Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 20, 2011 / Proposed Rules 58167 

Damage Mitigation Guidelines (EDMGs) 

for licensee staff expected to implement 

the strategies and those licensee staff 

expected to make decisions during 

emergencies, including emergency 

coordinators and emergency directors. 

The petitioner cites Section 4.2.5, pages 

46–50—regarding the strengthening and 

integration of onsite emergency 

response capabilities such as emergency 

operating procedures, SAMGs, and 

EDMGs—of the Fukushima Task Force 

Report as the rationale for its PRM. 

IV. Conclusion 

The Commission is currently 

reviewing the Fukushima Task Force 

Report, including each issue presented 

in the six petitions for rulemaking. The 

petitioner solely and specifically cites 

the Fukushima Task Force Report as the 

rationale and bases for its six PRMs. The 

NRC will consider the issues raised by 

these PRMs through the process the 

Commission has established for 

addressing the recommendations from 

the Fukushima Task Force Report and is 

not providing a separate opportunity for 

public comment on the PRMs at this 

time. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day 

of September 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24079 Filed 9–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1221 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2011–0064] 

RIN 3041–AC92 

Safety Standard for Play Yards 

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 (‘‘Commission,’’ ‘‘CPSC,’’ 

or ‘‘we’’) 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 play yards in response to 

the direction under Section 104(b) of the 

CPSIA. 

DATES: Submit comments by December 

5, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments related to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the 

marking, labeling, and instructional 

literature of the proposed rule should be 

directed to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC 

Desk Officer, Fax: 202–395–6974, or emailed to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Other comments, identified by Docket 

No. CPSC–2011–0064, may be 

submitted electronically or in writing: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: 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), except 

through http://www.regulations.gov. 

The Commission encourages you to 

submit electronic comments by using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as 

described above. 

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 

that you do not want to be available to 

the public. If furnished at all, 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, and insert the 

docket number, CPSC 2011–0064, into 

the ‘‘Search’’ box and follow the 

prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory K. Rea, Project Manager, 

Directorate for Laboratory Sciences, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; 

e-mail GRea@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background and Statutory Authority 

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 and 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)(1) 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. Play 

yards are one of the products 

specifically identified in section 

104(f)(2)(F) as a durable infant or 

toddler product. 

In this document, the Commission 

proposes a safety standard for play 

yards. The proposed standard is based 

on the voluntary standard developed by 

ASTM International (formerly the 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials), ASTM F 406–11, ‘‘Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for NonFull-Size Baby Cribs/Play Yards’’ 

(‘‘ASTM F 406–11’’). 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. 

B. The Product 

1. Definition 

ASTM F 406–11 defines a ‘‘play yard’’ 

as a ‘‘framed enclosure that includes a 

floor and has mesh or fabric sided 

panels primarily intended to provide a 

play or sleeping environment for 

children. It may fold for storage or 

travel.’’ Play yards are intended for 

children who are less than 35 inches tall 

who cannot climb out of the product. 

Play yards are convenient because they 

usually fold for storage or travel. Some 

play yards include accessory items that 

attach to the product, including 

mobiles, toy bars, canopies, bassinets, 

and changing tables. The accessory 

item(s) usually attaches to the side rails 

or corner brackets of the play yard. 

2. The Market 

Based on a 2005 survey conducted by 

American Baby Group titled, ‘‘2006 

Baby Products Tracking Study,’’ we 

estimate that approximately 2.9 million 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

58168 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 20, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

play yards are sold in the United States 

each year. We estimate that there are 23 

manufacturers or importers supplying 

play yards to the U.S. market. Eleven 

firms are domestic manufacturers, and 

10 firms are domestic importers. Two 

firms are foreign importers. 

Play yards from 11 of the 23 firms 

have been certified as compliant with 

the ASTM voluntary play yard standard 

by the Juvenile Products Manufacturers 

Association (‘‘JPMA’’), the major U.S. 

trade association that represents 

juvenile product manufacturers and 

importers. In addition, three other firms 

claim compliance with the ASTM 

voluntary play yard standard and, in 

some cases, provide test results 

publicly. 

C. Incident Data 

The CPSC’s Directorate for 

Epidemiology reports that there have 

been 2,128 incidents reported to the 

Commission regarding play yards from 

early November 2007 until early April 

2011. Of the 2,128 reported incidents, 

there were 49 fatalities, 165 nonfatal 

injuries, and 1,914 noninjury incidents. 

The data is drawn from the CPSC’s 

‘‘Early Warning System’’ (‘‘EWS’’), a 

database created in late 2007, which 

allows the Commission to monitor 

incoming incident data closely. Once an 

incident report is entered into EWS, it 

is carefully reviewed by a subject matter 

expert. Thus, EWS contains the best 

data to support the play yard regulatory 

work. 

1. Fatalities 

From early November 2007 through 

early April 2011, there were 49 fatalities 

associated with play yards. Twentyseven deaths are attributable to unsafe 

sleep environments within the play 

yard, such as the presence of soft or 

extra bedding, or unsafe sleep practices, 

such as putting infants to sleep on their 

stomach instead of their back. 

Ten suffocation deaths were caused 

by unsafe environments around the play 

yard. Examples of hazardous 

surroundings include: window blind 

cords or computer cords that fell into 

the play yard where the cords formed 

dangerous loops and resulted in 

strangulation fatalities. Other deaths 

were caused when items were placed on 

top of the play yard to prevent the child 

from climbing out. These items, such as 

wood, mesh gates, or crib tents, caused 

suffocation deaths when children tried 

to crawl out of the product and became 

stuck between the side rail and the item 

placed on top of the play yard. 

The remainder of the fatal incidents 

include: 

• Two children were killed in 

separate incidents when they were able 

to climb out of a play yard and gain 

access to a pool. Both children drowned 

in the pool. 

• Two toddlers were killed in 

separate incidents while standing up in 

a play yard. It is believed that they 

leaned forward against the side rail 

(possibly to reach an object that the 

child had thrown outside the play yard), 

lost consciousness, and suffocated when 

the pressure from the side rail 

compressed the airway. 

• One toddler was killed when the 

play yard collapsed unexpectedly. The 

child was trapped and suffocated. 

