[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22019-22030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9421]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1217
RIN 3041-AC79
Safety Standard for Toddler Beds
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008
(``CPSIA'') requires the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission (``Commission,'' ``CPSC'') to promulgate consumer product
safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. These
standards are to be ``substantially the same as'' applicable voluntary
standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the
Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further
reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. The Commission
is issuing a safety standard for toddler beds in response to the CPSIA.
The safety standard addresses entrapment in bed end structures,
entrapment between the guardrail and side rail, entrapment in the
mattress support system, and component failures of the bed support
system and guardrails. The standard also addresses corner post
extensions that can catch items worn by a child.
DATES: The rule will become effective on October 20, 2011, and apply to
products manufactured or imported on or after that date. The
incorporation by reference of the publications listed in this rule are
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 20,
2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Troy Whitfield, Office of Compliance
and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD
20814-4408; telephone (301) 504-7548; twhitfield@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background: Section 104(b) of the Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (``CPSIA'',
Pub. L. 110-314) was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the
CPSIA requires the Commission to promulgate consumer product safety
standards for durable infant or toddler products. The law requires that
these standards are to be ``substantially the same as'' applicable
voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standards if
the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further
reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. The term
``durable infant or toddler product'' is defined in section 104(f) of
the CPSIA as a durable product intended for use, or that may be
reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years.
Toddler beds are one of the products specifically identified in section
104(f)(2) of the CPSIA as a durable infant or toddler product.
In this document, the Commission is issuing a safety standard for
toddler beds. The standard is largely the same as a voluntary standard
developed by ASTM International (formerly the American Society for
Testing and Materials), ASTM F 1821-09, Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Toddler Beds, but with several modifications that
strengthen the standard.
In the Federal Register of April 28, 2010, the Commission published
a notice of proposed rulemaking that proposed to incorporate by
reference ASTM F 1821-09, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for
Toddler Beds, with several modifications. 75 FR 22291. The final rule
is very similar to the proposed rule. We summarize the proposed rule in
section F of this preamble and discuss the final rule (including
differences between the proposal and the final rule) in section G of
this preamble. The information discussed in this preamble comes from
CPSC staff's briefing package for the toddler bed final rule, which is
available on the CPSC's Web site at http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia11/brief/toddlerfinal.pdf.
B. The Product
The ASTM voluntary standard defines a toddler bed as any bed sized
to accommodate a full-size crib mattress having minimum dimensions of
51\5/8\ inches in length and 27\1/4\ inches in width and that is
intended to provide free access and egress to a child not less than 15
months of age and weighing no more than 50 pounds. The standard
includes cribs that can be converted into a toddler bed using a full-
size crib mattress.
CPSC staff estimates that there are currently at least 73 known
manufacturers or importers supplying toddler beds and/or convertible
cribs to the U.S. market. Approximately 48 suppliers are domestic
manufacturers (66 percent); 13 are domestic importers (18 percent); 11
are foreign manufacturers (15 percent); and the remaining firm is a
foreign supplier that imports from other countries and exports to the
United States.
Based on information from a 2005 survey conducted by the American
Baby Group, CPSC staff estimates annual convertible crib sales to
number about 776,000 and annual sales of toddler beds to total about
819,000. Thus, a total of approximately 1.6 million units (convertible
cribs and toddler beds) sold per year might be affected by the toddler
bed standard.
[[Page 22020]]
C. Incident Data
The preamble to the proposed rule summarized the data for incidents
related to toddler beds for the period 2005 to 2009. During this period
of time, CPSC staff is aware of 4 fatalities and 81 nonfatal incidents
(with and without injuries) related to toddler beds. The data were
drawn from two databases: (1) Actual injuries and fatalities of which
the Commission is aware; and (2) estimates derived from reports of
emergency room treatment in a statistical sample of hospitals that
makes up the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System
(``NEISS''). More information concerning those incidents is provided in
the preamble to the proposed rule. 75 FR 22292 (April 28, 2010).
While preparing the final rule, CPSC staff conducted a new search
of CPSC's epidemiological databases and found that 41 toddler bed-
related incidents were reported between June 23, 2009 and December 12,
2010. None of these were fatalities. Seventeen incidents reported an
injury (primarily bumps, bruises, sprains, and lacerations). One report
was of a child nearly choking on loose hardware; another report was of
a child suffering a dental injury from falling on the bed; and another
report was of a possible case of lead poisoning of a child from chewing
paint on the toddler bed. While most of these injuries did not require
any major medical intervention, one child was hospitalized for a
fractured limb.
In 31 of the 41 incidents, the age of the child was reported. In
four of those incidents, a child younger than 15 months was involved.
The majority of the incidents (17 out of 31) reported the child's age
to be between 17 months and 2 years old. It was not always clear,
however, that the age reported pertained to the child who was the
regular user of the toddler bed. Occasionally, an incident report
stated specifically that the injured child was playing on a sibling's
toddler bed; a few others reported that the injured child was playing
or climbing on a toddler bed. This indicates that the reported victim's
age was not always the age of the regular user of the bed.
Among the 41 incident reports, the following hazards were
identified:
Broken, loose, or detached components of the bed, such as
the guardrail, hardware, or other accessories (14 incidents, 3 of which
involved injuries);
Entrapment, mostly of a limb (10 incidents, 8 of which
resulted in injuries ranging from fractures and sprains to bruises);
Product integrity issues, mostly the integrity of the
mattress support (4 incidents, 1 of which also reported a finger injury
to the child);
Inadequate mattress fit issues (3 incidents, no injuries);
Miscellaneous issues, such as a sharp surface, lead paint,
bed height/clearance, guardrail inadequacy, and bed accessory
involvement (9 reports, 4 of which reported associated injuries).
CPSC staff reviewed data from NEISS for injuries related to toddler
beds for 2009 and 2010. A total of 32 such injuries, and no deaths,
were reported through NEISS from January 1, 2009 through December 12,
2010. (The number of reported incidents was too small for NEISS to
publish national injury estimates for injuries related to toddler
beds.) The most frequent characteristics of the 32 toddler bed-related
injuries reported through NEISS were:
Hazard: falls out of the toddler bed to a lower level
(78%);
Injured body part: head and face (59%) and limbs (25%);
Injury type: head injury (31%) and fractures (22%); and
Disposition: treated and released (97%).
About 9 percent of the patients were reported to be younger than 15
months old, while about 69 percent were reported to be between 17
months and 2 years old. As was the case for incident data reported
through sources other than NEISS, it was not always clear whether the
patient injured was the usual user of the toddler bed.
D. The ASTM Voluntary Standard
ASTM F 1821, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toddler
Beds, was first approved in 1997, and revised in 2003 and 2006. The
current version, ASTM F 1821-09, was approved on April 1, 2009, and
published in May 2009. ASTM has been working on revisions to the
standard, but has not approved a subsequent version as of the date of
this final rule.
