ASTM Panel Might Need CPSC OK to Update Bunk Bed Labels

The ASTM F15.30 subcommittee on bunk beds is planning for a possible need to visit CPSC over the agency’s potential opposition to efforts to improve the labels on bunk beds. The group is looking at rearranging the ASTM label to separate behavioral instructions from information about setup, such as mattress size and guardrail use.

The problem is that the first three items on the warning are mandated by CPSC at 16 CFR 1213.5 and must be in the order specified. The first warns against placing children under age 6 on top bunks while the next two address mattress sizes and thicknesses. Thus it is impossible to move the age recommendation to be with other behavior elements without violating the agency’s requirements.

Tim Smith, of CPSC’s Engineering and Human Factors directorate, confirmed to the committee that he discussed the idea with General Counsel and Compliance staffers and that they were not receptive and warned they likely would deem any beds that bore the planned label to be violative. Smith did say that his agency colleagues suggested the possibility of a second label, but the panel members generally met that idea with dislike due to concerns about limited space and message dilution from over-labeling.

The only way to change the label could be to petition the agency to open a rulemaking, and that might require a demonstration that the current marking meets the qualifications of an unreasonable risk to safety, Smith explained. He emphasized that he is not opposed to the general idea of what the group seeks to do and that he simply was conveying what CPSC legal staff had told him.

The idea of CPSC blocking what subcommittee members see as improving safety was met with incredulity and frustration. The group also discussed how OSHA allows updates to consensus labeling to accommodate current practices or technology without the need to initiate rulemakings.

The panel plans at least to finalize how it would like the label to appear and has formed a task group to do so. It also is asking Smith to revisit the issue with other CPSCers to ask if the OSHA precedent might be usable by the agency and to emphasize the committee’s rationale. The group would visit commissioners and other CPSCers if needed.

Ladders: The subcommittee also spent much time discussing the possible need for weight performance requirements for ladders. This responded to NEISS and other data supplied by Smith showing incidents involving failures.

Although the average known weight of people involved was about 93 lbs, some incidents did involve much heavier adults. Thus the discussion included whether any weight tests should be based on adult weights or child weights.

Top bunks already have a 400 lb test requirement that anticipates adults being up there for activities like making the beds or reading bedtime stories. If the group does not mirror that test, it might consider something like a weight three times that of a typical 10- or 12-year-old child.

Where and how to place the weights, including whether to separate distribution onto multiple rungs, also would be considerations.

The panel would look at whether there are models from other standards like play equipment or even chairs. OSHA ladder requirements might be useful too, but the subcommittee would need to ensure that the target products are not far outside its needs – steel ship ladders or other industrial devices might lead to overkill. This discussion was a continuation of one at a previous meeting (PSL, 5/12/14).

Larger than Full Size: The panel also continued to consider units that might have top bunks up to king size. Some issues included how changing requirements for larger top bunks, such as load, might affect other parts, such as for ladders or guardrails. This means consideration of whether changing the standard or creating a new one is best.

A primary concern is larger sizes invite multiple users. That fact led to a brief discussion of the different intents of warnings versus performance requirements. The difference is recommended use and anticipated use respectively.