• One death was caused by a looped 

strap hanging from a changing table 

accessory. The changing table was 

supported by the side rails of the play 

yard. The looped strap fell into the play 

yard space occupied by the child and 

resulted in the child’s strangulation. 

• One death was caused by an 

assembly error that occurred when the 

mattress pad was not secured 

completely to the bottom of the play 

yard. The child suffocated in the pocket 

created between the unsecured mattress 

pad and the floor of the play yard. 

• Five other deaths are associated 

with play yards, but there was 

insufficient information to determine 

the cause. 

2. Nonfatal Injuries 

From early November 2007 through 

early April 2011, there were 2,079 

nonfatal incident reports. Of those, 165 

incidents involved an injury, and four of 

those required hospitalization. Although 

the remaining 1,914 nonfatal incident 

reports did not result in an injury, many 

of the descriptions indicate the potential 

for serious injury or death. 

The largest number of nonfatal 

incident reports were attributable to the 

unexpected collapse of the side rail of 

a play yard. Of the 2,079 nonfatal 

incident reports, 1,902 involved the 

collapse of one or more sides of a play 

yard. Of the 165 incidents involving an 

injury, 124 were the result of a play yard 

side rail collapse. Of the 124 injuries, 

there was one hospitalization for a 

concussion that was caused by the 

collapse of a side rail. 

The remainder of the nonfatal injury 

incidents included: 

• Eight injuries caused by broken or 

detached component parts, such as 

loose wheels or loose hardware, which 

resulted in instability or collapse of the 

product. 

• Eight injuries caused by various 

product-related problems, including 

sharp surfaces. 

• Five injuries related to the mesh or 

fabric sides of the play yard, such as 

stitching that unraveled, tears in the 

fabric, mesh holes that were too large, 

and mesh material that was too abrasive. 

• Five injuries related to the mattress 

pad or the floor of the play yard. 

Examples of injuries in this category 

included: Mattresses or pads that were 

insufficiently fastened to the play yard 

floor, resulting in toddlers becoming 

trapped under the mattress or pad. 

• Five injures related to toddlers 

climbing out or falling out of the play 

yard. This category included one 

toddler who was hospitalized for a 

serious head injury after climbing or 

falling out of the play yard. 

• Four injuries resulted when 

children were standing in the play yard, 

lost their balance, and fell. 

• Two injuries caused by broken or 

hazardous accessories, such as dangling 

straps from changing tables. Other 

examples of hazardous accessories 

included: broken or detached 

components from music boxes, trays, 

mirrors, and toy holders. 

• Two injuries related to assembly 

errors, including one child who was 

hospitalized with a severe finger 

laceration after getting his or her finger 

caught in the play yard as it was being 

assembled. 

• One injury that resulted in a 

hospitalization was caused by the 

presence of soft bedding in the play 

yard. This was a severe injury to a 

7-week-old infant who suffered brain 

damage. 

• One other injury is associated with 

play yards, but there was insufficient 

information to determine the cause. 

D. Play Yard International Standards 

and the ASTM Voluntary Standard 

Section 104(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA 

requires the Commission to consult 

representatives of ‘‘consumer groups, 

juvenile product manufacturers, and 

independent child product engineers 

and experts’’ to ‘‘examine and assess the 

effectiveness of any voluntary consumer 

product safety standards for durable 

infant or toddler products.’’ Through the 

ASTM process, we consulted with 

manufacturers, retailers, trade 

organizations, laboratories, consumer 

advocacy groups, consultants, and 

members of the public. Most of the 

consultation involved assessing and 

reviewing the ASTM standard, which is 

the primary play yard standard in effect 

in the United States. Significantly, in 

2010, in consultation with ASTM, we 

identified three hazards that were not 

addressed in the ASTM play yard 

standard. Those three hazards are now 

addressed in ASTM 406–11 and include 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 20, 2011 / Proposed Rules 58169 

new requirements to address side rails 

that collapse into a dangerous V-shape 

(discussed in section E.5 below); new 

requirements to address structural 

failures related to corner brackets 

(discussed in section E.8 below); and 

new requirements to address mattress 

displacement (discussed in section E.10 

below). 

In addition to reviewing the ASTM 

standard, we reviewed several 

international standards. 

1. International Standards 

We reviewed several international 

standards when working with ASTM to 

create ASTM 406–11, including: 

• The European Standard, BS EN 

12227–1 & 2: 2010, ‘‘Playpens for 

domestic use’’; 

• the Australian and New Zealand 

Standard, AS/NZ S2195: 2010, ‘‘Folding 

cots—Safety Requirements’’; and 

• the Canadian standard, C.R.C., c. 

932, ‘‘Playpen Regulations.’’ 

We considered the Australian and 

New Zealand Standard when we, in 

consultation with ASTM, devised the 

performance requirement and test 

method to address V-shape side rail 

collapses. Ultimately however, CPSC 

and ASTM chose to use a test method 

meant to prevent neck entrapment in 

expansion gates that exists in ASTM F 

1004–09, ‘‘Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Expansion Gates and 

Expandable Enclosures.’’ 

We considered the European Standard 

when we, in consultation with ASTM, 

devised the performance requirement 

and test method to address structural 

failures in corner brackets. Ultimately, 

the test method found in the European 

Standard was rejected because its main 

purpose is to test latch durability, rather 

than corner post durability. The 

requirements currently found in ASTM 

F 406–11 to address this hazard were 

developed by CPSC staff and are better 

suited than the requirements in the 

European Standard to test corner post 

durability. 

We also considered the European 

Standard when we, in consultation with 

ASTM, created the mattress 

displacement performance requirement 

and test method. While the 

requirements in ASTM F 406–11 are 

similar to those in the European 

Standard, we, in consultation with 

ASTM staff, made changes that will 

result in more reliable and repeatable 

results. 

2. The ASTM Voluntary Standard 

ASTM F 406 was first approved and 

published in 1977. ASTM has revised 

the standard several times since then, 

with the most current version, ASTM F 

406–11, published on May 15, 2011. 

Historically, one of the most significant 

changes occurred in ASTM F 406–02, 

published in June 2002, when the 

standard for non-full-size cribs merged 

with the play yard standard to group 

products with similar uses, and took on 

its current name, ‘‘Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Non-Full-Size 

Baby Cribs/Play Yards.’’ 

