This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

22291 

Vol. 75, No. 81 

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1217 

[No. CPSC–2010–0022] 

RIN 3041–AC79 

Safety Standard for Toddler Beds 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Section 104(b) of 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 

proposing a safety standard for toddler 

beds in response to the direction under 

section 104(b) of the CPSIA. The 

proposed safety standard would address 

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 proposed standard also 

addresses corner post extensions that 

can catch items worn by a child. 

DATES: Submit comments by July 12, 

2010. 

Submit comments relating to the 

instructional literature and bed and 

carton marking required by the 

proposed rule, as these materials relate 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act, by May 

28, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments relating to the 

instructional literature and bed and 

carton marking required by the 

proposed rule relating to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act should be directed to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, 

FAX: 202–395–6974, or e-mailed to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Other comments, identified by Docket 

No. CPSC–2010–0022, may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

1. Electronic Submissions. Submit 

electronic comments to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

(To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

directly accepting comments submitted 

by electronic mail (e-mail). The 

Commission encourages you to submit 

electronic comments by using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, as 

described above.) 

2. Written Submissions. Submit 

written submissions in the following 

ways: 

a. Fax: 301–504–0127. 

b. Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions): 

Office of the Secretary, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 

comments received, including any 

personal information provided, may be 

posted without change to http://

frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/

leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=

linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov. 

Accordingly, we recommend that you 

not submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive information that you do 

not want to be available to the public. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and insert the 

docket number, CPSC 2010–0022, into 

the ‘‘Search’’ box and follow the 

prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Technical information: Celestine Kiss, 

Division of Human Factors, Directorate 

for Engineering Sciences, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 4330 East 

West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301)504–7739, e-mail 

ckiss@cpsc.gov. Legal information: 

Harleigh Ewell, Office of the General 

Counsel, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone 

(301)504–7683; e-mail hewell@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background—The Consumer 

Product Safety Improvement Act as 

Applied to Durable Infant or Toddler 

Products 

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. 

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 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 

proposes a safety standard for toddler 

beds. The proposed 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. The ASTM standard is 

copyrighted, but can be viewed as a 

read-only document, only during the 

comment period on this proposal, at 

http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm, by 

permission of ASTM. Documents that 

support statements in this notice are 

identified by [Ref. #], where # is the 

number of the reference document as 

listed below in section M of this notice. 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
22292 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

than 15 months of age and weighing no 

more than 50 pounds. 

C. Incident Data [Ref. 2] 

1. Introduction. CPSC databases did 

not have a dedicated product code for 

identifying incidents before 2005 that 

involved toddler beds. Accordingly, the 

data discussed below begins with the 

year 2005. The data come 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’’). The 

CPSC staff is aware of 4 fatalities and 81 

nonfatal incidents (with and without 

injuries) related to toddler beds that 

were reported to have occurred since 

2005. 

2. Fatalities. Of the four fatalities 

reported to CPSC staff, two resulted 

from entrapments. The first death was 

the result of a 6-month-old infant getting 

entrapped in the footboard while 

sleeping on a toddler bed. The second 

death involved a 13-month-old getting 

entrapped in the side rail of a flippedover toddler bed while playing with an 

older sibling. The third death was due 

to asphyxiation when a 10-month-old 

was napping in an inflatable children’s 

bed. (Although an inflatable children’s 

bed does not meet the definition of a 

toddler bed that is in ASTM F 1821–09, 

this incident was coded as associated 

with a toddler bed.) The last fatality was 

a strangulation death of a 3-year-old on 

the cord of mini blinds located over his 

toddler bed. (The ASTM F 1821–09 

standard addresses this hazard with a 

warning label. The Commission does 

not have information indicating whether 

the toddler bed involved in this death 

bore such a warning label.) It is notable 

that three of the four reported fatalities 

involved victims under the age of 15 

months, which is recommended in the 

current ASTM voluntary standard as the 

minimum age for use of a toddler bed. 

The ASTM standard requires a label 

warning against using the bed with 

children under 15 months. 

3. Nonfatal Incidents. Of the 81 

nonfatal incidents known to the CPSC 

staff that were associated with a child 

on a toddler bed, 26 involved injuries. 

Three of the injuries were fractures of 

limbs. The vast majority of the injuries 

were bumps and bruises. Sprains, 

scrapes, and lacerations were some of 

the other reported injuries associated 

with toddler beds. 

Listed below are the hazard patterns 

identified among the reports of nonfatal 

incidents: 

• Entrapment was the most 

commonly reported hazard. 

Approximately 31 percent of the 

incidents involved entrapment of a 

limb. The associated injuries, if any, 

ranged from fractures to sprains to 

bruises. More serious, potentially fatal, 

entrapments of head or body in the side 

rails, in the mesh covering of the side 

rails, or between the mattress-support 

rails were reported in 14 percent of the 

incidents. 

• Broken, loose, or detached 

components of the bed, such as the 

guardrail, hardware, or other 

accessories, were the next most 

commonly reported problems. However, 

only two injuries—one laceration and 

one ingestion—resulted from these 

problems. 

• Product integrity issues, mostly 

integrity of the mattress-support, were 

the next most commonly encountered 

hazard. These often resulted in the 

collapse of the bed, causing the child to 

fall through. 

• Inadequate mattress-fit issues were 

the next most common hazard. A few 

children suffered sprains and broken 

limbs from being caught in the gap 

between the mattress and the bed frame. 

• Finally, there were some 

complaints of paint/coating issues, bed 

height/clearance issues, and inadequacy 

of guardrails, assembly instructions, and 

recalls. 

Among the nonfatal incidents that 

reported the child’s age (67 out of 81), 

the age ranged between 11 months to 6 

years. Nearly 66 percent of these 

incidents reported the age to be between 

15 and 24 months. About 16 percent of 

the incidents involved children less 

than 15 months of age. However, it was 

not always clear that the reported age 

pertained to the child who was the 

regular user of the toddler bed. Three of 

the 81 nonfatal incident reports 

involved inflatable children’s beds, 

which do not conform to the ASTM 

definition of toddler beds and are not 

included within the scope of the 

proposed standard. 

4. National Injury Estimates. There 

were an estimated 1,380 injuries related 

to toddler beds that were treated in 

hospital emergency departments in the 

United States over the 4-year period 

from 2005 to 2008. The injury estimates 

for individual years are not reportable 

because the numbers each year fail to 

meet NEISS’s publication criteria. There 

was no statistically significant increase 

or decrease observed in the estimated 

injuries from one year to the next, and 

there was no statistically significant 

trend observed over the 2005–2008 

period. No deaths were reported 

through NEISS. For the emergency 

department-treated injuries related to 

toddler beds, the following 

characteristics occurred most 

frequently: 

• Hazard—falls out of the toddler bed 

to a lower level (87%). 

• Injured body part—head (30%) and 

face (24%). 

• Injury type—lacerations (26%) and 

contusions/abrasions (20%). 

• Disposition—treated and released 

(nearly 100%). 

The age of patients in these injuries 

ranged between 4 months and 6 years, 

with nearly 53 percent between 18 

months and 2 years. It was not always 

clear whether the patient injured was 

the usual user of the toddler bed. 

D. The ASTM Voluntary Standard 

The ASTM F 1821–09 voluntary 

standard contains requirements 

addressing a number of hazards. The 

requirements include: 

1. Toddler beds must comply with 

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. 

2. Toddler beds must not present 

scissoring, shearing, or pinching 

hazards. 

