versions of the
standard, ASTM F2088–12 and ASTM
F2088 12a. The newest version, ASTM
F 2088–12a, includes additional
changes that were not addressed
previously, modifies the CPSC proposed
language, or adopts the proposal, with
some differences.
The final rule incorporates by
reference ASTM F2088–12a as a
mandatory standard, with two
modifications. Some of the more
significant requirements of ASTM
F2088–12a are listed below. The
requirements that have been added to
the ASTM voluntary standard since the
NPR are in italics:
• Stability test—intended to prevent
tip over. Swing models that rotate about
the horizontal axis are positioned on an
inclined surface with the swing facing
forward and then facing backward.
Swings that do not rotate about the
horizontal axis are tested in the position
most likely to fail. This was modified in
ASTM F2088–12 to clarify the test
procedure, as proposed by the
Commission in the NPR.
• Test to prevent unintentional
folding—intended to ensure that any
locking/latching mechanisms remain
functional after testing.
• Tests on restraint system—intended
to prevent slippage and breakage during
regular use.
• Requirements for cradle swing
orientation—intended to ensure that the
surface remains relatively flat both
while in motion and while at rest.
• Requirements for electrically
powered swings—intended to prevent
leakage and otherwise protect
consumers. These requirements
originally applied only to batteryoperated swings but were expanded in
ASTM F2088–12 to encompass all
electrically powered swings, as
proposed by the Commission in the
NPR. ASTM F2088–12a extends the
compliance requirements of all AC
adaptors and includes a list of accepted
national safety standards. There are
also some editorial differences between
the NPR and ASTM F2088–12a.
• Requirement for toy mobiles—
intended to ensure that toys within a
child’s reach do not detach when
pulled. This requirement was new to the
2011a standard and was modified for
the 2012 standard to prevent
detachment when pulled horizontally as
well (as proposed in the February 2012
NPR).

E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM

07NOR1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with

• 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:07 Nov 06, 2012

Jkt 229001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

66709

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

E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM

07NOR1

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with

66710

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Infant Swings. Section 1223.2(a) also
provides information on how to obtain
a copy of the ASTM standard or to
inspect a copy of the standard at the
CPSC or National Archives and Records
Administration. We received no
comments on this provision, but we are
changing the language in the
incorporation in the final rule to refer to
ASTM F2088–12a, the current version
of the standard.
In the NPR, § 1223.2(b) proposed to
add two new requirements to ASTM
F2088–11b to make the standard more
stringent than the current voluntary
standard and to reduce the risk of injury
associated with infant swings: (1) A
performance requirement and test
method to address electrical overload in
infant swing motors and batteries, as
well as an accessible component
temperature requirement and a
requirement to ensure that swings that
run on a/c power are safe; and (2) a
performance requirement and test
method to address seat deflection. We
also proposed two major modifications
to ASTM F2088–11b that would make
the standard more stringent than the
voluntary standard at that time and
would reduce the risk of injury
associated with infant swings: (1) An
increase in the number of test cycles
used in the dynamic load test, from 50
cycles to 500 cycles, and (2) a
modification to the mobile test to
account for mobiles that can be pulled
in downward directions other than
straight down vertically. Finally, in
proposed § 1223.2(b) of the NPR, we
proposed to clarify the test methods for
the dynamic load test, the stability test,
the unintentional folding test, and the
seat back angle measurement method.
As discussed in the previous section
of this preamble, the additional
requirements in proposed § 1223.2(b)
either have been incorporated into
ASTM F2088–12a, or we are satisfied
with ASTM’s changes from the proposal
or explanations regarding why some
proposals were not necessary.
Therefore, the language in proposed
§ 1223.2(b) of the NPR is no longer
necessary.
Finally, as discussed previously in the
response to comment 1 in section D of
this preamble, we received many
comments regarding the inadequacy of
the slump-over warnings in section 8.3
of ASTM F2088–11b. Section 8.3 of
ASTM F2088–12a contains the identical
slump-over warning contained in
section 8.3 of ASTM F2088–11b that we
proposed in the NPR. We agree that the
current warning language requirements
pertaining to the slump-over hazard in
ASTM F2088–12a are insufficient and
that the warning should be revised to