The proposed rule would only pertain 

to play yards. In the Federal Register of 

December 28, 2010 (75 FR 81766), we 

issued a final rule on safety standards 

for non-full-size cribs. Thus, the 

proposed rule would exclude provisions 

of ASTM F406–11 that apply to nonfull-size cribs. The proposed rule would 

exclude from the play yard standard 

sections 5.17, 5.19, 5.20, the entirety of 

section 6, section 8.1 through 8.10.5, 

and section 10.1.1.1 of ASTM F 406–11. 

In addition, for section 9.4.2.10 of 

ASTM F 406–11, we propose to include 

only the first section, which is a labeling 

requirement meant to inform consumers 

that only the mattress or pad provided 

by the manufacturer should be used. 

The remainder of section 9.4.2.10 of 

ASTM F 406–11 is applicable to nonfull-size cribs and would be excluded 

from the play yard standard. 

Many play yards include accessory 

items, such as bassinets or changing 

tables that attach to the side of the play 

yard rails. While ASTM F 406–11 

contains requirements to address 

entrapment of children in accessories, 

such as requirements designed to 

prevent changing table straps from 

forming loops that enter the play yard 

space and could cause strangulation, the 

specific requirements for accessories 

will be addressed in separate 

rulemakings. For example, ASTM F 

406–11 addresses possible entrapment 

in bassinet attachments, but the 

performance requirements, test 

methods, and warning provisions for the 

bassinet itself will be handled in a 

separate rulemaking. 

The key provisions of the current 

ASTM play yard standard include: 

Definitions; general requirements; 

performance requirements; specific test 

methods; and requirements for marking, 

labeling, and instructional literature. 

Definitions. The definition of ‘‘play 

yard (aka playpen)’’ is a ‘‘framed 

enclosure that includes a floor and has 

mesh or fabric- sided panels, primarily 

intended to provide a play or sleeping 

environment for children. It may fold 

for storage or travel.’’ 

General Requirements and Specific 

Test Methods. The play yard standard 

contains general requirements that the 

product must meet, as well as mandated 

test methods that must be used to 

ensure that the product meets those 

requirements, including: 

• Requirements for corner posts; 

• Restrictions on sharp points and 

edges (as well as their protective caps), 

small parts, lead paint, and flammable 

solids; 

• Specifications to prevent scissoring, 

shearing, and pinching; 

• Requirements for toy accessory 

items; 

• Specifications on latching and 

locking mechanisms; 

• Specifications on openings 

(intended to prevent finger and toe 

entrapment), labeling (intended to 

prevent labels from being removed and 

ingested or aspirated on), coil springs 

and protrusions; 

• Requirements that the play yard be 

stable; 

• Requirements meant to protect a 

child from entrapment in accessory 

items, such as a bassinet or changing 

table, as well as requirements to protect 

a child from being strangled in a cord 

or strap that accompanies the product or 

an accessory item (such as the restraint 

straps on a changing table); and 

• Specifications for the mattress in a 

play yard. 

Performance Requirements and 

Specific Test Methods. The play yard 

standard provides performance 

requirements that the product must 

meet, as well as mandated test methods 

that must be used to ensure that the 

product meets the performance 

requirements, including: 

• A side height requirement (the side 

of the play yard must be, at least, 20 

inches from the top of the 

noncompressed mattress pad to the top 

of the side rail); 

• Side deflection and strength 

requirements (the play yard must be 

able to withstand testing without 

collapsing, and the hinge and latch 

mechanisms must remain operational); 

• Floor strength requirements; 

• Requirements to address the 

material that covers the top rail, as well 

as specifications for the mesh or fabric 

used in play yards; 

• Requirements addressing mattress 

displacement; 

• Requirements to eliminate the risk 

that the side rails will form a dangerous 

V-shape when collapsed; and 

• Requirements addressing corner 

bracket failures. 

Order of Testing. ASTM F 406–11 also 

addresses the order of testing. ASTM F 

406–11 clarifies that the general 

requirements, such as restrictions on 

corner posts, must be met both before 

and after the performance requirement 

test methods have been completed. 

Additionally, ASTM F 406–11 

indicates that the tests to determine 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

58170 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 20, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

compliance with the performance 

requirements must be conducted in the 

order specified in the standard because 

the testing sequence can influence the 

test results. Therefore, the standard lists 

tests in a way such that the most 

potentially destructive tests are 

performed last. 

Marking, Labeling, and Instructional 

Literature. ASTM F 406–11 has 

requirements for marking, labeling, and 

instructions that must accompany a play 

yard, including warnings regarding 

proper use of accessory attachment 

items, and warnings regarding 

suffocation hazards that may arise if soft 

bedding is added to the product. 

E. Assessment of Voluntary Standard 

ASTM F 406–11 

We considered the fatalities, injuries, 

and noninjury incidents associated with 

play yards, and we evaluated the 

voluntary standard to determine 

whether ASTM F 406–11 addresses the 

incident or whether more stringent 

standards are required that would 

further reduce the risk of injury 

associated with the products. We 

discuss our assessment in this section, 

but our assessment does not include 

deaths and injuries associated with play 

yards where there was insufficient 

evidence to determine the cause. 

1. Unsafe Sleep Environment and 

Unsafe Sleep Practices 

Unsafe sleep environments, such as 

sleep environments that contain 

additional or soft bedding, and unsafe 

sleep practices, such as placing infants 

to sleep on their stomach instead of 

their back, resulted in 27 fatalities and 

one very serious injury that required 

hospitalization and resulted in brain 

damage to the child. Unsafe sleep 

environments and unsafe sleep practices 

are not attributable to the design or 

construction of play yards. ASTM F 

406–11 includes product warnings that 

address the hazards of soft bedding and 

the hazards associated with placing a 

child to sleep on their stomach. We do 

not believe that there are additional 

requirements that can be put in place in 

the standard to address unsafe sleep 

environments and unsafe sleep 

practices. 

2. Hazardous Surroundings 

Ten suffocation deaths were 

attributable to unsafe environments 

around the play yard. Examples of 

hazardous surroundings include: 

Window blind cords and computer 

cords that fall into a play yard, forming 

a loop, and causing strangulations. 