3. Openings must meet specified 

dimensions in order to prevent finger 

entrapment. 

4. Openings that will permit passage 

of a specified block with a wedge on one 

end are prohibited in order to protect 

against torso entrapment. 

5. The distance that corner posts may 

extend above the upper edge of an end 

or side panel is limited. 

6. Protective components shall not be 

removable with a specified force after 

torque and tension tests. 

7. 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. 

8. The mattress shall be supported 

and contained so that it does not move 

horizontally to cause a horizontal 

opening that will allow the passage of 

the wedge block when tested. 

9. There are tests for the physical 

integrity of the mattress support system 

and its attachments and the side rails. 

10. There are wedge block tests for 

openings in the guardrails and end 

structures that could cause entrapment. 

11. There is a probe test to protect 

against entrapment in partially-bounded 

openings in the bed. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22293 

12. Instructions must be provided 

with the bed. 

13. Warning statements are required 

on the bed to address entrapment and 

strangulation hazards. 

E. Description of the Proposed Rule and 

Its Changes to the ASTM Standard 

Due to the significant number of 

incidents reported regarding component 

failures of bed support systems and 

guardrails, the Commission’s staff has 

recommended additional testing 

requirements to address those types of 

incidents. Accordingly, the Commission 

proposes a new 16 CFR 1217 that, if 

finalized, would adopt the ASTM 

standard F 1821–09 by reference, but 

with some changes and additions that 

would strengthen the ASTM standard’s 

provisions. 

1. Scope, Application, and Effective 

Date (Proposed § 1217.1) 

Proposed § 1217.1 would state that 

part 1217 establishes a consumer 

product safety standard for toddler beds 

manufactured or imported after a date 

that would be 6 months after the 

publication date of a final rule in the 

Federal Register. 

2. Requirements for Toddler Beds 

(Proposed § 1217.2) 

a. The Applicable ASTM Standard 

(Proposed § 1217.2(a)) 

Proposed § 1217.2(a) would explain 

that, except as provided in § 1217.2(b), 

each toddler bed as defined in ASTM F 

1821–09, ‘‘Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Toddler Beds,’’ must 

comply with all applicable provisions in 

ASTM F 1821–09. The proposal also 

would explain how interested parties 

may obtain a copy of the ASTM 

standard or inspect a copy at the CPSC. 

b. Minimum Height for the Upper Edge 

of Guardrails (Proposed § 1217.2(b)(1) 

Through (3)) 

Proposed § 1217.2(b)(1) through (3) 

would revise the ASTM standard to 

require that guardrails be a minimum 

height of 5 inches above the 

manufacturer’s recommended sleeping 

surface. This is intended to help prevent 

falls. Although the proposed standard 

does not require guardrails, persons 

who choose to have guardrails on their 

toddler beds should be able to rely on 

the guardrail performing the function of 

helping to prevent falls. The 5-inch 

minimum height is widely adopted by 

industry as a minimum height for 

guardrails in bunk beds [Ref. 3]. 

c. Structural Integrity of Guardrails 

(Proposed § 1217.2(b)(4) and 

1217.2(b)(6)) 

In addition to the already existing test 

for guardrail openings, the Commission, 

at proposed § 1217.2(b)(4) and 

1217.2(b)(6), would add a test for the 

overall stability of guardrails using a 50- 

lb force while the bed is firmly secured. 

The force is to be applied in the center 

along the length of the guardrail and 

then repeated with the force applied 

directly over each of the outermost legs 

of the guardrail. This additional test is 

intended to prevent children from 

falling out of bed; it is also calculated 

to ensure that the guardrails remain 

intact when children lean against them 

or attempt to use them to climb into 

bed. The 50-lb force was chosen because 

that is the maximum weight of a child 

that should use a toddler bed [Ref. 3]. 

After testing in accordance with 7.9, the 

guardrail shall not be broken or 

detached or create a condition that 

would present any of the hazards 

described in section 5. The guardrail 

also shall not be deformed or displaced 

so as to create a hazard addressed by the 

performance requirements of section 6. 

d. Slat/Spindle Testing for Guardrails, 

Side Rails, and End Structures 

(Proposed § 1217.2(b)(5) and 

1217.2(b)(7)) 

Currently, the torso wedge is used in 

combination with a 25-pound force 

(‘‘lbf’’) on guardrails and end structures 

in the most adverse orientation to assure 

that the slats or spindles (hereafter 

referred to collectively as ‘‘slats’’) do not 

break and allow an opening in which a 

child could become entrapped. 

Proposed § 1217.2(b)(5) and 1217.2(b)(7) 

would modify the existing ASTM test 

requirements in the following ways. 

First, 25 percent of all slats, rather 

than just those of the end structures and 

guardrails, would be tested using 80 lbf 

instead of 25 lbf. The slats that present 

the least resistance to bending shall 

make up the 25 percent, except that 

when a slat is selected for testing with 

80 lbf, neither of its adjacent slats shall 

be tested at that force. The 80 lbf is 

chosen on the basis of tests performed 

by the Commission’s staff on 18 cribs or 

toddler beds that were involved in 

actual breakage incidents in the field 

(‘‘incident beds’’) and on two samples of 

a model of a crib that has been widely 

sold to consumers and has not been 

reported to have been involved in a 

breakage incident (‘‘the non-incident 

crib’’) [Ref. 3]. 

There is very little anthropometric 

data available to help determine the 

forces a child can apply to a bed slat. 

The tests of the slats of the non-incident 

crib produced failures of the slats at 

forces ranging from 85 lb to 123.5 lb 

[Ref. 3]. Since there have not been any 

incidents reported for this model crib 

despite its wide distribution, it is 

reasonable to conclude that the 

occupants of this crib can exert a force 

on the slats that is somewhat less than 

the minimum failure force of 85 lb 

obtained for this crib. The 18 incident 

beds tested had minimum failure forces 

ranging from 28.8 lb to 78.8 lb [Ref. 3]. 

Taken together, these two sets of failure 

forces support setting a maximum test 

force of 80 lb. 

However, when testing the nonincident crib model, the Commission’s 

staff observed that testing adjacent slats 

significantly compromised the integrity 

of the bed rails [Ref. 3]. This occurred 

even at the lower end of the range of 

failure forces, i.e., 85 to 90 lb. Therefore, 

it is plausible that testing all slats to 80 

lbf would have a similar effect and be 

too stringent a test. Accordingly, the 

Commission is proposing that 25 

percent of the slats be tested to 80 lbf 

so that adjacent slats would not have to 

be tested at that force. The Commission 

proposes that the remaining 75 percent 

of slats be tested at 60 lbf. This 

reduction in force is intended to 

compensate for any damage to the bed 

rail caused by testing an adjacent slat to 

80 lbf and is a much higher force than 

the 25 lbf specified in the current ASTM 

standard. The Commission concludes 

that the force of 60 lb is adequate for 

these remaining slats since the slats 

with geometry that is most likely to 

bend (and thus break) will have been 

tested to the full 80 lbf. 

e. Improved Warning Label (Proposed 

§ 1217.2(b)(8)) [Ref. 4] 

ASTM F 1821–09 is intended to 

minimize entrapments in bed end 

structures, between the guardrail and 

side rail, and in the mattress support 

system. Entrapment of a child’s head or 

neck can result in asphyxiation. Section 

8.4 of ASTM F 1821–09 specifies 

warning statements to be included on 

toddler beds. Section 8.4.3 of ASTM F 

1821–09 states that the warnings shall 

include the following label, exactly as 

stated: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
22294 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Section 8.4.4 of ASTM F 1821–09 

specifies additional required warning 

statements that address the following: 

1. The minimum mattress dimensions 

for use on the bed; 

2. The use of provided guardrails to 

avoid the formation of gaps that could 

pose an entrapment hazard; 

3. The placement of the bed relative 

to cords from blinds or drapes; 

4. The placement of strings, cords, or 

similar objects around a child’s neck; 

and 

5. The suspension of strings over the 

bed. 