Requirements in the ASTM F 1821-09 Standard for toddler beds
include:
Toddler beds must comply with the CPSC's regulations at 16
CFR part 1303 (ban of lead in paint); 1500.48 (sharp points); 1500.49
(sharp edges); 1500.50 through 1500.53 (use and abuse tests); and part
1501 (small parts that present choking, aspiration, or ingestion
hazards), both before and after the product is tested according to the
standard.
Toddler beds must not present scissoring, shearing, or
pinching hazards.
Openings must meet specified dimensions to prevent finger
entrapment.
Openings that will permit passage of a specified block
with a wedge on one end are prohibited to protect against torso
entrapment.
The distance that corner posts may extend above the upper
edge of an end or side panel is limited.
Protective components must not be removable with a
specified force after torque and tension tests.
There are requirements for marking and labeling each bed
and its retail carton and for warning statements on the bed. There are
requirements for the permanency of labels and warnings.
The mattress must be supported and contained so that it
does not move horizontally to cause an opening that will allow the
passage of the wedge block when tested.
There are tests for the physical integrity of the mattress
support system and its attachments and the side rails.
There are wedge block tests for openings in the guardrails
and end structures to test whether they could cause entrapment.
There is a probe test to protect against entrapment in
partially bounded openings in the bed.
Instructions must be provided with the bed.
Warning statements are required on the bed to address
entrapment and strangulation hazards.
E. Response To Comments on the Proposed Rule
In the Federal Register of April 28, 2010, we published a proposed
rule for toddler beds (75 FR 22291). We received 13 comments on the
proposed rule. Four of the comments stated general support for the
proposed rule, with minor changes in wording to emphasize the hazard.
The other nine comments raised specific issues that are addressed by
topic below.
We describe and respond to the comments in section E of this
document and also describe the final rule. To make it easier to
identify the comments and our responses, the word ``Comment,'' in
parentheses, will appear before the comment's description, and the word
``Response,'' in parentheses, will appear before our response. We also
have numbered each comment to help distinguish between different
comments. The number assigned to each comment is purely for
organizational purposes and does not signify the comment's value, or
importance, or the order in which it was received.
[[Page 22021]]
1. Guardrail Designs
(Comment 1)--One commenter addressed guardrail designs for toddler
beds. The commenter suggested that replacing spindles on the toddler
bed guardrails with a full piece of wood or material would decrease the
risk of children getting a body part entrapped in the guardrail.
(Response 1)--We acknowledge that currently, some manufacturers use
solid panel guardrails on their toddler beds. However, mandating that
all guardrails be solid panels may limit the utility of converting some
types of cribs to toddler beds. Although limb entrapments might be
reduced if guardrails were limited to solid panels, the incident data
reported in the preamble to the proposed rule (75 FR at 22292) indicate
that only three of the reported injuries involving entrapment between
slats were fractures of limbs, and the majority of the injuries were
bumps and bruises. Only one fracture directly involved a guardrail.
This occurred when the occupant fell from the bed after the occupant's
leg became entrapped in the guardrail slats. The other two fractures
involved entrapment between slats located on the headboard and
footboard. Therefore, we encourage manufacturers to consider solid
panel guardrails, but decline to make this a requirement in the final
rule.
2. Guardrail Height
(Comment 2)--One commenter disagreed with the guardrail height
specified in the proposed rule. (The proposed rule stated that the
guardrail height must be 5 inches above the top of the mattress.) The
commenter suggested specifying that the guardrail must be 9 inches
above the mattress support.
(Response 2)--We disagree with a guardrail height of 9 inches above
the mattress support. Because the majority of full-size crib mattresses
are approximately 6 inches thick, a guardrail height of 9 inches above
the mattress support would provide a barrier of only 3 inches
approximately, which is not sufficient to prevent children from
rolling/falling off the bed. Similarly, guardrails on bunk beds are
intended to prevent children from rolling/falling off the bed. ASTM F
1427-07, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Bunk Beds, requires
a 5-inch barrier above the top of the mattress to prevent a sleeping
child from rolling and falling off the bed. Therefore, the final rule
does not change the proposed guardrail height provision, except to
specify that, if no maximum mattress thickness is stated, the guardrail
height is to be based on a 6 inch thick mattress.
3. Guardrail Structural Integrity Testing
(Comment 3)--One commenter disagreed with the proposed test
methodology for guardrail structural integrity. The commenter
suggested: (1) Testing at the most onerous point instead of at three
locations; (2) specifying the contact area of the force and how far
from the top of the rail this force should be applied; and (3)
specifying the height of the bed rail or measuring from the mattress
support platform so the measurement will be consistent.
(Response 3)-- We agree with the commenter's suggested test
methodology for applying the test force to the guardrail. The language
in the proposed rule was adopted from the portable bed rail structural
integrity test, as stated in section 8.1 of ASTM F 2085-09, Standard
Consumer Safety Specification for Portable Bed Rails. After the
proposed rule had been published, an ASTM task group developed the
alternative language that the commenter suggests. This suggested
language is more applicable to the typical geometry of toddler bed
guardrails as opposed to portable bed rails. For example, the proposed
rule would require applying a horizontal force at three points along
the uppermost horizontal edge of the rail (i.e., in the center of the
upper rail and on the sides of the rail directly above each of the
outermost legs). The majority of toddler bed guardrails only have one
outermost leg or free end. The other end of a toddler bed guardrail
typically is secured to a corner post attaching the headboard to the
guardrail. Each of the guardrail failure incidents that have been
reported involved a guardrail detaching or fracturing at the corner
post attachment point. We agree with the commenter that applying a
single force above the rail's free end is more onerous than the
proposed test and exerts the greatest force on the guardrail's
attachment points. Furthermore, the commenter's suggestion provides
improved test repeatability by specifying a procedural method for
applying the test force to a guardrail free end with a significantly
contoured geometry. The final rule uses the language suggested by the
commenter instead of the proposed wording for the guardrail structural
integrity test (Sec. 1217.2(c)(5)(i)).
(Comment 4)-- Another commenter stated that there was not
sufficient justification for the proposed 50-pound force requirement
and suggested a 40-pound force instead. The commenter stated that the
incident data only refers to two injuries from broken components and
that the incidents do not mention that guardrails were involved. The
commenter further stated that only a fraction of a 50-pound force would
be used by a sleeping child inadvertently rolling off the bed, and that
a child pulling on the guardrail from outside of the bed in play would
tip most toddler beds over before reaching the proposed 50-pound force.
The commenter also requested an exemption for removable guardrails
or guardrails that could be removed without the use of tools.
(Response 4)-- We disagree with replacing the 50-pound force
requirement with a 40-pound force requirement and disagree with the
commenter's claim that there have not been any incidents involving a
guardrail breaking or detaching from a toddler bed. In one reported
incident, the occupant fell to the floor and received a bruise and
laceration to the head. We also disagree with the commenter that 50
pounds is an excessive amount of force. We have received several
detailed reports of children climbing on, or leaning against,
guardrails, which resulted in subsequent structural failure of the
guardrail or its means of attachment.
We tested several different makes and models of toddler beds to the
50-pound force requirement, incorporating the commenter's suggested
test methodology and applying the test force 11 inches above the top of
the mattress support. We used the guardrail structural integrity test
suggested by the commenter and the language in the proposed rule to
test five toddler beds: two plastic and three wooden beds. Two of the
five toddler beds chosen for testing had been involved in incidents
where the guardrail detached or broke when the occupant leaned on the
guardrail. The guardrails on all five toddler beds successfully
withstood the application of 40 pounds (the force suggested by the
commenter). Conversely, when performing the test as stated in the
proposed rule, only the guardrails on the three toddler beds that had
not been involved in incidents were able to withstand application of
the 50-pound force. The guardrail on one toddler bed that had been
involved in an incident broke at one of its attachment points at
approximately 42 pounds. The guardrail of the other bed that had been
involved in an incident withstood the initial application of 50 pounds,
but detached from the toddler bed within the first 3 seconds after
maintaining 50 pounds. Based on this testing, we concluded that the 50-
pound
[[Page 22022]]
force is appropriate and adequate to identify guardrails that could be
susceptible to detachment. The final rule retains the 50-pound force
requirement.
Finally, we disagree with exempting removable guardrails from the
guardrail structural integrity test. A guardrail should be attached to
a toddler bed with sufficient means to provide substantial rigidity.
Guardrails that would require only the consumer's strength to install
would be susceptible to the foreseeable forces that a toddler could
apply to the guardrail. Such a guardrail would not be sufficient to
protect a child.
4. Spindle/Slat Strength of Guardrails, Side Rails, and End Structures
(Comment 5)--Two comments addressed the testing requirements for
the spindles/slats. One commenter suggested that language in the
toddler bed standard regarding slat strength should match the language
in the CPSC's new crib standards. A second commenter agreed with the
proposal to test 25 percent of slats at 80 pound-force, but questioned
the rationale for testing the remaining 75 percent of slats at 60
pound-force.
(Response 5)--We agree that the toddler bed spindle/slat strength
test should be consistent with the full-size and non-full-size crib
spindle/slat strength requirements in ASTM F 1169-10 and ASTM F 406-
10a, respectively, referenced in the recently published mandatory
requirements, 75 FR 81766 (Dec. 28, 2010), to be codified at 16 CFR
part 1219 and 16 CFR part 1220, respectively. This will harmonize the
spindle/slat strength requirements for cribs and toddler beds and
provide consistency and clarity because many toddler beds are converted
from cribs, and many toddler bed manufacturers also manufacture cribs.
Therefore, the final rule modifies the spindle/slat strength test
language to reflect the changes made in the full-size and non-full-size
crib standards. Changing the spindle/slat strength requirement to be
consistent with the requirement in the crib standard means that no
slats would be tested at 60 pound-force (the crib standard requires
testing 25 percent of slats at 80 pound-force and then another 25
percent of slats at 80 pound-force if needed, with no more than 50
percent of the slats tested).
5. Mattress Retention and Warning
(Comment 6)--One commenter requested that the mattress retention
requirements, corresponding tests, and related warning labels be
removed from the standard because they are now obsolete.
(Response 6)--We agree with the commenter that the mattress
retention sections 6.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.2, test method section 7.1, and
warning section 8.4.4.2, as identified in ASTM F 1821-09 and referenced
in the proposed rule, are obsolete. Accordingly, we have removed those
sections from the final rule. The original intent of these sections was
to ensure that the mattress did not horizontally or vertically
dislocate enough to allow a child access to potentially dangerous
mattress support openings, which could entrap a child's torso or head,
possibly resulting in a fatality. The current ASTM standard, ASTM F
1821-09, includes provisions to reduce entrapment hazards by testing
for hazardous openings, not only in the mattress support system, but
also in the bed's guardrails and end structures, including the
headboard, footboard, and any point where these components could be
joined. These requirements are more stringent than the mattress
retention requirements, making the mattress retention provisions
unnecessary. Accordingly, we have eliminated these requirements from
the final rule.
6. Warning Labels
(Comment 7)--Two commenters recommended that the full-size crib and
toddler bed standards be harmonized with respect to the required
warnings because many full-size cribs convert into toddler beds and,
therefore, would require the warnings specified in both standards. The
commenters argued that such harmonization would eliminate redundant
warning statements, making the warnings more effective. One of these
commenters suggested that specifying the content, but not the exact
wording of the required warnings in the proposed toddler bed rule,
would be one method of harmonizing these standards.
(Response 7)--We agree that failing to harmonize warnings in the
toddler bed rule and in the full-size crib standard could introduce
redundant and extraneous warnings on convertible cribs, and that this
might diminish the effectiveness of the warnings. For example, the
strangulation warning requirements for toddler beds specified in the
proposed rule are redundant with the strangulation warning requirements
specified in section 8.4.1.2 of ASTM F 1169-10, Standard Consumer
Safety Specification for Full-Size Baby Cribs. Additionally, the
entrapment warning requirements for toddler beds specified in the
proposed rule do not apply to full-size cribs that might convert to a
toddler bed. Thus, we have revised the final rule's entrapment and
strangulation warning requirements for toddler beds to apply only to
toddler beds that do not convert from a crib. Toddler beds that convert
from a crib must use the warnings specified in ASTM F 1169-10,
incorporated by reference at 16 CFR part 1219, Safety Standard for
Full-Size Baby Cribs, with additional text that specifies the minimum
mattress thickness, as detailed below.
The proposed rule for toddler beds, shortened the warning for the
minimum mattress size that appears in section 8.4.4.1 of ASTM F 1821-09
to state: ``ONLY use full-size crib mattress of the recommended size,''
based on our understanding that section 8.3.2 of that standard already
required both the bed and its retail carton to be clearly and legibly
marked with the intended mattress size (75 FR at 22294 through 22295).
Since then, we have discovered that section 8.3.2 of ASTM F 1821-09
only requires the retail carton to be marked with the intended mattress
size. Given this, we believe that it would be reasonable to maintain a
mattress size warning similar to that specified in section 8.4.4.1 of
ASTM F 1821-09 in the final rule. Section 8.1.3 of the full-size crib
standard, ASTM F 1169-10, specifies the exact wording of a warning
statement regarding the intended mattress size. The language used in
this warning is very similar to the warning content specified in
8.4.4.1 of ASTM F 1821-09.
Therefore, the final rule provides the following mattress size
warning requirement:
[[Page 22023]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AP11.005
Because full-size cribs that convert to toddler beds require the
exact warning statement specified in section 8.1.3 of the full-size
crib standard, ASTM F 1169-10, requiring the warning statement on all
toddler beds would mean that convertible cribs would need two warning
statements about mattress size that are largely redundant. Thus, as in
the case of the entrapment and strangulation warnings, the final rule
provides that the warning requirement for mattress size for toddler
beds apply only to toddler beds that do not convert from a crib. To
address the fact that the full-size crib standard specifies a maximum
mattress thickness of 6 inches, but the toddler bed standard specifies
a minimum mattress thickness of 4 inches, the final rule provides that
toddler beds that convert from a crib must include additional text
indicating that a minimum mattress thickness of 4 inches is required.
This language would be included at the end of the warning statement
specified in section 8.1.3 of the full-size crib standard, ASTM F 1169-
10.
(Comment 8)--One commenter generally supported the proposed warning
requirements but suggested that the statement, ``ALWAYS follow assembly
instructions,'' is not useful on the product itself. The commenter
suggested that it would be more appropriate for this statement to be
located on the packaging and at the top of the assembly instructions.
(Response 8)--We disagree with the commenter's assessment and
believe that locating this warning statement on the product would be
more beneficial than locating it either on the packaging or at the top
of the assembly instructions. Generally, a warning should be located
where the consumer is likely to be looking when the warning is needed.
The warning is intended to alert consumers of the need to follow the
assembly instructions, and the target audience for the message would be
consumers who otherwise would not follow such instructions. For this
reason, a warning located at the top of the assembly instructions is
unlikely to be noticed or read by those who need the information most.
A warning located on the product itself, however, is more likely to be
noticed by these consumers because all consumers must interact with the
product to assemble it, even if they do not examine the assembly
instructions or product packaging beforehand. The final rule does not
make any changes related to the placement of this warning statement.
(Comment 9)--One commenter suggested that the warning statement
specified in section 8.4.4.2 of ASTM F 1821-09 and referenced in the
preamble to the proposed rule (75 FR at 22294), concerning the use of a
guardrail as a means of containing the mattress, should be removed from
the final rule. The commenter asserted that the warning statement, as
well as the mattress retention requirements on which the warning
statement is based (specified in sections 6.1, 6.1.1, and 6.1.2), are
now obsolete.
(Response 9)--We agree that the warning requirement regarding the
use of a guardrail to contain the mattress is obsolete. The proposed
rule would specify two alternative entrapment warnings because of the
requirement of a warning about guardrail use. Therefore, removing this
obsolete warning statement about guardrail use eliminates the need for
two alternative warning labels that address the entrapment hazard.
7. Legal Authority
(Comment 10)--A commenter objected to incorporating the ASTM
standard by reference into the published regulation, arguing that the
law requires that the terms of legal requirements must be freely
available to the public, citing Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 9 S.
Ct. 36, 40 (1888). The commenter also cited Veeck v. Southern Building
Code Congress International, Inc. (``SBCCI''), 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir.
2002).
(Response 10)--The cases to which the commenter refers do not apply
to the rules issued under section 104 of the CPSIA. In Banks, the court
held that a reporter authorized by the State of Ohio to publish the
state's judicial opinions was not authorized by Federal law to obtain a
copyright on the opinions because he was not the author of those
opinions. That is not an issue here where ASTM already has copyright
protection for its standards. In the Veeck case, Veeck posted the local
building codes of two Texas towns on his Web site. The text of the
building codes was created and copyrighted by a building code
organization and was adopted by the towns as law. The court stated:
``As law, the model codes enter the public domain and are not subject
to the copyright holder's exclusive prerogatives. As model codes,
however, the organization's works retain their protected status.'' Id.
at 793 (emphasis in the original).
The building code organization had encouraged local government
entities to adopt its code into law without any cost to the government
entity. Id. at 794. In contrast, ASTM has not given its permission for
the CPSC to adopt its standards. Thus, the cases cited by the commenter
do not require us to publish the copyrighted ASTM standard in the Code
of Federal Regulations. Because the U.S. government is not immune from
suit for copyright infringement, see Schnapper v. Foley, 667 F.2d 102
(DC Cir. 1981, cert. denied, 102 S. Ct. 1448, the CPSC could be subject
to a legal challenge if it copied the ASTM standard and published it in
the Federal Register without permission from ASTM.
8. Validity of Data
(Comment 11)-- One commenter observed that the majority of the
incident data concerning fatalities involved children who were less
than 15 months old (i.e., the intended minimum age for toddler beds) or
involved a cord that was a strangulation risk. The commenter noted that
the preamble to the proposed rule had acknowledged this, but the
commenter expressed concern that CPSC staff appeared to be ``inflating
the number of incidents and that data cited as `related to' or
`associated with' are insufficient to rely upon in the absence of data
and analysis that establishes that the products proximately caused the
incident or injury complained of.''
A second commenter expressed concern that although the current
standard is intended to address children ``not less than 15 months and
weighing no more than 50 pounds,'' the ``National Injury Estimates
reported in the NPR identified victims between 4 months and 6 years.''
The commenter believed that this difference could affect the basis for
the standard.
[[Page 22024]]
(Response 11)--The commenters misinterpret the discussion of
incident data in the preamble to the proposed rule. The discussion was
intended to provide an overall view of problems associated with toddler
beds that are reported to the CPSC. The discussion of the four
fatalities noted that three of the decedents were under the age
intended for use of the product and explained that the product
involvement in the fourth fatality was incidental. The ``National
Injury Estimates'' are used to identify the injuries associated with
toddler beds; they are not used to change the age/weight designations
in the standard. Age requirements for users and placement of toddler
beds in relation to window cords are addressed in the warning labels
specified in the current voluntary standard; therefore, these issues
are relevant in evaluating the voluntary standard. In addition, the
discussion in the proposed rule used appropriate qualifying statements
(such as ``associated with'' and ``related to''). These statements are
intended to qualify the types of incidents reported to the CPSC and do
not ``inflate'' the data. This approach reflects the statutory
directive of section 104 of the CPSIA to issue a consumer product
safety standard for toddler beds that is substantially the same as, or
more stringent than, the voluntary standard. The portions of the final
rule that are more stringent than the ASTM standard are based upon
human factors and engineering analyses, which concluded that the more
stringent provisions would reduce further the identified risks of
injury associated with toddler beds.
F. Summary of Commission-Proposed Modifications
When the Commission issued its notice of proposed rulemaking in
April 2010, the Commission proposed incorporating by reference ASTM F
1821-09, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toddler Beds, with
four modifications that are described below.
The Commission proposed that guardrails be a minimum height of 5
inches above the manufacturer's recommended sleeping surface. This
requirement was intended to help prevent falls from the bed.
The Commission proposed to add a test for the overall stability of
guardrails. The proposed test requires applying a 50-pound force to the
center along the length of the guardrail and directly over each of the
outermost legs of the guardrail. The test was intended to keep children
from falling out of bed and to ensure that guardrails remain intact
when children lean against them or use them to climb into bed. The
basis for selecting a 50-pound force was that 50 pounds is the maximum
weight of a child intended to use a toddler bed.