Other deaths were caused when 

caregivers placed an object on top of the 

play yard to keep the child in the play 

yard, and fatalities resulted when 

children tried to climb out of the play 

yard and became trapped between the 

cover and the side rail. Risks due to 

hazardous surroundings are not 

attributable to the design or 

construction of play yards. ASTM F 

406–11 includes product warnings that 

address the dangers of placing a product 

near windows where cords can cause 

strangulation. ASTM F 406–11 also 

includes a warning about the dangers of 

using improvised netting or covers over 

play yards. We do not believe that there 

are additional requirements that can be 

put in place in the standard to address 

this issue. 

3. Risks Associated With Children 

Climbing Out or Falling Out of a Play 

Yard 

Two children were killed when they 

were able to climb out or they fell out 

of their play yard and accessed a pool. 

Both children drowned. Additionally, 

five children were injured after climbing 

or falling out of their play yard, 

including one injury that resulted in a 

serious head injury and required 

hospitalization. 

We considered alternatives that might 

make it less likely that a child could 

climb or fall out of a play yard. For 

example, play yards could be mandated 

to have higher sides, or manufacturers 

could provide a ‘‘lid’’ or cover to the 

play yard. However, in both cases, we 

felt that these solutions might create 

additional hazards. Higher sides might 

make it more difficult for a caregiver to 

put the child inside the play yard and 

might increase the chance that 

caregivers will find alternative, but less 

safe, sleep environments (such as 

allowing infants to sleep in adult beds). 

Requiring a lid or cover increases the 

chances that the lid or cover will fail in 

some way, allowing children to attempt 

to climb out of the product, only to 

become stuck between the lid and the 

side rail, which could cause suffocation. 

Therefore, we determined that 

warnings are the most appropriate way 

to address climb-out and fall-out 

hazards. ASTM F 406–11 includes 

product warnings indicating that play 

yards are designed for children who are 

not able to climb out of the play yard. 

There are additional warning 

requirements regarding removing any 

object that can serve as a step that 

would enable a child to climb out of the 

play yard. We do not believe that there 

are additional requirements that can be 

put in place in the standard to address 

this issue. 

4. Standing/Choking Deaths 

Two toddlers were killed in a similar, 

but currently unexplained, manner. In 

both situations, the toddler stood up in 

the play yard and placed his or her neck 

against the side rail. In both situations, 

it is believed that they leaned forward 

against the side rail (possibly to reach 

an object that the child had thrown 

outside the play yard), lost 

consciousness, and suffocated when the 

pressure from the side rail compressed 

the airway. We have investigated both 

deaths and believe that further review 

by CPSC staff is warranted to determine 

if the design or construction of the play 

yard contributed to the deaths. If we 

conclude that the design or construction 

of the play yard did contribute to these 

deaths, we will determine whether 

additional requirements are necessary. 

Because the causation of these incidents 

is unclear, we are not proposing 

additional requirements in the standard 

to address the possibility of standing/ 

choking deaths at this time. 

5. Side Rail Collapse 

One child was killed when a play 

yard’s side rails collapsed, trapping the 

child and resulting in suffocation. 

Additionally, 124 of the 165 nonfatal 

injury reports are attributable to side rail 

collapse. One injury required 

hospitalization for a concussion. The 

largest number of nonfatal incident 

reports (1,902 out of 2,079 reports) are 

attributable to play yard side rail 

collapse. We reviewed these incidents 

and have determined that the majority 

are caused by failure of the side rail 

latch that keeps the side rail locked and 

in place. 

Side collapse issues were addressed 

significantly in 1997, in ASTM F 406– 

97, which required the side rails of play 

yards to have a locking device in order 

to prevent the center hinge from 

collapsing and causing the side rail to 

fall. In 1999, ASTM added a test method 

that required the locking mechanism on 

the side rail hinges to withstand a force 

of 100 pounds, applied diagonally, 

without breaking or disengaging. 

In August 2009, after a significant 

number of recalls involving side 

collapse issues, ASTM published ASTM 

F 406–09, which included, for the first 

time, a false latch test in the ASTM play 

yard standard. The addition of the false 

latch test was designed to ensure that 

the top rail does not give the appearance 

of being locked, when, in fact, the 

locking device is not engaged 

completely. 

The recalls related to side collapse, 

which prompted the change in the 2009 

ASTM standard include: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 20, 2011 / Proposed Rules 58171 

• A January 2009 recall of 200,000 

play yards. The CPSC press release can 

be found here: http://www.cpsc.gov/ 

cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09098.html. 

• An April 2009 recall of 25,000 play 

yards. The CPSC press release can be 

found here: http://www.cpsc.gov/ 

cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09187.html. 

• A July 2009 recall of about 1 

million play yards. The CPSC press 

release can be found here: http://

www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/

prhtml09/09265.html. 

Additionally, ASTM F 406–11 

includes a performance requirement and 

test method that addresses a side rail 

collapse issue that was a problem in the 

past but was never adequately 

addressed in past editions of the ASTM 

play yard standard. In brief, when 

folding play yards were relatively new 

products in the 1990s, some products 

did not include features designed to 

prevent unintentional collapse of the 

side rails. Some play yards collapsed 

into a V-shape. If a child’s neck is 

caught in the V-shape, the child could 

suffocate. Most producers of play yards 

chose to stop designing products that 

could form a V-shape when the side 

rails collapsed. The ASTM standard, 

however, was not revised to ban this 

design. According to a CPSC press 

release, originally issued on August 21, 

1998, and last revised on May 10, 2004, 

13 children died from suffocation in 

play yards where the side rail collapsed 

into a V-shape. (These fatalities are not 

included in the list of incident data 

referenced throughout this document 

because they pre-date the creation of the 

Early Warning System database [the 

database used to support the regulatory 

work here]). The press release also 

mentioned that more than 1.5 million 

play yards with this dangerous design 

flaw have been recalled in past years. 

The press release can be found at: 

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/ 

prhtml98/98156.html. 

Thus, after a review of the incidents, 

as well as an assessment of the locking 

and latching provisions, the false latch 

provision, and the new provisions 

meant to prevent a side collapse that 

results in a V-shape, we determined that 

these performance requirements and test 

methods are sufficient to address play 

yard side rail collapse issues. Thus, we 

are not proposing additional 

requirements at this time. 