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:07 Nov 06, 2012

Jkt 229001

clarify the hazard and the consequences
of exposure to the hazard if the
consumer cannot avoid it. The warning
statement required in ASTM F2088–12a
does not describe the slump-over
hazard, and the formatting of the
warning implies that using the swing in
the most reclined seat position is an
additional measure intended to address
the potential for the infant user to fall
or strangle in the straps. In addition, one
could argue that the warning statement
does not describe the probable
consequences of not avoiding the
slump-over hazard because the
warning’s reference to ‘‘serious injury or
death’’ is specific to falls and
strangulations.
Therefore, in place of the language
proposed in § 1223.2(b) of the NPR,
§ 1223(b)(1) of the final rule requires
that infant swings must comply with the
ASTM F2088–12a standard with two
exceptions. In the case of the first
exception to the ASTM standard,
instead of complying with section 8.3.1
of ASTM F 2088–12a, infants swings are
required to have warning statements for
products that have an adjustable seat
recline with a maximum seat back angle
greater than 50 degrees from horizontal,
measured in accordance with 7.13 of
ASTM F 2088–12a, that address the
following:
Keep swing seat fully reclined until child
is at least 4 months old AND can hold up
head without help. Young infants have
limited head and neck control. If seat is too
upright, infant’s head can drop forward,
compress the airway, and result in DEATH.

Additionally, swings must have a
warning statement to prevent serious
injury or death from infants falling or
being strangled in straps:
• Always secure infant in the
restraint system provided.
• Never leave infant unattended in
swing.
• Discontinue use of swing when
infant attempts to climb out.
• Travel swings are required to have
a warning indicating: ‘‘Always place
swing on floor. Never use on any
elevated surface.’’
A second exception to the
requirements in ASTM F2088–12a
specifies the test method for testing toy
mobiles that are attached to the swing.
The final rule provides new language for
the test method described in section
7.12.2 of ASTM F2088–12a. We are
adding this language in response to
information from ASTM that ASTM had
inadvertently omitted updating the test
method described in section 7.12.2 of
ASTM F2088–12a to reflect the latest
revision that ASTM had made to the test
fixture used in section 7.12.2. We have

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

added ASTM’s revised version of the
test method language in the final rule
text in § 1223(b)(2). This is the language
that ASTM is balloting to revise section
7.12.2 in its standard.
G. Effective Date
The Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) generally requires that the
effective date of the rule to be at least
30 days after publication of the final
rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The preamble to
the proposed rule indicated that the
standard would become effective 6
months after publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. We sought
comment on how long it would take
infant swing manufacturers to come into
compliance. We received one comment
stating that the Commission should
‘‘* * * consider extending the effective
date to one year to help minimize a
possibility of a substantial loss of
revenue from the potential product
recalls on the small manufacturers and
importers.’’ Almost all of the
requirements proposed in the NPR were
incorporated into ASTM F2088–12a,
and the final rule differs from the
proposed rule only in the requirement
that an additional warning label
regarding use has been added.
Therefore, we believe that an effective
date of 6 months after publication of the
final rule is sufficient to allow for
review of the new requirements
thoroughly and to ensure that new
infant swings manufactured or imported
after that date are in compliance with
the new requirements. The 6-month
effective date is consistent with the
effective date established in most other
rules issued under section 104 of the
CPSIA. Accordingly, the final rule will
be effective 6 months after publication
in the Federal Register, unchanged from
the proposed rule.
H. Testing and Certification
Once there is a safety standard in
effect for infant swings, it will be
unlawful for anyone to manufacture,
distribute, or import an infant swing
into the United States that is not in
conformity with this standard. 15 U.S.C.
2068(1).
In addition, section 14(a)(2) of the
CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2), imposes the
requirement that products subject to a
children’s product safety rule must be
tested by a third party conformity
assessment body accredited by the
Commission to test the product. As
discussed in section A of this preamble,
section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA refers
to standards issued under this section as
‘‘consumer product safety standards.’’
Under section 14(f)(1) of the CPSA, 15
U.S.C. 2063(f)(1), the term ‘‘children’s

