Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22019 

‘‘Microorganisms’’ & ‘‘Toxins,’’ ECCN 

1C351 is amended by removing the 

name ‘‘Chlamydia psittaci’’, where it 

appears in paragraph c.7 of the ‘‘Items’’ 

paragraph in the List of Items Controlled 

section, and adding in its place the 

name ‘‘Chlamydophilapsittaci (formerly 

known as Chlamydia psittaci)’’. 

3. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 

(the Commerce Control List), Category 

1—Special Materials and Related 

Equipment, Chemicals, 

‘‘Microorganisms’’ & ‘‘Toxins,’’ ECCN 

1C352 is amended by removing the 

name ‘‘Lyssa virus’’, where it appears in 

paragraph a.8 of the ‘‘Items’’ paragraph 

in the List of Items Controlled section, 

and adding in its place the name ‘‘Lyssa 

virus (a.k.a. Rabies)’’. 

4. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 

(the Commerce Control List), Category 

2—Materials Processing, ECCN 2B350 is 

amended under the ‘‘Items’’ paragraph in 

the List of Items Controlled section: 

a. By adding the parenthetical phrase 

‘‘(polymeric or elastomeric materials 

with more than 35% fluorine by 

weight)’’ immediately following the 

word ‘‘Fluoropolymers’’, where it 

appears in paragraphs a.3, b.3, c.3, d.3, 

e.3, g.3, h.3, and i.3; 

b. By removing the phrase 

‘‘chemical(s) being processed or 

contained’’, where it appears in the 

introductory text to paragraph g, and 

adding in its place the phrase 

‘‘chemical(s) being produced, processed, 

or contained’’; 

c. By removing the phrase ‘‘Glass or 

glasslined (including vitrified or 

enameled coatings);’’, where it appears 

in paragraph g.4, and adding in its place 

the phrase ‘‘Glass (including vitrified or 

enameled coating or glass lining)’’; and 

d. By adding the parenthetical phrase 

‘‘(high silicon iron alloys)’’ immediately 

following the word ‘‘Ferrosilicon’’, 

where it appears in paragraph i.11. 

Dated: April 12, 2011. 

Kevin J. Wolf, 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9613 Filed 4–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

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 515⁄8

inches in length and 271⁄4 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
22020 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 bedrelated 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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 (§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
22022 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 poundforce, 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 nonfull-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 fullsize 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: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22023 

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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULESER20AP11.005</GPH>
22024 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 (§ 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 

(§ 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 

(§ 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 (§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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 

(§ 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 poundforce 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 

(§ 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
22026 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 × 0.84 × 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 × 4.2 

million births × 0.5 percent use toddler 

beds × 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
22028 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

§ 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. 

§ 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 × 6 × 1⁄2 in. (7.62 × 15.24 × 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 cm2) 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/ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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: 

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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULESER20AP11.006</GPH> ER20AP11.003</GPH>
22030 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2009–0064] 

16 CFR Part 1217 

Third Party Testing for Certain 

Children’s Products; Toddler Beds: 

Requirements for Accreditation of 

Third Party Conformity Assessment 

Bodies 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of requirements. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC or Commission) is 

issuing a notice of requirements that 

provides the criteria and process for 

Commission acceptance of accreditation 

of third party conformity assessment 

bodies for testing pursuant to the CPSC 

regulation relating to toddler beds. The 

Commission is issuing this notice of 

requirements pursuant to section 

14(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. 

2063(a)(3)(B)(vi)). 

DATES: Effective Date: The requirements 

for accreditation of third party 

conformity assessment bodies to assess 

conformity with 16 CFR part 1217 are 

effective April 20, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert ‘‘Jay’’ Howell, Assistant Executive 

Director for Hazard Identification and 

Reduction, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; 

e-mail rhowell@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

Section 14(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the CPSA, as 

added by section 102(a)(2) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 (CPSIA), Public Law 110– 

314, directs the CPSC to publish a 

notice of requirements for accreditation 

of third party conformity assessment 

bodies to assess children’s products for 

conformity with ‘‘other children’s 

product safety rules.’’ Section 14(f)(1) of 

the CPSA defines ‘‘children’s product 

safety rule’’ as ‘‘a consumer product 

safety rule under [the CPSA] or similar 

rule, regulation, standard, or ban under 

any other Act enforced by the 

Commission, including a rule declaring 

a consumer product to be a banned 

hazardous product or substance.’’ Under 

section 14(a)(3)(A) of the CPSA, each 

manufacturer (including the importer) 

or private labeler of products subject to 

those regulations must have products 

that are manufactured more than 

90 days after the Federal Register 

publication date of a notice of the 

requirements for accreditation, tested by 

a third party conformity assessment 

body accredited to do so, and must issue 

a certificate of compliance with the 

applicable regulations based on that 

testing. Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA, as 

added by section 102(a)(2) of the CPSIA, 

requires that certification be based on 

testing of sufficient samples of the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULESER20AP11.004</GPH>