6. Hazards Related to Accessories 

Play yards often are sold with 

accessory items, such as changing tables 

and bassinets, which are meant to attach 

to the side rails of the play yard. One 

child was killed when a dangling strap 

from a changing table accessory formed 

a loop inside the occupant area of the 

play yard, resulting in the child’s 

strangulation. The play yard involved in 

the fatality prompted a recall of 425,000 

play yards. That recall was issued on 

September 27, 2007. The CPSC press 

release for the recall can be viewed at: 

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/ 

prhtml07/07315.html. Additionally, 

there were two injuries caused by 

broken or hazardous accessories. 

In 2005, ASTM published ASTM F 

406–05a, which included a section to 

address entrapment in accessories. The 

requirement and the accompanying test 

method were designed to ensure that 

accessories cannot create openings that 

can entrap a child’s head. In 2008, 

ASTM published ASTM F 406–08, 

which included a provision that 

prohibits the use on an accessory of 

cords and straps that are capable of 

forming a loop that could strangle a 

child. The 2008 ASTM standard also 

added requirements for toy attachments 

intended to address incidents related to 

broken or detached components from 

music boxes, mirrors, and toy holders. 

We believe that these requirements 

are sufficient to address these hazards, 

and we are not proposing additional 

requirements at this time. 

7. Assembly Errors 

One fatality and two injuries are 

attributable to assembly errors. The 

death occurred when the mattress pad 

of the play yard was not completely 

secured to the floor of the play yard. 

The child suffocated in the pocket 

created between the unsecured pad and 

the floor of the product. 

An assembly error was the cause of 

one very serious injury, which required 

a hospitalization and occurred when a 

child got his or her finger caught in the 

gap between the corner bracket and the 

side rail of the play yard as it was being 

assembled. The child suffered a severe 

laceration that required medical 

attention. 

ASTM F 406–11 contains provisions 

requiring clear, easy-to-read assembly 

instructions. We believe that these 

requirements are sufficient to address 

these hazards, and we are not proposing 

additional requirements at this time. 

8. Broken or Detached Component Parts 

Leading to Structural Failures 

Eight injuries, including bruises and 

cuts, were caused by broken or detached 

component parts, such as loose wheels 

or loose hardware, which led lead to the 

product becoming unstable or 

collapsing. Most incidents involved 

structural failure at the corner brackets 

of the play yard, resulting in rivets 

pulling through the corner brackets, 

cracking of the plastic under the rivets’ 

heads, and rivets and plastic pieces 

falling out of the corner bracket. This 

causes the play yard to collapse. 

We believe corner post failures are 

caused by repeated loading of the side 

rails by one of the following methods: 

• Caregivers inadvertently and 

repeatedly leaning on the side rails to 

reach the child or to use the bassinet or 

changing table accessory; 

• Children who use the side rails for 

support while standing; and/or 

• Accessories that are attached to and 

removed repeatedly from the side rails 

and corner posts. 

In 2010, CPSC staff recommended a 

new performance requirement and test 

method to address this hazard, which 

was included for the first time in ASTM 

F 406–11. We believe that these 

requirements are sufficient to address 

these hazards, and we are not proposing 

additional requirements at this time. 

9. Mesh and Fabric Sides 

Five injuries are related to the mesh 

or fabric sides of the play yard, such as 

stitching that unraveled, tears in the 

fabric, mesh holes that were too large 

and caught an infant’s tooth, and mesh 

material that was too abrasive. 

ASTM F 406–11 contains several 

performance requirements and test 

methods to address hazards caused by 

mesh or fabric. We believe that these 

requirements are sufficient to address 

the associated hazards, and we are not 

proposing additional requirements at 

this time. 

10. Mattress Pad or Play Yard Floor 

Hazards 

Five injuries are attributable to 

problems with the mattress pad or floor 

of the play yard. Most of these incidents 

are related to mattress displacement, 

which occurs when children are able to 

pull up the mattress and become 

trapped between the floor of the play 

yard and the mattress. The mattress of 

most play yards is attached to the 

product by hook and loop straps, 

commonly referred to as ‘‘Velcro’’ 

straps. The other commonly used 

method is a ‘‘Velcro’’ patch. 

ASTM F 406–11 includes a 

performance requirement and a test 

method that would require a play yard 

mattress to be able to withstand a 

certain amount of force before it can be 

lifted high enough to allow a child to 

become trapped between the mattress 

and the play yard floor. We believe that 

these requirements are sufficient to 

address these hazards, and we are not 

proposing additional requirements at 

this time. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

58172 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 20, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

11. Impact on Play Yard 

There were four injuries that occurred 

in play yards because children were 

standing up in a play yard, lost their 

balance, and fell. ASTM F 406–11 does 

include product warnings that address 

the need to provide supervision, as 

necessary, when the child is in the 

product, particularly when the child is 

playing in the play yard. We believe that 

these requirements are sufficient, and 

we are not proposing additional 

requirements at this time. 

12. Other Product-Related Concerns 

Eight injuries were caused by other 

product-related problems, such as sharp 

surfaces. For the incidents where we 

could determine the problem’s cause, 

we believe that the current requirements 

are sufficient to address these hazards, 

and we are not proposing additional 

requirements at this time. 

F. Description of Proposed Changes to 

ASTM Standard 

The proposed rule would create a new 

part 1221 titled, ‘‘Safety Standard for 

Play Yards.’’ The proposal would 

establish ASTM F 406–11, ‘‘Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for NonFull-Size Baby Cribs/Play Yards,’’ as a 

consumer product safety standard, but 

with certain changes. We are proposing 

three changes to ASTM F 406–11, as it 

applies to play yards. The provisions of 

ASTM 406–11 that apply to non-fullsize cribs have been excluded because 

those products are addressed in a 

separate rulemaking. 

Two of the three proposed changes 

would clarify the existing provisions. 

Clarification will reduce potential 

misinterpretations that could result in 

improper testing. Thus, these 

clarifications will strengthen the 

standard and reduce the risk of injury 

by ensuring that play yard testing is 

performed properly. 