Like the warning label specified in 

section 8.4.3 of ASTM F 1821–09, all of 

these additional warning statements 

appear to be intended to address 

entrapment and strangulation hazards. 

Proposed § 1217.2(b)(6) would revise 

these warning requirements to reduce 

the risk of injury associated with the use 

of toddler beds. 

The Commission’s Human Factors 

staff believes that the warnings section 

of ASTM F 1821–09 is confusing as it 

is currently organized, with explicit 

warning language for only certain 

information, ‘‘additional’’ warning 

statements that leave the applicable 

hazards open to interpretation, and 

redundancies between these two sets of 

required warning information [Ref. 4]. 

The additional warning statements 

specified in section 8.4.4 of ASTM F 

1821–09 apparently address the same 

hazards addressed by the warning label 

specified in section 8.4.3 of ASTM F 

1821–09. (Section 8.4.4.3 of ASTM F 

1821–09 requires an additional warning 

statement about placing the bed near the 

cords of blinds and drapes, yet this 

issue is already addressed explicitly in 

the warning label specified in 8.4.3 of 

ASTM F 1821–09.) In addition, the 

warning label specified in section 8.4.3 

of ASTM F 1821–09 merges two distinct 

hazards into a single label, making it 

difficult to tell what warning 

information is associated with each 

hazard. To address these issues, the 

Human Factors staff suggested that all of 

the required warnings specified in 

section 8.4 of ASTM F 1821–09 be 

presented as two separate warnings, one 

addressing the entrapment hazard and 

the other addressing the strangulation 

hazard, and proposed § 1217.2(b)(8) 

reflects the two warnings. 

(i) Entrapment warning. 

ASTM F 1821–09 specifies different 

warning requirements for toddler beds 

that employ a removable guardrail as 

the mattress containment means. 

Specifically, section 8.4.4.2 of ASTM F 

1821–09 states that toddler beds that 

employ a removable guardrail for this 

purpose shall include a warning 

statement telling consumers that the 

guardrail must be used to avoid the 

formation of a gap between the mattress 

and the bed that could cause 

entrapment. However, this warning 

statement would not be needed for 

toddler beds that did not present an 

entrapment hazard with the guardrail 

removed. Thus, the Commission 

proposes that this warning statement 

would not be required for toddler beds 

that meet the performance requirements 

of sections 5.8.2 (torso entrapment), 6.1 

(mattress retention), 6.2 (mattress 

support system integrity), 6.3 (mattress 

support system attachment to end 

structures), 6.4 (mattress support system 

openings), 6.6 (end structure openings), 

and 6.7 (partially bounded openings) of 

ASTM F 1821–09 with the guardrails 

removed. With this in mind, the 

Commission proposes two alternative 

labels that address the entrapment 

hazard: One for toddler beds with 

removable guardrails that will not meet 

these performance requirements with 

the guardrail removed and one for all 

other toddler beds. 

The entrapment warning for beds 

with removable guardrails where the 

beds present an entrapment hazard 

when the guardrails are removed would 

read as follows: 

The entrapment warning for all other 

beds would read as follows: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28AP10.000</GPH> EP28AP10.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22295 

These warnings would use the typesize requirements described in the 

standard, and the safety alert symbol 

design is consistent with the latest 

version of ANSI Z535.4 (2007), 

American National Standard for 

Product Safety Signs and Labels. The 

primary differences between these 

proposed warnings and the relevant 

portions of the current ASTM warnings 

are the following: 

1. The proposed warnings do not state 

‘‘ENTRAPMENT HAZARD,’’ which 

would be analogous to the original 

‘‘ENTRAPMENT/STRANGULATION 

HAZARD’’ statement in the original 

warning; 

2. The proposed warning places 

greater emphasis on the subpopulation 

most at risk and the hazard 

consequences; 

3. The proposed warning includes a 

more explicit description of the 

mechanism that creates the entrapment 

hazard; and 

4. The proposed warning omits the 

statement in the label in the voluntary 

standard concerning the possibility of 

serious injury or death from not 

following the warnings. 

To the CPSC staff’s knowledge, the 

minimum age recommendation of 15 

months for toddler beds is based largely 

on the increased entrapment potential 

for children younger than this. Thus, the 

statement that ‘‘[i]nfants have died in 

toddler beds from entrapment and 

strangulation,’’ which appears in the 

original warning, has been carried over, 

with deletion of the reference to the 

strangulation hazard, to the proposed 

entrapment warning label as, ‘‘Infants 

have died in toddler beds from 

entrapment.’’ Given that this statement 

already explicitly references 

‘‘entrapment,’’ the CPSC staff concluded 

that including an initial 

‘‘ENTRAPMENT HAZARD’’ statement 

would introduce unnecessary 

redundancy. Furthermore, omitting this 

statement from the warning allows 

greater emphasis on the consequences of 

the hazard (death, in this case) and the 

subpopulation most at risk of dying 

from exposure to the hazard. This 

greater emphasis on the consequences of 

the hazard is done by: (1) Moving the 

statement, ‘‘Infants have died in toddler 

beds from entrapment,’’ toward the 

beginning of the warning message; and 

(2) reformatting this statement in alluppercase, boldface type. The ASTM F 

1821 subcommittee has pointed out that 

there continue to be incidents with 

toddler beds involving children younger 

than the intended age for these 

products, so emphasizing the at-risk 

population is important [Ref. 4]. In 

addition, warnings and persuasion 

research has found that the degree of 

seriousness of a perceived threat plays 

a significant role in whether one 

complies with a warning, so 

emphasizing the potential for death 

would tend to increase the efficacy of a 

warning [Ref. 4]. 

The statement in the original warning, 

‘‘Failure to follow these warnings * * * 

could result in serious injury or death,’’ 

is unlikely to have a substantial impact 

on injuries or warning compliance. The 

warning already communicates the 

safety importance of its content via a 

safety alert symbol, the word 

‘‘WARNING,’’ and a description of the 

hazard and its consequences, so telling 

consumers that not following the 

warning could result in serious injury or 

death is redundant at best. In contrast, 

explicit hazard information in a warning 

has been found to lead to higher levels 

of perceived hazardousness and greater 

intent to comply with the warning. The 

original warning message did not 

specify the source of entrapment or how 

entrapment might lead to death, and it 

is unclear whether many consumers 

could readily and correctly infer this 

information. The sentence, ‘‘Openings in 

and between bed parts can entrap head 

and neck of a small child,’’ is intended 

to remedy this situation by providing a 

more explicit description of the 

mechanism that creates the hazard. The 

Commission also is keeping the warning 

to follow the assembly instructions 

because consumer misassembly has 

been a problem with similar products, 

such as cribs, and could lead to 

entrapment. 

