```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 20, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58167-58175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24101]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mailed 
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 Non-Full-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

[[Page 58168]]

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. Twenty-seven 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

[[Page 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 non-full-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 
non-full-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

[[Page 58170]]

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:

[[Page 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.

[[Page 58172]]

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 Non-Full-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-full-
size 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 non-
full-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

[[Page 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

[[Page 58174]]

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Number of       Frequency of     Total annual      Hours per      Total  burden
                           16 CFR Section                              respondents       responses        responses         response          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 x 9 entities x 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 x 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

[[Page 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, Sec.  104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008).

Sec.  1221.1  Scope.

    This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for play 
yards.

Sec.  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 in\2\-4 in\2\ (6.5 cm\2\-26 cm\2\) 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
```