The last proposed change would 

affect the test method for determining 

the strength of corner brackets. The 

method in ASTM F406–11 currently 

requires the tester to use a specific size 

clamp. The proposed change would 

allow the tester some flexibility, within 

a carefully selected range, in choosing 

the clamp to account for play yards with 

hinges that vary in size. By allowing the 

tester to choose the most appropriate 

clamp, we are strengthening the 

standard and reducing the risk of injury 

by ensuring that the appropriate testing 

equipment is used. Using the most 

appropriate testing equipment will 

ensure that the test is performed 

properly and that only the safest play 

yards will pass laboratory testing and 

enter the market. 

We describe these proposed changes 

immediately below: 

1. Clarifying the Equipment Needed To 

Perform the Floor Strength Test (Section 

8.12.1) 

Currently, ASTM F 406–11 contains a 

performance standard to measure the 

floor strength of a play yard. Section 

8.12.1 of ASTM F 406–11 specifies the 

use of a ‘‘Wood block, 6 by 6 in. (150 

by 150 mm).’’ However, the test method 

in ASTM F 406–11 requires the use of 

two wood blocks to test the floor 

strength of the play yard. The proposed 

rule, therefore, would clarify that ‘‘2 

Wood blocks’’ are needed. 

2. Clarifying the Floor Strength Test 

Method (Section 8.12.2.1) 

The current text of the test method for 

measuring the floor strength of play 

yards states that the tester must ‘‘(p)lace 

a 50-lb (23-kg) and a 30-lb (14-kg) 

weight each onto a 6 by 6-in. (150 by 

150-mm) wood block spaced 6 +/¥ 1⁄2

in. (150 +\¥13 mm) apart and maintain 

for 60s.’’ The proposed rule would 

simplify this sentence by dividing it 

into three sentences by replacing it with 

the following: ‘‘Place the wood blocks 6 

+/¥1⁄2 inch (150 mm +/¥13 mm) apart. 

Place 50-lb (23-kg) weight on one wood 

block and a 30 lb (24 kg) weight on the 

other wood block. Maintain for 60 s.’’ 

This revision also clarifies that the 

wood blocks should be put into position 

before the weight is applied. 

3. The Shape and Area of the Clamping 

Surface for the ‘‘Top Rail to Corner Post 

Attachment Test’’ (Section 8.30.3.1) 

Currently, ASTM F 406–11 contains a 

performance standard to address the 

structural failure of corner brackets of 

play yards. The test method directs the 

tester to use clamps to apply a twisting 

motion to the rail, which strains the 

corner brackets. The product will fail 

the test if, for example, there is cracking 

of the corner brackets. The current test 

method specifies the shape and area of 

the clamping surfaces (2 by 2 in.). The 

proposed rule would allow the tester to 

choose the shape and area of the 

clamping surface, within a specified 

range (1-square-inch to 4 square inches) 

to accommodate the variety of hinge 

latching devices in different models of 

play yards. 

4. Exclusion of ASTM F 406–11 Sections 

That Are Applicable to Non-Rull-Size 

Cribs 

The proposed rule would pertain only 

to play yards. In the Federal Register of 

December 28, 2010 (75 FR 81766), we 

issued a final rule on safety standards 

for non-full-size cribs. Thus, the 

proposed rule would exclude the 

provisions of ASTM F406–11 that apply 

to non-full-size cribs. Specifically, the 

proposal would exclude sections 5.17, 

5.19, 5.20, the entirety of section 6, 

section 8.1 through 8.10.5, and section 

10.1.1.1 of ASTM F 406–11. In addition, 

for section 9.4.2.10 of ASTM F 406–11, 

the proposal would include only the 

first section, which is a labeling 

requirement meant to inform consumers 

that only the mattress or pad provided 

by the manufacturer should be used. 

The remainder of section 9.4.2.10 of 

ASTM F 406–11 is applicable to nonfull-size cribs, and it would be excluded 

from the play yard standard. 

G. Effective Date 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(‘‘APA’’) generally requires that the 

effective date of the rule be at least 30 

days after publication of the final rule. 

5 U.S.C. 553(d). To allow time for play 

yards to come into compliance, we 

intend for the standard to become 

effective 6 months after the publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register. 

We invite comment on how long it will 

take play yard manufacturers to come 

into compliance. 

H. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. Introduction 

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 we prepare an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis and 

make it available to the public for 

comment when the 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: 

• A description of, and where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the proposed 

rule will apply; 

• A description of the reasons why 

action by the agency is being 

considered; 

• A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

proposed rule; 

• 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 20, 2011 / Proposed Rules 58173 

• 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 and, at the same 

time, reduce the economic impact on 

small businesses. 

2. The Market 

Based on a 2005 survey conducted by 

American Baby Group titled, ‘‘2006 

Baby Products Tracking Study’’ and 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention birth data, we estimate that 

approximately 2.9 million play yards 

are sold in the United States each year. 

We estimate that there are at least 23 

manufacturers or importers supplying 

play yards to the United States market. 

Eleven of these firms are domestic 

manufacturers, and 10 of these firms are 

domestic importers. Two of the firms 

are foreign importers. 

Under the U.S. Small Business 

Administration (‘‘SBA’’) guidelines, a 

manufacturer of play yards is small if it 

has 500 or fewer employees, and an 

importer is considered small if it has 

100 or fewer employees. Based on these 

guidelines, 10 domestic manufacturers 

and all 10 of the domestic importers 

known to supply play yards to the U.S. 

market are small businesses. The 

remaining entities include a large 

domestic manufacturer and two foreign 

importers. There may be additional 

unknown small manufacturers and 

importers operating in the U.S. market. 

The Juvenile Product Manufacturers 

Association (‘‘JPMA’’) runs a voluntary 

certification program for juvenile 

products. Certification under the JPMA 

program is based on the ASTM 

voluntary play yard standard. Eleven of 

the 23 manufacturers or importers have 

been certified as compliant with the 

ASTM voluntary play yard standard by 

the JPMA. Three additional 

manufacturers or importers claim to 

comply with the ASTM voluntary play 

yard standard, but they do not 

participate in the JPMA certification 

program. In some cases, these three 

manufacturers or importers may provide 

test results on-line. Seven small 

domestic manufacturers supplying play 

yards to the U.S. market claim to 

comply with the ASTM voluntary play 

yard standard. Of the importers, six 

claim to comply with the ASTM 

voluntary play yard standard. 