Section 8.4.4.1 of ASTM F 1821–09 

states that additional warning 

statements shall address the minimum 

mattress size. The language of this 

section implies that the precise mattress 

dimensions should be provided, both in 

English and metric units. Section 8.3.2 

of ASTM F 1821–09, however, already 

specifies that both the bed and its retail 

carton shall be clearly and legibly 

marked with the intended mattress for 

the bed, including the precise 

dimensions in both English and metric 

units. The Human Factors staff, 

therefore, concluded that repeating 

precise dimensions within the warning 

is unnecessary and may, by making the 

warning longer, discourage some 

consumers from reading it. Therefore, 

proposed § 1217.2(b)(8) would have the 

warning label include the statement 

‘‘ONLY use full-size crib mattress of the 

recommended size’’ instead of repeating 

the dimensions of the recommended 

mattress. 

(ii) Strangulation warning. 

To address the strangulation hazard, 

the Commission, at proposed 

§ 1217.2(b)(8), is proposing the 

following warning label for all toddler 

beds: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28AP10.002</GPH>
22296 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Like the proposed entrapment 

warning labels, this warning would use 

the type-size requirements described in 

the standard, and the safety alert symbol 

design is consistent with ANSI Z535.4– 

2007, American National Standard for 

Product Safety Signs and Labels. This 

warning largely reflects all of the 

information relevant to hazards that was 

required in the original warnings. A 

warning statement about not placing 

items with a string, cord, or ribbon 

around a child’s neck would be more 

effective with an additional clarifying 

sentence, ‘‘These items may catch on 

bed parts.’’ Without this sentence, 

consumers may find it difficult to infer 

how the presence of a cord around a 

child’s neck is relevant to the toddler 

bed or how the cord and bed interact to 

create the potential for strangulation. 

Concern has been raised about the label 

statement warning that a string, cord, or 

ribbon around a child’s neck may catch 

on bed parts. The concern is that the 

label statement does not point out that 

strings, cords, or ribbons around a 

child’s neck can catch on many other 

items as well and that the Commission 

recommends against the use of such 

items for children. The Commission 

invites comments regarding this 

concern. 

F. 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). To allow time for 

toddler beds to come into compliance 

after the final rule is issued, the 

Commission proposes that the standard 

would become effective 6 months after 

publication of a final rule as to products 

manufactured or imported on or after 

that date. The Commission invites 

comments on how long it would take 

manufacturers of toddler beds to come 

into compliance with the rule. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains 

information collection requirements that 

are subject to public comment and 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). We describe the provisions in 

this section of the document with an 

estimate of the annual reporting burden. 

Our estimate includes the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing each 

collection of information. 

We particularly invite comments on: 

(1) Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the CPSC’s functions, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of 

the CPSC’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques, 

when appropriate, and other forms of 

information technology. 

Title: Safety Standard for Toddler 

Beds. 

Description: The proposed rule would 

require each toddler bed and convertible 

crib to comply with ASTM F 1821–09, 

‘‘Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Toddler Beds.’’ 

Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F 1821–09 

contain requirements for marking and 

instructional literature. 

Description of Respondents: Persons 

who manufacture or import toddler 

beds. 

We estimate the burden of this 

collection of information as follows: 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN

16 CFR Section Number of respondents 

Frequency of responses Total Annual responses Hours per response Total burden 

hours 

1217.2(a) .......................................................... 44 10 440 0.5 220 

There are no capital costs or operating 

and maintenance costs associated with 

this collection of information. 

Our estimates are based on the 

following: 

Proposed § 1217.2(a) would require 

each toddler bed and convertible crib to 

comply with ASTM F 1821–09. Sections 

8 and 9 of ASTM F 1821–09 contain 

requirements for marking and 

instructional literature that are 

disclosure requirements, thus falling 

within the definition of ‘‘collections of 

information’’ at 5 CFR 1320.3(c). 

Section 8.1.1 of ASTM F 1821–09 

requires that the name and place of 

business (city, state, mailing address, 

including zip code and telephone 

number) of the manufacturer, importer, 

distributor, of the manufacturer, 

distributor, or seller be clearly and 

legibly marked on each bed and its retail 

carton. Section 8.1.2 of ASTM F 1821– 

09 requires that each bed and its retail 

carton be clearly and legibly marked 

with the model number, stock number, 

catalog number, item number, or other 

symbol expressed numerically or 

otherwise, such that only articles of 

identical construction, composition and 

dimensions bear identical markings and 

requires the manufacturer to change the 

model number whenever a significant 

structural or design modification is 

made that affects its conformance with 

this consumer safety specification. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28AP10.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22297 

Section 8.1.3 of ASTM F 1821–09 

requires a code mark or other means 

that identifies the date (month and year 

as a minimum) of manufacture and 

permits future identification of any 

given model and that such mark be 

clearly and legibly marked on each bed 

and its retail carton. 

There are 73 known firms supplying 

toddler beds to the United States 

market. Twenty-nine of the 48 firms are 

known to already produce labels that 

comply with sections 8.1.1, 8.1.2, and 

8.1.3 of the standard, so there would be 

no additional burden on these firms. 

The remaining 44 firms are assumed to 

already use labels on both their 

products and their packaging, but would 

need to make some modifications to 

their existing labels. The estimated time 

required to make these modification is 

about 30 minutes per model. Assuming 

that, on average, each of these firms 

supplies 10 different models of toddler 

beds or convertible cribs, the estimated 

burden hours associated with labels is 

30 minutes × 44 firms × 10 models per 

firm = 13,200 minutes or 220 annual 

hours. 

The Commission estimates that 

hourly compensation for the time 

required to create and update labels is 

$27.78 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

September 2009, all workers, goodsproducing industries, Sales and office, 

Table 9). Therefore, the estimated 

annual cost associated with the 

Commission’s proposed labeling 

requirements is approximately $6,112 

($27.78 per hour × 220 hours = 

$6,111.60, which we have rounded up 

to $6,112). 

Section 9.1 of ASTM F 1821–09 

requires instructions, where applicable, 

for assembly, maintenance, cleaning, 

folding, and warning information to be 

supplied with the bed. Toddler beds 

and convertible cribs are products that 

generally require some assembly and 

maintenance, and products sold without 

such information would not be able to 

successfully compete with products 

supplying this information. Under 

OMB’s regulations (5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)), 

the time, effort, and financial resources 

necessary to comply with a collection of 

information that would be incurred by 

persons in the ‘‘normal course of their 

activities’’ are excluded from a burden 

estimate where an agency demonstrates 

that the disclosure activities needed to 

comply are ‘‘usual and customary.’’ 

Therefore, because the CPSC is unaware 

of toddler beds or convertible cribs that: 

(a) Generally require some assembly and 

maintenance, but (b) lack any 

instructions to the user about these 

topics, we tentatively estimate that there 

are no burden hours associated with the 

instruction requirement in section 9.1 of 

ASTM F 1821–09. This is because any 

burden associated with supplying 

instructions with a toddler bed or 

convertible crib would be ‘‘usual and 

customary’’ and not within the 

definition of ‘‘burden’’ under OMB’s 

regulations. 

Based on this analysis, the 

requirements of the proposed toddler 

bed rule would impose a burden to 

industry of 220 hours at a cost of $6,112 

annually. 

In compliance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), we have submitted the 

information collection requirements of 

this rule to OMB for review. Interested 

persons are requested to fax comments 

regarding this information collection by 

May 28, 2010, to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB (see ADDRESSES). 