The Commission proposed modifying the ASTM standard's test for
spindles/slats on guardrails, side rails, and end structures. ASTM F
1821-09 uses a torso wedge and a 25-pound force on guardrails and end
structures in the most adverse orientation to ensure that slats and
spindles do not break and allow an opening in which a child could
become entrapped. The Commission proposed modifying this provision to
test 25 percent of all slats (rather than just those on the end
structure and guardrails) using an 80-pound force. The 80-pound force
was selected based on tests that CPSC staff performed on 20 cribs or
toddler beds. (Details of this testing are provided in the preamble to
the proposed rule, 75 FR 22293 (April 28, 2010).) The Commission
proposed that the remaining 75 percent of slats be tested with a 60-
pound force.
The Commission also proposed changes to the warning requirements in
ASTM F 1821-09. The Commission proposed: (1) Changing the warning
specified in 8.4.3 of ASTM F 1821-09 to separate this into two
warnings, one for entrapment and one for strangulation; (2) providing
two options for entrapment warnings: one for beds where the guardrail
is the means of mattress containment and one where the guardrail is
not; and (3) removing provisions in 8.4.4 of ASTM F 1821-09 concerning
warning statements addressing issues (but not specifying wording and
layout) because these warnings would be redundant and unclear with the
warnings the Commission proposed to specify.
G. Assessment of the Voluntary Standard and Description of the Final
Rule
1. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA: Consultation and CPSC Staff Review
Section 104(b) of the CPSIA requires the Commission to assess the
effectiveness of the voluntary standard in consultation with
representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and
other experts. This consultation process for the toddler bed standard
began in late 2009, before we published the proposed rule. Our
consultations with ASTM are ongoing.
2. Description of the Final Rule, Including Changes to the ASTM
Standard's Requirements
While most requirements of ASTM F 1821-09 are sufficient to reduce
the risk of injury posed by toddler beds, we have determined that
modifying or adding several provisions to the standard will make the
requirements more stringent and further reduce the risk of injury. The
following discussion describes the final rule, including changes to the
ASTM requirements, and notes any changes from the proposed rule.
a. Scope, Application, and Effective Date (Sec. 1217.1)
The final rule states that part 1217 establishes a consumer product
safety standard for toddler beds manufactured or imported on or after a
date which would be six months after the date of publication of a final
rule in the Federal Register. We received no comments on this provision
and are finalizing it without change.
b. Incorporation by Reference (Sec. 1217.2(a) and (b))
Section 1217.2(a) provides language to incorporate by reference
ASTM F 1821-09, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toddler
Beds. The standard also incorporates by reference the labeling
requirements in section 8 of ASTM's full-size crib standard (ASTM F
1169-10, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Full-Size Baby
Cribs) because CPSC's toddler bed standard requires toddler beds that
convert from cribs to comply with the labeling requirements in the ASTM
crib standard. Section 1217.2(a) also provides information on how to
obtain a copy of the ASTM standards or to inspect a copy of the
standards at the CPSC.
We received no comments on this provision. We are changing it to
include the language necessary to incorporate by reference the labeling
provisions of the ASTM crib standard.
c. Mattress Retention Provisions (Sec. 1217.2(c)(1), (4), and (6))
The final rule removes provisions concerning mattress retention (in
the ASTM standard, these are performance provisions in sections 6.1
through 6.1.2; test method provisions in sections 7.1.2 through 7.1.6;
warning provision in section 8.4.4.2). As explained in response to a
comment in section E.5 of this preamble, the mattress retention
provisions are no longer necessary because of other changes in the
standard that better address entrapment protection, which was the
purpose of the mattress retention provisions. This is a change from the
proposed rule.
d. Guardrails (Sec. 1217.2(c)(2) and (5)(i))
The final rule makes several additions or modifications to ASTM F
1821-09 to strengthen the guardrail provisions. As
[[Page 22025]]
in the proposal, the final rule requires that the upper edge of the
guardrail be at least 5 inches above the manufacturer's recommended
sleeping surface. The final rule adds a sentence to clarify that if the
manufacturer does not specify a mattress thickness, the guardrail
height must be based on a mattress thickness of 6 inches. We chose 6
inches because many toddler beds convert from cribs, and the full-size
crib standard specifies 6 inches as the maximum thickness allowed for a
crib mattress. In response to a comment discussed in section E.3 of
this preamble, the final rule modifies the test methodology that we had
proposed. These changes, suggested by a commenter, make the test more
suitable for the geometry of a guardrail (as opposed to that of a
portable bed rail) and improve repeatability of the test. With these
changes, the test is better suited to toddler bed guardrails and thus,
will better address the risk of injury.
e. Spindle/Slat Static Load Strength (Sec. 1217.2(c)(3) and (5)(ii))
As discussed in section F of this preamble, we had proposed adding
requirements for testing the spindles/slats on guardrails, side rails,
and end rails. These provisions in the final rule are largely the same
as proposed. However, we received a comment (discussed in section E.4
of this preamble) asking that spindle/slat requirements for toddler
beds match such requirements for cribs, which are stated in ASTM's
full-size crib standard, ASTM F 1169-10. In response to this comment,
we have revised the spindle/slat requirements so that these provisions
are more consistent with the requirements for cribs. Like the crib
rule, the final rule requires testing 25 percent of spindles/slats at
80 pound-force and then another 25 percent of spindles/slats at 80
pound-force, if needed, with no more than 50 percent of the spindles/
slats tested. The 80 pound-force is applied for a period of 2 to 5
seconds midway between the top and bottom of the spindle/slat being
tested and is maintained for 10 seconds. The final rule also specifies,
as provided in the crib standard, how to test toddler beds that may
contain folding sides. The modifications make the standard in the final
rule more stringent than ASTM F 1821-09 because ASTM F 1821-09 does not
contain any requirements concerning spindle/slat strength.
f. Warning Label Requirements (Sec. 1217.2(c)(6))
As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, the warning
provisions in ASTM F 1821-09 are confusing and redundant, see 75 FR
22293-96. We proposed that the warning be separated into two warnings,
one to address entrapment, and one to address strangulation.
Like the proposal, the final rule requires that specified warnings
addressing entrapment and strangulation appear on toddler beds. The
final rule also requires a specified warning concerning mattress size
to address potential entrapment in gaps surrounding the mattress. As
noted in section E.6 of this preamble, the Commission agrees with a
commenter who asked that warning labels on toddler beds be harmonized
with warning labels required for cribs because many toddler beds
convert from cribs. Accordingly, the final rule requires toddler beds
that convert from cribs to meet the warning requirements specified in
the full-size crib standard, ASTM F 1169-10 (incorporated by reference
at 16 CFR part 1219, Safety Standard for Full-Size Baby Cribs) instead
of using the warnings specified in the toddler bed standard. The
mattress thickness requirements are different for cribs and for toddler
beds. In order to avoid requiring a convertible crib to have two
warnings concerning mattress size (one to address the crib requirements
and one to address the toddler bed requirements), the final rule
provides that toddler beds that convert from cribs must provide the
mattress size warning required by the crib standard and add a line to
the warning specifying that the minimum mattress thickness is 4 inches.
