[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 3, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10245-10262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3304]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Parts 1213, 1500, and 1513
Bunk Beds; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (``CPSC'' or
``Commission'') has reason to believe that unreasonable risks of injury
and death are associated with bunk beds that are constructed so that
children can become entrapped in the beds' structure or become wedged
between the bed and a wall.
This notice proposes a rule mandating bunk bed performance
requirements to reduce this hazard. This rule would be issued under
both the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (``FHSA''), for bunk beds
intended for use by children, and the Consumer Product Safety Act
(``CPSA''), for beds not intended for children. The Commission solicits
written comments and will provide an opportunity for oral comments from
interested persons.
DATE: Written comments in response to this notice must be received by
the Commission by May 17, 1999. The Commission will announce an
opportunity for oral presentations of comments in a separate Federal
Register notice to be published later.
ADDRESSES: Written comments, should be mailed, preferably in five
copies, to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207-0001, or delivered to the Office of
the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-
West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland; telephone (301) 504-0800. Comments
also may be filed by telefacsimile to (301) 504-0127 or by email to
cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. Written comments should be captioned ``NPR for Bunk
Beds.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the substance of the
proposed rule: John Preston, Directorate for Engineering Sciences,
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207; telephone
(301) 504-0494, ext. 1315.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background; History of Voluntary Standards Activities
Bunk beds have been long recognized as a potential source of
serious injury to children. In 1978, an Inter-Industry Bunk Bed Safety
Task Group developed a Bunk Bed Safety Guideline for voluntary use by
manufacturers and retailers of bunk beds intended for home use. Members
of this group included the National Association of Bedding
Manufacturers, the National Association of Furniture Manufacturers, the
Southern Furniture Manufacturers Association, and the National Home
Furnishings Association. The guideline became effective on January 1,
1979.
In February 1981, an American National Standard for Bedding
Products and Components (ANSI Z357.1) was published. For the most part,
this standard contained dimensional requirements for mattresses and
foundations for all beds. However, it also incorporated the
requirements of the January 1, 1979, industry safety guideline for bunk
beds. In May 1986, the American Furniture Manufacturer's Association
(``AFMA'') published Voluntary Bunk Bed Safety Guidelines developed by
the Inter-Industry Bunk Bed Committee (``IIBBC'').
On August 26, 1986, the Consumer Federation of America (``CFA'')
filed a petition with CPSC requesting the promulgation of a mandatory
safety regulation for bunk beds. In its petition, CFA cited three
different risks of injury posed by bunk beds: inadequate mattress
supports that can allow the mattress to fall to the bunk below or to
the floor, entrapment in the space between the guardrails and the
mattress, and entrapment between the bed and the wall. CFA alleged that
the voluntary industry guidelines did not fully address the hazards
posed to consumers.
In July 1988, AFMA published Revised Voluntary Bunk Bed Safety
Guidelines, with an effective date of April 1989. A majority of the
revisions were made as a result of CPSC staff comments on the May 1986
guidelines, which included comments that the requirements addressing
entrapment in openings in guardrails were not adequate and that bunk
beds should be required to be sold with two guardrails. To prevent
entrapment, the 1989 revised guidelines did require two guardrails to
accompany a bunk bed, and required that any opening in the structure of
the upper bunk be less than 3\1/2\ inches in width.
On July 21, 1988, the Commission voted to deny the petition filed
by the CFA, but directed its staff to prepare a letter to AFMA urging
that it reconsider the CPSC staff's comments that had not been included
in the Revised Voluntary Bunk Bed Safety Guidelines. That letter was
sent in August 1988. It also requested (a) that AFMA consider
additional staff recommendations, (b) that AFMA submit the revised
guidelines to a voluntary standards organization such as ANSI or ASTM
for development as a voluntary safety standard, and (c) that AFMA
develop, and provide to the Commission, a plan and proposed
implementation date for a certification program to ensure that bunk
beds comply with the guidelines. AFMA responded that a certification
program would be established upon publication of an ASTM bunk bed
standard.
In October 1992, ASTM published the Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Bunk Beds, ASTM F1427-92, in response to the
Commission's August 1988 request. The performance requirements in that
standard primarily addressed falls from the upper bunk, entrapment in
the upper bunk structure or between the upper bunk and a wall, and
security of the foundation support system. The standard also had a
requirement for a warning label and for instructions to accompany the
bed. In June 1994, the ASTM bunk bed standard was republished with
additional provisions (requested by CPSC staff) to address collapse of
tubular metal bunk
[[Page 10246]]
beds. The most current version of the ASTM bunk bed standard was
published in September 1996 and contains additional revisions suggested
by CPSC staff. These address entrapment in lower-bunk end structures;
mattress size information on the warning label and carton; and the name
and address of the manufacturer, distributor, or seller on the bed. To
protect children from entrapment, the ASTM standard requires that:
There be guardrails on both sides of the upper bunk,
except for up to 15 inches at the ends of the bed;
Openings in the structure surrounding the upper bunk be
small enough to prevent passage of a tapered block having a base
measuring 3.5 inches by 6.2 inches;
Openings in the end structures within a height of 9 inches
above the sleeping surface of the lower bunk mattress be either small
enough to prevent passage of a tapered block having a base measuring
3.5 inches by 6.2 inches or large enough to permit passage of a 9-inch
diameter sphere.
Despite these voluntary efforts, the Commission, over the last 4
years, has recalled over one-half million bunk beds that did not
conform to the entrapment requirements in the ASTM F1427-96 standard
(ASTM standard). Because of continued reports of deaths and other
incidents associated with bunk beds, and because of indications there
may not be adequate compliance with the voluntary ASTM standard, the
CPSC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (``ANPR'') to
begin a rulemaking proceeding that could result in performance or other
standards to address the risk of entrapment associated with bunk beds.
63 FR 3280 (January 22, 1998). The Commission received 418 comments in
response to the ANPR.
B. Incident Data
Deaths
From January 1990 through October 23, 1998, CPSC received reports
of 89 bunk-bed-related deaths of children under age 15 (see Table 1
below).
Table 1--Fatal Bunk Bed Incidents Reported to CPSC, by Year and Hazard
Pattern
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazard Pattern
Year Total -------------------------
Entrap. Hanging Falls
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 89 57 24 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990.................................. 7 5 2
1991.................................. 15 10 2 3
1992.................................. 4 3 1
1993.................................. 19 10 7 2
1994.................................. 10 6 3 1
1995.................................. 12 5 5 2
1996.................................. 12 11 1
1997.................................. 8 6 2
1998.................................. 2 1 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CPSC data files, January 1990--October 1998.
Of the 89 fatalities, 57 (64%) resulted from entrapment. An
additional 24 children died when they inadvertently were hung from the
bed by such items as belts, ropes, clothing, and bedding, and eight
children died in falls from bunk beds.
As shown in Table 2, over 96% (55 of 57) of those who died in
entrapment incidents were age 3 and younger, and all but one were
younger than 5. In contrast, almost 80% (19 of 24) of those who died in
hanging incidents were age 6 and older. Eight fall-related deaths
occurred during this period and involved both pre-school and older
victims.
Using statistical methodology, a national estimate of the total
annual entrapment deaths was developed. About 10 bunk-bed-related
entrapment deaths are estimated to have occurred in the United States
each year since 1990.
Table 2.--Fatal Bunk Bed Incidents Reported to CPSC, by Victim Age and
Hazard Pattern
[January 1990-October 1998]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazard pattern
Age (years) Total -------------------------
Entrap. Hanging Falls
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 89 57 24 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<1.................................... 18="" 16="" 1="" 1="" 1.....................................="" 20="" 19="" 1="" 2.....................................="" 15="" 13="" 1="" 1="" 3.....................................="" 8="" 7="" 1="" 4.....................................="" 4="" 1="" 1="" 2="" 5.....................................="" 1="" 1="" 6.....................................="" 3="" 3="" 7.....................................="" 3="" 1="" 2="" 8.....................................="" 2="" 2="" 9.....................................="" 3="" 2="" 1="" 10+...................................="" 12="" 10="" 2="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" source:="" cpsc="" data="" files,="" january="" 1990-october="" 1998.="" injuries="" from="" hospital="" emergency="" room="" data="" reported="" through="" the="" national="" electronic="" injury="" surveillance="" system="" (neiss),="" the="" commission="" estimates="" that="" about="" 31,400="" bunk-bed-related="" injuries="" to="" children="" under="" the="" age="" of="" 15="" were="" treated="" in="" u.s.="" hospital="" emergency="" rooms="" during="" 1997.="" almost="" one-half="" (43%)="" of="" the="" victims="" were="" younger="" than="" 5="" years.="" a="" review="" of="" the="" descriptive="" comments="" received="" for="" each="" injury="" revealed="" that="" falls="" from="" the="" bed="" were="" involved="" in="" almost="" all="" cases="" in="" which="" the="" circumstances="" were="" reported.="" about="" two="" percent="" of="" the="" victims="" were="" hospitalized.="" virtually="" none="" of="" the="" reported="" incidents="" involved="" entrapment="" or="" hanging,="" which="" generally="" results="" in="" either="" death="" or="" no="" injury.="" with="" either="" of="" these="" results,="" the="" victim="" is="" not="" likely="" to="" be="" taken="" to="" an="" emergency="" room.="" entrapment="" incidents="" entrapment-related="" incidents,="" which="" accounted="" for="" the="" majority="" of="" deaths,="" were="" reviewed="" in="" further="" detail="" to="" provide="" additional="" information="" about="" the="" circumstances="" involved.="" both="" fatal="" and="" ``near-="" miss''="" incidents="" were="" included.="" the="" ``near-miss''="" incidents,="" usually="" reported="" through="" consumer="" complaints,="" were="" those="" in="" which="" a="" child="" became="" entrapped="" in="" the="" bed,="" often="" requiring="" rescue="" by="" the="" parent="" or="" caregiver.="" in="" these="" cases,="" there="" were="" generally="" no="" injuries="" or="" injuries="" were="" minor="" (contusions/abrasions).="" however,="" ``near-miss''="" incidents="" were="" examined="" because="" they="" were="" judged="" to="" have="" the="" potential="" for="" death="" or="" serious="" injury.="" cpsc="" received="" reports="" of="" at="" least="" 13="" additional="" entrapment="" incidents="" (3="" fatal)="" since="" the="" january="" 8,="" 1998="" commission="" briefing.="" this="" results="" in="" a="" total="" of="" 116="" incidents="" from="" january="" 1990="" through="" october="" 23,="" 1998,="" of="" which="" 57="" were="" fatalities="" and="" 59="" were="" ``near-misses.''="" table="" 3="" illustrates="" the="" location="" in="" the="" bunk="" bed="" of="" the="" entrapments.="" [[page="" 10247]]="" table="" 3--location="" in="" bunk="" bed="" of="" fatal="" and="" ``near-miss''="" entrapment="" incidents="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" type="" of="" incident="" location="" of="" entrapment="" --------------------------------------="" total="" fatal="" near-miss="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" total........................="" 116="" 57="" 59="" --------------------------------------="" top="" bunk.........................="" 74="" 39="" 35="" --------------------------------------="" guardrail....................="" 48="" 27="" 21="" bed/wall.....................="" 11="" 9="" 2="" end="" structure................="" 12="" 1="" 11="" add-on="" rail..................="" 1="" 1="" other........................="" 1="" 1="" unk..........................="" 1="" 1="" bottom="" bunk......................="" 26="" 12="" 14="" --------------------------------------="" guardrail....................="" 1="" 1="" bed/wall.....................="" 6="" 6="" end="" structure................="" 13="" 3="" 10="" add-on="" rail..................="" 2="" 2="" other........................="" 4="" 1="" 3="" ladder...........................="" 5="" 2="" 3="" --------------------------------------="" unknown="" bunk.....................="" 11="" 4="" 7="" --------------------------------------="" guardrail....................="" 2="" 2="" bed/wall.....................="" 1="" 1="" end="" structure................="" 4="" 4="" ``safety="" rails''.............="" 1="" 1="" other........................="" 1="" 1="" unk..........................="" 2="" 2="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" source:="" cpsc="" data="" files,="" january="" 1990--october="" 1998.="" as="" shown="" in="" table="" 3,="" 74="" of="" the="" entrapment="" incidents="" involved="" the="" upper="" bunk,="" 26="" involved="" the="" lower="" bunk,="" and="" 5="" involved="" the="" ladder.="" in="" the="" incidents="" where="" the="" information="" was="" available,="" it="" appeared="" that="" all="" but="" three="" of="" the="" incidents="" involving="" fatal="" entrapment="" in="" the="" structure="" of="" bunk="" beds="" occurred="" on="" beds="" not="" meeting="" the="" entrapment="" requirements="" in="" the="" astm="" standard.="" of="" the="" three="" incidents="" involving="" beds="" that="" appeared="" to="" conform="" to="" the="" entrapment="" requirements,="" two="" involved="" entrapment="" in="" the="" upper="" bunk.="" in="" these="" incidents,="" an="" 18-month-old="" infant="" and="" a="" child="" who="" was="" almost="" 5="" years="" old="" slipped="" through="" the="" space="" between="" the="" end="" of="" the="" guardrail="" and="" the="" bed="" end="" structure="" and="" became="" wedged="" between="" the="" bed="" and="" a="" wall.="" in="" the="" third="" incident,="" a="" 22-month-="" old="" child="" became="" entrapped="" by="" the="" head="" in="" an="" opening="" between="" the="" underside="" of="" the="" upper="" bunk="" foundation="" support="" and="" a="" curved="" structural="" member="" in="" the="" bunk-bed="" end="" structure.="" c.="" conformance="" to="" entrapment="" requirements="" in="" astm="" standard="" the="" cpsc's="" compliance="" staff="" continues="" to="" identify="" bunk="" beds="" that="" do="" not="" comply="" with="" the="" entrapment="" requirements="" in="" the="" astm="" standard.="" on="" every="" occasion="" in="" the="" past="" 4="" years="" when="" the="" staff="" has="" focused="" on="" bunk="" bed="" conformance,="" it="" has="" located="" nonconforming="" beds.="" between="" november="" 1994="" and="" september="" 1997,="" cpsc's="" staff="" worked="" with="" 41="" manufacturers="" to="" recall="" bunk="" beds="" that="" did="" not="" conform="" to="" the="" entrapment="" requirements="" in="" the="" astm="" standard.="" the="" recalls="" were="" the="" result="" of="" intensive="" inspections="" of="" bunk="" bed="" retailers="" by="" the="" cpsc="" field="" staff="" and="" involved="" over="" 531,000="" bunk="" beds.="" during="" february="" and="" april="" 1998,="" cpsc's="" field="" staff="" visited="" 55="" retail="" stores="" in="" 39="" cities="" and="" examined="" 145="" bunk="" bed="" models="" from="" 58="" manufacturers.="" of="" these,="" 23="" firms="" had="" at="" least="" one="" model="" of="" bunk="" bed="" that="" did="" not="" conform="" to="" the="" astm="" standard,="" and="" 7="" of="" those="" firms="" were="" repeat="" violators.="" the="" staff="" preliminarily="" determined="" that="" bunk="" beds="" made="" by="" 7="" of="" the="" 23="" firms="" presented="" a="" substantial="" product="" hazard.="" two="" of="" these="" firms="" were="" out="" of="" business,="" and="" the="" other="" five="" firms="" were="" requested="" to="" recall/retrofit="" their="" nonconforming="" bunk="" beds.="" a="" cpsc="" news="" release="" announcing="" this="" recall="" was="" issued="" on="" november="" 10,="" 1998.="" sixteen="" of="" the="" 23="" firms="" had="" nonconforming="" bunk="" beds="" that="" the="" staff="" believed="" would="" not="" present="" a="" substantial="" risk="" of="" entrapment.="" for="" example,="" the="" openings="" in="" the="" structure="" of="" the="" upper="" bunk="" bed="" were="" only="" slightly="" larger="" than="" the="" spacing="" requirements="" of="" the="" astm="" standard,="" and="" a="" child's="" torso="" would="" not="" be="" likely="" to="" slip="" into="" these="" openings.="" however,="" letters="" were="" sent="" to="" these="" firms="" notifying="" them="" of="" their="" nonconformance="" and="" asking="" them="" to="" correct="" future="" production.="" table="" 4,="" below,="" lists="" the="" number="" of="" beds="" produced="" by="" the="" five="" manufacturers="" whose="" beds="" were="" found="" to="" have="" serious="" violations="" of="" the="" entrapment="" requirements="" in="" the="" astm="" standard.="" table="" 4.--number="" of="" bunk="" beds="" subject="" to="" recall="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" total="" sales="" mfr.="" no.="" of="" models/="" annual="" sales="" since="" start="" knowledge="" of="" astm="" standard="" start="" date="" date="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" a*.................................="" 5/1995="" 8,000="" 14,477="" yes.\1\="" b*.................................="" 2/1997="" 2,000="" 2,463="" yes.\2\="" [[page="" 10248]]="" c..................................="" 1/1994="" 150="" 600="" yes.\3\="" d..................................="" 1/1986="" 1,500="" 18,000="" no.\4\="" e..................................="" 1/1997="" 514="" 1,028="" no.\5\="" total..........................="" ..............="" 12,164="" 36,568="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" *repeat="" violators="" \1\="" company="" recalled="" several="" bunk="" beds="" in="" 1995.="" president="" of="" company="" said="" he="" thought="" the="" beds="" conformed.="" \2\="" company="" is="" an="" importer="" of="" beds="" from="" brazil="" and="" claimed="" to="" have="" knowledge="" of="" the="" astm="" standard="" but="" not="" with="" respect="" to="" the="" guardrail="" issue.="" \3\="" company="" was="" aware="" of="" the="" astm="" standard="" but="" claimed="" to="" have="" misinterpreted="" certain="" requirements.="" \4\="" company="" claimed="" to="" have="" no="" knowledge="" of="" the="" astm="" standard.="" \5\="" during="" a="" 1998="" inspection,="" the="" plant="" manager="" claimed="" to="" have="" no="" knowledge="" of="" the="" astm="" standard.="" table="" 4="" shows="" that="" the="" 1998="" limited="" retail="" inspections="" resulted="" in="" the="" recall="" of="" over="" 36,000="" bunk="" beds.="" the="" total="" annual="" sales="" of="" beds="" produced="" by="" the="" 58="" manufacturers="" whose="" beds="" were="" examined="" during="" the="" inspections="" is="" not="" known.="" the="" table="" also="" shows="" that="" three="" of="" the="" five="" manufacturers="" whose="" beds="" were="" found="" to="" have="" serious="" entrapment="" hazards="" were="" aware="" of="" the="" existence="" of="" the="" astm="" standard="" and="" that="" two="" had="" been="" previously="" notified="" by="" cpsc="" that="" their="" beds="" did="" not="" conform="" to="" the="" standard.="" since="" april="" 1998,="" the="" staff="" has="" identified="" 15="" more="" bunk="" bed="" makers,="" and="" is="" investigating="" their="" products.="" at="" the="" time="" the="" anpr="" was="" issued,="" the="" commission="" knew="" of="" 106="" bunk="" bed="" manufacturers.="" as="" a="" result="" of="" the="" recent="" retail="" inspections="" of="" furniture="" retailers="" and="" a="" search="" of="" the="" internet,="" cpsc="" is="" now="" aware="" of="" about="" 160="" manufacturers="" and="" importers="" of="" bunk="" beds.="" it="" is="" evident="" from="" the="" history="" of="" the="" commission's="" efforts="" to="" identify="" nonconforming="" bunk="" beds="" that="" there="" are="" many="" small="" firms="" that="" enter="" this="" market="" and="" do="" not="" conform="" to="" the="" astm="" standard,="" either="" because="" they="" are="" unaware="" of="" it="" or="" because="" they="" do="" not="" believe="" they="" need="" to="" conform="" because="" the="" standard="" is="" voluntary.="" based="" on="" this="" extensive="" experience,="" the="" commission="" staff="" believes="" that="" it="" would="" be="" able="" to="" identify="" significant="" numbers="" of="" nonconforming="" beds="" each="" year="" into="" the="" foreseeable="" future.="" therefore,="" the="" staff="" believes="" it="" is="" reasonable="" to="" conclude="" that="" the="" current="" degree="" of="" conformance="" with="" the="" voluntary="" standard="" would="" begin="" to="" fall="" if="" cpsc's="" extraordinary="" enforcement="" efforts="" in="" this="" area="" were="" cut="" back="" and="" a="" mandatory="" standard="" were="" not="" in="" place.="" d.="" statutory="" authorities="" for="" this="" proceeding="" what="" statute="" is="" appropriate="" for="" regulating="" bunk="" beds?="" the="" federal="" hazardous="" substances="" act="" (``fhsa'')="" authorizes="" the="" regulation="" of="" unreasonable="" risks="" of="" injury="" associated="" with="" articles="" intended="" for="" use="" by="" children="" that="" present="" mechanical="" (or="" electrical="" or="" thermal)="" hazards.="" fhsa="" sec.="" 2(f)(d),="" 15="" u.s.c.="" 1261(f)(d).="" the="" hazards="" associated="" with="" bunk="" beds="" that="" are="" described="" above="" are="" mechanical.="" see="" fhsa="" sec.="" 2(s),="" 15="" u.s.c.="" 1261(s).="" the="" consumer="" product="" safety="" act="" (``cpsa'')="" authorizes="" the="" regulation="" of="" unreasonable="" risks="" of="" injury="" associated="" with="" ``consumer="" products,''="" which="" include="" bunk="" beds--whether="" intended="" for="" the="" use="" of="" children="" or="" adults.="" cpsa="" sec.="" 3(a)(1),="" 15="" u.s.c.="" sec.="" 2052(a)(1).="" thus,="" bunk="" beds="" intended="" for="" the="" use="" of="" adults="" can="" be="" regulated="" only="" under="" the="" cpsa,="" while="" bunk="" beds="" intended="" for="" the="" use="" of="" children="" potentially="" could="" be="" regulated="" under="" either="" the="" fhsa="" or="" the="" cpsa.="" bunk="" beds="" probably="" would="" be="" considered="" as="" intended="" for="" use="" by="" children="" only="" if="" they="" have="" smaller="" than="" twin-size="" mattresses="" or="" incorporate="" styling="" or="" other="" features="" especially="" intended="" for="" use="" by="" children.="" the="" data="" available="" to="" the="" commission's="" staff="" do="" not="" indicate="" whether="" the="" known="" deaths="" and="" injuries="" are="" occurring="" on="" beds="" intended="" for="" use="" by="" children.="" nevertheless,="" any="" regulation="" for="" bunk="" beds="" should="" include="" beds="" intended="" for="" children,="" since="" there="" is="" no="" reason="" why="" such="" beds,="" to="" the="" extent="" they="" exist,="" do="" not="" present="" the="" same="" risks="" to="" children="" as="" do="" adults'="" bunk="" beds.="" section="" 30(d)="" of="" the="" cpsa,="" however,="" provides="" that="" a="" risk="" associated="" with="" a="" consumer="" product="" that="" can="" be="" reduced="" to="" a="" sufficient="" extent="" by="" action="" under="" the="" fhsa="" can="" be="" regulated="" under="" the="" cpsa="" only="" if="" the="" commission,="" by="" rule,="" finds="" that="" it="" is="" in="" the="" public="" interest="" to="" do="" so.="" 15="" u.s.c.="" 2079(d).="" because="" the="" risks="" of="" bunk="" beds="" can="" be="" addressed="" with="" the="" two-pronged="" approach="" (i.e.,="" by="" both="" statutes),="" there="" appears="" to="" be="" no="" strong="" reason="" why="" it="" would="" be="" in="" the="" public="" interest="" to="" regulate="" bunk="" beds="" only="" under="" the="" cpsa.="" accordingly,="" the="" requirements="" are="" proposed="" as="" two="" separate="" rules,="" one="" under="" the="" cpsa="" for="" ``adult''="" bunk="" beds="" and="" the="" other="" under="" the="" fhsa="" for="" beds="" intended="" for="" use="" by="" children.