I. Certification 

Section 14(a) of the Consumer 

Product Safety Act (‘‘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, must 

be certified as complying with all 

applicable CPSC-enforced 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 discussed above in 

section H, section 104(b)(1)(B) of the 

CPSIA refers to standards issued under 

that section, such as the rule for toddler 

beds being proposed in this notice, as 

‘‘consumer product safety standards.’’ 

Furthermore, the designation as 

consumer product safety standards 

subjects such standards to certain 

sections of the CPSA, such as section 

26(a) regarding preemption. By the same 

reasoning, such standards would also be 

subject to section 14 of the CPSA. 

Therefore, any such standard would be 

considered to be a consumer product 

safety rule to which products subject to 

the rule must be certified. 

In addition, the CPSIA is another act 

enforced by the Commission, and the 

standards issued under section 

104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA are similar to 

consumer product safety rules. For this 

reason also, toddler beds will need to be 

tested and certified as complying with 

the safety standard when it becomes 

effective. Because toddler beds are 

children’s products, they must be tested 

by a third-party conformity assessment 

body accredited by the Commission. In 

the future, the Commission will issue a 

notice of requirements to explain how 

laboratories can become accredited as a 

third party conformity assessment 

bodies to test to the new safety standard. 

(Toddler beds also must comply with all 

other applicable CPSC requirements, 

such as the lead content and phthalate 

content requirements in sections 101 

and 108 of the CPSIA, the tracking label 

requirement in section 14(a)(5) of the 

CPSA, and the consumer registration 

form requirements in section 104 of the 

CPSIA.) The Commission seeks 

comment on what it may cost to comply 

with all of the CPSC requirements 

outlined above, including the proposed 

modifications in section E, and how 

these costs will impact toddler bed 

manufacturers. 

J. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s environmental 

review regulation at 16 CFR Part 1021 

has established categories of actions that 

normally have little or no potential to 

affect the human environment and 

therefore do not require either an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement. The 

proposed rule is within the scope of the 

Commission’s regulation, at 16 CFR 

1021.5(c)(1), which provides a 

categorical exclusion for rules to 

provide design or performance 

requirements for products. Thus, no 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement for this 

rule is required. 

K. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires agencies to 

consider the impact of proposed rules 

on small entities, including small 

businesses. Section 603 of the RFA 

requires that CPSC staff prepare an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis and 

make it available to the public for 

comment when the general notice of 

proposed rulemaking is published. The 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

must describe the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities and 

identify any alternatives that may 

reduce the impact. Specifically, the 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

must contain: 

1. A description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the proposed 

rule will apply; 

2. A description of the reasons why 

action by the agency is being 

considered; 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
22298 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1The data on second-hand products for new 

mothers was not available. Instead, data for new 

mothers and expectant mothers was combined and 

broken into first-time mothers and experienced 

mothers. Data for first-time mothers and 

experienced mothers was averaged to calculate the 

approximate percentage that was handed down or 

purchased second-hand. 

2Any per-year estimate for toddler beds will be 

approximate since when parents make such a 

purchase for their child is likely to vary. 

3. A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

proposed rule; 

4. A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of 

the classes of small entities subject to 

the requirements and the type of 

professional skills necessary for the 

preparation of reports or records; and 

5. An identification, to the extent 

possible, of all relevant federal rules 

that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with the proposed rule. 

In addition, the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis must contain a 

description of any significant 

alternatives to the proposed rule that 

would accomplish the stated objectives 

of the proposed rule while minimizing 

the economic impact on small entities. 

Toddler beds and convertible cribs are 

typically produced or marketed by 

juvenile product manufacturers and 

distributors or by furniture 

manufacturers and distributors, some of 

which have separate divisions for 

juvenile products. The CPSC’s staff 

believes that there are currently at least 

73 known manufacturers or importers 

that supply toddler beds and/or 

convertible cribs to the United States 

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. (For sources of information used 

in this initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis, see Ref. 5.) 

Under Small Business Administration 

(SBA) guidelines, a manufacturer of 

toddler beds or convertible cribs is 

small if it has 500 or fewer employees 

and an importer is 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 United States 

market are small. (Six of these small 

domestic manufacturers have between 

100 and 500 employees.) There are an 

additional eight domestic manufacturers 

of unknown size, most of which are 

likely to be small as well. (In fact, there 

was sufficient information to include 

seven of these firms as small in the 

analysis that follows.) However, there 

are probably additional unknown small 

manufacturers and importers operating 

in the United States market as well. 

The Juvenile Products Manufacturers 

Association (JPMA), the major United 

States trade association that represents 

juvenile product manufacturers and 

importers, runs a voluntary Certification 

Program for several juvenile products. 

Approximately 29 firms that supply 

toddler beds and/or convertible cribs to 

the United States market are compliant 

with the current ASTM voluntary 

standard (40 percent). (Twenty-six of 

these firms are JPMA-certified as 

compliant, while an additional three 

firms claim compliance. Of the small 

domestic businesses, 11 manufacturers 

(27 percent) and 6 importers (55 

percent) are JPMA-certified as ASTMcompliant. Additionally, there are two 

small manufacturers that claim 

compliance with the ASTM standard 

that are not part of JPMA’s Certification 

Program. 

The most recent United States birth 

data shows that there are approximately 

4.3 million births per year. The vast 

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.1 If these rates hold, this suggests 

annual convertible crib sales of about 

795,000 (0.22 × 0.84 × 4.3 million births 

per year). Of those consumers with nonconvertible cribs, some proportion of 

them will eventually use toddler beds 

when their children get older. However, 

consumers may choose to use a twin or 

larger bed and use portable bed rails 

rather than use a separate toddler bed. 

Assuming that approximately 50 

percent elect to use toddler beds and 

that approximately 50 percent of those 

buy them new, this would mean that 

around 839,000 toddler beds are sold 

per year (0.78 non-convertible cribs × 

4.3 million births × 0.5 use toddler beds 

× 0.5 buy them new).2 Adding this 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 

proposed toddler bed standard. 

Reason for Agency Action and Legal 

Basis for the Proposed Rule. Section 104 

of the CPSIA requires the CPSC to 

promulgate a mandatory standard for 

toddler beds that is substantially the 

same as, or more stringent than, the 

voluntary standard. The Commission is 

proposing four additional requirements 

to the current ASTM standard. The first 

would assure more structurally sound 

guardrails. The second is intended to 

reduce the likelihood of entrapments 

due to broken slats/spindles. The third 

would improve the safety of guardrails 

by adding height requirements. The 

fourth, modified warnings, is intended 

to emphasize that deaths in toddler beds 

have occurred due to entrapments and 

strangulation. The Commission 

concludes that the more stringent 

standard would reduce the risk of future 

injuries and deaths associated with 

toddler beds and convertible cribs. 

Compliance Requirements of the 

Proposed Rule. The Commission 

proposes adopting the voluntary ASTM 

standard for toddler beds with four 

additions. Key components of ASTM F 

1821—09 include: 

• Mattress retention requirements 

intended to control the horizontal 

position of the mattress and prevent 

torso entrapments, as well as assure that 

the mattress does not fall too far below 

the mattress support when used by a 

child of the maximum recommended 

weight (50 lbs); 

• Mattress support systems 

requirements intended to prevent 

disengagement which might result in a 

sharp edge or an opening in which a 

child might become entrapped; 

• Requirements for mattress support 

systems attached to end structures 

intended to assure that the mattress 

support system remains attached to the 

end structures and does not create a 

hazard, such as sharp edges or openings 

in which a child might become 

entrapped; 

• Requirements for guardrails 

intended to prevent openings in 

guardrails in which children might be 

trapped; and 

• End structures intended to prevent 

openings in end structures in which 

children might be trapped. 

The voluntary standard also includes: 

(1) Requirements for several features to 

prevent entrapment and cuts (minimum 

and maximum opening size, hazardous 

sharp points or edges, and edges that 

can scissor, shear, or pinch); (2) torque 

and tension tests to assure that 

components cannot be removed; (3) 

requirements for partially bounded 

openings; (4) marking and labeling 

requirements; (5) requirements for the 

permanency and adhesion of labels; (6) 

requirements for instructional literature; 

and (7) requirements to address corner 

post extensions, which may catch 

various children’s items and pose a 

choking hazard. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22299 

Based on CPSC staff 

recommendations, the Commission 

proposes to modify the existing ASTM 

standard by revising the entrapment/ 

strangulation warnings, and adding 

three new requirements for guardrail 

height, slat/spindle strength, and 

structural integrity for guardrails: 

• Guardrail height. The proposed rule 

would require that guardrails be a 

minimum height of 5 inches above the 

manufacturer’s recommended sleeping 

surface. This will help prevent falls. 

• Slat/spindle strength. The proposed 

rule adds a new requirement to test the 

strength of spindles and slats in 

guardrails, side rails, and end structures 

using an 80-lb force. 

• Structural integrity for guardrails. 

In addition to the existing test for 

guardrail openings, the proposed rule 

would add a test for the overall stability 

of guardrails using a 50-lb force while 

the bed is firmly secured. This 

additional test is intended to help 

prevent children from falling out of bed; 

it is also calculated to ensure that the 

guardrails remain intact when children 

lean against them or attempt to use them 

to climb into bed. 

• Entrapment/strangulation 

warnings. The proposed rule would 

modify the existing warnings by adding 

a more detailed description of 

mechanisms creating the hazard and 

separating the entrapment and 

strangulation messages into two 

warning labels. This is intended to 

increase the efficacy of the warning by 

emphasizing the potential for death for 

each of the two different mechanisms. 

As explained earlier in section F of 

this preamble, toddler beds and 

convertible cribs entering commerce 

would need to meet the new 

requirements if they are manufactured 

or imported after 6 months from the 

date of publication of the final rule. In 

other words, the standard, if finalized, 

would not apply retroactively. 

The recommended slat/spindle 

strength requirement may help prevent 

incidents where slats break and children 

are either cut, fall through the opening, 

or become entrapped. This proposed 

modification to the current voluntary 

standard could potentially add 

significant costs to toddler bed and 

convertible crib suppliers. Preliminary 

testing indicates that some toddler beds 

and convertible cribs currently on the 

market would meet this requirement 

with no further modifications, while 

others would not. 

Plastic toddler beds would be exempt 

from the slat/spindle requirement, 

because they do not have wooden slats/ 

spindles and have not been associated 

with the hazards addressed by this 

requirement. Therefore, we believe that 

some products will need to be modified 

to meet the slat/spindle requirement, 

which is likely to affect at least a few 

firms. 

Suppliers may also need to make 

product modifications to meet the 

revised structural integrity requirement 

and new height requirement for 

guardrails. No testing has been 

performed so far that would indicate 

how many products currently on the 

market would meet these requirements, 

but it appears that at least some 

products will be able to meet the 

guardrail height requirements. It is 

possible for firms to eliminate guardrails 

from their products entirely as a way to 

address the proposed guardrails 

requirements if they can comply with 

the other requirements of the proposed 

standard without the guardrail in place 

(guardrails themselves are not required). 

However, it would be unreasonable to 

assume that all of the firms whose 

products may require modifications can 

or will take this approach. Therefore, it 

is expected that at least some products 

will require modifications to meet these 

guardrail requirements and that at least 

a few firms will be affected. 

In meeting the slat/spindle strength 

and guardrail structural integrity 

requirements, it is possible that firms 

may improve the quality of materials 

used to make the slats/spindles or 

guardrails. (Plastic toddler beds and 

convertible cribs would not need to 

make such modifications since they 

have not been associated with the 

identified risks from these parts.) For 

wooden toddler beds and convertible 

cribs, switching to a stronger material is 

unlikely to exceed more than a few 

dollars per unit. For example, using 

white ash rather than western white 

pine improves average strength 

properties by an average of 74 percent 

(http://www.woodbin.com/ref/wood/ 

strength_table.htm) while increasing the 

price of the material by an average of 26 

percent (http:// 

www.willardbrothers.net/ 

ORDER%20FORM.htm) for a maximum 

of $1.55 more for the largest quantity 

listed. These cost differentials are based 

on raw lumber costs which would affect 

firms differently, depending upon how 

much wood was used in their particular 

product. Metal toddler beds/convertible 

cribs are less common than products 

made from wood or plastic, but material 

changes should not be substantially 

more expensive than for wooden 

products. Alternatively, firms could 

undertake product redevelopment to 

develop compliant toddler beds, which 

would likely be more expensive than 

using alternate materials. Therefore, it is 

likely that at least some firms would 

select the less expensive option. 

Increasing the height of guardrails 

may help prevent children from falling 

from the bed. As discussed above, the 

proposed rule would not require 

guardrails to be included with toddler 

beds or convertible cribs, so firms with 

noncompliant products have the option 

of eliminating guardrails entirely if their 

products will comply with the other 

requirements of the proposed standard 

with the guardrails removed. 

Alternatively, they could redesign their 

product (or the guardrail portion of their 

product) to make their guardrails higher. 

If the second option is taken, there will 

likely be some cost associated with 

product redevelopment, as well as some 

increased costs for additional materials. 

The remaining requirements, 

entrapment and strangulation warnings, 

are expected to have only a minimal 

impact on current suppliers of toddler 

beds or convertible cribs. The revised 

warnings would be only a minor 

modification for firms currently 

complying with the ASTM standard. 

Even for those firms supplying toddler 

beds without such a warning or with a 

warning that differs from the one 

outlined in the current voluntary 

standard, the costs associated with 

printing a revised warning or a 

completely new warning would be low. 

Other Federal Rules. CPSC staff has 

not identified any federal or state rule 

that either overlaps or conflicts with the 

staff’s draft proposed rule. 

Impact on Small Businesses. There 

are 73 firms currently known to be 

marketing toddler beds and/or 

convertible cribs in the United States. 

Six 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 firms 

known to be small domestic 

manufacturers, 7 firms that are 

presumed to be small domestic 

manufacturers, and 11 small domestic 

importers—is the focus of the remainder 

of this analysis. 

Small Domestic Manufacturers. For 

the most part, the impact of the 

proposed standard on small 

manufacturers will differ based on 

whether they currently comply with the 

voluntary ASTM standard. If they do 

not, as is the case with 28 firms, the 

impact could be significant. These firms 

would likely have to undergo product 

redevelopment. As explained below, the 

cost of such an effort for toddler beds 

and convertible cribs is unknown, but 

could be substantial for some firms. 

Product development costs include 

product design, development and 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
22300 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 over time. If a firm deals 

with multiple products subject to the 

proposed standard, there may be some 

economies of scale for some of these 

development stages that would reduce 

the marginal costs for each new product 

being redeveloped. Other one-time costs 

include the retooling of manufacturing 

equipment, which could be gradually 

recouped over the sales of numerous 

units. There are also 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 

their increased costs on to consumers, 

the impact could still 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 also compete 

against producers of substitute products, 

firms whose products would not be 

subject to the proposed standard. 