3. Impact of the Proposal on Small 

Business 

Section 104 of the CPSIA requires the 

CPSC to promulgate standards for 

durable infant or toddler products, 

including play yards. The impact of this 

rulemaking, if finalized, could have a 

significant impact on several small 

manufacturers and importers whose 

play yards are not ASTM-compliant. 

The impact of the proposed standard on 

small manufacturers and importers will 

differ, based on whether their products 

are already in compliance with the 

ASTM voluntary play yard standard. 

Of the 10 small domestic 

manufacturers, seven produce play 

yards that are certified as compliant by 

JPMA or claim to be in compliance with 

the voluntary standard. There will be 

little or no impact on these firms. The 

three noncompliant manufacturers may 

need to modify their product 

substantially to meet the ASTM 

standard. The costs associated with 

these modifications might include 

product redesign. The redesign could be 

minor if, for example, the manufacturer 

needs to use additional or different 

fabric or mesh. However, the changes 

could be more significant if a redesign 

of the product frame is required. The 

impact of these costs may be mitigated 

if they are treated as new product 

expenses and amortized. 

Of the 10 small domestic importers, 

six import play yards that are certified 

as compliant by JPMA or claim to be in 

compliance with the voluntary 

standard. The four noncompliant 

importers may need to find an 

alternative source if their existing 

supplier does not modify their play 

yards to comply with the standard. 

However, the impact of that decision 

could be mitigated by replacing the 

noncompliant product with a compliant 

product made by a different 

manufacturer. Deciding to import an 

alternative product would be a 

reasonable and realistic way to offset 

any lost revenue. 

Two of the noncompliant importers 

import products from a specific foreign 

country. For these entities, finding an 

alternative supply source may not be an 

option. However, they could stop 

importing noncompliant play yards and 

replace them with other juvenile 

products. 

The information in this section 

assumes that three domestic 

manufacturers and four domestic 

importers do not comply with the 

voluntary standard. This may not be the 

case. We have identified many cases 

where products that are not certified by 

JPMA, or do not otherwise claim 

compliance with the voluntary 

standard, actually meet the relevant 

standard. To the extent that this is true, 

the impact of the proposed rule will be 

less significant than described. 

4. Alternatives 

For the 13 small domestic entities that 

already comply with the voluntary 

standard, there are few or no costs 

associated with the three minor changes 

being proposed. For the seven small 

domestic entities that are not compliant 

(or where it is unknown if they are 

compliant) the adoption of the 

voluntary standard as a mandatory 

consumer product safety standard could 

result in substantial costs. 

For these entities, setting an effective 

date longer than 6 months could reduce 

the impact. This would allow small 

manufacturers additional time to make 

necessary changes to their product, and 

it would allow small importers to find 

alternative sources. It would also allow 

entities to spread costs over a longer 

period of time. 

5. Conclusion of Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis 

It is possible that the proposed 

standard, if finalized, could have a 

significant impact on some small 

businesses whose play yards are not 

ASTM-compliant. The extent of these 

costs is unknown. For manufacturers of 

noncompliant play yards, product 

redesign might be necessary, and it is 

possible that the costs could be large for 

some entities. Importers may need to 

find alternative sources of play yards. 

Additionally, all manufacturers and 

importers will eventually be subject to 

third party testing and certification 

requirements, as discussed in section L 

below. 

We invite comments describing the 

possible impact of this rule on 

manufacturers and importers, as well as 

comments containing other information 

describing how this rule will affect 

small businesses. 

I. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations address 

whether we are required to prepare an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement. If our 

rule has ‘‘little or no potential for 

affecting the human environment’’ it 

will be categorically exempted from this 

requirement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The 

proposed rule falls within the 

categorical exemption. 

J. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains 

information collection requirements that 

are subject to public comment and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

58174 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 20, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (‘‘OMB’’) under the Paperwork 

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

3521). In this document, pursuant to 44 

U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth: 

• A title for the collection of 

information; 

• A summary of the collection of 

information; 

• A brief description of the need for 

the information and the proposed use of 

the information; 

• A description of the likely 

respondents and proposed frequency of 

response to the collection of 

information; 

• An estimate of the burden that shall 

result from the collection of 

information; and 

• Notice that comments may be 

submitted to the OMB. 

Title: Safety Standard for Play Yards. 

Description: The proposed rule would 

require each play yard to comply with 

ASTM F 406–11, Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Non-Full-Size 

Baby Cribs/Play Yards. Sections 9 and 

10 of ASTM F 406–11 contain 

requirements for marking, labeling, and 

instructional literature. These 

requirements fall within the definition 

of ‘‘collection of information,’’ as 

defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3). 

Description of Respondents: Persons 

who manufacture or import play yards. 

Estimated Burden: 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 

1221.2(a) .............................................................................. 9 3 27 1 27 

Our estimates are based on the 

following: 

Section 9.1.1.1 of ASTM F 406–11 

requires that the name and the place of 

business (city, state, mailing address, 

including zip code, or telephone 

number) of the manufacturer, 

distributor, or seller be marked clearly 

and legibly on each product and its 

retail package. Section 9.1.1.2 of ASTM 

F 406–11 requires a code mark or other 

means that identifies the date (month 

and year, as a minimum) of 

manufacture. 

There are 23 known entities 

supplying play yards to the U.S. market. 

Fourteen entities produce labels that 

comply with the standard. Thus, there 

would be no additional burden on these 

entities. Under the 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 required to comply 

are ‘‘usual and customary.’’ Therefore, 

because these 14 entities already 

produce labels that comply with the 

standard, we tentatively estimate that 

there are no burden hours associated 

with Sections 9.1.1.1 and 9.1.1.2 of 

ASTM F 406–11 because any burden 

associated with supplying these labels 

would be ‘‘usual and customary’’ and 

not within the definition of ‘‘burden’’ 

under the OMB’s regulations. 

We assume that the remaining nine 

entities use labels on their products and 

their packaging but might need to 

modify their existing labels. The 

estimated time required to make these 

modifications is about 1 hour per 

model. Each entity supplies an average 

of three different models of play yards; 

therefore, the estimated burden hours 

associated with labels is 1 hour per 

model × 9 entities × 3 models per entity 

= 27 hours. 