="" the="" commission="" seeks="" comment="" on="" whether="" there="" are="" categories="" of="" bunk="" bed="" use="" where="" the="" beds="" will="" always="" be="" used="" by="" adults,="" even="" after="" any="" sale="" by="" the="" original="" purchaser.="" if="" such="" uses="" can="" be="" identified,="" the="" commission="" would="" consider="" whether="" bunk="" beds="" sold="" solely="" for="" such="" uses="" should="" be="" exempt="" from="" these="" rules.="" what="" effect="" will="" the="" existence="" of="" the="" voluntary="" standard="" have="" on="" the="" rulemaking?="" the="" commission="" may="" not="" issue="" a="" standard="" under="" either="" the="" cpsa="" or="" the="" fhsa="" if="" an="" industry="" has="" adopted="" and="" implemented="" a="" voluntary="" standard="" to="" address="" the="" risk,="" unless="" the="" commission="" finds="" that="" ``(i)="" compliance="" with="" such="" voluntary="" .="" .="" .="" standard="" is="" not="" likely="" to="" result="" in="" the="" elimination="" or="" adequate="" reduction="" of="" such="" risk="" of="" injury;="" or="" (ii)="" it="" is="" unlikely="" that="" there="" will="" be="" substantial="" compliance="" with="" such="" voluntary="" .="" .="" .="" standard.''="" see="" 9(f)(3)(d)="" of="" the="" cpsa,="" 15="" u.s.c.="" 2058(f)(3)(d),="" and="" 3(i)2)="" of="" the="" fhsa,="" 15="" u.s.c.="" 1262(i)(2).="" the="" percentage="" of="" currently="" produced="" bunk="" beds="" that="" conform="" to="" the="" astm="" standard="" could="" be="" as="" high="" as="" 90%="" or="" more.="" this="" raises="" the="" questions="" of="" whether="" the="" astm="" standard="" is="" substantively="" adequate="" and,="" if="" so,="" whether="" it="" will="" command="" ``substantial="" compliance.''="" the="" proposed="" rule="" goes="" beyond="" the="" provisions="" of="" the="" astm="" voluntary="" standard.="" first,="" it="" eliminates="" the="" voluntary="" standard's="" option="" to="" have="" an="" opening="" of="" up="" to="" 15="" inches="" at="" each="" end="" of="" the="" wall-side="" guardrail.="" second,="" the="" voluntary="" standard="" protects="" against="" entrapment="" only="" within="" the="" 9-inch="" space="" immediately="" above="" the="" upper="" surface="" of="" the="" lower="" bunk's="" mattress.="" the="" mandatory="" standard="" extends="" this="" area="" of="" protection="" upward="" to="" the="" level="" of="" the="" underside="" of="" the="" upper="" bunk="" foundation.="" both="" of="" these="" provisions,="" which="" are="" in="" the="" proposed="" rule="" but="" not="" [[page="" 10249]]="" in="" the="" voluntary="" standard,="" address="" fatalities="" and,="" as="" noted="" below,="" have="" benefits="" that="" bear="" a="" reasonable="" relationship="" to="" their="" costs.="" furthermore,="" the="" absence="" of="" any="" identification="" of="" the="" manufacturer="" on="" many="" beds="" has="" resulted="" in="" extremely="" low="" recall="" effectiveness="" rates.="" the="" proposed="" mandatory="" standard="" requires="" that="" the="" name="" and="" address="" of="" the="" manufacturer,="" distributor,="" or="" retailer="" be="" on="" the="" beds.="" therefore,="" the="" commission="" preliminarily="" finds="" that="" compliance="" with="" the="" voluntary="" standard="" would="" not="" be="" likely="" to="" result="" in="" the="" elimination="" or="" adequate="" reduction="" of="" the="" risk="" of="" entrapment="" injury="" or="" death.="" for="" this="" reason,="" the="" voluntary="" standard="" would="" not="" bar="" the="" proposed="" rule.="" if="" the="" astm="" standard="" were="" substantively="" adequate,="" the="" commission="" would="" be="" required="" to="" make="" a="" finding="" on="" substantial="" compliance.="" neither="" the="" cpsa="" nor="" the="" fhsa="" define="" ``substantial="" compliance.''="" in="" dealing="" with="" this="" issue="" as="" it="" applies="" to="" bunk="" beds,="" the="" office="" of="" general="" counsel="" reviewed="" the="" commission's="" past="" actions="" and="" statements="" dealing="" with="" the="" meaning="" of="" ``substantial="" compliance,''="" and="" reviewed="" the="" appropriate="" legislative="" history.="" the="" office="" of="" general="" counsel="" has="" proffered="" the="" opinion="" that="" substantial="" compliance="" does="" not="" exist="" where="" there="" is="" a="" reasonable="" basis="" for="" concluding="" that="" a="" mandatory="" rule="" would="" achieve="" a="" higher="" degree="" of="" compliance.="" the="" office="" of="" general="" counsel="" maintains="" that="" two="" key,="" although="" not="" necessarily="" exclusive,="" considerations="" in="" making="" this="" determination="" are="" (1)="" whether,="" as="" complied="" with,="" the="" voluntary="" standard="" would="" achieve="" virtually="" the="" same="" degree="" of="" injury="" reduction="" that="" a="" mandatory="" standard="" would="" achieve="" and="" (2)="" that="" the="" injury="" reduction="" will="" be="" achieved="" in="" a="" timely="" manner.="" for="" the="" reasons="" explained="" in="" section="" e="" of="" this="" notice,="" the="" commission="" staff="" believes="" that="" a="" mandatory="" standard="" will="" be="" more="" effective="" in="" reducing="" entrapment="" deaths="" from="" bunk="" beds="" than="" will="" the="" voluntary="" standard.="" therefore,="" the="" staff="" believes="" there="" is="" not="" substantial="" compliance="" with="" the="" voluntary="" standard,="" which="" consequently="" does="" not="" bar="" issuing="" the="" proposed="" rule.="" the="" office="" of="" general="" counsel="" further="" states="" that="" this="" finding="" here="" does="" not="" mean="" that="" the="" commission="" would="" conclude="" that="" a="" mandatory="" standard="" will="" always="" be="" more="" effective="" than="" a="" voluntary="" standard.="" each="" case="" must="" be="" considered="" on="" its="" own="" facts.="" moreover,="" even="" if="" there="" is="" insufficient="" compliance="" with="" a="" voluntary="" standard,="" neither="" the="" cpsa="" nor="" the="" fhsa="" would="" compel="" the="" commission="" to="" regulate.="" the="" commission="" takes="" no="" position="" on="" this="" interpretation="" of="" substantial="" compliance="" at="" this="" time.="" the="" commission="" encourages="" all="" persons="" who="" would="" be="" affected="" by="" such="" an="" interpretation="" to="" submit="" comments="" for="" the="" record.="" the="" office="" of="" compliance="" has="" also="" enumerated="" certain="" other="" factors="" which="" it="" feels="" impact="" the="" level="" of="" conformance="" with="" the="" voluntary="" standard.="" these="" are="" addressed="" in="" section="" e="" below.="" the="" commission="" reserves="" judgment="" on="" the="" propriety="" of="" considering="" these="" factors="" in="" measuring="" substantial="" compliance="" and="" seeks="" public="" comments="" on="" them.="" also="" note="" the="" draft="" findings="" with="" regard="" to="" substantial="" compliance="" in="" the="" text="" of="" the="" proposed="" rules="" themselves,="" which="" the="" commission="" includes="" in="" order="" to="" elicit="" the="" most="" effective="" public="" comment.="" e.="" the="" potential="" need="" for="" a="" mandatory="" standard="" in="" deciding="" to="" propose="" this="" rule,="" the="" commission="" considered="" carefully="" the="" particular="" characteristics="" of="" the="" bunk="" bed="" industry.="" this="" industry="" is="" highly="" diverse="" and="" fragmented,="" with="" differing="" levels="" of="" sophistication="" relating="" to="" product="" safety.="" firms="" can="" easily="" enter="" and="" leave="" the="" bunk="" bed="" manufacturing="" business.="" the="" commission="" has="" identified="" about="" 160="" manufacturers="" of="" bunk="" beds--a="" 50%="" increase="" since="" the="" commission="" considered="" the="" anpr.="" the="" office="" of="" compliance="" maintains="" that="" this="" fragmentation="" and="" diversity="" contributes="" to="" difficulties="" in="" achieving="" more="" complete="" compliance="" with="" the="" voluntary="" standard.="" because="" it="" is="" difficult="" to="" identify="" all="" firms="" in="" the="" industry,="" compliance="" indicates="" it="" is="" difficult="" for="" voluntary="" standards="" organizations="" and="" trade="" associations="" to="" conduct="" outreach="" and="" education="" efforts="" regarding="" the="" voluntary="" standard.="" by="" contrast,="" in="" industries="" with="" a="" small="" number="" of="" firms,="" it="" is="" easier="" to="" find="" the="" firms="" and="" educate="" them="" about="" the="" existence="" and="" importance="" of="" voluntary="" standards.="" mandatory="" standards--="" codified="" in="" the="" accessible="" code="" of="" federal="" regulations--are="" easier="" to="" locate,="" and="" their="" significance="" is="" more="" obvious.="" these="" generalizations="" about="" the="" industry="" found="" support="" in="" the="" staff's="" enforcement="" experience.="" some="" manufacturers="" contacted="" by="" compliance="" did="" not="" see="" an="" urgency="" to="" comply="" with="" a="" ``voluntary''="" standard,="" and="" they="" did="" not="" recognize="" the="" hazards="" associated="" with="" noncompliance.="" other="" manufacturers="" were="" not="" even="" aware="" of="" the="" standard.="" as="" a="" result,="" entrapment="" hazards="" will="" continue="" to="" exist="" on="" beds="" in="" use="" and="" for="" sale.="" compliance="" maintains="" that="" a="" mandatory="" standard="" would="" also="" reduce="" the="" staff's="" workload="" in="" ensuring="" that="" children="" are="" not="" exposed="" to="" bunk="" beds="" presenting="" entrapment="" hazards.="" in="" the="" past="" several="" years,="" the="" staff="" has="" expended="" significant="" resources="" to="" obtain="" the="" current="" level="" of="" conformance="" to="" the="" astm="" standard.="" if="" the="" commission="" issues="" a="" mandatory="" standard,="" compliance="" expects="" that="" fewer="" resources="" would="" be="" required="" to="" enforce="" the="" standard="" than="" are="" currently="" being="" used="" to="" identify="" defective="" bunk="" beds.="" for="" the="" foregoing="" reasons,="" compliance="" believes="" that="" a="" mandatory="" bunk="" bed="" entrapment="" standard="" may="" be="" needed="" and="" could="" bring="" the="" following="" benefits:="" 1.="" a="" mandatory="" standard="" could="" increase="" the="" awareness="" and="" sense="" of="" urgency="" of="" manufacturers="" in="" this="" industry="" regarding="" compliance="" with="" the="" entrapment="" provisions,="" thereby="" increasing="" the="" degree="" of="" conformance="" to="" those="" provisions.="" 2.="" a="" mandatory="" standard="" would="" allow="" the="" commission="" to="" seek="" penalties="" for="" violations.="" publicizing="" fines="" for="" noncompliance="" with="" a="" mandatory="" standard="" would="" deter="" other="" manufacturers="" from="" making="" noncomplying="" beds.="" 3.="" a="" mandatory="" standard="" would="" allow="" state="" and="" local="" officials="" to="" assist="" cpsc="" staff="" in="" identifying="" noncomplying="" bunk="" beds="" and="" take="" action="" to="" prevent="" the="" sale="" of="" these="" beds.="" 4.="" under="" a="" mandatory="" standard,="" retailers="" and="" distributors="" would="" violate="" the="" law="" if="" they="" sold="" noncomplying="" bunk="" beds.="" retailers="" and="" retail="" associations="" would="" then="" insist="" that="" manufacturers="" and="" importers="" provide="" complying="" bunk="" beds.="" 5.="" the="" bunk="" bed="" industry="" is="" extremely="" competitive.="" manufacturers="" who="" now="" conform="" to="" the="" astm="" standard="" have="" expressed="" concern="" about="" those="" firms="" that="" do="" not.="" nonconforming="" beds="" can="" undercut="" the="" cost="" of="" conforming="" beds.="" a="" mandatory="" standard="" would="" take="" away="" any="" competitive="" cost="" advantage="" for="" unsafe="" beds.="" 6.="" a="" mandatory="" standard="" would="" help="" prevent="" noncomplying="" beds="" made="" by="" foreign="" manufacturers="" from="" entering="" the="" united="" states.="" cpsc="" could="" use="" the="" resources="" of="" the="" u.s.="" customs="" service="" to="" assist="" in="" stopping="" hazardous="" beds="" at="" the="" docks.="" 7.="" the="" absence="" of="" manufacturer="" identification="" on="" many="" beds="" has="" resulted="" in="" extremely="" low="" recall="" effectiveness="" rates.="" the="" proposed="" standard="" would="" require="" companies="" to="" include="" their="" identity="" on="" the="" beds.="" 8.="" although="" the="" commission="" currently="" believes="" that="" the="" astm="" voluntary="" standard="" for="" bunk="" beds="" adequately="" addresses="" the="" most="" common="" entrapment="" hazards="" associated="" with="" these="" products,="" [[page="" 10250]]="" the="" commission="" is="" aware="" of="" three="" entrapment="" fatalities="" that="" occurred="" in="" conforming="" beds.="" a="" mandatory="" standard="" could="" modify="" the="" provisions="" in="" the="" voluntary="" standard="" so="" as="" to="" address="" the="" entrapment="" deaths="" that="" can="" occur="" on="" beds="" that="" comply="" with="" the="" voluntary="" standard.="" therefore,="" the="" commission="" decided="" to="" issue="" an="" npr="" to="" seek="" public="" comment="" on="" the="" proposed="" rule.="" however,="" the="" available="" information="" does="" not="" support="" a="" conclusion="" that="" changes="" to="" currently="" produced="" bunk="" beds="" would="" significantly="" reduce="" the="" number="" of="" fatalities="" due="" to="" falls="" and="" hangings.="" thus,="" the="" commission="" is="" not="" proposing="" performance="" requirements="" to="" address="" falls="" or="" hangings="" from="" bunk="" beds="" at="" this="" time.="" f.="" rulemaking="" procedure="" the="" commission="" intends="" to="" issue="" the="" requirements="" they="" would="" apply="" to="" bunk="" beds="" not="" intended="" for="" use="" by="" children="" as="" a="" consumer="" product="" safety="" standard="" under="" the="" cpsa.="" this="" requires="" a="" finding="" that="" the="" requirements="" are="" reasonably="" necessary="" to="" eliminate="" or="" adequately="" reduce="" an="" unreasonable="" risk="" of="" injury="" presented="" by="" bunk="" beds.="" this="" and="" other="" required="" findings="" are="" discussed="" in="" the="" proposed="" rule.="" bunk="" beds="" intended="" for="" the="" use="" of="" children="" will="" be="" regulated="" by="" a="" determination="" under="" fhsa="" section="" 3(a)(1)="" that="" bunk="" beds="" that="" do="" not="" comply="" with="" the="" proposed="" rule="" present="" mechanical="" hazards,="" as="" provided="" in="" fhsa="" section="" 3(a)(1),="" and="" are="" thus="" hazardous="" substances.="" see="" fhsa="" sections="" 2(f)(1)(d)="" and="" 2(s).="" under="" the="" fhsa,="" a="" product="" that="" is="" a="" hazardous="" substance="" and="" intended="" for="" use="" by="" children="" is="" banned.="" fhsa="" section="" 2(q)(1).="" other="" required="" finding="" are="" discussed="" in="" the="" proposed="" fhsa="" rule.="" before="" adopting="" a="" cpsa="" standard="" or="" fhsa="" rule,="" the="" commission="" first="" must="" issue="" an="" anpr="" as="" provided="" in="" section="" 3(f)="" of="" the="" fhsa="" or="" section="" 9(a)="" of="" the="" cpsa.="" 15="" u.s.c.="" 1262(f),="" 2058(a).="" for="" bunk="" beds,="" the="" commission="" issued="" an="" anpr="" on="" january="" 22,="" 1998.="" 63="" fr="" 3280.="" if="" the="" commission="" continues="" with="" a="" proposed="" rule,="" the="" commission="" must="" publish="" the="" text="" of="" the="" proposed="" rule,="" along="" with="" a="" preliminary="" regulatory="" analysis,="" in="" accordance="" with="" section="" 3(h)="" of="" the="" fhsa="" or="" section="" 9(c)="" of="" the="" cpsa.="" 15="" u.s.c.="" 1262(h),="" 2058(c).="" if="" the="" commission="" then="" issues="" a="" final="" rule,="" it="" must="" publish="" the="" text="" of="" the="" final="" rule="" and="" a="" final="" regulatory="" analysis="" that="" includes="" the="" elements="" stated="" in="" 3(i)(1)="" of="" the="" fhsa="" or="" section="" 9(f)(2)="" of="" the="" cpsa.="" 15="" u.s.c.="" 1262(i)(1),="" 2058(f)(2).="" before="" issuing="" a="" final="" regulation,="" the="" commission="" must="" make="" certain="" statutory="" findings="" concerning="" voluntary="" standards,="" the="" relationship="" of="" the="" costs="" and="" benefits="" of="" the="" rule,="" and="" the="" burden="" imposed="" by="" the="" regulation.="" fhsa="" sec.="" 3(i)(2),="" 15="" u.s.c.="" 1262(i)(2);="" cpsc="" sec.="" 9(f)(3),="" 15="" u.s.c.="" 2058(f)(3).="" g.="" response="" to="" comments="" on="" the="" anpr="" the="" commission="" received="" 418="" comments="" in="" response="" to="" the="" anpr="" for="" bunk="" beds.="" of="" these,="" 396="" commenters="" favored="" a="" mandatory="" rule,="" 19="" opposed="" such="" a="" rule,="" and="" three="" expressed="" no="" opinion="" on="" whether="" they="" favored="" a="" mandatory="" rule.="" of="" the="" 396="" commenters="" who="" favored="" a="" mandatory="" rule,="" 355="" submitted="" a="" form="" letter="" stating:="" if="" one="" child="" dies="" due="" to="" unsafe="" bunk="" bed="" design="" and="" manufacture="" this="" questions="" whether="" voluntary="" standards="" in="" the="" industry="" are="" sufficient="" to="" protect="" our="" children.="" due="" to="" the="" fact="" that="" there="" were="" more="" than="" 45="" fatalities="" and="" over="" 100,000="" injuries="" from="" 1990="" to="" 1995,="" i="" feel="" that="" is="" overwhelming="" evidence="" that="" mandatory="" standards="" must="" be="" passed="" to="" insure="" that="" this="" tragedy="" does="" not="" strike="" another="" american="" family.="" forty-four="" comments="" were="" received="" from="" students="" at="" the="" university="" of="" tennessee="" school="" of="" law.="" twenty-eight="" of="" the="" students="" favored="" a="" mandatory="" rule,="" 15="" opposed="" such="" a="" rule,="" and="" one="" expressed="" no="" opinion="" on="" this="" issue.="" 1.="" issue:="" guardrails.="" thirteen="" commenters="" suggested="" eliminating="" the="" allowable="" 15-inch="" openings="" in="" the="" guardrail="" on="" the="" wall="" side="" of="" an="" upper="" bunk,="" to="" address="" the="" two="" entrapment="" deaths="" that="" occurred="" on="" conforming="" beds.="" in="" those="" instances,="" a="" child="" age="" 18="" months="" and="" another="" almost="" 5="" years="" old="" slipped="" through="" openings="" at="" the="" end="" of="" the="" guardrail="" and="" became="" entrapped="" between="" the="" bed="" and="" a="" wall.="" six="" comments="" from="" proponents="" of="" a="" mandatory="" rule="" suggested="" that="" it="" should="" address="" falls="" from="" the="" upper="" bunk="" with="" more="" stringent="" requirements="" than="" are="" in="" the="" current="" astm="" standard.="" although="" most="" commenters="" expressing="" this="" view="" did="" not="" suggest="" specific="" provisions="" to="" address="" falls,="" some="" felt="" that="" eliminating="" the="" 15-inch="" openings="" between="" the="" ends="" of="" the="" upper="" bunk="" guardrails="" and="" the="" bed="" end="" structures="" that="" are="" permitted="" by="" the="" current="" astm="" standard="" may="" reduce="" the="" likelihood="" of="" falls.="" response.="" cpsc="" agrees="" with="" the="" 13="" commenters="" who="" suggested="" eliminating="" the="" 15-inch-wide="" openings="" between="" ends="" of="" guardrails="" and="" bed="" end="" structures="" on="" the="" wall="" side="" of="" the="" upper="" bunk="" to="" minimize="" the="" likelihood="" of="" entrapment="" between="" the="" upper="" bunk="" of="" the="" bed="" and="" a="" wall.="" accordingly,="" the="" proposed="" rule="" requires="" a="" side="" guardrail="" on="" one="" side="" of="" the="" upper="" bunk="" to="" extend="" continuously="" between="" the="" end="" structures.="" in="" most="" cases,="" incident="" data="" do="" not="" reveal="" the="" precise="" cause="" of="" falls="" from="" the="" upper="" bunk.="" some="" reports="" stated="" that="" the="" fall="" was="" associated="" with="" the="" use="" of="" the="" bunk's="" ladder="" but="" did="" not="" state="" whether="" the="" ladder="" could="" be="" accessed="" through="" an="" opening="" in="" the="" guardrail="" or="" whether="" it="" could="" only="" be="" reached="" by="" climbing="" over="" a="" continuous="" guardrail="" or="" over="" the="" end="" structure="" of="" the="" upper="" bunk.="" it="" is="" possible="" that="" having="" to="" climb="" over="" the="" guardrail="" or="" end="" structure="" to="" get="" on="" or="" off="" the="" ladder="" could="" increase="" the="" incidence="" of="" falls.="" since="" the="" cpsc="" cannot="" determine="" whether="" continuous="" guardrails="" on="" both="" sides="" of="" the="" upper="" bunk="" would="" significantly="" affect="" the="" likelihood="" of="" a="" fall,="" such="" a="" requirement="" is="" not="" included="" in="" the="" proposed="" rule.="" 2.="" issue:="" lower="" bunk="" end="" structures.="" seven="" commenters="" suggested="" that="" a="" mandatory="" rule="" should="" include="" the="" lower="" bunk="" entrapment="" criteria="" that="" are="" in="" the="" astm="" standard="" but="" should="" apply="" them="" to="" the="" entire="" end="" structure="" below="" the="" level="" of="" the="" upper="" bunk="" mattress="" support="" system.="" such="" a="" requirement="" would="" address="" a="" fatal="" incident="" that="" occurred="" on="" a="" bed="" conforming="" to="" the="" current="" astm="" standard.="" that="" incident="" involved="" a="" 22-month-old="" child="" who="" was="" entrapped="" by="" the="" head="" in="" an="" opening="" between="" the="" underside="" of="" the="" upper="" bunk="" foundation="" support="" and="" a="" curved="" structural="" member="" in="" the="" bed="" end="" structure.="" the="" current="" astm="" standard="" has="" lower-bunk="" entrapment="" requirements="" that="" apply="" only="" to="" the="" portion="" of="" the="" end="" structure="" that="" is="" between="" the="" level="" of="" the="" lower="" bunk="" mattress="" support="" system="" and="" a="" level="" that="" is="" 9="" inches="" above="" the="" sleeping="" surface="" of="" the="" lower="" bunk="" (when="" it="" is="" equipped="" with="" a="" mattress="" having="" the="" maximum="" thickness="" recommended="" by="" the="" manufacturer).="" response:="" the="" commission="" agrees="" with="" these="" commenters,="" and="" the="" proposed="" rule="" contains="" a="" requirement="" addressing="" entrapment="" in="" lower="" bunk="" bed="" end="" structures="" that="" is="" similar="" to="" that="" in="" the="" astm="" standard="" but="" applies="" to="" the="" entire="" portion="" of="" the="" bed's="" end="" structures="" that="" extends="" between="" the="" upper="" side="" of="" the="" foundation="" of="" the="" lower="" bunk="" and="" the="" underside="" of="" the="" foundation="" of="" the="" upper="" bunk.="" while="" this="" may="" require="" a="" change="" in="" the="" design="" of="" the="" end="" structures="" of="" some="" bunk="" beds,="" the="" commission="" believes="" that="" the="" cost="" would="" be="" small.="" 3.="" issue:="" young="" children="" and="" public="" awareness:="" sixteen="" commenters="" noted="" that="" a="" majority="" of="" the="" entrapment="" deaths="" involved="" very="" young="" children,="" who="" should="" not="" be="" placed="" on="" an="" upper="" bunk.="" these="" commenters="" were="" about="" equally="" [[page="" 10251]]="" divided="" between="" proponents="" and="" opponents="" of="" a="" mandatory="" rule.="" voicing="" concern="" that="" the="" parents="" of="" the="" victims="" were="" probably="" unaware="" of="" the="" hazard="" of="" placing="" these="" young="" children="" on="" the="" upper="" bunk,="" they="" suggested="" that="" the="" commission="" could="" join="" with="" the="" american="" furniture="" manufacturers="" association="" (afma)="" in="" mounting="" a="" public="" awareness="" campaign.="" afma="" represents="" manufacturers="" of="" bunk="" beds.="" response:="" the="" first="" bunk="" bed="" safety="" guideline="" became="" effective="" in="" 1979="" and="" required="" a="" label="" which,="" among="" other="" warnings,="" stated="" ``prohibit="" children="" under="" 6="" years="" on="" upper="" bunk.''="" the="" current="" (1996)="" astm="" standard="" also="" bears="" a="" similar="" statement.="" for="" almost="" 20="" years,="" bunk="" beds="" conforming="" to="" the="" applicable="" safety="" guideline="" or="" voluntary="" standard="" have="" warned="" against="" placing="" children="" under="" 6="" years="" old="" on="" the="" upper="" bunk,="" yet="" consumers="" continue="" this="" practice.="" the="" proposed="" rule="" also="" contains="" a="" requirement="" for="" a="" warning="" label.="" however,="" the="" commission="" believes="" that="" the="" most="" effective="" way="" to="" address="" entrapment="" is="" to="" design="" the="" bed="" so="" that="" it="" does="" not="" present="" this="" hazard="" to="" children="" under="" 6="" years="" of="" age="" because="" some="" parents="" would="" continue="" to="" place="" their="" young="" children="" on="" the="" upper="" bunk.="" 4.="" issue:="" retailer="" tests.="" a="" furniture="" retailer="" submitted="" comments="" opposing="" a="" mandatory="" rule="" on="" the="" grounds="" that:=""> The number of injuries associated with bunk bed entrapment
are minimal [, and,]
For [its own] protection, a retailer would be required to
engage in [its] own testing, thereby dramatically increasing the price
[of a bunk bed] to the customer.
Response: While entrapment generally does not result in an injury
requiring medical attention, it is the leading cause of death
associated with bunk beds, and the proposed rule is primarily intended
to address entrapment fatalities. The Commission does not agree that a
mandatory rule would force retailers to incur the cost of having bunk
beds tested. If retailers are concerned that manufacturers may claim
conformance when in fact their products do not conform, the tests in
the proposed rule are simple enough that retailers easily could check
for conformance themselves.
5. Issue: Installation and bedding choice. The same furniture
retailer argues that a mandatory standard ignores major contributing
factors to bunk bed accidents, i.e., consumer installation and consumer
bedding choice.
Response: CPSC is not aware of any incidents resulting from
improper consumer assembly or from an incorrect choice of bedding.
6. Issue: Degree of voluntary conformance. A trade association and
the organization ``Consumer Alert'' question the legality of a
rulemaking proceeding in light of the Commission's estimate of the
current conformance to the ASTM standard.
Response: See Section D of this notice.
7. Third-party certification as an alternative. An independent
testing laboratory that currently operates a third-party certification
program stated that they believe that such a certification program
indicating conformance to the ASTM standard would be more productive
than a mandatory rule. The laboratory suggested that CPSC could
recognize the certification program and encourage manufacturers to join
it as CPSC presently does for seven juvenile products' certification
programs.
Response. The Commission does not believe that recognition of a
third-party certification program would have a significant effect on
the degree of conformance to the ASTM standard, because the firms that
have been found to be in violation of the entrapment provision in the
standard are small and are not likely to participate.
H. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
Introduction
The CPSA and FHSA require the Commission to publish a preliminary
regulatory analysis of the proposed rule and reasonable alternatives.
This includes a discussion of the likely benefits and costs of the
proposed rule and its reasonable alternatives. The Commission's
preliminary regulatory analysis is set forth below.
Product and Market Information
Bunk beds are essentially stackable twin beds, with wood or metal
frames. Some models now incorporate a lower double bed with a twin
upper. The Commission notes that the definition of bunk bed in the
proposed rule is based on the definition in the ASTM standard. That
definition states that a bunk bed is a bed in which the underside of
the foundation is over 30 inches from the floor. This does not require
that there be a second stackable mattress and foundation. The
Commission requests comments on whether the rule should be limited to
beds with more than one foundation.
The retail prices of these products range from $100 to $700;
manufacturers estimate the average retail price of a bunk bed at $300.
According to AFMA, which represents manufacturers of bunk beds, forty
firms, which are either AFMA members or members of the existing ASTM
bunk bed subcommittee, account for about 75-80% of total annual sales
of bunk beds. At the time the ANPR was issued, the Commission knew of
106 manufacturers of bunk beds, including the 40 AFMA or ASTM members.
Staff is now aware of about 160 firms manufacturing bunk beds. The
share of the market accounted for by the other non-AFMA/ASTM firms is
not known, but is believed to account for a large portion of the
remaining 20-25% of the market. Additionally, there are likely other
firms unknown to CPSC that are producing bunk beds.
Industry sources estimate that about 500,000 bunk beds are sold
annually, and that the expected useful life of bunk beds is 13 to 17
years. Based on the CPSC's Product Population Model (a computer model
which estimates how many of a particular product are in use at a given
time), there may be some 7-9 million bunk beds available for use; this
includes beds to which children are not exposed and beds which are not
stacked.
Historically, imports have accounted for only a small part of the
U.S. market for bunk beds. This is due in large part to the shipping
cost relative to price. Since bunk beds can be shipped unassembled and
mated to U.S.-made mattresses, there is a small number of imported bunk
beds sold in the United States. AFMA spokesmen report that there are no
data on the extent of such imports. However, AFMA indicated that
imports of bunk beds by its members appear to be increasing.
Conformance With the Existing Voluntary Standard
The Commission's Compliance staff has reported that all 40 firms
that either are members of AFMA or have ASTM standing produce bunk beds
that are in conformance with the existing voluntary standard. The staff
has examined the products of and/or contacted the remaining firms known
to be producing bunk beds. Subsequently, the staff worked with the
manufacturers of beds that did not comply with the voluntary standard
to implement a number of corrective actions, including recalls. Since
then, all of the beds produced by these firms have been in conformance.
The extent of conformance to the voluntary bunk-bed standard since
1979 (the initial year industry guidelines were available) is not known
with precision. However, based on its knowledge of industry practices,
CPSC's Engineering Sciences staff estimates that roughly 50% of
production from 1979 to
[[Page 10252]]
1986 conformed to the voluntary standard's upper-bunk entrapment
requirements. This rough estimate is based in part on the fact that,
although the guidelines were available during this period, even some
firms represented on the ASTM standards committee did not follow them.
The industry publicized the availability of guidelines in 1986, and
CPSC staff became more heavily involved in the standards process. The
CPSC believes that the publication of these guidelines and CPSC staff
involvement raised industry awareness of the existence and importance
of the voluntary standard. Accordingly, conformance may have increased
to perhaps 75% of production from 1986 to 1992. In 1992, ASTM published
its bunk bed standard, and CPSC began to monitor products for
conformance to that standard. Therefore, for purposes of the cost/
benefit analysis, we assume that 90% of production since 1992 may
conform to the ASTM standard.
Many of the bunk beds produced in the early to mid-1980's, which
may not have been in conformance to the standard, have reached the end
of their average expected useful lives and are probably no longer in
use. Therefore, although the Commission cannot precisely estimate what
proportion of bunk beds in current use conforms to the voluntary
standard, the percentage likely falls between 50 and 90%. Assuming a
``conforming'' range between these extremes, on the order of from 70 to
85%, some 15 to 30% of bunk beds in use since the early 1990's do not
conform to the ASTM voluntary standard for upper bunk entrapment.
Potential Costs of Proposed Rule
(1) Introduction
The costs associated with the proposed rule would include the cost
of compliance for any firms not now conforming to the voluntary
standard, and the cost of any Commission-added requirements in the
final mandatory rule.
(2) Costs of Mandating ASTM's Requirements
In order to provide some preliminary information regarding these
costs, CPSC Economics staff contacted four manufacturers that had
modified their production to conform to the standard. Two of these
manufacturers stated that the cost of additional materials needed to
provide ASTM entrapment protection was nominal compared to the overall
materials costs, and that redesign costs would not be significant on a
per-unit basis. They estimated that the addition of a second guardrail
to the upper bunk added $15-20 to the retail price of a bed. The two
other manufacturers, marketing bunk beds in the ``mid to upper'' price
range, estimated that the addition of the second guardrail resulted in
a $30-40 per bed increase in the retail price. Thus, the overall retail
price increase range is estimated to be from $15 to $40 per bed. Only
those firms that do not conform to the voluntary standard would be
affected.
Potential Benefits of Mandating ASTM's Requirements
The proposed rule is intended to address the risk of entrapment
deaths of children from bunk beds. The potential benefits would be the
decrease in these entrapment deaths. Avoidance of other incidents (such
as near-entrapments) do not contribute significantly to the monetized
benefits, because they generally produce no or only minor injuries. All
of the known deaths involved children age 7 or younger.
The expected societal costs of bunk bed entrapment deaths represent
the potential benefits of preventing them. There were 39 entrapment
deaths associated with the upper bunk that were reported to the CPSC
from January 1990 through mid-October 1998. Based on a review of the
circumstances of the reports by the CPSC's Engineering and Epidemiology
staff, the Commission concludes that the voluntary standard would have
addressed at least 37 of the 39 upper-bunk entrapment deaths.
Additionally, the standard would have addressed two of the three lower-
bunk entrapment deaths that occurred in the bed end structures.
Nationally, CPSC staff projected that about 10 (95% confidence
interval, 6.0 to 14.4) bunk bed entrapment fatalities occurred annually
since 1990. Altogether, the Commission believes that the voluntary
standard would have addressed 68% of the reported fatalities due to
entrapment in all locations (39 57). Therefore, the voluntary
standard could have addressed an estimated 7 deaths (10 x .68) per
year.
In order to determine the expected benefits of the proposed rule,
it is necessary to know the risk of death through bunk bed entrapment,
defined as ``deaths per nonconforming bunk bed,'' and the expected
reduction in risk. The risk level computation requires information on
the number of bunk beds that were in use over the period of reported
fatalities. The risk reduction factor depends on the effectiveness
level of the standard.
The midpoint of the estimated number of bunk beds in use is 8
million units. If 15-30% of bunk beds that were in use did not conform
to the standard, as estimated above, then fatalities may be assumed to
have been spread over an estimated 1.2 to 2.4 million nonconforming
beds (0.15 to 0.30, x 8 million). Therefore, the risk of a fatal
entrapment that the voluntary standard's provisions could address is
from 2.9 to 5.8 deaths per million nonconforming beds (72.4 to
71.2). At an assumed societal cost of $5 million per death, the
annual societal value of averting all such fatalities is from about $15
to $30 per bed per year (3 deaths per million nonconforming beds x $5
million, at the lower end of the range, to 6 deaths per million
beds x $5 million, at the upper end).
If we assume a useful life of 15 years for a bunk bed and a
discount rate of 3%, the estimated present value of averting the
entrapment fatalities addressed by the voluntary standard ranges from
about $175 to $350 per bed. This is the total potential benefit of
averting the risk of death from a nonconforming bed over its useful
life.
Comparison of Costs and Benefits of Compliance With ASTM's Requirements
The expected net benefits of a mandatory standard containing only
the entrapment provisions of the ASTM standard depend upon the costs of
the standard for each otherwise noncomplying bed ($15 to $40), the
societal costs of the deaths addressed by the standard for each
noncomplying bed ($175 to $350), and the effectiveness of the standard
in reducing deaths. If the standard were fully effective (i.e., if it
prevents all of the deaths addressed), the benefits would be much
higher than the costs of implementing the standard. In fact, the net
benefits per otherwise noncomplying bed, over its expected product
life, would range from a low of $135 ($175-$40) to a high of $335
($350-$15). Thus, the benefits of these provisions are about 4-23 times
their costs. CPSC's Engineering staff has concluded that all of the
entrapment incidents addressed by the requirements of the proposed
standard would have been averted had those beds been in conformance.
Thus, a mandatory standard is expected to be highly effective.
The number of nonconforming bunk beds produced annually is not
known with precision. Industry sources estimated that there may be as
many as 50,000 nonconforming units produced each year. If this estimate
is used, the net benefits to society of the proposed rule (if fully
effective and all non-conforming beds were made to comply) would be
about $6.75 to $16.75 million per year (50,000 x $135 to
50,000 x $335).
[[Page 10253]]
If the standard were less than 100% effective, or if all nonconforming
beds were not made to comply, the aggregate expected benefits would be
proportionately less.
Costs and Benefits of Additional Requirements
As discussed below, the Commission is also aware of entrapment
deaths on the upper bunk and lower bunk, in scenarios not addressed by
the voluntary standard. To address these deaths, the proposed mandatory
standard includes requirements for a continuous guardrail for the
entire wall side of the upper bunk, and modifications of the lower bunk
structure. CPSC staff concluded that these modifications would have
averted these remaining entrapment deaths.
(a) Continuous guardrail. The Commission is proposing a requirement
for a continuous guardrail along the entire wall side of the bed; the
current voluntary standard allows a 15-inch gap at either end of the
wall side guardrail. The continuous guardrail would address two
entrapment deaths that occurred between the bed and the wall in the
area of a gap in the guardrail during the 105-month study period of
January 1990 through mid-October 1998. This should prevent about 0.23
deaths per year (28.75 years).
Trade sources indicated that perhaps 50-75% of all bunk beds in use
during the January 1990-May 1998 period contained this gap; if this
percentage range is used, then some 4-6 million beds with the gap would
have been in use for each of the years in the study period.
Consequently, over that period of time, there were from 0.04 deaths per
million nonconforming beds per year (0.236) to 0.06 deaths per
million nonconforming beds per year (0.234). Assuming a cost of
$5 million per death, the staff estimated the present value of
eliminating these gaps at $2.40 to $3.50 over the life of each bed that
otherwise would have had a gap in the wall-side guardrail.
The precise cost of eliminating the allowance of a 15-inch gap in
the guardrail for the wall side of the upper bunk is unknown. However,
the Commission estimates that the cost of materials to extend one
guardrail an additional 30 inches (for those bunk beds which
incorporated up to a 15-inch gap on both ends of the wall-side
guardrail) would be less than the estimated benefits ($2.40 to $3.50
per noncomplying bed).
(b) Lower bunk end structures. The Commission is aware of one death
over the past 8 years involving entrapment in the end structures of the
lower bunk, occurring in a scenario not currently addressed by the
voluntary standard. Addressing this death would result in costs
associated with redesigning the bed so that the end structures will not
allow the free passage of a wedge block (approximating the size of a
child's body) unless it also allows the free passage of a 9-inch sphere
(approximating the child's head). The precise potential cost of
reconfiguring the bunk end structures is unknown, since the Commission
does not know how many models would require such rework. Based on some
known noncomplying beds, however, the Commission believes that, for
some bunk beds, materials costs may decrease since less material may be
required to comply with these requirements than are currently being
used. Thus, the Commission expects the costs of this requirement to be
design-related. Costs to redesign the end structures, where necessary,
will be modest and, in any event, can be amortized over the total
subsequent production of the beds. If these one-time design costs are
amortized over the entire production run for these bunks, the estimated
costs are likely to be small. Therefore, the major portion of the costs
imposed by the rule will fall only on those firms that do not currently
comply with the voluntary standard.
(c) Effect on market. The small additional costs from any required
wall guardrail and end structure modifications are not expected to
affect the market for bunk beds, either alone or added to the costs of
compliance to ASTM's provision.
Alternatives. The Commission considered two alternatives to the
proposed rule.
(a) Defer to the voluntary standard. One alternative to a mandatory
rule would be to decide that a mandatory regulation is not necessary,
because the current standard addresses about 70% of reported entrapment
hazards over the past 8 years. If there is no mandatory action, then no
costs would be imposed and no deaths would be averted involving future
nonconforming bunk beds.
A variation on this alternative was raised by a commenter, who
suggested that bunk beds which conform to the voluntary standard should
be so labeled. Consumers could then compare conforming and
nonconforming beds at the point of purchase and make their purchase
decisions with this safety information in mind. This, however, would
not necessarily reduce injuries, because consumers likely do not know
there is a voluntary standard and thus would not see any risk in
purchasing a bed that was not labeled as conforming to the standard.
(b) Third-party certification. The Commission could have decided to
defer to the voluntary standard and, in addition, to encourage third-
party testing to the ASTM standard.
This alternative also would not likely prevent the deaths from
entrapment that could be prevented by a mandatory rule. Firms that are
too small and regional to appreciate the importance of complying with
the voluntary standard are unlikely to volunteer to obtain third-party
certification that their products comply with that standard. In
addition, the costs of third-party certification would deter many small
firms from using this alternative. Furthermore, small firms especially
might be reluctant to pay for third-party certification when compliance
with the entrapment provisions of the voluntary standard can easily be
determined by the manufacturer.
I. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Commission is required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (``RFA'') to address and give particular attention to the economic
effects of the proposed rule on small businesses.
The precise number of firms manufacturing bunk beds is not now
known. The Commission staff has identified about 160 firms that have
produced bunk beds: these were identified through the trade
association, national and regional trade shows, industry contacts, the
Internet, and retail inspections. Small Business Administration
(``SBA'') guidelines classify firms in the furniture production
industry as small if they have less than 500 employees, are
independently owned, and are not dominant in the field. Most of these
firms would be classified as small businesses under SBA's criteria. It
is likely that there are additional firms which produce relatively
small numbers of bunk beds annually. These remaining producers are also
likely to be small businesses.
Even though there is a substantial number of small firms, the
Commission does not expect that there will be a significant effect on
these firms. As noted earlier, all of the 160 firms identified by the
Commission already conform to the existing voluntary standard (some
only after CPSC recall activity). Moreover, it is unlikely that the
effects on any firms that have not been identified and that do not
currently conform would be significant. For firms not conforming, the
requirements are expected to increase
[[Page 10254]]
retail prices by about 5 to 15%, which likely would be passed on to
consumers.
The mandatory standard would not require third-party testing. It is
anticipated that the firms would self-certify that their products were
in compliance with the mandatory standard. There would be no reporting
or recordkeeping requirements under the proposed standard. The
Commission is unaware of any Federal rules that would duplicate, or
overlap or conflict with, the proposed rule.
J. Preliminary Environmental Assessment
The proposed rule is not expected to have a significant effect on
the materials used in the production and packaging of bunk beds, or in
the number of units discarded after the rule becomes effective.
Therefore, no significant environmental effects would result from the
proposed mandatory rule for bunk beds.
K. Executive Orders
This proposed rule has been evaluated in accordance with Executive
Order No. 13,083, and the rule raises no substantial federalism
concerns.
Executive Order No. 12,988 requires agencies to state the
preemptive effect, if any, to be given the regulation. The preemptive
effects of these rules is established by Section 26 of the CPSA, 15
U.S.C. 2075, and Section 18 of the FHSA. Section 26(a) of the CPSA
states:
(a) Whenever a consumer product safety standard under [the CPSA]
applies to a risk of injury associated with a consumer product, no
State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority
either to establish or continue in effect any provision of a safety
standard or regulation which prescribed any requirements as to the
performance, composition, contents, design, finish, construction,
packaging, or labeling of such products which are designed to deal
with the same risk of injury associated with such consumer product,
unless such requirements are identical to the requirements of the
Federal standard.
Subsection (b) of 15 U.S.C. 2075 provides a circumstance under
which subsection (a) does not prevent the Federal Government or the
government of any State or political subdivision of a State from
establishing or continuing in effect a safety standard applicable to a
consumer product for its own [governmental] use, and which is not
identical to the consumer product safety standard applicable to the
product under the CPSA. This occurs if the Federal, State, or political
subdivision requirement provides a higher degree of protection from
such risk of injury than the consumer product safety standard.
Subsection (c) of 15 U.S.C. 2075 authorizes a State or a political
subdivision of a State to request an exemption from the preemptive
effect of a consumer product safety standard. The Commission may grant
such a request, by rule, where the State or political subdivision
standard or regulation (1) provides a significantly higher degree of
protection from such risk of injury than does the consumer product
safety standard and (2) does not unduly burden interstate commerce.
Similar preemption provisions are in the FHSA. See FHSA Section
18(b), 15 U.S.C. 1261 note.
L. Extension of Time To Issue Final Rule Under the CPSA
Section 9(d)(1) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2058(d)(1), provides that a
final consumer product safety rule must be published within 60 days of
publication of the proposed rule unless the Commission extends the 60-
day period for good cause and publishes its reasons for the extension
in the Federal Register.
Executive Order No. 12,662, which implements the United States-
Canada Free-Trade Implementation Act, provides that publication of
standards-related measures shall ordinarily be at least 75 days before
the comment due date. Accordingly, the Commission provided a comment
period of 75 days for this proposal.
After the comment period ends, the CPSC's staff will need to
prepare draft responses to the comments, along with a draft regulatory
analysis and either a draft regulatory flexibility analysis or a draft
finding of no substantial impact on a significant number of small
entities. Then the staff will prepare a briefing package for the
Commission. The Commission is likely to then be briefed, and will later
vote on whether to issue a final rule. The Commission expects that this
additional work will take about 12 months. Accordingly, the Commission
extends the time by which it must either issue a final CPSA rule or
withdraw the NPR until March 3, 2000. If necessary, this date may be
further extended.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Parts 1213, 1500 and 1513.
Consumer protection, Infants and children.
Effective Date
The Commission proposes that the rule become effective 180 days
after publication of the final rule. This period will allow
manufacturers to make any changes in their production needed to comply
with the standard without unduly delaying the safety benefits expected
from the rule.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission proposes to
amend Title 16, Chapter II, Subchapters B and C, of the Code of Federal
Regulations as set forth below.
1. A new Part 1213 is added to Subchapter B, to read as follows:
PART 1213--SAFETY STANDARD FOR ENTRAPMENT HAZARDS IN BUNK BEDS
Sec.
1213.1 Scope, application, and effective date.
1213.2 Definitions.
1213.3 Requirements.
1213.4 Test methods.
1213.5 Marking and labeling.
1213.6 Instructions.
1213.7 Findings.
Figure 1 to Part 1213--Wedge Block for Tests
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058.
Sec. 1213.1 Scope, application, and effective date.
This part 1213, a consumer product safety standard, prescribes
requirements for bunk beds to reduce or eliminate the risk that
children will die or be injured from being trapped between the upper
bunk and the wall, in openings below guardrails, or in other structures
in the bed. The standard in this part applies to all bunk beds sold for
residential use that are manufactured in the United States, or
imported, after [the effective date of the final rule]. Bunk beds
intended for use by children are subject to the requirements in 16 CFR
1500.18(a)(18) and 16 CFR part 1513, and not to this part 1213.
However, those regulations are substantively identical to the
requirements in this part 1213.
Sec. 1213.2 Definitions.
As used in this part 1213:
(a) Bed. See Bunk bed.
(b) Bed end structure means an upright unit at the head and foot of
the bed to which the side rails attach.
(c) Bunk bed means a bed in which the underside of any foundation
is over 30 inches (760 mm) from the floor.
(d) Foundation means the base or support on which a mattress rests.
(e) Guardrail means a rail or guard on a side of the upper bunk to
prevent a sleeping occupant from falling or rolling out.
Sec. 1213.3 Requirements.
(a) Guardrails. (1) Any bunk bed shall provide at least two
guardrails, at least one on each side of the bed.
(2) One guardrail shall be continuous between each of the bed's end
[[Page 10255]]
structures. The other guardrail may terminate before reaching the bed's
end structures, providing there is no more than 15 inches (380 mm)
between either end of the guardrail and the nearest bed end structures.
(3) For bunk beds designed to have a ladder attached to one side of
the bed, the continuous guardrail shall be on the other side of the
bed.
(4) Guardrails shall be attached so that they cannot be removed
without either intentionally releasing a fastening device or applying
forces sequentially in different directions.
(5) The upper edge of the guardrails shall be no less than 5 inches
(130 mm) above the top surface of the mattress when a mattress of the
maximum thickness specified by the bed manufacturer's instructions is
on the bed.
(6) With no mattress on the bed, there shall be no openings in the
structure between the lower edge of the uppermost member of the
guardrail and the underside of the upper bunk's foundation that would
permit passage of the wedge block shown in Fig. 1 when tested in
accordance with the procedure at Sec. 1213.4(a).
(b) Bed end structures. (1) The upper edge of the upper bunk end
structures shall be at least 5 inches (130 mm) above the top surface of
the mattress for at least 50 percent of the distance between the two
posts at the head and foot of the upper bunk when a mattress and
foundation of the maximum thickness specified by the manufacturer's
instructions is on the bed.
(2) With no mattress on the bed, there shall be no openings in the
end structures above the foundation of the upper bunk that will permit
the free passage of the wedge block shown in Fig. 1 when tested in
accordance with the procedure at Sec. 1213.4(b).
(3) When tested in accordance with Sec. 1213.4(c), there shall be
no openings in the end structures between the underside of the
foundation of the upper bunk and upper side of the foundation of the
lower bunk that will permit the free passage of the wedge block shown
in Fig. 1, unless the openings are also large enough to permit the free
passage of a 9-inch (230-mm) diameter rigid sphere.
Sec. 1213.4 Test methods.
(a) Guardrails (see Sec. 1213.3(a)(6)). With no mattress on the
bed, place the wedge block shown in Fig. 1, tapered side first, into
each opening in the bed structure below the lower edge of the uppermost
member of the guardrail and above the underside of the upper bunk's
foundation. Orient the block so that it is most likely to pass through
the opening (e.g., the major axis of the block parallel to the major
axis of the opening) (``most adverse orientation''). Then gradually
apply a 33-lbf (147-N) force in a direction perpendicular to the plane
of the large end of the block. Sustain the force for 1 minute.
(b) Upper bunk end structure (see Sec. 1213.3(b)(2)). Without a
mattress or foundation on the upper bunk, place the wedge block shown
in Fig. 1 into each opening, tapered side first, and in the most
adverse orientation. Determine if the wedge block can pass freely
through the opening.
(c) Lower bunk end structure (see Sec. 1213.3(b)(3)). (1) Without a
mattress or foundation on the lower bunk, place the wedge block shown
in Fig. 1, tapered side first, into each opening in the lower bunk end
structure in the most adverse orientation. Determine whether the wedge
block can pass freely through the opening. If the wedge block passes
freely through the opening, determine whether a 9-inch (230-mm)
diameter rigid sphere can pass freely through the opening.
(2) With the manufacturer's recommended maximum thickness mattress
and foundation in place, repeat the test in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section.
Sec. 1213.5 Marking and labeling.
(a) There shall be a permanent label or marking on each bed stating
the name and address (city, state, and zip code) of the manufacturer,
distributor, or retailer; the model number; and the month and year of
manufacture.
(b) The following warning label shall be permanently attached to
the inside of an upper bunk bed end structure in a location that cannot
be covered by the bedding but that may be covered by the placement of a
pillow.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR99.000
BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
[[Page 10256]]
Sec. 1213.6 Instructions
Instructions shall accompany each bunk bed set, and shall include
the following information.
(a) Size of mattress and foundation. The length and width of the
intended mattress and foundation shall be clearly stated, either
numerically or in conventional terms such as twin size, twin extra-
long, etc. In addition, the maximum thickness of the mattress and
foundation required for compliance with Sec. 1213.3(a)(5) and (b)(1) of
this standard shall be stated.
(b) Safety warnings. The instructions shall provide the following
safety warnings:
(1) Do not allow children under 6 years of age to use the upper
bunk.
(2) Use guardrails on both sides of the upper bunk.
(3) Prohibit horseplay on or under beds.
(4) Prohibit more than one person on upper bunk.
(5) Use ladder for entering or leaving upper bunk.
Sec. 1213.7 Findings.
The Consumer Product Safety Act requires that the Commission, in
order to issue a standard, make the following findings and include them
in the rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3).
(a) The rule in this part (including its effective date of
[effective date of final rule]) is reasonably necessary to eliminate or
reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated with the product. (1)
For a recent 8.75-year period, the CPSC received reports of 57 deaths
of children under age 15 who died when they were trapped between the
upper bunk of a bunk bed and the wall or when they were trapped in
openings in the bed's end structure. Over 96% of those who died in
entrapment incidents were age 3 or younger. On average, averting these
deaths is expected to produce a benefit to society with a present value
of about $175 to $350 for each bed that otherwise would not have
complied with one or more of the rule's requirements.
(2) This increased safety will be achieved in two ways. First, all
bunk beds will be required to have a guardrail on both sides of the
bed. If the bed is placed against a wall, the guardrail on that side is
expected to prevent a child from being entrapped between the bed and
the wall. The guardrail on the wall side of the bed must extend
continuously from one end to the other. Second, the end structures of
the bed must be constructed so that, if an opening in the end structure
is large enough so a child can slip his or her body through it, it must
be large enough that the child's head also can pass through.
(3) For the reasons discussed in paragraph (d) of this section, the
benefits of the changes to bunk beds caused by this rule will have a
reasonable relationship to the changes' costs. The rule addresses a
risk of death, and applies primarily to a vulnerable population,
children under age 3. The life-saving features required by the rule are
cost-effective and can be implemented without adversely affecting the
performance and availability of the product. The effective date
provides enough time so that production of bunk beds that do not
already comply with the standard can easily be changed so that the beds
comply. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the rule (including its
effective date) is reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an
unreasonable risk of injury associated with the product.
(b) Promulgation of the rule is in the public interest. For the
reasons given in paragraph (a) of this section, the Commission finds
that promulgation of the rule is in the public interest.
(c) Where a voluntary standard has been adopted and implemented by
the affected industry, that compliance with such voluntary standard is
not likely to result in the elimination or adequate reduction of the
risk of injury; or it is unlikely that there will be substantial
compliance with such voluntary standard.
(1) Adequacy of the voluntary standard. (i) In this instance, there
is a voluntary standard addressing the risk of entrapment in bunk beds.
However, the rule goes beyond the provisions of the voluntary standard.
First, it eliminates the voluntary standard's option to have an opening
of up to 15 inches at each end of the wall-side guardrail. Second, it
requires more of the lower bunk end structures to have entrapment
protection. The voluntary standard protects against entrapment only
within the 9-inch space immediately above the upper surface of the
lower bunk's mattress. The mandatory standard extends this area of
protection upward to the level of the underside of the upper bunk
foundation. Both of these provisions, which are in the rule but not in
the voluntary standard, address fatalities and, as noted in this
section, have benefits that bear a reasonable relationship to their
costs. Furthermore, the absence of any identification of the
manufacturer on many beds has resulted in extremely low recall
effectiveness rates. The standard requires that the name and address of
the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer be on the beds.
(ii) Therefore, the Commission finds that compliance with the
voluntary standard is not likely to result in the elimination or
adequate reduction of the risk of entrapment injury or death.
(2) Substantial compliance. (i) Neither the CPSA nor the FHSA
define ``substantial compliance.'' In dealing with this issue as it
applies to bunk beds, the Commission concludes that substantial
compliance does not exist where a mandatory rule would achieve a higher
degree of compliance. Two key, although not necessarily exclusive,
considerations in making this determination are whether, as complied
with, the voluntary standard would achieve virtually the same degree of
injury reduction that a mandatory standard would achieve and whether
the injury reduction will be achieved in a timely manner.
(ii) The Commission has considered carefully the particular
characteristics of the bunk bed industry. This industry is highly
diverse and fragmented, with differing levels of sophistication
relating to product safety. Firms can easily enter and leave the bunk
bed manufacturing business. This fragmentation and diversity
contributes to difficulties in achieving more complete compliance with
the voluntary standard. Because it is difficult to identify all firms
in the industry, it is difficult for voluntary standards organizations
and trade associations to conduct outreach and education efforts
regarding the voluntary standard. By contrast, in industries with a
small number of firms, it is easier to find the firms and educate them
about the existence and importance of voluntary standards. Mandatory
standards--codified in the accessible Code of Federal Regulations--are
easier to locate, and their significance is more obvious.
(iii) These generalizations about the industry are supported by the
CPSC's staff's enforcement experience. Some manufacturers contacted by
CPSC's Compliance staff did not see an urgency to comply with a
``voluntary'' standard, and they did not recognize the hazards
associated with noncompliance. Other manufacturers were not even aware
of the standard. As a result, entrapment hazards would continue to
exist on beds, in use and for sale, in the absence of a mandatory
standard.
(iv) A mandatory standard will also reduce the staff's workload in
ensuring that children are not exposed to bunk beds presenting
entrapment hazards. In the several years before issuance of this rule,
the staff expended significant
[[Page 10257]]
resources to obtain the then-current level of conformance to the
voluntary standard. The Commission believes that fewer resources will
be required to enforce the mandatory standard than were previously used
to identify defective bunk beds.
(v) For these reasons, the Commission believes that a mandatory
bunk bed entrapment standard is needed. This mandatory standard is
expected to bring the following benefits:
(A) A mandatory standard should increase the awareness and sense of
urgency of manufacturers in this industry regarding compliance with the
entrapment provisions, thereby increasing the degree of conformance to
those provisions.
(B) A mandatory standard allows the Commission to seek penalties
for violations. Publicizing fines for noncompliance with a mandatory
standard would deter other manufacturers from making noncomplying beds.
(C) A mandatory standard allows state and local officials to assist
CPSC staff in identifying noncomplying bunk beds and to take action to
prevent the sale of these beds.
(D) Under a mandatory standard, retailers and distributors violate
the law if they sell noncomplying bunk beds. For that reason, retailers
and retail associations will insist that manufacturers and importers
provide complying bunk beds.
(E) The bunk bed industry is extremely competitive. Manufacturers
who now conform to the voluntary standard have expressed concern about
those firms that do not. Nonconforming beds can undercut the cost of
conforming beds. A mandatory standard will take away any competitive
cost advantage for unsafe beds.
(F) A mandatory standard will help prevent noncomplying beds made
by foreign manufacturers from entering the United States. CPSC could
use the resources of U.S. Customs to assist in stopping hazardous beds
at the docks.
(3) Therefore, there is not substantial compliance with the
voluntary standard. (This does not mean that the Commission would
conclude that a mandatory standard will always be more effective than a
voluntary standard. Each case must be considered on its own facts.)
(d) The benefits expected from the rule bear a reasonable
relationship to its costs. (1) Compliance with ASTM's requirements. The
cost of providing a second guardrail for bunk beds that do not have one
is expected to be from $15-40 per otherwise noncomplying bed. If, as
expected, the standard prevents virtually all of the deaths it
addresses, the present value of the benefits of this modification are
estimated to be from $175-350 per otherwise noncomplying bed. Thus, the
benefit of this provision is about 4-23 times its cost.
(2) Providing a continuous guardrail. The voluntary standard allows
up to a 15-inch gap in the coverage of the guardrail on the wall side
of the upper bunk. Additional entrapment deaths are addressed by
requiring that the wall-side guardrail be continuous from one end of
the bed to the other. The estimated present value of the benefits of
this requirement is $2.40 to $3.50 per otherwise noncomplying bed. The
Commission estimates that the materials cost to extend one guardrail an
additional 30 inches will be less than the present value of the
benefits of making the change. Further, the costs of any design changes
can be amortized over the number the bunk beds manufactured after the
design change is made. Thus, the costs of any design change will be
nominal.
(3) Lower bunk end structures. The Commission is aware of a death,
involving entrapment in the end structures of the lower bunk, occurring
in a scenario not currently addressed by the voluntary standard. This
death would be addressed by extending the voluntary standard's lower
bunk end structures entrapment provisions from 9 inches above the lower
bunk's sleeping surface to the bottom of the upper bunk. The Commission
expects the costs of this requirement to be design-related only, and
small. Indeed, for some bunk beds, materials costs may decrease since
less material may be required to comply with these requirements than is
currently being used. Again, the design costs for this modification to
the end structures can be amortized over the subsequent production run
of the bed.
(4) Effect on market. The small additional costs from any wall
guardrail and end structure modifications are not expected to affect
the market for bunk beds, either alone or added to the costs of
compliance to ASTM's provisions.
(5) Conclusion. The Commission has no reason to conclude that any
of the standard's requirements will have costs that exceed the
requirement's expected benefits. Further, the total effect of the rule
is that the benefits of the rule will exceed its costs by about 4-23
times. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the benefits expected
from the rule will bear a reasonable relationship to its costs.
(e) The rule imposes the least burdensome requirement that prevents
or adequately reduces the risk of injury for which the rule is being
promulgated. (1) The Commission considered relying on the voluntary
standard, either alone or combined with a third-party certification
program. However, the Commission concluded that a mandatory program
will be more effective in reducing these deaths. Accordingly, these
alternatives would not prevent or adequately reduce the risk of injury
for which the rule is being promulgated.
(2) The Commission also considered a suggestion that bunk beds that
conformed to the voluntary standard be so labeled. Consumers could then
compare conforming and nonconforming beds at the point of purchase and
make their purchase decisions with this safety information in mind.
This, however, would not necessarily reduce injuries, because consumers
likely would not know there is a voluntary standard and thus would not
see any risk in purchasing a bed that was not labeled as conforming to
the standard.
(3) For the reasons stated in this section, no alternatives to a
mandatory rule were suggested that would adequately reduce the deaths
caused by entrapment of children in bunk beds. Accordingly, the
Commission finds that this rule imposes the least burdensome
requirement that prevents or adequately reduces the risk of injury for
which the rule is being promulgated.
Figure 1 to Part 1213--Wedge Block for Tests in Sec. 1213.4(a), (b) and
(c).
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
[[Page 10258]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR99.001
BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
2. The authority citation for part 1500 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1261-1278.
3. Section 1500.18 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(18) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1500.18 Banned toys and other banned articles intended for use by
children.
(a) * * *
(18) (i) Any bunk bed (as defined in Sec. 1513.2(c) of this
chapter) that does not comply with the requirements of part 1513 of
this chapter.
(ii) Findings--(A) General. In order to issue a rule under Section
3(e) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), 15 U.S.C. 1262(e),
classifying a toy or other article intended for use by children as a
hazardous substance on the basis that it presents a mechanical hazard
(as defined in Section 2(s) of the FHSA), the FHSA requires the
Commission to make certain findings and to include these findings in
the regulation. These findings are discussed in paragraphs (a)(18)(B)
through (D) of this section.
(B) Where a voluntary standard has been adopted and implemented by
the affected industry, that compliance with such voluntary standard is
not likely to result in the elimination or adequate reduction of the
risk of injury, or it is unlikely that there will be substantial
compliance with such voluntary standard.
(1) Adequacy of the voluntary standard. (i) In this instance, there
is a voluntary standard addressing the risk of entrapment in bunk beds.
However, the rule goes beyond the provisions of the voluntary standard.
First, it eliminates the voluntary standard's option to have an opening
of up to 15 inches at each end of the wall-side guardrail. Second, it
requires more of the lower bunk end structures to have entrapment
protection. The voluntary standard protects against entrapment only
within the 9-inch space immediately above the upper surface of the
lower bunk's mattress. The mandatory standard extends this area of
protection upward to the level of the underside of the upper bunk
foundation. Both of these provisions, which are in the rule but not in
the voluntary standard, address fatalities and, as noted in this
paragraph (a)(18), have benefits that bear a reasonable relationship to
their costs. Furthermore, the absence of any identification of the
manufacturer on many beds has resulted in extremely low recall
effectiveness rates. The standard requires that the name and address of
the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer be on the beds.
(ii) Therefore, the Commission finds that compliance with the
voluntary standard is not likely to result in the elimination or
adequate reduction of the risk of entrapment injury or death.