The modifications to ASTM F 1821-09 make the standard more stringent.
Separating the strangulation and entrapment warnings should increase
consumers' understanding of the connection between the relevant
behaviors and hazards. In addition, the entrapment hazard warning
emphasizes the group most at risk and the consequences of the hazard,
as well as provides a more explicit description of how the entrapment
hazard occurs.
H. Effective Date
The Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'') generally requires that
the effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of
the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The preamble to the proposed rule
indicated that the standard would become effective six months after
publication of a final rule (75 FR at 22296). We did not receive any
comments on the proposed six-month effective date. The final rule
provides a six-month effective date (as measured from the date of
publication of this final rule in the Federal Register).
I. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') generally requires that
agencies review proposed rules for their potential economic impact on
small entities, including small businesses, and prepare an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA further requires
agencies to consider comments they receive on the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis and prepare a final regulatory flexibility
analysis describing the impact of the final rule on small entities and
identifying alternatives that could reduce that impact. Id. 604. This
section summarizes CPSC staff's final regulatory flexibility analysis
for the toddler bed standard. (CPSC staff's final regulatory
flexibility analysis can be found at Tab F of the staff's briefing
package.)
1. The Market
There are currently at least 73 known manufacturers or importers
supplying toddler beds (including convertible cribs) to the U.S.
market. Approximately 48 suppliers are domestic manufacturers (66
percent); 13 are domestic importers (18 percent); 11 are foreign
manufacturers (15 percent); and the remaining firm is a foreign
supplier who imports from other countries and exports to the United
States.
Under U.S. Small Business Administration (``SBA'') guidelines, a
manufacturer of toddler beds or convertible cribs is small if it has
500 or fewer employees; an importer is considered small if it has 100
or fewer employees. Based on these guidelines, 11 of the domestic
importers and 34 domestic manufacturers known to be supplying the U.S.
market are small. There are an additional eight domestic manufacturers
of unknown size, most (at least seven) of which are likely to be small.
However, there are probably additional unknown small manufacturers and
importers operating in the U.S. market as well.
The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (``JPMA''), the
major U.S. trade association that represents juvenile product
manufacturers and importers, runs a voluntary certification program for
several juvenile products. Approximately 29 firms supplying toddler
beds and/or convertible cribs to the U.S. market make or import
products that comply with ASTM F 1821-09 (40 percent). Of the small
domestic businesses, 11 manufacturers (27 percent) and 6 importers (55
percent) make or import products that are JPMA-certified as ASTM
compliant.
[[Page 22026]]
Additionally, there are two small manufacturers that claim compliance
with the ASTM standard that are not part of the JPMA Certification
Program.
The most recent U.S. birth data shows that there are approximately
4.2 million births per year (this figure has been updated since
publication of the proposed rule). The majority of these babies
eventually use cribs for sleeping purposes, although there is some
evidence that play yards are becoming a common substitute. In fact,
according to a 2005 survey conducted by the American Baby Group (2006
Baby Products Tracking Study), 22 percent of new mothers own
convertible cribs. Approximately 16 percent of convertible cribs were
handed down or purchased secondhand. If these rates remained constant,
this suggests annual convertible crib sales would be about 776,000
(0.22 x 0.84 x 4.2 million births per year) currently. (These estimates
are intended to provide a general characterization of the market. They
are not intended to provide estimates of future sales.) Of those
consumers with nonconvertible cribs, some proportion of them eventually
will use toddler beds when their children get older. However, consumers
may choose to use a twin or larger bed (and possibly use portable bed
rails) rather than a separate toddler bed. Assuming that approximately
50 percent of consumers elect to use toddler beds, and assuming that
approximately 50 percent buy them new, this would mean that around
819,000 toddler beds are sold per year (0.78 percent nonconvertible
cribs x 4.2 million births x 0.5 percent use toddler beds x 0.5 percent
buy them new). Adding this number to the estimate of convertible cribs,
yields a total of approximately 1.6 million units (convertible cribs
and toddler beds) sold per year that might be affected by the toddler
bed standard.
2. Impact on Small Business
There are 73 firms currently known to be marketing toddler beds
and/or convertible cribs in the United States. Of these, 6 are large
domestic manufacturers; 1 is a domestic manufacturer of unknown size; 2
are large domestic importers; and 12 are foreign firms. The impact on
the remaining 52 small firms (34 small domestic manufacturers, 7
presumed to be small domestic manufacturers, and 11 small domestic
importers) is the focus of the remainder of this analysis.
a. Small Domestic Manufacturers
For the most part, the impact of the final rule on small
manufacturers will differ based on whether they currently make products
that comply with the voluntary ASTM standard. If they do not, as is the
case with 28 firms, the impact on them could be significant. These
firms likely would have to undergo product redevelopment. As explained
below, the cost of such an effort for toddler beds/convertible cribs is
unknown, but could be substantial for some firms.
Product development costs include: product design, development, and
marketing staff time; product testing; and focus group expenses. These
costs can be very high, particularly when there are multiple products;
but they can be treated as new product expenses and amortized. Other
one-time costs include the retooling of manufacturing equipment, which
could also be recouped gradually over the sales of numerous units.
There also are expected to be increased costs of production. Producing
toddler beds and convertible cribs that have greater structural
integrity, stronger slats/spindles, and higher guardrails may require
additional raw materials or possibly heavier materials. In addition to
increasing the costs of production, this could increase shipping costs
as well.
Even if these firms are able to pass on some of their increased
costs to consumers, the impact still could be considerable. This is
because firms manufacturing toddler beds and convertible cribs are not
simply competing against other producers of toddler beds and
convertible cribs. They are competing against producers of substitute
products as well, firms that would not be covered under the recommended
standard. Toddler beds compete with twin (or possibly larger) beds,
which can be used with portable guardrails. Similarly, convertible
cribs compete with adult-size beds when children are older and with
standard cribs for younger children.
There is expected to be less impact on the 13 firms that are known
to produce products that comply with the current voluntary standard. It
is believed that at least some of these firms may be able to comply
with the new requirements without modifying their products (except for
labeling). The remaining firms may opt to redesign their product(s) as
well, which again would result in some one-time costs, as well as a
possible increase in production costs. It is also possible, however,
that they may be able to select a potentially less expensive option to
address some of the requirements that differ from the ASTM standard;
modifying the materials used may be sufficient for many products, and
the associated cost is not expected to exceed a few dollars per unit.
Two of the 28 manufacturers supplying noncompliant products would
be affected differently by the final rule. They are firms that take
already-manufactured toddler beds and convertible cribs, decorate them
(often with original artwork), and sell them as a final product.