We estimate that the hourly 

compensation for the time required to 

create and update labels is $27.98. This 

is based on data from March 2011, 

provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. The information is available 

at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ 

ecec/pdf in Table 9, under the heading 

‘‘all workers, goods-producing 

industries’’ and the subheading ‘‘sales 

and office.’’ Therefore, the estimated 

annual cost to industry associated with 

the proposed labeling requirements is 

$755.46 ($27.98 per hour × 27 hours = 

$755.46). 

Section 10.1 of ASTM F 406–11 

requires instructions to be supplied 

with the product. Play yards are 

products that generally require 

assembly, and products sold without 

such information would not be able to 

compete successfully with products 

supplying this information. Under the 

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 required to 

comply are ‘‘usual and customary.’’ 

Therefore, because we are unaware of 

play yards that generally require some 

installation, but lack any instructions to 

the user about such installation, we 

tentatively estimate that there are no 

burden hours associated with section 

10.1 of ASTM F 406–11 because any 

burden associated with supplying 

instructions with play yards would be 

‘‘usual and customary’’ and not within 

the definition of ‘‘burden’’ under the 

OMB’s regulations. 

Based on this analysis, the proposed 

standard for play yards would impose a 

burden to industry of 27 hours at a cost 

of $755.46 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 the OMB for review. 

Interested persons are requested to 

submit comments regarding information 

collection by October 20, 2011, to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, OMB (see the ADDRESSES section 

at the beginning of this notice). 

Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), 

we invite comments on: 

• Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the CPSC’s functions, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; 

• 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; 

• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; 

• Ways to reduce the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques, when 

appropriate, and other forms of 

information technology; and 

• the estimated burden hours 

associated with label modification, 

including any alternative estimates. 

K. Preemption 

Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

2075(a), provides that where a consumer 

product safety standard is in effect and 

applies to a product, no state or political 

subdivision of a state may either 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 20, 2011 / Proposed Rules 58175 

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) of 

the CPSIA refers to the rules to be 

issued under that section as ‘‘consumer 

product safety rules,’’ 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. 

L. 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, 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 in section A 

of this preamble, section 104(b)(1)(B) of 

the CPSIA refers to standards issued 

under this section as ‘‘consumer 

product safety standards.’’ Similarly, 

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 play yards are children’s 

products, they must be tested by a third 

party conformity assessment body 

whose accreditation is accepted by the 

Commission. In the future, the 

Commission will issue a notice of 

requirements to explain how 

laboratories can become accredited as 

third party conformity assessment 

bodies to test play yards to the new 

safety standard. (Play yards also must 

comply with all other applicable CPSC 

requirements, such as the lead content 

and phthalate content requirements in 

section 101 and 108 of CPSIA 

respectively; the tracking label 

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

CPSA; and the consumer registration 

form requirements in section 104 of the 

CPSIA.) 

M. Request for Comments 

This proposed rule begins a 

rulemaking proceeding under section 

104(b) of the CPSIA to issue a consumer 

product safety standard for play yards. 

We invite all interested persons to 

submit comments 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. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1221 

Consumer protection, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Infants and 

Children, Labeling, Law enforcement, 

and Toys. 

Therefore, the Commission proposes 

to amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations by adding a new part 1221 

to read as follows: 

PART 1221—SAFETY STANDARD FOR 

PLAY YARDS 

Sec. 

1221.1 Scope. 

1221.2 Requirements for play yards. 

Authority: The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110–314, 

§ 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008). 

§ 1221.1 Scope. 

This part establishes a consumer 

product safety standard for play yards. 

§ 1221.2 Requirements for Play Yards. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, each play yard must 

comply with all applicable provisions of 

ASTM F 406–11, Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Non-Full-Size 

Baby Cribs/Play Yards, approved on 

May 15, 2011. 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 

from ASTM International, 100 Bar 

Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428; http:// 

www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may 

inspect a copy at the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 502, 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 the ASTM F 406–11 

standard with the following additions or 

exclusions: 

(1) Do not comply with section 5.17 

of ASTM F 406–11. 

(2) Do not comply with section 5.19 

of ASTM F 406–11. 

(3) Do not comply with section 5.20 

of ASTM F 406–11. 

(4) Do not comply with section 6, 

Performance Requirements for Rigid 

Sided Products, of ASTM F 406–11, in 

its entirety. 

(5) Do not comply with sections 8.1 

through 8.10.5 of ASTM F 406–11. 

(6) Instead of complying with section 

8.12.1 of ASTM F 406–11, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 8.12.1 Equipment – 2 Wood blocks, 

6 by 6 in. (150 by 150 mm). 

(7) Instead of complying with section 

8.12.2.1 of ASTM F 406–11, comply 

with the following: 

(i) 8.12.2.1 Remove cushions that are 

not part of the floor or mattress support. 

Place the wood blocks 6 +/¥ 1⁄2 inch 

(150 mm +/¥ 13 mm) apart. Place 50- 

lb (23-kg) weight on one wood block 

and a 30- lb (24 kg) weight on the other 

wood block. Maintain for 60 s. Perform 

the test in those locations deemed to be 

the weakest or the most likely to fail. 

Remove the load and check for 

structural failure. 

(8) Instead of complying with section 

8.30.3.1 of ASTM F 406–11, comply 

with the following: 

(i) 8.30.3.1 Mount a rigid and 

substantially horizontal moment arm 

weighing less than 5 lb (2.2 kg) to the 

hinge/latching device at the 

longitudinal center of the top rail 

through two clamping surfaces, each 1 

in2–4 in2 (6.5 cm2–26 cm2) designed to 

firmly grasp the hinge latching device. 

The moment arm shall be at least 24 in 

(603 mm) long and extend towards the 

outside of the play yard. 

(9) Instead of complying with section 

9.4.2.10 of ASTM F 406–11, comply 

with only the following: 

(i) 9.4.2.10 For products that have a 

separate mattress that is not 

permanently fixed in place: 

Use ONLY mattress/pad provided by 

manufacturer. 

(10) Do not comply with section 

10.1.1.1 of ASTM F 406–11. 

Dated: September 15, 2011. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24101 Filed 9–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS