Products, Vendors, CAD Files, Spec Sheets and More...
Sign up for LAWeekly newsletter
To recap from part I, back in 1981, the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) published a two-volume set of documents of nonmandated, safety guidelines for public use playgrounds based on National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) injury data, studies and tests performed on equipment and surfacing, and in consideration of any ?EUR??,,????'??unreasonable risks of serious injury or death?EUR??,,????'?? (as found in recall notices). The CPSC guidelines were revised in 1991 in a single document (#325), revised in 1994, 1997 and is now being revised again.
The CPSC Guidelines are considered by some as consumer guidelines. While many technical requirements in CPSC are found in ASTM F1487-07ae1 (?EUR??,,????'??Standard Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Playground Equipment for Public Use?EUR??,,????'??), generally considered a manufacturing standard, there are many requirements in ASTM not found in CPSC.
The CPSC Guidelines #325 have been adopted into law in some form or its entirety in at least 17 states. The ASTM Standard #F1487 has been adopted into law in some form or its entirety in seven states. Clearly, at least 10 states have recognized the CPSC Guidelines as the primary standard of care that prevails over the ASTM Standard Specification. Note: CPSC offers many publications that are free, while you have to buy the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards.
Various Hazard Identification
5.1.2 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Slides
6.3 & 12.1.4 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Age-Separation of Equip./Arch Climbers
6.3, 12.1.6 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Sliding Poles
7.1.1 & 9.7 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Stability/Tripping Hazards
10.1 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Stairways, Ladders, Handrails
10.2.1 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Rungs
10.3.1 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Handrail Heights
11.2, 11.6 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Guardrails
11.6 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Other Design Considerations for Guardrails
12.1.2 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Design Considerations
12.1.4, Table 2 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Arch Climbers
12.1.5 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Horizontal Ladders, Rungs
12.1.6 & 12.1.9 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Sliding Poles/Climbing Components
12.1.9 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Layout of Climbing Components
12.2 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Merry-Go-Rounds
12.4.3 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Slide Platforms
12.4.5 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Slide Exits
12.4.6 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Embankment Slides
12.4.7 & 6.3 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Spiral Slides
12.4.8 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Tube Slides
12.6.2 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Single-Axis Swings
12.6.3 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Tot Swings
12.6.5 ?EUR??,,????'??+ Swings Not Recommended
The only time that there is confusion in the marketplace is when there happens to be a misinterpretation of a requirement, or which of the two guidelines is more stringent. Follow the most stringent rule and it becomes confusion-free. Professional judgment usually does not come into play. For example, ASTM and CPSC differ on how to calculate the use zone of a slide exit region. Assuming there is legitimate rationale for both, one simply needs to perform both methods and select the more stringent of the two. There are far too many instances of ?EUR??,,????'??interpretation?EUR??,,????'?? when one is only looking at quantifiable conclusions, such as the height of a slide or a pipe wall, or a 6 ft. use zone to the edge of a concrete sidewalk. There is nothing to misinterpret here, yet ?EUR??,,????'??It?EUR??,,????'???s a matter of interpretation?EUR??,,????'?? is typically used as an excuse. It works both ways. A playground inspector could identify a ?EUR??,,????'??hazard,?EUR??,,????'?? but when the error of the conclusion is pointed out, the inspector may be the one making excuses. It may be lack of training and/or retention of the rules by the individual. The point is, most of it is cut and dry if the rules are understood in the first place.
There are many things CPSC should include that are in ASTM, such as restricting overhead obstructions like tree limbs and power lines located close to users. We urge CPSC to continue with its technical performance requirements, since there is an established rationale for them.
It is not the duty of CPSC to drop technical requirements because some folks do not like it. Any injury data or research-related differences in technical performance requirements in the CPSC #325 document that contradicts ASTM #F1487 should be fully supported.
Francisco Uviña, University of New Mexico
Hardscape Oasis in Litchfield Park
Ash Nochian, Ph.D. Landscape Architect
November 12th, 2025
Sign up to receive Landscape Architect and Specifier News Magazine, LA Weekly and More...
Invalid Verification Code
Please enter the Verification Code below
You are now subcribed to LASN. You can also search and download CAD files and spec sheets from LADetails.