(2) Substantial compliance. (i) Neither the CPSA nor the FHSA
define ``substantial compliance.'' In dealing with this issue as it
applies to bunk beds, the Commission concludes that substantial
compliance does not exist where a mandatory rule would achieve a higher
degree of compliance. Two key, although not necessarily exclusive,
considerations in making this determination are whether, as complied
with, the voluntary standard would achieve virtually the same degree of
injury reduction that a mandatory standard would achieve and whether
the injury reduction will be achieved in a timely manner.
(ii) The Commission has considered carefully the particular
characteristics of the bunk bed industry. This industry is highly
diverse and fragmented, with differing levels of sophistication
relating to product safety. Firms can easily enter and leave the bunk
bed manufacturing business. This fragmentation and
[[Page 10259]]
diversity contributes to difficulties in achieving more complete
compliance with the voluntary standard. Because it is difficult to
identify all firms in the industry, it is difficult for voluntary
standards organizations and trade associations to conduct outreach and
education efforts regarding the voluntary standard. By contrast, in
industries with a small number of firms, it is easier to find the firms
and educate them about the existence and importance of voluntary
standards. Mandatory standards--codified in the accessible Code of
Federal Regulations--are easier to locate, and their significance is
more obvious.
(iii) These generalizations about the industry are supported by the
CPSC staff's enforcement experience. Some manufacturers contacted by
CPSC's Compliance staff did not see an urgency to comply with a
``voluntary'' standard, and they did not recognize the hazards
associated with noncompliance. Other manufacturers were not even aware
of the standard. As a result, entrapment hazards would continue to
exist on beds, in use and for sale, in the absence of a mandatory
standard.
(iv) A mandatory standard will also reduce the staff's workload in
ensuring that children are not exposed to bunk beds presenting
entrapment hazards. In the past several years, the staff has expended
significant resources to obtain the current level of conformance to the
voluntary standard. The Commission expects that fewer resources will be
required to enforce the mandatory standard than are currently being
used to identify defective bunk beds.
(v) For these reasons, the Commission believes that a mandatory
bunk bed entrapment standard is needed. This mandatory standard will
bring the following benefits: A mandatory standard should increase the
awareness and sense of urgency of manufacturers in this industry
regarding compliance with the entrapment provisions, thereby increasing
the degree of conformance to those provisions. A mandatory standard
allows the Commission to seek penalties for violations. Publicizing
fines for noncompliance with a mandatory standard would deter other
manufacturers from making noncomplying beds. A mandatory standard
allows state and local officials to assist CPSC staff in identifying
noncomplying bunk beds and to take action to prevent the sale of these
beds. Under a mandatory standard, retailers and distributors violate
the law if they sell noncomplying bunk beds. For that reason, retailers
and retail associations will insist that manufacturers and importers
provide complying bunk beds. The bunk bed industry is extremely
competitive. Manufacturers who conform to the voluntary standard have
expressed concern about those firms that do not. Nonconforming beds can
undercut the cost of conforming beds. A mandatory standard will take
away any competitive cost advantage for unsafe beds. A mandatory
standard will help prevent noncomplying beds made by foreign
manufacturers from entering the United States. CPSC could use the
resources of U.S. Customs to assist in stopping hazardous beds at the
docks.
(vi) Therefore, there is not substantial compliance with the
voluntary standard. (This does not mean that the Commission would
conclude that a mandatory standard will always be more effective than a
voluntary standard. Each case must be considered on its own facts.)
(C) The benefits expected from the rule bear a reasonable
relationship to its costs. (1) Compliance with ASTM's requirements. The
cost of providing a second guardrail for bunk beds that do not have one
is expected to be from $15-40 per otherwise noncomplying bed. If, as
expected, the standard prevents virtually all of the deaths it
addresses, the present value of the benefits of this modification are
estimated to be from $175-350 per otherwise noncomplying bed. Thus, the
benefit of this provision is about 4-23 times its cost.
(2) Providing a continuous guardrail. The voluntary standard allows
up to a 15-inch gap in the coverage of the guardrail on the wall side
of the upper bunk. Additional entrapment deaths are addressed by
requiring that the wall-side guardrail be continuous from one end of
the bed to the other. The estimated present value of the benefits of
this requirement will be $2.40 to $3.50 per otherwise noncomplying bed.
The Commission estimates that the materials cost to extend one
guardrail an additional 30 inches will be less than the present value
of the benefits of making the change. Further, the costs of any design
changes can be amortized over the number of bunk beds produced after
the design change is made. Thus, any design costs are nominal.
(3) Lower bunk end structures. The Commission is aware of a death,
involving entrapment in the end structures of the lower bunk, occurring
in a scenario not currently addressed by the voluntary standard. This
death is addressed by extending the upper limit of the voluntary
standard's lower bunk end structures entrapment provisions from 9
inches above the lower bunk's sleeping surface to the bottom of the
upper bunk. The Commission expects the costs of this requirement to be
design-related only, and small. Indeed, for some bunk beds, material
costs may decrease since less material may be required to comply with
these requirements than are currently being used. Again, the design
costs for this modification to the end structures can be amortized over
the subsequent production run of the bed.
(4) Effect on market. The small additional costs from any wall
guardrail and end structure modifications are not expected to affect
the market for bunk beds, either alone or added to the costs of
compliance to ASTM's provisions.
(5) Conclusion. The Commission has no reason to conclude that any
of the standard's requirements have costs that exceed the requirement's
expected benefits. Further, the total effect of the rule is that the
benefits of the rule will exceed its costs by about 4-23 times.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the benefits expected from
the rule bear a reasonable relationship to its costs.
(D) The rule imposes the least burdensome requirement that prevents
or adequately reduces the risk of injury for which the rule is being
promulgated. (1) The Commission considered relying on the voluntary
standard, either alone or combined with a third-party certification
program. However, the Commission concludes that a mandatory program
will be more effective in reducing these deaths. Accordingly, these
alternatives could not prevent or adequately reduce the risk of injury
for which the rule is being promulgated.
(2) The Commission also considered a suggestion that bunk beds that
conformed to the voluntary standard be so labeled. Consumers could then
compare conforming and nonconforming beds at the point of purchase and
make their purchase decisions with this safety information in mind.
This, however, would not necessarily reduce injuries, because consumers
likely would not know there is a voluntary standard and thus would not
see any risk in purchasing a bed that was not labeled as conforming to
the standard.
4. A new part 1513 is added to Subchapter C to read as follows:
PART 1513--REQUIREMENTS FOR BUNK BEDS
Sec.
1513.1 Scope, application, and effective date.
1513.2 Definitions.
1513.3 Requirements.
1513.4 Test methods.
1513.5 Marking and labeling.
[[Page 10260]]
1513.6 Instructions.
Figure 1 to Part 1513--Wedge Block for Tests
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1261(f)(1)(D), 1261(s), 1262(e)(1),
1262(f)-(i).
Sec. 1513.1 Scope, application, and effective date.
This part 1513 prescribes requirements for bunk beds to reduce or
eliminate the risk that children will die or be injured from being
trapped between the upper bunk and the wall or in openings below
guardrails or in other structures in the bed. Bunk beds meeting these
requirements are exempted from 16 CFR 1500.18(a)(18). This part applies
to all bunk beds intended for use by children that are sold for
residential use and manufactured in the United States, or imported,
after [the effective date of the final rule]. Bunk beds as described in
this section that are not intended for use by children are subject to
the requirements in 16 CFR part 1213, and not to 16 CFR 1500.18(a)(18).
However, the provisions of 16 CFR 1213 are substantively identical to
the requirements in this part 1513.
Sec. 1513.2 Definitions.
As used in this part 1513:
(a) Bed. See Bunk bed.
(b) Bed end structure means an upright unit at the head and foot of
the bed to which the side rails attach.
(c) Bunk bed means a bed in which the underside of any foundation
is over 30 inches (760 mm) from the floor.
(d) Foundation means the base or support on which a mattress rests.
(e) Guardrail means a rail or guard on a side of the upper bunk to
prevent a sleeping occupant from falling or rolling out.
Sec. 1513.3 Requirements.
(a) Guardrails. (1) Any bunk bed shall provide at least two
guardrails, at least one on each side of the bed.
(2) One guardrail shall be continuous between each of the bed's end
structures. The other guardrail may terminate before reaching the bed's
end structures, providing there is no more than 15 inches (380 mm)
between either end of the guardrail and the nearest bed end structure.
(3) For bunk beds designed to have a ladder attached to one side of
the bed, the continuous guardrail shall be on the other side of the
bed.
(4) Guardrails shall be attached so that they cannot be removed
without either intentionally releasing a fastening device or applying
forces sequentially in different directions.
(5) The upper edge of the guardrails shall be no less than 5 inches
(130 mm) above the top surface of the mattress when a mattress of the
maximum thickness specified by the manufacturer's instructions is on
the bed.
(6) With no mattress on the bed, there shall be no openings in the
structure between the lower edge of the uppermost member of the
guardrail and the underside of the upper bunk's foundation that would
permit passage of the wedge block shown in Fig. 1 when tested in
accordance with the procedure at Sec. 1513.4(a).
(b) Bed end structures. (1) The upper edge of the upper bunk end
structures shall be at least 5 inches (130 mm) above the top surface of
the mattress for at least 50 percent of the distance between the two
posts at the head and foot of the upper bunk when a mattress and
foundation of the maximum thickness specified by the manufacturer's
instructions is on the bed.
(2) With no mattress on the bed, there shall be no openings in the
rigid end structures above the foundation of the upper bunk that will
permit the free passage of the wedge block shown in Fig. 1 when tested
in accordance with the procedure at Sec. 1513.4(b).
(3) When tested in accordance with Sec. 1513.4(c), there shall be
no openings in the end structures between the underside of the
foundation of the upper bunk and upper side of the foundation of the
lower bunk that will permit the free passage of the wedge block shown
in Fig. 1, unless the openings are also large enough to permit the free
passage of a 9-inch (230-mm) diameter rigid sphere.
Sec. 1513.4 Test methods.
(a) Guardrails (see Sec. 1513.3(a)(6)). With no mattress on the
bed, place the wedge block shown in Fig. 1, tapered side first, into
each opening in the rigid bed structure below the lower edge of the
uppermost member of the guardrail and above the underside of the upper
bunk's foundation. Orient the block so that it is most likely to pass
through the opening (e.g., the major axis of the block parallel to the
major axis of the opening) (``most adverse orientation''). Then,
gradually apply a 33-lbf (147-N) force in a direction perpendicular to
the plane of the large end of the block. Sustain the force for 1
minute.
(b) Upper bunk end structure (see Sec. 1513.3(b)(2)). Without a
mattress or foundation on the upper bunk, place the wedge block shown
in Fig. 1 into any opening, tapered side first, and in the most adverse
orientation. Determine if the wedge block can pass freely through the
opening.
(c) Lower bunk end structure (see Sec. 1513.3(b)(3)). (1) Without a
mattress or foundation on the lower bunk, place the wedge block shown
in Fig. 1, tapered side first, into each opening in the lower bunk end
structure in the most adverse orientation. Determine whether the wedge
block can pass freely through the opening. If the wedge block passes
freely through the opening, determine whether a 9-inch (230-mm)
diameter rigid sphere can pass freely through the opening.
(2) With the manufacturer's recommended maximum thickness mattress
and foundation in place, repeat the test in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section.
Sec. 1513.5 Marking and labeling.
(a) There shall be a permanent label or marking on each bed stating
the name and address (city, state, and zip code) of the manufacturer,
distributor, or retailer; the model number; and the month and year of
manufacture.
(b) The following warning label shall be permanently attached to
the inside of an upper bunk bed end structure in a location that cannot
be covered by the bedding but that may be covered by the placement of a
pillow.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
[[Page 10261]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR99.002
BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
Sec. 1513.6 Instructions
Instructions shall accompany each bunk bed set, and shall include
the following information.
(a) Size of mattress and foundation. The length and width of the
intended mattress and foundation shall be clearly stated, either
numerically or in conventional terms such as twin size, twin extra-
long, etc. In addition, the maximum thickness of the mattress and
foundation required for compliance with Sec. 1513.3(a)(5) and (b)(1)
shall be stated.
(b) Safety warnings. The instructions shall provide the following
safety warnings:
(1) Do not allow children under 6 years of age to use the upper
bunk.
(2) Use guardrails on both sides of the upper bunk.
(3) Prohibit horseplay on or under beds.
(4) Prohibit more than one person on upper bunk.
(5) Use ladder for entering or leaving upper bunk.
Figure 1 to Part 1513--Wedge Block for Tests in Sec. 1531.4(a), (b) and
(c).
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
[[Page 10262]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR99.003
BILLNG CODE 6355-01-C
Dated: February 5, 1999.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-3304 Filed 3-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