E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM

07NOR1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:07 Nov 06, 2012

Jkt 229001

requirements and the type of
professional skills necessary for the
preparation of reports or records; and
• A description of the steps the
agency has taken to reduce the
significant economic impact on small
entities, consistent with the stated
objectives of applicable statutes,
including a statement of the factual,
policy, and legal reasons for selecting
the alternative adopted in the rule, and
why each one of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by
the agency, which affect the impact on
small entities, was rejected.
The NPR for infant swings was based
on the voluntary ASTM standard for
infant swings ASTM F2088–11b. The
Commission proposed several
modifications, additions, and
clarifications at that time. Most of the
proposed changes have been
incorporated into ASTM F2088–12a,
which the final rule incorporates by
reference, along with one additional
change, modifying the slump-over
warning.
2. The Market for Swings
Infant swings are typically produced
and/or marketed by juvenile product
manufacturers and distributors. We
estimate that currently, there are at least
9 domestic manufacturers and one
domestic importer supplying infant
swings to the U.S. market. Infant swings
from five of the 10 firms have been
certified as compliant with the ASTM
voluntary standard ASTM F2088–11b
by JPMA, the major U.S. trade
association that represents juvenile
product manufacturers and importers.
Two additional firms claim compliance
with F2088–11b.
Information on annual sales of infant
swings can be approximated using
information from the 2005 survey
conducted by the American Baby Group
(2006 Baby Products Tracking Study).
About 79 percent of new mothers own
at least one infant swing—61 percent
own full-sized infant swings, and 33
percent own smaller travel infant
swings. Approximately 31 percent of
full-sized infant swings and 26 percent
of travel infant swings were handed
down or purchased secondhand. Thus,
about 69 percent of full-sized infant
swings, and 74 percent of travel infant
swings were acquired new. This
suggests annual sales of about 2.7
million infant swings to households (.69
× .61 × 4.1 million births per year + .74
× .33 × 4.1 million births per year).
Typically, infant swings are used for
only a few months early in a child’s life.
Therefore, we have estimated the risk of
injury based on the number of infant
swings in the households of new

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

66711

mothers. Based on data from the 2006
Baby Products Tracking Study,
approximately 3.9 million infant swings
are owned by new mothers (0.61 percent
own full-size × 4.1 million births + 0.33
percent own travel size × 4.1 million
births). This suggests that at least 3.9
million infant swings may be available
to children during the first year of their
lives. During 2011, there were an
estimated 1,900 emergency departmenttreated injuries to children under age 5
related to infant swings. Consequently,
there would have been about 4.9
emergency department-treated injuries
annually for every 10,000 infant swings
available for use in the households of
new mothers.
3. Impact of the Standard on Small
Businesses
As noted earlier, there are
approximately 10 domestic firms
currently known to be producing or
selling infant swings in the United
States. Under U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) guidelines, a
manufacturer of infant swings is small
if it has 500 or fewer employees, and an
importer is considered small if it has
100 or fewer employees. Based on these
guidelines, five domestic manufacturers
are small firms. The remaining firms are
four large domestic manufacturers and
one large domestic importer. There may
be additional unknown small
manufacturers and importers operating
in the U.S. market.
Small Manufacturers
The expected impact of the final rule
on small manufacturers will differ based
on whether their infant swings are
compliant with ASTM F2088–11b.
Firms whose infant swings meet the
requirements of ASTM F2088–11b are
generally expected to continue to do so
as new versions of the standard are
published, typically within 6 months,
which is the amount of time JPMA
allows for products in their certification
program to shift to a new standard.
Many of these firms are active in the
ASTM standards development process,
and compliance with the voluntary
standard is part of an established
business practice. Therefore, it is likely
that firms supplying infant swings that
comply with ASTM F2088–11b (which
went into effect for JPMA certification
purposes in May 2012) would also
comply with ASTM F2088–12a by
March 2013, even in the absence of a
mandatory standard.
The direct impact on the three known
small domestic manufacturers whose
infant swings are compliant with ASTM
F2088–11b is not expected to be
significant. Each firm will need to