Because these firms do not make the underlying toddler beds/convertible
cribs, the impact of the final rule on them will be the same as on an
importer. They would need to find a new supplier of compliant products
if their current supplier does not make the necessary modifications.
The new products presumably would be higher quality, as well as more
expensive, because some of the original manufacturer's production costs
(and possibly redevelopment costs) will be passed on to these firms.
The scenario described above assumes that only those firms that
produce products which are JPMA-certified or claim ASTM compliance will
pass the voluntary standard's requirements. This is not necessarily the
case. We have identified many cases in which products not certified by
JPMA actually comply with the relevant ASTM standard. However, there is
insufficient evidence of this for toddler beds/convertible cribs to
quantify this impact. To the extent that some products may already
comply with non-U.S. standards, the effect of the new and modified
requirements may be less substantial than outlined above. However,
there is insufficient information to quantify this effect.
b. Small Domestic Importers
The majority of small domestic importers (6 out of 11) supply
products that comply with the current voluntary standard. We believe
that at least some of these firms will not need to make any additional
product modifications to meet the final rule (except for labeling).
However, those whose products do require modifications will need to
find an alternate supplier if their existing one does not come into
compliance. The new products presumably will be more expensive, as well
as higher in quality. However, the actual price increase is unknown and
is likely to vary based upon the degree of modifications required. All
of the remaining five firms supplying products that do not comply with
the ASTM voluntary standard would need to find suppliers whose products
comply with the standard or ensure that their current supplier made the
modifications necessary to comply. Depending upon the degree to which
their toddler beds and convertible cribs are out of compliance with the
voluntary standard, the price increase
[[Page 22027]]
(as well as the increases in quality and safety) could be relatively
high. To the extent that some of these firms actually may comply with
ASTM F 1821-09 or one or more of the new/modified requirements in the
final standard, the impact of the final rule would be lower.
For the most part, the impact on importers tends to be smaller than
on manufacturers. Even if importers respond to the rule by
discontinuing the import of their noncomplying toddler beds and
convertible cribs, either replacing them with a complying product or
another juvenile product, deciding to import an alternative product
would be a reasonable and realistic way to offset any lost revenue. The
one exception would be firms for which convertible cribs/toddler beds
and their associated products (i.e., matching furniture) form the core
of their product line. For these firms, a substantial price increase
possibly could drive them out of business or require them to rebuild
their business based on alternative products.
3. Alternatives
Under section 104 of the CPSIA, the primary alternative that would
reduce the impact on small entities is to make the voluntary standard
mandatory with no modifications. For small domestic manufacturers that
already meet the requirements of the voluntary standard, adopting the
standard without modifications may reduce their costs relative to the
final rule, but only marginally. Similarly, limiting the requirements
of the rule to those already in the voluntary standard probably would
have little beneficial impact on small manufacturers that do not
currently meet the requirements of the voluntary standard. This is
because, for these firms, most of the cost increases would be
associated with meeting the requirements of ASTM F 1821-09, rather than
the changes associated with the final rule. The difference for
importers also is likely to be minimal, whether they supply products
that comply with the voluntary standard or not,
A second alternative would be to set a later effective date. This
would allow suppliers additional time to modify and/or develop
compliant toddler beds and convertible cribs, thereby spreading the
associated costs over a longer period of time.
4. Conclusion
It is possible that the final rule could have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities. Firms supplying products
that already comply with the voluntary standard may not need to make
any product modifications to meet the final rule, but this group is
known to include only 42 percent of the small firms identified. Some of
these firms and all other firms will need to make at least some
modifications to their toddler beds and convertible cribs to comply
with the final rule. The extent of these costs is unknown; but because
product redevelopment likely would be necessary in many cases, it is
possible that the costs could be large and have the potential to reduce
firms' ability to compete with substitute products.
A few small businesses have product lines consisting entirely or
primarily of toddler beds, convertible cribs, and related products
(such as accompanying furniture). These firms may be affected
disproportionately by any standard. If the cost of developing (or
importing) a compliant product proves to be a barrier for these firms,
the loss of toddler beds and convertible cribs as a product category
could be significant and may not be mitigated easily by the sale of
other juvenile products.
J. Environmental Considerations
The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for
the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact statement because they ``have
little or no potential for affecting the human environment.'' 16 CFR
1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.
K. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains information collection requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The preamble to
the proposed rule (75 FR at 22296 through 22297) discussed the
information collection burden of the proposed rule and specifically
requested comments on the accuracy of our estimates. We did not receive
any comments concerning the information collection burden of the
proposal, and the final rule does not make any changes to that burden.
We have applied to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a
control number for this information collection, and we will publish a
notice in the Federal Register providing the number when we receive
approval from the OMB.
L. Preemption
Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that where a
``consumer product safety standard under [the CPSA]'' is in effect and
applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may
either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the
same risk of injury unless the State requirement is identical to the
Federal standard. (Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states
or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an
exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances.) Section
104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA refers to the rules to be issued under that
section as ``consumer product safety standards,'' thus implying that
the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply.
Therefore, a rule issued under section 104 of the CPSIA will invoke the
preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA when it becomes
effective.
M. Certification
Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the requirement that products
subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a
similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other act enforced
by the Commission, be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC
requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Such certification must be based on a
test of each product, or on a reasonable testing program or, for
children's products, on tests on a sufficient number of samples by a
third party conformity assessment body accredited by the Commission to
test according to the applicable requirements. As noted in the
discussion above concerning preemption, section 104(b)(1)(B) of the
CPSIA refers to standards issued under that section as ``consumer
product safety standards.'' By the same reasoning, such standards also
would be subject to section 14 of the CPSA. Therefore, any such
standard would be considered a consumer product safety rule, to which
products subject to the rule must be certified.
Because toddler beds are children's products, they must be tested
by a third party conformity assessment body whose accreditation has
been accepted by the Commission. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, we have issued a notice of requirements to explain how
laboratories can become accredited as third party conformity assessment
bodies to test to the new toddler bed standard. (Toddler beds also must
comply with all other applicable CPSC requirements, such as the lead
content requirements of section 101 of the CPSIA, the phthalate content
requirements in section 108 of the CPSIA, the tracking label
requirement in
[[Page 22028]]
section 14(a)(5) of the CPSA, and the consumer registration form
requirements in section 104 of the CPSIA.)
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1217
Consumer protection, Infants and children, Incorporation by
reference, Law enforcement, Safety, Toddler beds.
For the reasons stated above, and under the authority of 5 U.S.C.
553, and sections 3 and 104 of Public Law 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016
(August 14, 2008), the Consumer Product Safety Commission amends Title
16 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding part 1217 to read as
follows:
PART 1217--SAFETY STANDARD FOR TODDLER BEDS
Sec.