Toddler bed producers must compete 

with producers of twin (or possibly 

larger) beds that can be used with 

portable guardrails, while convertible 

cribs must compete with these same 

products for larger children and with 

standard cribs for smaller children. 

There is expected to be less of an 

impact on the 13 firms that are known 

to comply with the current voluntary 

standard. At least some of these firms 

should be able to comply with the new 

requirements without product 

modifications other than labeling. The 

remaining firms may opt to redesign 

their products as well, which, again, 

would result in some one-time costs and 

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 

recommended requirements. A 

modification in the materials used may 

be sufficient for many products, and the 

associated cost is not expected to exceed 

a few dollars per unit. 

There are two manufacturers that do 

not comply with the current voluntary 

ASTM standard that would be affected 

differently by the proposed standard. 

These firms take already manufactured 

toddler beds and convertible cribs, 

decorate them (often with original 

artwork), and then sell them as a final 

product. Because these firms do not 

make the underlying toddler beds and 

convertible cribs, the impact of the 

proposed standard on these firms will 

be the same as that of an importer. 

These firms would need to find a new 

supplier of compliant products if their 

current supplier does not make the 

necessary modifications. The new 

products would presumably be of higher 

quality, as well as more expensive since 

some of the original manufacturer’s 

production costs (and possibly 

redevelopment costs) are likely to be 

passed on to these firms. 

The scenario described above assumes 

that only those firms that are JPMAcertified or claim ASTM compliance 

will pass the voluntary standard’s 

requirements. This is not necessarily the 

case. CPSC staff has identified many 

cases where products not certified by 

JPMA actually comply with the relevant 

ASTM standard; however, there is 

insufficient evidence of this for toddler 

beds and convertible cribs to quantify 

this impact. Additionally, the effect of 

the new and modified requirements may 

be less substantial than outlined above 

to the extent that some products may 

already comply with foreign standards 

with some more rigorous requirements. 

However, there is insufficient 

information to quantify this effect. 

Therefore, the Commission invites 

comments from small businesses 

affected by this proposal explaining the 

economic impact it will impose on 

them. 

Small Domestic Importers. The 

majority of small domestic importers 

(six out of 11) comply with the current 

voluntary standard. At least some of 

these firms should not need to make any 

product modifications (other than 

labeling) to meet the proposed standard. 

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 will presumably be of 

higher quality, as well as more 

expensive. However, the actual price 

increase is unknown and likely to vary 

based upon the degree of modification 

required. All of the remaining five firms 

not now in compliance with the ASTM 

voluntary standard would need to either 

require their current supplier to make 

the modifications necessary to comply 

with the standard or find other 

suppliers that did comply. Depending 

on the degree to which their toddler 

beds and convertible cribs are out of 

compliance with the voluntary 

standard, the price increase (as well as 

the increases in quality and safety) 

could be relatively high. To the extent 

that some of these firms may actually 

comply with the current voluntary 

standard or one or more of the new/ 

modified requirements in the proposed 

standard, the impact of the proposed 

rule would be lower. 

For the most part, the impact of the 

proposed rule on importers should be 

smaller than that on manufacturers. 

Even if importers respond to the rule by 

discontinuing the import of 

noncomplying toddler beds and 

convertible cribs, either by 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 or toddler beds and their 

associated products (i.e., matching 

furniture) form the core of their product 

line. For these firms, a substantial price 

increase could possibly drive them out 

of business or require them to rebuild 

their business based on alternative 

products. 

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. (This option may not be 

feasible, given the CPSIA’s direction for 

the Commission to issue more stringent 

standards if that would further reduce 

the risk of injury associated with 

durable nursery products.) 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 proposed rule, but only 

marginally. Similarly, limiting the 

requirements of a final rule to those now 

in the voluntary standard would 

probably 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 the current voluntary 

standard, rather than the changes 

associated with the proposed rule. The 

difference for importers, whether 

compliant with the voluntary standard 

or not, is also likely to be minimal. 

Conclusion. The proposed rule could 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Even if all the small firms that are 

JPMA-certified as compliant with 

ASTM’s voluntary standard did not 

require any changes other than labeling 

to comply with the proposed standard, 

there would still be 63 percent (33 out 

of 52 firms) that would probably need 

to redevelop their products to comply. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22301 

This would typically need to be done 

for multiple products for each firm. (To 

the extent that some of the products not 

certified by JPMA may still comply, the 

impact will be reduced.) Firms 

supplying products that already comply 

with the voluntary standard may not 

need to make any product modifications 

(other than labeling) to meet the 

proposed rule, but this applies to only 

42 percent of the known small firms. 

Some of these firms, and basically all of 

the other small firms, will need to make 

at least some modifications to their 

toddler beds and convertible cribs to 

comply with the proposed rule. The 

extent of these costs is unknown, but 

since product redevelopment would 

likely 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. 

Nineteen small businesses are 

believed to 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 the proposed rule. 

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 easily mitigated by the 

sale of other juvenile products. 

L. Request for Comments 

All interested persons are invited to 

submit their comments to the 

Commission on any aspect of the 

proposed rule. Comments should be 

submitted in accordance with the 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this notice. 

M. References 

1. CPSC staff memorandum, from 

Celestine T. Kiss, Project Manager, 

Division of Human Factors, Directorate 

for Engineering Sciences, and Robert J. 

Howell, Assistant Executive Director, 

Office of Hazard Identification and 

Reduction, ‘‘Staff’s Draft Proposed Rule 

for toddler Beds,’’ March 3, 2010, with 

Tabs A–D. 

2. CPSC staff memorandum, from 

Risana T. Chowdhury, Division of 

Hazard Analysis, to Celestine T. Kiss, 

Division of Human Factors, Directorate 

for Engineering Sciences, ‘‘Toddler 

Beds-Related Deaths, Injuries and 

Potential Injuries, and NEISS Injury 

Estimates; 2005–Present,’’ January 28, 

2010 (Tab A to Ref. 1). 

3. CPSC staff memorandum, from 

Jacob J. Miller, Division of Mechanical 

Engineering, Directorate for Engineering 

Sciences, to Celestine T. Kiss, Project 

Manager, Division of Human Factors, 

Directorate for Engineering Sciences, 

‘‘Proposed Changes to ASTM F 1821–09, 

Standard consumer Safety Specification 

for Toddler Beds, for Incorporation in 

Staff’s Draft Proposed Rule,’’ February 

23, 2010 (Tab B to Ref. 1). 

4. CPSC staff memorandum, from 

Timothy P. Smith, Engineering 

Psychologist, Division of Human 

Factors, Directorate for engineering 

Sciences, to Celestine T. Kiss, Project 

Manager, Division of Human Factors, 

Directorate for Engineering Sciences, 

‘‘Warning Statements for Toddler Beds 

(CPSIA Section 104),’’ March 3, 2010 

(Tab C to Ref. 1). 

5. CPSC staff memorandum, from Jill 

L. Jenkins, Ph.D., Economist, Directorate 

for Economic Analysis, to Celestine T. 

Kiss, Project Manager for Toddler Beds, 

Division of Human Factors, Directorate 

for Engineering Sciences, ‘‘Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of 

Proposed Standard for Toddler Beds,’’ 

February 18, 2010 (Tab D to Ref. 1). 

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 proposes to add a new 16 

CFR part 1217 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 after 6 

months after publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register. 