E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM

07NOR1

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with

66712

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:07 Nov 06, 2012

Jkt 229001

requirements. This will include the
physical and mechanical test
requirements specified in the final rule;
lead and phthalates testing is already
required, and hence, it is not included
here.3
Based on information provided by
manufacturers, additional industry
input, and information obtained when
staff was developing the third party
testing rule, third party testing costs for
ASTM F2088–12a (including toy testing,
which is part of the infant swings
voluntary standard) are estimated to be
around $900 per model sample. Testing
overseas potentially could reduce third
party testing costs, but that may not
always be practical.
On average, each small domestic
infant swing manufacturer supplies six
models of infant swings to the U.S.
market annually. Therefore, if third
party testing was conducted every year,
third party testing costs for each
manufacturer might add about $5,400
annually to the manufacturer’s costs,
assuming only one sample of each
model had to be tested. Based on a
review of firm revenues, the impact of
third party testing to ASTM F2088–12a
is unlikely to be significant for small
manufacturers unless a large number of
samples had to be tested for each model.
Small Importers
CPSC staff was unable to identify any
small importers currently operating in
the U.S. market. However, if any exist,
they would need to find an alternate
source of infant swings if their existing
supplier does not come into compliance
with the requirements of the staffrecommended final rule. They could
also discontinue importing any
noncomplying infant swings, possibly
replacing them with another juvenile
product. As is the case with
manufacturers, importers will be subject
to third party testing and certification
requirements; consequently, they would
experience costs similar to those for
manufacturers, if their supplying foreign
firm(s) does not perform third party
testing.
4. Alternatives
Under section 104 of the CPSIA, one
alternative that would reduce the
impact on small entities would be to
make the voluntary standard mandatory
with no modifications. However, while
this alternative would eliminate any
additional costs associated with the
slump-over label change in the final
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.

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

rule, firms supplying noncompliant
infant swings could still require
substantial product redesign in order to
meet the voluntary standard. Because of
the frequency and severity of the
incidents associated with slump-over
incidents, we do not recommend this
alternative.
A second alternative would be to set
an effective date later than 6 months.
This would allow suppliers additional
time to modify and/or develop
compliant infant swings and spread the
associated costs over a longer period of
time. We generally consider 6 months
sufficient time for suppliers to come
into compliance with a mandatory
standard; it is common in the industry,
representing the amount of time that the
JPMA allows for products in their
ASTM certification program to shift to
a new standard.
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains information
collection requirements that are subject
to public comment and review by the
U.S. Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The
preamble to the proposed rule (77 FR
7021 through 7022) discussed the
information collection burden of the
proposed rule and specifically requested
comments on the accuracy of our
estimates. We did not receive any
comments from the public concerning
the information collection burden of the
proposal. However, in response to a
comment made by OMB, the final rule
makes a modification regarding the
information collection burden. OMB
noted that all 10 firms identified should
be considered when accounting for the
labeling burden.
As indicated in the NPR (77 FR 7021
through 7022), there are 10 known firms
supplying infant swings to the U.S.
market. In the NPR, we estimated that
five of the 10 firms already made
product labels that comply with ASTM
F2088. We revise our burden estimate to
assume that all 10 firms already use
labels on both their products and
packaging, but they might need to make
some modifications to their existing
labels. Based on this revision, our
revised burden estimate is as follows:
The estimated time required to make
these modifications is about 1 hour per
model. Each of these firms supplies an
average of five different models of infant
swings; therefore, the estimated burden
hours associated with labels is 1 hour ×
10 firms × 5 models per firm = 50
annual hours.
We estimate that hourly
compensation for the time required to
create and update labels is $28.36 (U.S.

E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM

07NOR1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Employer
Costs for Employee Compensation,’’
September 2011, Table 9, total
compensation for all sales and office
workers in goods-producing private
industries: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/).
Therefore, the estimated annual cost
associated with the proposed
requirements is $1,418 ($28.36 per hour
× 50 hours = $1,418).
We have applied to OMB for a control
number for this information collection,
and we will publish a notice in the
Federal Register providing the number
when we receive approval from OMB.
K. Preemption
Section 26(a) of the Consumer
Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C.
2075(a), provides that where a consumer
product safety standard is in effect and
applies to a product, no state or political
subdivision of a state may either
establish or continue in effect a
requirement dealing with the same risk
of injury unless the state requirement is
identical to the federal standard. Section
26(c) of the CPSA also provides that
states or political subdivisions of states
may apply to the Commission for an
exemption from this preemption under
certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of
the CPSIA refers to the rules to be
issued under that section as ‘‘consumer
product safety rules,’’ thus implying
that the preemptive effect of section
26(a) of the CPSA would apply.
Therefore, a rule issued under section
104 of the CPSIA will invoke the
preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the
CPSA when the rule becomes effective.
L. Environmental Considerations
The Commission’s regulations
provide a categorical exclusion for the
Commission’s rules from any
requirement to prepare an
environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement
because they ‘‘have little or no potential
for affecting the human environment.’’
16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This final rule falls
within the categorical exclusion, so no
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement is
required.

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1223
Consumer protection, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Infants and
children, Labeling, Law enforcement,
Safety and toys.
Therefore, the Commission amends
Title 16 of the Code of Federal
Regulations by adding part 1223 to
Chapter II to read as follows:

■

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:07 Nov 06, 2012

Jkt 229001

PART 1223—SAFETY STANDARD FOR
INFANT SWINGS
Sec.
1223.1
1223.2

Scope.
Requirements for Infant Swings.

Authority: The Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110–314,
Sec. 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008).
§ 1223.1

Scope.

This part establishes a consumer
product safety standard for infant
swings.
§ 1223.2

Requirements for infant swings.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, each infant swing
must comply with all applicable
provisions of ASTM F2088—12a,
Standard Consumer Safety Specification
for Infant Swings, approved on
September 1, 2012. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy
from ASTM International, 100 Bar
Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://
www.astm.org. You may inspect a copy
at the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Room 820, 4330 East West Highway,
Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301–
504–7923, or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call 202–741–
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal
regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b)(1) Instead of complying with
section 8.3.1 of ASTM F2088–12a,
comply with the following:
(i) 8.3.1 The warning statements
shall address the following at a
minimum:
(ii) 8.3.1.1 Products having an
adjustable seat recline with a maximum
seatback angle greater than 50 degrees
from horizontal measured in accordance
with 7.13 shall address the following:
Keep swing seat fully reclined until child
is at least 4 months old AND can hold up
head without help. Young infants have
limited head and neck control. If seat is too
upright, infant’s head can drop forward,
compress the airway, and result in DEATH.

(iii) 8.3.1.2 To prevent serious injury
or death from infants falling or being
strangled in straps:
(A) Always secure infant in the
restraint system provided.
(B) Never leave infant unattended in
swing.
(C) Discontinue use of swing when
infant attempts to climb out.
(D) Travel swings (see 3.1.11) shall
address the following:

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

66713

Always place swing on floor. Never
use on any elevated surface.
(2) Instead of complying with section
7.12.2 of ASTM F2088–12a, comply
with the following:
(i) 7.12.2 Place the back of the swing
in the most upright position. Remove
positioning accessories, including
pillows. Position the segments of the
restraint system to limit interaction with
the Hinged Weight Gage—Infant (see
Fig. 10) when placed in the seat. Place
the Hinged Weight Gage—Infant with
the hinge located at the junction of the
swing back and seat bottom (see Fig. 8).
Determine if the lowest point of the toy
positioned over the occupant is within
25.25 in. (641.5 mm) of the top surface
of the Lower Plate (see Fig. 10)—
throughout the swing seat’s range of
motion. Proceed to 7.12.3 if the distance
is 25.25 in. (641.5 mm) or less. The toy
is considered out of reach and not tested
to 7.12.3 if the distance is greater than
25.25 in. (641.5 mm).
(ii) [Reserved]
Dated: November 1, 2012.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012–27027 Filed 11–6–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[Docket No. USCG–2012–0946]

Special Local Regulation; Southern
California Annual Marine Events for
the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of
regulation.

AGENCY:
ACTION:

The Coast Guard will enforce
the Special Local Regulations in 33 CFR
100.1101 from 7 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on
November 11, 2012 on Mission Bay, CA
in support of the San Diego Fall Classic.
This action is necessary to restrict vessel
movement and provide for the safety of
the participants, crew, spectators,
sponsor vessels of the race, and general
users of the waterway. During the
enforcement period, persons and vessels
are prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or anchoring within
this designated race area unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or
his designated representative.

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM

07NOR1