1217.1 Scope, application, and effective date.
1217.2 Requirements for toddler beds.
Authority: Sections 3 and 104 of Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016
(August 14, 2008).
Sec. 1217.1 Scope, application, and effective date.
This part 1217 establishes a consumer product safety standard for
toddler beds manufactured or imported on or after October 20, 2011.
Sec. 1217.2 Requirements for toddler beds.
(a) The Director of the Federal Register approves the
incorporations by reference listed in this section in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of these ASTM
standards from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 USA, phone: 610-832-9585; http://www.astm.org/. You may inspect copies at the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923, or at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal
regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each
toddler bed as defined in ASTM F 1821-09, Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Toddler Beds, approved April 1, 2009, shall comply
with all applicable provisions of ASTM F 1821-09.
(c) Comply with ASTM F 1821-09 with the following additions or
exclusions.
(1) Do not comply with sections 6.1 through 6.1.2 of ASTM F 1821-
09.
(2) Instead of complying with section 6.5 of ASTM F 1821-09, comply
with the following:
(i) 6.5 Guardrails:
(ii) 6.5.1 For products with guardrails, there shall be no opening
in the guardrail structure below the lowest surface of the uppermost
member of the guardrail and above the mattress support structure that
will permit complete passage of the wedge block shown in Figure 2 when
tested in accordance with 7.4.
(iii) 6.5.2 The upper edge of the guardrails shall be at least 5
in. (130 mm) above the sleeping surface when a mattress of a thickness
that is the maximum specified by the manufacturer's instructions is
used. If no maximum mattress thickness is specified, the guardrail
height shall be based on a mattress thickness of 6 in. (152 mm).
(iv) 6.5.3 When tested in accordance with 7.9, the guardrail shall
not break, detach, or create a condition that would present any of the
hazards described in Section 5. Guardrails that do not have any free
ends, that is, they are attached to both the headboard and the
footboard, are exempt from this test. For guardrails with two free
ends, perform this test at each free end.
(3) In addition to complying with section 6.7 of ASTM F 1821-09
comply with the following:
(i) 6.8 Spindle/Slat Static Load Strength:
(A) 6.8.1 Toddler beds that contain wooden or metal spindles/slats
shall meet the performance requirements outlined in section 6.8.2 or
6.8.3.
(B) 6.8.2 Except as provided in section 6.8.3, after testing in
accordance with the procedure in 7.10, there shall be no complete
breakage of a spindle/slat or complete separation of a spindle/slat
from the guardrails, side rails, or end structures.
(C) 6.8.3 Toddler beds that convert from a full-size crib, also
known as convertible cribs, shall meet the requirements specified in
section 6.7 of ASTM F 1169-10 Safety Standard for Full-Size Baby Cribs,
approved June 1, 2010, instead of the requirements of 6.8.2. See 16 CFR
Part 1219 for complete requirements for full-size cribs.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) Do not comply with sections 7.1.2 through 7.1.6 of ASTM F 1821-
09,
(5) In addition to complying with section 7.8.5 of ASTM F 1821-09,
comply with the following:
(i) 7.9 Test Method for Guardrail Structural Integrity:
(A) 7.9.1 Firmly secure the toddler bed on a stationary flat
surface using clamps. Gradually over a period of 5 s apply a 50 lbf
(222.4 N) to the guardrail from the inside of the toddler bed, outward
and perpendicular to the place of the rail, and hold for 10 s. The
force is to be applied to the geometric center of a 3 x 6 x \1/2\ in.
(7.62 x 15.24 x 1.27 cm) piece of plywood with the long end parallel to
the floor (see Fig. 11).
(B) 7.9.2 For guardrails with a rectangular shape, the plywood
shall be placed with the upper long edge of the plywood even with a
line drawn parallel to the rail, which is 11 inches (27.94 cm) from the
mattress support and the short edge even with the free short edge of
the rail.
(C) 7.9.3 For contoured guardrails that are not rectangular, the
plywood shall be placed with the upper long edge of the plywood even
with a line drawn parallel to the rail which is 11 inches (27.94 cm)
from the mattress support and the short edge placed so that the
downward slope of the free rail edge intersects the corner of the
plywood.
(ii) 7.10 Spindle/Slat Testing for Guardrails, Side Rails, and End
Structures:
(A) 7.10.1 The spindle/slat static force test shall be performed
with the spindle/slat assemblies removed from the bed and supported
only on the rail corners through a contact area not more than 3 square
inches (7.6 cm\2\) when measured from the end of the rail in a
direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the rail. Besides the
corners, the upper and lower horizontal rails of both linear and
contoured rails shall be free to deflect under the applied force. For
toddler beds incorporating folding or moveable sides for purposes of
easier access to the occupant, storage and/or transport, each side
segment (portion of side separated by hinges for folding) shall be
tested separately as described above.
(B) 7.10.2 Gradually, over a period of not less than 2 s nor
greater than 5 s, apply an 80 lbf (355.8 N) perpendicular to the plane
of the side at the midpoint, between the top and bottom of the spindle/
slat being tested. This force shall be applied through a force
measuring device and contact area 1 \1/16\ in. (25.4
1.6 mm) wide by a length at least equal to the width of
the spindle/slat being tested at the point of application. This force
shall be maintained for 10 s. The force measuring device must be
capable of recording the force at breakage, if breakage occurs during
this test. This force measuring device must be capable of a maximum
measurement resolution of 0.25 lbf (1.11 N).
(C) 7.10.3 Test, according to 7.10.2, 25% (rounding up to the
nearest percentage, if necessary) of all spindles/
[[Page 22029]]
slats. Spindles/slats that offer the least resistance to bending based
upon their geometry shall be selected to be tested within this grouping
of 25% except that adjacent spindles/slats shall not be tested.
(D) 7.10.4 Upon completion of testing as defined in 7.10.2 and
7.10.3, no spindle/slat shall have failed at an applied force less than
or equal to 60 lbf. If no more than one spindle/slat fails and that
failure occurs only as the result of an applied force greater than 60
lbf, then an additional 25% of spindles/slats shall be tested per
7.10.2 and 7.10.3. During testing of this second 25%, any spindle/slat
failure (at or below 80 lbf) shall constitute failure of the test.
(E) 7.10.5 End vertical rails that are joined between the slat
assembly top and bottom rails are not considered slats and do not
require testing under 7.10.
(6) Instead of complying with sections 8.4.2 through 8.4.4.5 of
ASTM F 1821-09, comply with the following:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AP11.006
and the word ``WARNING'' or ``CAUTION'' must be at least 0.2 in. (5 mm)
high, and the remainder of the text shall be characters whose upper
case shall be at least 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) high, sans serif.
(ii) 8.4.3 Except as provided in 8.4.4 and 8.4.5, the following
warnings must appear on all toddler beds, exactly as depicted.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AP11.003
[[Page 22030]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AP11.004
Dated: April 14, 2011.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-9421 Filed 4-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P