§ 1217.2 Requirements for toddler beds. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) 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, as that 

standard is amended by this part 1217. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approves this incorporation by reference 

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 

1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy 

of this ASTM standard from ASTM 

International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO 

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) Comply with ASTM 1821–09 with 

the following additions or exclusions. 

(1) Instead of the section number of 

section 6.5 and its introductory heading 

‘‘Guardrails—’’ comply with the 

following: 

(i) 6.5.1 

(ii) Reserved. 

(2) In addition to section 6.4 of ASTM 

F 1821–09, comply with the following: 

(i) 6.5 Guardrails: 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(3) In addition to complying with the 

provisions of paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(b)(2) of this section, comply with the 

following: 

(i) 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. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(4) In addition to section 6.4 of ASTM 

1821–09 comply with the following: 

(i) 6.8 Structural Integrity of 

Guardrails—After testing in accordance 

with 7.9, there shall be none of the 

hazardous conditions described in 

Section 5. 

(ii) [Reserved.] 

(5) In addition to the changes to 

ASTM 1821–09 in paragraphs (b) (1), (2) 

and (3) of this section comply with the 

following: 

(i) 6.9 Slat/Spindle Strength— 

Toddler beds that contain wooden or 

metal slats or spindles shall meet the 

performance requirements outlined in 

section 6.9.1. 

(A) 6.9.1 After testing in accordance 

with the procedure in 7.10, there shall 

be no slat or spindle breakage or 

separation of a slat or spindle from the 

guardrails, side rails, or end structures. 

(B) [Reserved] 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(6) In addition to section 7.8 of ASTM 

1821–09 comply with the following: 

(i) 7.9 Test Method for Guardrail 

Structural Integrity: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
22302 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(A) 7.9.1 Firmly secure the toddler 

bed on a stationary flat surface using 

clamps. Gradually apply 50 lbf to the 

uppermost horizontal part of the 

mattress side of the guardrail in a 

direction perpendicular to the plane of 

the rail. The force should be applied in 

the center along the length of the rail 

and then repeated with the force 

applied directly over each of the 

outermost legs of the guardrail. The 

force should be applied in the direction 

away from the mattress within a period 

of 5 s and maintained for an additional 

10 s. 

(B) [Reserved] 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(7) In addition to the changes to 

ASTM 1821–09 in paragraph (b)(5) of 

this section comply with the following: 

(i) 7.10 Slat/Spindle Testing for 

Guardrails, Side Rails, and End 

Structures: 

(A) 7.10.1 The spindle/slat static 

load test shall be performed for all slats 

and spindles 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 when measured parallel 

to the longitudinal axis of the end of the 

rail. Besides the corners, the upper and 

lower horizontal rails of both linear and 

contoured shall be free to deflect under 

the applied force. 

(B) 7.10.2 Gradually, over a period 

of not less than 2 s or greater than 5 s, 

apply the force specified in 7.10.3 or 

7.10.4 at the midpoint between the top 

and bottom of the spindle/slat being 

tested. This force shall be applied 

through a contact area large enough to 

not cause visible indentation or cutting 

of the spindle/slat, but not wider than 

1 in. (2.54 cm) when measured parallel 

to the longitudinal axis of the spindle/ 

slat. This weight shall be maintained for 

30 seconds. 

(C) 7.10.3 Test, according to 7.10.2, 

25% (or the next highest percentage if 

4 does not divide evenly into the total 

number) of all spindles/slats with a 

force of 80 lb. 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 per 7.10.2. Place an 

identifying mark on all tested spindles/ 

slats. 

(D) 7.10.4 Upon completion of the 

test described in 7.10.2 and 7.10.3, 

gradually apply, over a period of not 

less than 2 s or greater than 5 s, 60 lbf 

(266.9 N) at the midpoint between the 

top and bottom of all spindles/slats not 

previously tested under 7.10.2 and 

7.10.3. This force shall be applied 

through a contact area large enough to 

not cause visible indentation or cutting 

of the spindle/slat, but not wider than 

1 in. (2.54 cm) when measured parallel 

to the longitudinal axis of the spindle/ 

slat. This force shall be maintained for 

30 s. 

(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. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(8) Comply with ASTM 1821–09 

section 8.4. Instead of complying with 

section 8.4.3, including the warning 

label, and sections 8.4.4 through 8.4.5 of 

ASTM 1821–09, use the following: 

(i) 8.4.3 Toddler beds that meet the 

performance requirements of sections 

5.8.2 (torso entrapment), 6.1 (mattress 

retention), 6.2 (mattress support system 

integrity), 6.3 (mattress support system 

attachment to end structures), 6.4 

(mattress support system openings), 6.6 

(end structure openings), and 6.7 

(partially bounded openings) with the 

guardrails removed may bear the 

following label, exactly as depicted, 

instead of the label required by section 

8.4.4: 

(ii) 8.4.4 All toddler beds that do not 

bear the label allowed for certain 

toddler beds by section 8.4.3, shall bear 

the following label, exactly as depicted: 

(iii) 8.4.5 In addition to the label 

allowed by section 8.4.3 or required by 

section 8.4.4, all toddler beds shall bear 

the following label, exactly as depicted: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28AP10.004</GPH> EP28AP10.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22303 

Dated: March 24, 2010 

Todd Stevenson, 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6947 Filed 4–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1218 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2010–0028] 

Safety Standard for Bassinets and 

Cradles: Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Section 104(b) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’) requires the 

United States Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

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 

proposing a more stringent safety 

standard for bassinets and cradles that 

will further reduce the risk of injury 

associated with these products. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by July 12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments relating to the 

instructional literature and marking 

required by the proposed rule relating to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act should be 

directed to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC 

Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–6974, or 

e-mailed to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Other comments, identified by Docket 

No. CPSC–2010–llll, may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

accepting comments submitted by 

electronic mail (e-mail) except through 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions in the 

following way: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions), 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of 

the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided, to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

electronically. Such information should 

be submitted in writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Han 

Lim, Project Manager, Directorate for 

Engineering Sciences, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 4330 EastWest Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7538; 

hlim@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background and Statutory Authority 

The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 

110–314 (‘‘CPSIA’’) 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. 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. In this document the 

Commission proposes a safety standard 

for bassinets and cradles. The proposed 

standard is more stringent in some 

respects than the voluntary standard 

developed by ASTM International 

(formerly the American Society for 

Testing and Materials), ASTM F 2194– 

07a ε1, ‘‘Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Bassinets and Cradles.’’ 

The proposed modifications, if 

finalized, will further reduce the risk of 

injury associated with bassinets and 

cradles. 

B. The Product 

A bassinet or cradle is a small bed for 

infants supported by free-standing legs, 

a wheeled base, a rocking base, or that 

can swing relative to a stationary base. 

A bassinet or cradle is not intended to 

be used with children who are beyond 

the age of approximately 5 months. 

Bassinet and cradle attachments for 

non-full-size cribs or play yards are 

considered a part of this product 

category, as are bedside sleeper 

bassinets that can be converted to a 

four-sided bassinet not attached to a 

bed. 

Full-size cribs and infant swings are 

not included under the definition of 

bassinet or cradle. Products used in 

conjunction with infant swings or 

strollers or Moses baskets (handcarrying baskets) are not included under 

the definition of bassinet or cradle. 

However, a Moses basket or a similar 

product used with infant swings or 

strollers that can attach to a separate 

base which can convert it to a bassinet 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28AP10.006</GPH>